Will wind farms save on CO2 emissions?... Let's see...
To construct a wind farm say in the Snowy mountains it would require about 833 square kilometers (300 square miles or 192,000 acres) of wind turbines to equal one conventional 1,000 MW gas fired plant That's the area, of a mile-wide swath of land extending from Sydney to Mount Kosciusko via Cooma, plus another 50 k's. These wind farm would require around 16 million tons of steel reinforced concrete (a major source of CO2) plus around 2,640,000, tons of steel just for the turbine towers. (Talk about environmental disasters) And at the end of their lifespan, (usually only 20 years) who would pay for the removal of 2,640,000 tons of steel and 16 million tons of concrete plus thousands of kilometers of cable?
By clearing trees and plants for wind farm sites and access roads, sub stations etc. (On mountain ridges and many other locations, it would be necessary to blast into the bedrock, possibly disrupting the water sources for wells downhill. ) we have just eliminated the major cleanser of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. So we clear out our life giving plants and trees to build wind farms which will have disastrous effects on our landscapes, to save on CO2 emissions which the trees do far better, and the trees even throw in oxygen to boot. How stupid is that, especially when a modern gas fired plant could be built on an existing industrial site of around 12-15 acres with little impact on the surrounding environment.
A SINGLE 555-MEGAWATT GAS FIRED PLANT IN CALIFORNIA GENERATES MORE ELECTRICITY IN A YEAR THAN DO ALL 14,000 OF THE STATES WIND TURBINES.

The much touted UK Whinash wind farm project, will reduce carbon dioxide emission by 178,000 tonnes a year. This is impressive, until you discover that a single jumbo jet, flying from Sydney to Perth and back every day, releases the climate-change equivalent of 520,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. One daily connection between Sydney and Perth costs three giant wind farms.

This doesn't seemed to have stopped wind farms figuring prominently in the new carbon tax ads. Therein lies another story since carbon tax was supposed to do away with renewable energy targets yet they have been extended. Therefore wind power gets a double benefit because not only is coal fired electricity more expensive the market has to take a share of wind power regardless of cost.

Apart from spinning reserve coal plants may be forced to operate at less than their ideal output. The quick starting open cycle gas turbine plant often needed to offset wind fluctuations is higher emitting than the combined cycle type of gas plant. It turns out it would cost nearly the same to do the whole job with gas plant and save the massive investment and intrusiveness of wind power. One estimate puts the cost of CO2 avoided at about 12c per kilowatt-hour of wind generated electricity.

Real world experience suggests that it will be difficult to get more than 20% or so of electricity from wind power. Some countries are also facing the prospect of expensive gas for load balancing. When gas is depleted or prohibitively expensive ways will have to be found to store wind energy to cover lulls in output. We could be talking about doubled power prices. Wind power is an expensive unreliable bit player and some other form of low carbon electricity should underpin the grid.

I'm totally reliant on solar power - not connected to the grid. Even on a clear day, the input from my solar panels fluctuates greatly throughout the day. On a cloudy day it's even worse, on an overcast day totally unpredictable. When I think of the problems that large numbers of solar suppliers must pose to electricity distributors, I shudder. I have batteries, of course, to even it out, but at the moment there is no practical means of storing the energy produced by this huge number of unreliable supply sources, and so the generators need to keep turning. At this stage anyway, renewable sources are not reducing emissions at all (not that that matters), but they will certainly add significantly to the cost of electricity - for no benefit to the planet at all. Of course 'the big end of town', so criticised by the Greens, supply most the panels and wind farms, and are laughing all the way to the bank.

If we could harness all the wind power of the nay sayers we'd need nothing else.

Many people on this blog seem to believe in markets, private enterprise and, presumably, innovation and creativity, supposedly the great benefits of capitalism. Yet the right-wing-inclined commenters almost universally bag any prospect of finding new ways to capture and use energy.

If every one says it can't be done, we'll be right. Yes and I know about "opportunity costs", but we're not a poor country (yet).

How about a bit of positivity for a change?

"Say something positive?"

OK and I am positive about this......Wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy, according to a study from Germany, the world's leading producer of wind energy. Critics said it would be cheaper and more environmentally efficient to insulate old houses or to renew existing power stations. Danish Government ministers claim that " wind energy has been an expensive disaster for Denmark". They caused the cost of electricity to double in Denmark, but failed to reduce the level of CO2 emitted and they ruin the tourism potential of vast areas." Flemming Nissen head of development at west Danish generating company ELSAM agrees "Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions."

So you want Australians to spend taxpayers money on something that looks and feels good,but is useless in reducing emissions?
Geez that makes a lot of sense.

A rather intemperate outburst Geoff Davies. Reminds me of Lord Monckton.

When Galileo pointed out the the earth didn't revolve around the sun, he wasn't being negative. Nor was the little boy who said that the King had no clothes. Unless you were the Pope or the King, of course.

When the science fails, or is exposed as suspect, the only thing left is an ad hominem attack like this.

Which of the facts in the article offended your sense of positive thinking?

Just to be fair, the efficiency of wind turbines can apparently be substantially increased by using vertical rather than horizontal blades:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/16/location-location-location-wind-turbine-power-output-increased-10x/

Still doesn't help when the wind's not blowing, though.

Mark Lawson here

Geoff Davies. How can it be naysaying to point to the readily available evidence and draw the obvious conclusions? If you have some contrary information about wind reliability let's hear it. As it stands voters are not aware of just how unreliable wind systems can be.

kman - you make useful points in the first post. I didn't touch on any of that in the story as it makes it all too long, but its useful.

Anamele - I am intrigued by your experiences. Can I ask where you're living to be off the power grid completely?

Taswegian - tnks for the your comments. Indeed, it does seem unlikely that we would get more than 20 per cent from renewables, but I would suggest that's the extreme upper end of achievement, if we counted wind's contribution realistically.

