Chinese take stakes in wind farm projects in Australia
SYDNEY — The Roaring Forties gales off Tasmania, where Hollywood swashbuckler Errol Flynn was first smitten with sailing, are luring Chinese investors with a different passion — harnessing wind to generate electricity.
Shenhua Group Corp., China's biggest coal producer, has taken stakes in three wind power projects on the Australian island through state-owned renewable energy unit Guohua Energy Investment Co. It's also a potential investor in a proposed $2 billion Tasmanian wind farm, which would be the biggest in the southern hemisphere.
“Australia is becoming a preferred destination,” said Helen Zhi, a business development director at KPMG in Sydney who visited Chinese renewable energy companies in October. “Only one put America as the No. 1 prioritized market. All the others, particularly among wind players, put Australia as No. 1.”
Besides the wind, China is attracted by billions of dollars available from government funding.
Another plus is Australia's renewable energy target legislation, which shows a determination to change the country's carbon intensity and energy mix by 2020, said Roy Adair, chief executive officer of Hydro Tasmania, the state-owned energy company.
The site of the TasWind project is King Island in the Bass Strait between Tasmania and Melbourne in southeast Australia, where the westerly winds in the days of sail drove at least 60 ships onto rocks to claim 800 lives before the first lighthouse was built in 1883.
Flynn, a leading man in movies of the 1930s and '40s, was born in Tasmania and said in a memoir that he developed a lifelong love of the sea and sailing there.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.