Nice strawman, No said wind generators alone are the answer.
I also find it funny how some people are saying wind farms are a blight on the landscape, as if a coal mine and power station are not.

I have farm that is off the grid, far away from the grid join even if i wanted to. i use, wind,solar and a genset. A large battery bank ensures that the genset if run two or three times a year.

It is a simple task to pick out a day or week in a month when discrediting renewables. However when one combines two or more renewable technologies together, wind/solar/wave/hot rock; one gets a more balanced outlook. In the long term, coal is finished, and nuclear is downright dangerous. For me renewables is far the best investment...

There's no doubt that wind power can save x% of emissions whatever x is. However since it is unreliable (and some say visually oppressive) I question whether we should pay a premium price for it. The cheapest price for new wind power seems to be about $82 a Mwh which I gather includes the LGC subsidy. In contrast coal power is usually under $40 a Mwh but is available anytime. In the typical heatwave wind is in the doldrums yet 75% of buildings run air conditioners with just a fraction having rooftop solar to offset grid demand.

I suggest we get rid of the RET and work on the basis of emissions targets, not favourite technologies. As the target gets tougher wind and commercial solar become more competitive. With say a 50% national emissions reduction wind could get bigger than what it currently is, about 3.6 GW nameplate capacity I believe. At least we'll know it got there on its merits.

Maybe the arguments over renewable energy could include the benefit of making the majority of electricity distribution systems redundant; i.e. having the source of electricity generation and battery storage localised at the site of the user.
The centralised distribution of services has become a standard practice nowadays, but why?
Why should not end-users of electricity generate and store their own from solar, wind turbine, geothermal, tidal (for seaside dwellers), or even very small domestic nuclear plants.
The need for base-load generation could thus be reduced greatly if high capacity battery storage continues its current development to a point where nearly all the power needs of consumers could be supplied on site, and only topped up using existing centralised generating systems.
Perhaps we should consider wind or other renewable energy systems analogous to the farm or village well that supplied all needed water on site, rather than via a massive, albeit reliable, dam and pipe system.

Cobber the Hound, Petrochemical and Ponder

You guys have repeated all the myths renewable energy proponents have been saying for years and which have all long been disproved, apparently without you guys noticing. Note the period often wind doesn't blow? Late at night. So PVs are out. Wave power? They've been talking about it for years with very little result, mainly because its so expensive.. Batteries? Not on the scale we're talking about. Pumped hydro? Again they just can't build to the scale required. Whenever they talk about a fossil-free grid they have to chuck in very big biodiesels (diesels working on biofuels).

I could go on but you get the idea. The article was excellent but I would also point out that because the output of conventional generators have to be varied so much to accommodate all the renewable stuff (when it does kick in) that it leads to considerable wear and tear on the plant, and further inefficiencies.

While there are some sites where wind power works, like in the roaring forties i.e., I find myself mostly agreeing with curmudgeon.

What we need is alternatives available 24/7!

For mine that include large scale solar thermal, with vacuum towers assisted to retain useable base load heat, for up to seven days, with the addition of thorium and fluoride salt!

Next comes thorium reactors connected to microgrids, which have the added advantage of effectively halving the power bill!

Finally we must learn not to waste our waste, which can be converted into methane used in ceramic fuel cells, which would halve the power bill yet again; and thanks to the energy coefficient of 80%, for this combination of scrubbed biogas and super silent ceramic fuel cells!

All of the above also happen to be carbon neutral or carbon free; and moreover; available 24/7 and not costing an arm or a leg.

Large scale solar thermal's already been rolled out for a cost comparable to coal fired power stations; with the fuel forever free!

Thorium reactors can be mass produced as bolt on modules in factories, then trucked onsite to begin generating power almost immediately; decommissioning just as simple!

Producing biogas for a high rise, say from its biological waste, can be done smell free in a two tank closed cycle digestion system. With the tanks not a lot larger than shipping containers.

Almost every family produces enough waste to meet their energy needs 24/7!

With the subsequently scrubbed gas stored in simple bladders and available 24/7!
Rhrosty.