No, wind power is not always there when we need it. Nor is solar. We need a range of diverse renewable energy sources to supply the requirements we have become dependent upon due to the ease and availability of fossil fuels.

For this reason, I find devoting criticism to a single form of alternative energy misleading.

We have to stop pollution, we need alternatives to coal, oil, nuclear.

This means looking at every alternative that is feasible and workable. Wind power is both, so is solar, thermal, hydro (both tidal and from reservoirs). We are developing better forms of storage of energy (liquid salt storage as one example). We are doing our own ingenuity an insult by the continued negativity applied by either vested interests (the fossil fuel industry) and people who fear change and want business-as-usual.

We had similar attitudes to the combustion engine replacing horse drawn vehicles 100 years ago. We managed, we will manage changes to our energy needs, either sooner when the political and business will is finally reached or later when we have little choice.

Hoping for the former.

Anamele, anyone who disagrees with government or environmental activist group think, is by their definition, negative and thus can be ignored .. whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant.

The ALP has focus group tested extensively this meme that the coalition is negative and it works for their focus groups, so must be true.

I wonder at their own thought processes and do they reflect that for 11 years in opposition, they were "negative", opposed all economic policy without exception.

Clearly no one in the tame media or their lobby groups considers any of that.

The overwhelming belief on the government side is that people are stupid and if they would only listen to the endless explanations, all would be well.

They cannot see it is their policy that is wrong .. not to say the coalition has the answers, but why is that always the response to questioning the government or their minions?

Thanks for your comments on solar, exactly what I'd expect, pity the battery technology is not available .. but hey, the ALP will wave the magic wand and all the problems will be solved

Geoff, so where do you stand on Nuclear? It's renewable, has problems, but none as big as wind or geothermal, which simply won't work for us since we're not on fault lines.

I'm very positive and big supporter of Nuclear, and for all the nay sayers and "negative" people, I'd be happy to have a nuc power plant in my backyard .. no problem.

Fukushima plant survived a 9 earthquake, unbelievable, a 9! That's good enough for me, if an old plant could survive that, then a new plant would be better, bring it on.

What the government won't release. Infinity lens, Australian inventor, for cinimatography, BURIED.[ One pair of glasses for all ] Zinc-air battery, used in planes WW2, uses air, byproduct H2O, BURIED [ Magic stationary battery ]. and the list goes on to make a novel.

The Author has touched on, indirectly, what is already becoming a major weakness with Electricity being produced by both Wind and Solar Sources.

This power is not constant or consistent. Then we try to feed it into major power sources (Power Stations).

Because of Alternative Energies inconsistencies, it affects the Hertz rates of all Power being produced. As the % of this power increases, so with the problems with the Hertz Rate.. 50 cycles per second in Australia.

Not a problem, with screech the Greenies, we don't have Electric Clocks, Turntables , Computers or other Electrical Items which are locked to a Hertz Cycle.

Unfortunately , Industry, Medical and many other Places have a heavy reliance on a locked Hertz Cycle.

This is now starting , already , to become a problem in the USA where the Hertz rate can drop , on occasions from 60 to 58.

Italy, being Italy , is already in a mess, supposedly with clocks in Sicily losing 20 minutes a week, for example.

Alternative Power still has major problems to overcome.

The sort of comments on this articles are indicative of Australian syndrome- very poor understanding of climate emergency. Get off the football/cricket/beer/ tv entertainment and start working the grey matter.

'The wind doesn't blow all the time, the sun doesn't shine all the time' Like where? Wind farms are springing up everywhere, along coastlines and windy areas allover the planet. South Australia is sitting on a goldmine with the Eyre peninsula. The wind never stops. All countries where the political leaders aren't brain dead are embracing and transitioning to zero carbon renewable energy.Germany will be close to zero emissions within ten years. Even in countries where the political leaders, mostly men, are brain dead, have begun a transition. Many states in the US of A are getting into wind and hydro-electric, mainly along the Atlantic seaboard. There are many web sites just google and the general program is called the Big Restart. Washington is doing nothing but adding hot air, but the legislatures are starting to work it out that transitioning to zero carbon is actually an economic and industrial opportunity. The owners of the coal mines and gas lease dont want the people everywhere to start doing the math. Coal, gas, nuclear all enjoy enormous subsidies from the taxpayers. I was not shocked to see the so called geo thermal ( i suspect they are fracters) get billions of subsidy from the carbon tax package. The ALP govt really should employ someone who can add up. The problem in Australia is a mindset of deferring to others to think for us. This is is why Big Coal,a villain if ever there was one,can get away with scare campaigns,outright propaganda and untruths. For example, this carbon capture con. Snake oil for sure.

The main factor in favour of wind power is its cost. For example, Infigen Energy was quoted in the AFR stating that it needed a wholesale price of $100 to $110 per megawatt hour (including RECs) to make it viable. This is about a quarter of the cost of solar photo-voltaic.

Wind power generators are also readily available. All you need is money for construction and the right site.

Wind power is also a good match for off-peak electric storage heaters because the utility decides when to turn on the power and it fits in with the erratic nature of wind generated electricity. Unfortunately the government is planning to phase out these water heaters.

Mark Lawson here

Hestia
The main reason wind farms are spinging up is because of government subsidies. It has nothing to do with the viability of wind as such. You mention the Eyre penninsula as a windy spot. I'm sure it is, but somehow this never seems to work out to wind being reliable. One point to note is that wind farms stop producing if the wind is too strong, for various reasons, as well as if its too weak.

Wattle
The off peak stuff sounds attractive, the problem is that the off-peak load is often taken by conventional plants that the operators don't dare shut down because they take too long to restart, and don't want to throttle back as that makes them too inefficient (both in cost and emissions).
Also, although wind power is the cheapest form of alternative energy, as the article notes, any capacity built is a straight addition to conventional capacity. It won't replace any of it. Get rid of all the wind farms and consumers would never know the differnce. In other words they are a big increase in costs, just to save carbon.

Ammonite
Consumers have previously been mislead by the emphasis on wind as some sort of solution to the carbon problem. The business about using a diverse range of alternative energy systems opens a whole new can of worms. As far as I know it hasn't been tried on a large scale, and on a small scale has proved thoroughly unstatisfactory (see one of the earlier posters), and that's with battery backup. Photovolatic is far more expensive, and proably more unreliable. Wave power is more reliable but very expensive. Perhaps you could find someone who knows how this mythical base load alternative energy grid would work in practice, and at what cost?

Any time you get someone talking about needing a "MIX" of something, in this case power generation, you know that their favoured method is uncompetitive with mainstream techniques.

We know that in Oz, & most other places, coal fired is the cheapest & most reliable form of electricity generation.

How can anyone suggest that we should tax ourselves to force us not to use coal, but should dig the stuff up, & ship it to china, so they can have cheep power.

Those who do are obviously mad, & should be consigned to the funny farm. Anyone who suggests we should stop using coal should be dispatched with them. Anyone who believes the East Anglia mob, climate gate anyone, must be deranged, so should join them.

Anyone who says it's OK for others to use coal, but not us, has a problem with reality, & should also be dispatched as well.

There, that fixes the green vote, what's next.

To rpg are you mad?

The nuclear power plant at Fukushima did not survive the recent earthquake and tsunami. There were at least two meltdowns in 4 of the 6 power plants. The Russians told the Americans after two days that caesium had been detected and to get over to Tokyo and have the plant shut down and entombed. That still has'nt happened. Probably because the TEPCO stocks are worthless and the mangers have just walked from their responsibilities like BP tried to do.I suggest you get yourself an education rpg and go to the one of the numerous Hiroshima Day public lectures held every-year in August to inform the world about the cost in human lives of nuclear power. It is because of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima that Germany has gone completely cold on nuclear. I dont quite understand why you genx/yers with all your flying around the globe that you have absolutely no knowledge or perspective on anything.

Articles like this from Mark always make me scratch my head. I don't know why he writes them.

There are experts in the topic. They are people like engineers and power company executives. Give them the appropriate conditions and they will choose the technology that best suits the business they are in. Suffices to say they are very familiar with varying loads and inputs to their grids and how to handle them. Mark's advice here is case of teaching grandma how to suck eggs.

The financial conditions these people operate in is possibly closer to Mark's area of expertise. Maybe he could usefully offer a critique on ways you use finance to nudge the power industry towards a goal, be that reducing CO2 emissions or using renewable sources. Maybe he could comment on which of RECS, carbon trading, a carbon tax, or just picking winners like Abbott wants to do is the best way of going about things. But no, Mark seems very keen on telling us who the winners and losers ought to be in the engineering game, despite being a neocon and hence supposedly a feverent free market supporter.

If anybody here is interested in learning about the challenges of managing wind power from the experts in the power industry here is a background article about it that appeared in the IEEE PES magazine. IEEE PES is the Power and Energy Society, which operates under American's Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

I've posted this link before and will probably post it again. Facts from experts in the field are an excellent antidote to the political spin masquerading as factual commentary we are so often served here on OLO.

Mark, coal is being subsidised, big time - but you knew that.

Yeah, a good link rstuart - thanks.

@Hasbeen, anyone who thinks coal will be shut down overnight is a hasbeen.

Curmudgeon:

>> Consumers have previously been mislead by the emphasis on wind as some sort of solution to the carbon problem. <<

That is why in my last post I posited that transitioning to alternative forms of energy will require a raft of fuel types such as (here I go again) solar, thermal, tidal, hydro as well as advancing technology in storing energy like I said above in liquid salt.

Nor did I say that the only issue is about carbon we need to tackle pollution in general - desecrated lakes, streams, oceans, degraded land from over cropping. Why bother addressing a comment to me if you don't even fracking read what has been written?

Instead of me and many others who post regularly here at OLO spoon-feeding you, why don't you do some research for yourself and think even a little bit. There are many links provided by Rstuart, Bonmot and others.

Gentlefolks and others.
At the rate of increase of our population, currently nudging two percent per annum, by 2020 we will have to supply power as well as other amenities, to another four million people.

I don't see any alternatives to the present base load supply coming from either gas or coal. Both these will add considerable CO2 to the atmosphere in spite of the current 12 million dollar advertising campaign of our government.

David

Mark Lawson here

rstuart
Go back and look at the material you link from 2009.. now look at the material on the reliability of wind generators.. its over a nine hour period from what seems to be a limited network. The material I cite is more recent and from actual working grids, which was the point. The rest of your link broadly confirms that wind does little for base power (they use the term 'capacity credit' - read it). You'll have to better than dated wind industry agit-prop.

Bonmot
No, think again. the coal industry pays very substantial taxes. When you say subsidy you mean tax concession, of which there are a few. The green agit-prop stuff often says subsidy, and when you check what they mean, its a concession. Wind has to be subsidised to remain in business, coal most definitely does not.

Ammonite
And here I go again, can you find anyone who's actually done this? Can anyone point to a working network with that raft of very expensive technologies that have actually worked to the point of producing base-load power? The liquid salt stuff you mention is in a few solar concentration plants but I've yet to see independent confirmation that they produce base load power. In any case its very expensive.
They have been talking about tidal and wave power energy for years. How much has actually happened?
There is no tidal in Aus, and not much elsewhere. Are there any working wave power generators in Aus? I know they have been proposed, dunno if any have been built.
Talk is cheap. What is required is a real world demonstration that any of this is actually possible.

Fine article, Mark. It is difficult to be in the real world, dealing with real data and trying to communicate with the religious left and their devotion to Gaia.

For the record, there was a small company here in Australia back in the 1980s, owned by two engineers who specialised in energy generation. They developed a "black box" energy management system intended to stabilise energy supply from various sources (wind, mini-hydro, solar, whatever) in remote, off-grid locations, such as cattle stations, mines and small islands, for example.

They actually were on the verge of starting production in Fiji when the first coup happened and they were left with not enough money to continue. Still sounds like a good idea for such locations, but clearly not a solution for a major grid.

@Curmudgeon: The rest of your link broadly confirms that wind does little for base power (they use the term 'capacity credit' - read it)

I did. From cover to cover as it were. You clearly don't understand the term capacity, nor capacity credit. Do yourself a favour and read the Wikipedia article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Capacity_factor before you embarrass yourself further.

@Curmudgeon: agit-prop.

You think the IEEE Power and Energy Society is an agitation and propaganda machine? Ye gods. Here is another well known agit-prop mob, the US governments National Renewable Energy Laboratories. To quote them http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/wwsis.html :

"did not find any technical barriers to reaching 20% wind energy in the continental United States"

I notice my central point to you went unanswered, presumably because there is no answer. You get to have a say in the price you pay for electricity, both direct and externalised prices. That's it. If you aren't planning to actually generate some, it would be helpful if you had the good grace to get out of the way of those that are, and let them go about their business to the best of their ability. Seriously. You remind me of the anti-GM food mob saying we can't let farmers have access to GM crops because they might be ripped off, and of course implying the farmers are utterly incapable of making the commercial decision themselves.

And no doubt you have to temerity to call yourself a supporter of capitalism and free markets.

And since I've managed to get myself worked up about this, I am sick and tired of seeing the crap from the CEPOS report repeated over and over again here on OLO.

The CEPOS report http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf was funded by Denmark's fossil fuel industries (Muir report this article quotes is funded by a similar conservative think tank). It, surprise, surprise found that wind power in Denmark was a failure. It was analysed by a group of Universities and Energy companies, and a rebuttal report was written. http://www.energyplanning.aau.dk/Publications/DanishWindPower.pdf Here are the some of the points from that report:

- Only about 1% of Danish wind power is exported and wind power meets about 20% of Danish electricity consumption.

- No taxes are recycled to support established wind turbines; but R&D funding does come from taxes.

- The price of Danish residential electricity, excluding taxes and VAT, is 10th highest of the 27 EU countries. That is mostly the result of high taxes and VAT which are not used to support existing wind power. The price of Danish industrial electricity, excluding taxes and VAT, is the 7th lowest of the 27 EU countries.

- The net effect of Denmark getting 20% of it energy from wind is around 1%..2% rise in household electricity prices.

And that my friends is what a wind power disaster of the like Mark is presumably trying to save us from looks like.

One final note. Mark's article says Denmark isn't adding more wind power. They're now getting over 20% of their electricity from the wind. Going much above 20% does indeed mean you start having to make major changes to the grid in order to accommodate wind. Australia is at around 1.5% now.

Windfarms cannot supply baseload or load-following capacity no matter what technological improvement is made.
Turbines need a windspeed of 5 m/s to produce any power, give maximum power at 15 m/s (near gale-force) and shut down when the speed reaches 25 m/s. There's a cubic function between wind speed and power output, such that if the wind speed halves the power drops to one eighth. Experience in Europe shows that windfarms can go hours/days without producing much power because they tend to autocorrelate over a very wide area.
A 25% load factor is an average over a year; there will be periods when this fluctuates wildly between nothing and name-plate capacity. Unless you can live with blackouts, you need a level of thermal backup approaching the level of electric power you need. EON in the UK and Germany, who run windfarms and are also electricty suppliers to consumers, say that the capacity credit of windfarms is about 4% or 8% - therefore for each 100MW of supply from wind you'll need 90+MW of thermal plant backup. In Germany this comes from coal & gas plants; as they have increased their wind energy capacity they have had to build more coal and gas (mainly CCGT) power stations. They run as 'spinning reserve', burning coal/gas at reduced efficiency, producing no electricity when the wind blows, and producing CO2 gases which are subject to a Carbon Tax of course. An extensive German survey I have seen suggests that Germany would reduce CO2 emissions if it switched off all its wind turbines!
Consider then what happens if the windspeed is high enough to produce peak output; e.g. 4000x2MW turbines needed for 2GW average power will produce upto 8GW! The windfarm owners would still want their kWh money in order to meet their averages, so the grid would have to pay them for power the grid could not use!
It's clear that the grid company and electricty suppliers upstream of the windfarm would ordinarily refuse to take any electricity from windfarms even if it was free! Ah, but MRET forces them to take it.

I have never understood why the Greens or any environmentalists would ever want these twitching, thumping crucifixions of the landscape. Visual and aural blight on the better countryscapes, habitat destruction of 1000's of km, stomping armies of pylons across the landscape to join them to the grid, killer of bats and birds, they can and do catch fire, they can and do have bits fly off them, and they do produce increased cancer rates and birth defects in China to extract rare earths needed for their magnets. On death, the blades seem to be disposed of in landfill.

it doesn't matter which side you come in from, the other side is evidently "crap"

"I am sick and tired of seeing the crap from the "IPCC" repeated over and over again here on OLO."

I know exactly how you feel rstuart

It's like reading about reports commissioned by Greenpeace or Aust Conservation society, or the greens or whomever, they always seem to support the angle of the organization who funds the study .. who would have thought it eh?

organizations who conduct studies will get the results their clients want, or they are out of business .. we're not stupid, we know this to be true

the problem is, all of climate science is now corrupted due to the requirement of the funding sources wanting a particular spin or angle

no wonder people have lost faith in climate science and "studies and reports"

it's not me saying this, look at what is happening, Australians reject the climate spin, not the science, but the misuse of science.

So wind energy has no back up on windless days, an solar electricity has no back up at night or in heavy cloud during the day.

Is energy storage too nascent and too expensive for wide scale deployment? Some power suppliers don’t think so but add that if the technology can be included in state and federal incentives, developers could more rapidly ramp up.

the economists at Australia’s Productivity Commission got that right!  The law-driven subsidies make base load power generation even more inefficient and polluting, and thus would be better off paid as tax breaks for engineering constructors and operators of long-life electricity storages.  That is, storage technologies such as thermochemical, pumpable hydro-electric dams, and flywheel dynamo-generators and very large scale ultra-capacitors if these become technically feasible.

Energy storage systems not only harness power but also inject that energy into the grid so that providers can more efficiently meet their demands. With a focus on reducing harmful air emissions and on increasing the use of greener energy that is sometimes unavailable, such systems are getting the attention they deserve. And while some suppliers are now using the technology, they readily acknowledge that prices must come down if the tools are to proliferate. Energy storage costs now relative to what it may cost 20 years from now is not a fair metric

Today, storage adds value to power systems because it can create capacity. And that has the potential to allow utilities to defer investment in expensive infrastructure.

According to the Electric Power Research Institute, the total U.S. energy storage market could grow as big as 14 gigawatts of capacity. To get there, the price of such systems installed must fall to about $700-$750 kilowatts per hour. Depending on the required duration of storage, the costs can be three times that amount today. To reach the size and scale that is needed to cut prices, the US Electricity Storage Association is advocating for tax and financial incentives like the investment or production tax credits given to wind and solar

rstuart
no, sorry, you lose out on all counts. Although the term capacity credit is confusing, I admit, go and read the link you cited carefully and with an open mind. They actually say in there a few times, in disguised language, that wind basically doesn't add much to the reliability of the network - or at least is far less reliable than conventonal plants. Its sole real use is to offset fossil fuel plants, when the wind blows. The material seems to have been carefully written to disguise that particuarly weakness, so it certainly counts as agit-prop, no matter who wrote it. In any case its dated and the data from the real world trumps it. Wind power isn't going to replace any fossil fuel plants any time soon.

You complain about the Denmark CEPOS report on political grounds. Its certainly a conservative think tank but I looked at the paper you cited. That's basically the wind energy lobby, led by some government guy, biting back. This they are entitled to do, but the tone of the report can be judged by the claim, early in the piece that wind power only added 3 per cent to electricity costs. Bbbbwwwwhahahahah! Not even the biggest fanatic has ever claimed anything less than 10 per cent to wholesale (which works out to 5 per cent retail, maybe).

Now go and look at the assumptions they've made about when wind energy is exported. In Denmark wind power legally has to be accepted on the grid before other energy. So technically its the fossil fuel power that's exported - the energy from the plants that they can't shut down quickly - rather than wind power. But they still have to export because of the wind power. The claim of 2 per cent is absurd on the face of it - in any case, exporting actually helps wind save carbon.

Because Denmark can export, incidentally, its an exception to the rule I noted in one of the posts that any system is unlikely to meet more than 20 per cent effective penetration.

Geoff Davies “Many people on this blog seem to believe in markets, private enterprise and, presumably, innovation and creativity, supposedly the great benefits of capitalism. Yet the right-wing-inclined commenters almost universally bag any prospect of finding new ways to capture and use energy.”

No they don’t they simply see through the fraud of subsidized wind farms which will not deliver the power on demand, only in a gale.

You do not have to be a genius to understand the inadequacies of reliance on an unstable and unsustainable wind supply, yet it still seems to blow right over the heads of the environazi movement ….

but that group of economic fringe-dwellers fall well below what most would call “genius” material.

It is not that right wing commentators bag new ways but thay still are free, under a libertarian capitalist system, to bag stupidity and shy away from investing in what does less for more.

It is why Boeing dominated the passenger jet market for a couple of decades. Boeing aircraft produced a progressively lower cost per passenger mile.

On the other hand, the Anglo/French Concord.

- delivered unwanted service (pointlessly fast) for a higher price per passenger mile.
Windfarms are like Concord…

That which generates power when people may not want power and does not deliver when they might want it and all for a high price (after capital and interest costs) per KWH

no one is bagging what might work they are bagging that which adds up to economic stupidity.

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats .A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the US Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

And yes there are now hundreds of monster turbine towers springing up like weeds along our coastlines and in pristine and extremely beautiful and eco sensitive mountain areas.

The pro wind farms crowd at all costs ignore the deep divisions in the communities where these wind farms pit brother against brother, father against son, and neighbours against neighbour, and that most of the "wind farms" are owned by foriegn companies and will be paid subsidies from our taxes so the profits can be sent offshore. A very few land owners will make a lot of money, but many more will suffer loss not just financially but the quality of life that brought them or their forebears to these beautiful regions with the door opened to more "heavy industrial complexes" especially in our rural upland areas.

Former Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran declared wind power "A complete fraud" that "only exists on taxpayer subsidies." "The deleterious affect they can have on their neighbours is so serious it means that they should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claim." "Their claims are fraudulent in regard to the environmental and energy terms." " Wind power has not shut down one single power plant anywhere in the world and never will!

So even if we build 10,000 of these steel monsters which will destroy our environment and visually pollute our magnificent heritage areas, we will achieve absolutely nothing, except a very divided communities, loss of tourism, property values, and the pure natural beauty of our most magnificent alpine and coastal areas.

Mark, you are all spin. Tax concession, subsidy, whatever.

The Australian Government provides financial support for the production and implementation of all forms of energy development.

These include direct payment and tax reductions.

In 2001, Australia's subsidies for the fossil fuel related market alone exceeded $6.5 billion. See "Subsidies to Fossil Fuels are Undermining a Sustainable Future."

Between 2005 and 2006, Australia's subsidies for the Energy Market ranged from $9.3 to $10.1 billion. The subsidies for fossil fuels accounted for 96%. Only 4% of the available funds for renewable and transport technologies.

Subsidies by sector:

Transport 74% at A$7.2 billion
Electricity 18% at A$1.7 billion
Other stationary 8% at A$806 million

Total subsidies that support production and consumption of different fuels:

Oil 76% at A$7.4 billion
Coal 17% at A$1.7 billion
Gas 4% at A$377 million
Renewables 3% at $326 million

How about last year Mark?

Mark, call it whatever you like ('journos' are good at playing word games) but how do you think the Government got support from the coal industry for GHG abatement? Does one billion dollars ring a bell? Does CCS ring a bell?

Bonmot
wow, you're really into green agit-prop. I glanced at the Diesendorf material. He's counted all tax concessions and ignored all tax payments. Any proper analysis would start with the fact that about half of what you pay at the pump is tax - mainly the petroleum resources rent tax, I think, but there is also a separate road levy, plus oil company income tax and so on.. and then work out how much of that is used for road maintenance. Pretty sure you'll find its well into the red, even on the seperate road levy. If you feel energetic you could also try to work out how much FBT collects on cars and whether that's really a concession or an impost - good luck with that. Also note recent changes in the FBT system which just about wipe out any concession that did exist.

A part of council rates are used for road maintenance.. true, I suppose we could do without roads entirely.. but we still need footpaths and street lighting ect.. and where would the electric cars and hybrids go??

Nope, no subsidies and the words don't have to be twisted to make the point..

Curmudgeon, Bob Brown also goes on about subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and similarly when questioned bats it away as something "everyone knows"

Bob always hurls $16B figure around, no one is ever able to get a straight answer though on how it is made up or where it is from.

Sounds like yet another greenie myth ..

I suspect some of it might be from the farm diesel rebate, and some jiggery pokery the greenies are well into, "framing and messaging" I believe is the current term.

Maybe bonmot can back it up?

I see the greenies are all anti journo at the moment, I guess now they are being questioned and picked up on things, they don't like it - the days of just spraying propaganda around without having to back it up are over. Bob's response is to now question the news industry to try to pick out and silence those who disagree, he'll find at times, they all do .. well, maybe not our ABC

@Curmudgeon: Its sole real use is to offset fossil fuel plants, when the wind blows.

I thought a child could understand these words from the Wikipedia page:

"Wind does have a capacity credit, using a widely accepted and meaningful definition, equal to about 20% of its rated output (but this figure varies depending on actual circumstances). This means that reserve capacity on a system equal in MW to 20% of added wind could be retired when such wind is added without affecting system security or robustness."

I guess it takes a journalist to be able to read something else into it.

@Curmudgeon: In any case its dated and the data from the real world trumps it.

I am not sure what you are referring to. The wikipedia pages quote references from 2007..2011, most are from 2010. Danish report was is dated December, 2010. They use real world figures.

@Curmudgeon: Bbbbwwwwhahahahah!

Thanks for this convincing analysis on why the figures provided in the report are wrong. To quote the report: "Consequently, one can say for a fact that a minimum of 0.1 percent of the Danish wind power production in 2008 was exported and a minimum of 63 percent was used in Denmark." Picking a number within that 0.1%..37% is fair enough. CEPOS didn't.

More tellingly, Denmark exports power when, and only when, it has a price advantage. That is not a sign of a country struggling to manage the variability of wind. On the contrary, variably doesn't seem to be a problem, because the introduce more of it by selling power at random times. This mind in a country all of 400kmx400km, which means their they can't widely wind their farms to reduce correlation.

And I notice you still have not answered my final question. Why do you persist in posting these articles, when really it should be left to the market to sort it out? The only explanation I can see is you are an fossil agit-prop. You are so fond of flinging the term around, yet it seems to apply really well to you.

Oops - my apologies to Galileo. Thankfully nobody noticed.

To Curmudgeon: I live in the Lower Hunter Valley - precisely 100k from Martin Place, according to my map. The decision to go solar was not because we couldn't connect to the grid - the cost of doing so was about the same as going solar, but involved cutting down a lot of trees, and besides - my wife and I wanted to be friendly to the environment. I've since discovered that being green is quite expensive, an experience obviously not yet impacting our 'save the planet at any cost the sky is falling' friends.

However, as long as they can pass on the cost (or think they can) via a new tax, heaven knows what they'll try to foist on us.

Mark

Proponents of the plan to provide more than $7 billion to the current owners of Australia's most emission intensive coal-fired power stations have provided little justification for the need to do so.

The main argument that is relied on to support this $7 billion 'subsidy' is that it will help provide stability and security to the electricity industry. This can be criticised in two distinct ways.

First:
The advice of leading economists and a number of independent reports suggests that there is no real threat of Australia's coal-fired power stations ceasing their generation as a result of the introduction of a carbon price.

Similarly, if the 'problem' is that the existing owners of these assets may be susceptible to their current financiers withdrawing their funding, such a problem can be overcome at much lower cost via the provision of loan guarantees by the Government to the existing owners. Abbott & Co will scream.

Second:
If energy security is the issue of concern it is inconceivable that spending $7 billion dollars in exchange for no new generation capacity could be considered to be the answer.

Diverting the funds from ESAS towards investment in renewable energy investment, research and supporting infrastructure would provide a double dividend of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased employment.

Amicus - yes the subsidies thing is clearly wrong. In no sense can fossil fuels be said to be subsidised. There are tax concessions for very large aspects of it, but the green reports insists on saying subsidies and the media repeats it.

rstuart - the point I make is that there is now evidence that wind dies for hours across a large region, and that planners have to take that into account. As grids are run conservatively that means, obviously, not a single fossil fuel plant can be retired. This basic point cannot be over ruled by referring to dated reports pushing the wind industry line, and referring to very limited tests of wind reliability.
But after making no attempt to counter that basic point, you then have the hide to ask why I'm in the debate. I'm in it so that people will understand the true limitations of wind, and not what wind advocates want them to think.
Now much as I've enjoyed our discussions, I'll have to leave it at that. Other commitments press. I will read your no doubt well judged riposte at some point.

bonmot
now you've wandered into a quite different arguement. There was a lot of investment on hold, awaiting the carbon tax announcement. If some of it is unnecessary then it really for the market to sort out. Much of the government interference in the power industry is being unwound

@Curmudgeon: the point I make is that there is now evidence that wind dies for hours across a large region, and that planners have to take that into account.

Yes, well I am sure the planners will, but possibly not in the ways you expect. It might be pumped storage, it might be large DC lines, it might be being more flexible with hydro, it might be solar thermal, it might be smart meters doing minute by minute offloads to electric hot water systems, lord knows it might be batteries in electric cars. The idea that the wind stops isn't exactly novel, and despite your claims about new evidence it has been studied in detail ever since there have been wind farms, which is somewhere in the region of 30 years now. And the links posted here illustrate that.

And here is something new for you to read. It is another take on the COPES report. http://www.biee.org/downloads/index.php?dir=2010+Conference%2FPapers%2FSupporting+Renewable+Energy%2F&download=Andrew_Smith-Danish_wind_exports.pdf

I got a figure from it I had been itching to learn. The picture painted by CEPOS is that wind is a net loss for Denmark. They say that since they are forced to dump the excess onto the market they sell wind power low, and when the wind stops the are forced to buy high. It struck me that proof of the pudding would be in the relative prices Denmark pays for power it imports versus the power it exports. I won't spoil the fun - I'll let you look it up.

PS: It also says Denmark is expecting to expand it's wind capacity to 50% by 2035, and I've definitely come across new Danish wind farms being built. Where did this claim they were stopping come from? This time there is no argument they will have to redesign their grid, and at 50% that will no doubt mean the retirement of some coal fired plants.

rstuart
You're beginning to get it! Congratulations! You've grasped the point of the article, that wind farms certainly by themselves will be unable to replace any conventional power station, and made some response. Sure people have pointed out that wind is variable, but no one knew just how variable and over how large an area, until they analysed the actaul figures from the wind farms. So that's the next point along.

As for this business that you can diversify into other alternative sources, if you look back another poster was pushing that idea. Dunno anyone who's been able to make it work. It certainly doesn't on a small scale (see one of the early posts). Solar concentrators using molton salts in very sunny areas are your best bet, but I don't think they are anywhere yet reliable enough, and its all very costly.

You've now lost me on Demark. I never said they were going to stop. They are going to expand capacity and they can do it, because they can store power in dams in Sweden and Norway (across the Baltic), and then re-import from those systems when the wind stops - that's a major advantage we don't have. So their approach actually does save carbon - probably a reasonable amount. So exporting is a strength, not a weakness. As hydro is very responsive (quick to start and stop), they also won't need nearly as much backup. Although its all very expensive, of course. Your last reference is interesting, although I'm not sure of its relevence. All look through it properly another time. tnks for that.

@Curmudgeon: You're beginning to get it! Congratulations! You've grasped the point of the article, that wind farms certainly by themselves will be unable to replace any conventional power station, and made some response.

No I didn't get the bit about wind farms being unable to replace any conventional power station. If Denmark, the US or whoever built a conventional coal station equal in size to each and every wind farm they put up, I would have got it. But they don't, of course. And no smart grids, DC transmission and storage aren't the same thing. A quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom :

"National Grid which has responsibility for balancing the grid reported in June 2009 that the electricity distribution grid could cope with on-off wind energy without spending a lot on backup, but only by rationing electricity at peak times using a so-called "smart grid", developing increased energy storage technology and increasing interconnection with the rest of Europe."

They are currently at 27% wind without doing much. They plan to get to over 50% by 2020, by which time nuclear and coal plants will be retiring. We will see how National Grid's predictions go, shall we?

@Curmudgeon: You've now lost me on Demark.

Yeah, you're right. I am buggered if I know where I got that from. Sorry about that.

Just a couple of other points about your article:

> The problem is electricity can be transmitted only so far.

Actually no, that's not a technical problem. The entire eastern seaboard of Australia, from Cairns to Adelaide is already connected. It doesn't have the capacity, but there is no reason it couldn't.

> Denmark, which uses wind extensively, routinely exports its excess wind generated electricity ... where it is used to pump water uphill into dams.

Actually when the extra power arrives they turn off the hydro generators. Which is a good thing, because the hydro has run dry in some years.

Yes, the Hydro can run dry, and that is a problem..

One of the key arguments for wind system is that if they're coupled with pumped hydro (dams), then the problem of intermittency is reduced. The power can be stored. As the UK report makes clear, that isn't really an option in that country as the wind dies for too long a period, and there're aren't enough dams. Its out of the question in Aus.

But it makes vastly more sense in Denmark, so why that report was so desperate to disprove the exporting part is beyond me.. its what wind systems are supposed to do. They're supposed to be coupled with dams, which happen to be in other countries in Denmark's case.

Transmission distance: oh yes, the entire east coast, including Tas and SA is now linked under one operator, but that has nothing to do with transmission distance.. individual generators have a transmission distances, and wind farms are (usually) smaller and further away than conventional plants.. thus wind farms in Qland can't sub for wind farms in SA.. but you could always say that they can take over more of the conventional capacity in Qland which can then be shifted down the line to SA, but I dunno if it quite works that way..

A question for anotehr time..

It been real.. onto another story..

@Curmudgeon: thus wind farms in Qland can't sub for wind farms in SA

No that's wrong. They can with the right technology. Look up High voltage DC transmission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current They are common now. As of next year, the longest one will be 2,500 km. Their looses are around the 3% per 1,000 km, or 11% from Adelaide to Cairns, or 17% from Perth to Cairns.

When you see places like the US DOE talk about large scale dispersed systems, this is the scale they are talking about. England can't achieve it and Denmark can't achieve it because the weather correlates on the scale of cyclones - across 1000's of kilometres. But Europe as a whole can. To do it you need HVDC Transmission which, surprise, surprise, Europe is installing at increasing rates.

We don't have the technology in place, and if we wanted to use a lot of wind we would have pay to put it in. I imagine the correlation between the good wind spots near Perth or Tasi and Cairns is small. The point being paying for such technology is a substitute for paying for the fossil plants you say can't be replaced. Admittedly I didn't express this very well.

Seems to me that the ideal place in Oz for a combined wind and water system would be the west coast of Tasmania. We already have the HV transmission line in place across Bass Straight. I can't see the greens going along with that idea though. They kicked up all hell a few years ago when someone tried to dam the Franklin.

David

Today's "Australian"..."The ads give the impression that solar and wind are ready to take over from fossil fuels. Yet, even in a very optimistic scenario, the International Energy Agency estimates that by 2035, solar and energy will contribute only about 1.6 per cent of global energy."

So much for the benefit myths of "renewable energy!

Oh and if you are still not convinced, check this video out of California wind turbines.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/the-reality-of-wind-turbines-in-california-video/

hey kman, do you support nuclear?

Unfortunately it is inevitable. With a world going from 6 billion to 9 billion people, and with most of these in the third world who soon will able to afford all those good things that electricity can provide, nuclear power will be the only solution.Don't even think renewables,they are not an option.

I agree kman, absolutely ... BUT, if I put up any of these:

http://tinyurl.com/3ce3gtc

many supporters of nuclear power would claim foul.

This is no different to you putting up links to WUWT red-herrings.

Ergo, you are not addressing the debate with the rationality that is so much needed, but so much lacking.

Of course there will be a need for many alternative energy supplies and is very much dependent on numerous factors - horses for courses if you like.

The way you sprayed the WUWT meme just indicates to me you have another agenda to pursue and a different playing field to play on.

@"most of these (extra 3 billion) in the third world who soon will able to afford all those good things that electricity can provide, nuclear power will be the only solution."

Perhaps you should think about that statement a bit more kman? Last time I looked at the population projections, your vision of nuclear in Africa 3rd world countries is a myth. Indeed, wind power would be a god-send to communities living there.

Unless of course your talking of China and India - which are not by definition 3rd world. Nevertheless, you will also find (if you had bothered to look) that those countries, while developing an agressive nuclear power industry, are also ramping up their wind power capabilities.

Because I put up a video of wind turbines in california I am " not addressing the debate with the rationality that is so much needed, but so much lacking." ...Rationality?

"The way you sprayed the WUWT meme just indicates to me you have another agenda to pursue and a different playing field to play on"
So I am not rational and now I am spraying.

And I don't have any agenda except common sense when it comes to the use of pipe dream alternative energy schemes that will cost a fortune, ruin the natural beauty of our pristine lndscapes and make absolutely no difference in so called "man made global warming".especially when 31,000 US scientists have signed a petition arguing that the modelling is flawed. They can't tell any certainty what tomorrows weather will be like, but they can 100 years down the track...Please!

Also I never had any vision of nuclear in Africa. but China and the Indian subcontinent,South America and Indonesia etc.that comes to my mind and they are third world.

I find your riposte rather confrontational and lacking in any thing of substance.Adieu bonmot,your just another screaming example of the rest of your green ilk who resort to this type of language when their cause is lost.. Just like socialism.

Bonmot
"I agree kman, absolutely ... BUT, if I put up any of these:

http://tinyurl.com/3ce3gtc "

Fortunately, they don't build them like that any more.

Perhaps the Chinese wouldn't be so keen if they had a look at the Californian results, although labour is probably a bit cheaper and more expendable there.

David

Actually, I spoke too soon. This piece from Andrew Bolt
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/china_stalls_on_the_wind_power_gillard_claims_its_installing
might indicate that the Chinese are having second thoughts about windmills.

David

"Green ilk". ROFL

I'm all for nuclear kman, especially gen 4 (but am also happy with 3+).

I'll type this slowly:

Our future energy supplies have to contain a mix (even coal and wind for the even slower) - horses for courses.

I assume your new: That so called "Oregon Petition" has been around a while. No rational scientist is expecting "catastophic" climate change anytime soon.

What you also don't seem to understand, the next 100 years or so is going to be bad enough.

What you also don't seem to understand, the world doesn't stop in 2100.

What you also don't seem to understand, there is a difference between weather forecasting and climate projection.

Confrontational? I see, you want a warm and fuzzy group hug - you can get that at WUWT.

"Socialism"?

That's what I thought - you are just another political ideological screamer where science has got nothing to do with it.

Btw, you accuse me of the very thing you do yourself - typical.

David, I have always valued your comments, I don't always respond.

I have never respected that shock-jock's comments, for reasons you may not understand.

I notice Bolters doesn't say China is replacing "old" coal-fired power with "new" coal-fired power - I am not surprised at the deliberate distortion misrepresentation

In any event, wind power in China (certainly not most of) will go ahead. Their focus is on BIG stuff, not small stuff still needed in the smaller communities.