So a conservative financial reporter quotes other conservative financial interests saying they they don't think wind is technically viable.
I bet that this guy supports nuclear...even though it has never been shown to be profitable without black defence funding and "never mind the radioactive waste" policy.
Yes, the 19th century power grid, built for massive central power generation has some technical issues with integrating modern wind generation. Yes, we need to update the grid to HVDC and supplement wind with other renewables, including carbon neutral gas fired plants.
What we cannot afford to do is to delay modernisation because investment funds want a ROI for an overpriced privatised power system. Nor can we afford an expensive switch to nuclear, which will keep all generation central (much more vulnerable), and also centralise profits.
Can you see why finance people are straying into a highly complex topic such as energy and global climate science now? Blinded by $, they arrogantly disagree with industry experts and declare that financial background allows them to comprehend other's professions. This is a bit rich given the issues that the financial "profession" is having at the moment!

What you still writing?

This is just one more look at the comparative energy costs that fails - deliberately I presume - to consider the costs of the consequences of ongoing emissions. As long as those costs are considered imaginary ones, by people who plan to keep from having to pay them through the power of disbelief we'll keep getting misleading analyses like this. The omission of climate consequences is so fundamental that the article is reduced denialist drivel as a consequence. It's obviously aimed at inflaming short term economic fears in order to prevent serious policy on climate change, making it denialist alarmism with no redeeming features.
Mark, those climate consequences are real, the costs you don't want to take into consideration are real and your apparent belief that we are incapable of successfully avoiding the worst is a worse kind of alarmism than anything those who accept the validity of climate science promotes; it's a kind of pessimism that says we can't succeed so don't bother. Pathetic.

This article starts with the statement that there is no proof that green electricity reduces emissions. A substantial part of the article devoted to the findings of the Danish Report Wind Energy The Case for Denmark to provide support for this contention and others in the article. If you go to the report (easily found by typing the title into Google) you will find the statement on page 2 of the executive summary that "Wind energy has replaced some thermal generation in Denmark. It has saved an average emission of about 2.4 million t per year CO2 at a total subsidy cost of 12.3 billion DKK or an average cost of 647 DKK (€ 87 or $124) per ton CO2". The argument is not that wind energy reduces emissions, as per Mr Lawson's contention, rather that it is an expensive way to reduce emissions.

Incidentally, a bit of further searching shows that the Report has been heavily criticised within Denmark for its accuracy or lack thereof. Moreover, Ingeniøren, the Danish Engineers' Journal, reported that the CEO of CEPOS, the Group that prepared the report, Martin Ågerup admitted to Ingeniøren that the report was both commissioned and paid for by IPR. IPR (Institute for Energy Research)an American think tank has confirmed in a press release that it had commissioned the report from CEPOS. IPR reportedly receives funding from the American oil and coal lobby and the Report has been used by conservative elements in the US to criticise Obama's wind policy.

Mark Lawson here
Ozandy, Ken F - your points about climate change are entirely beside the point, even if we accept your reasoning, as no-one has yet shown that wind energy saves carbon when connected to a network. It may do in Denmark because that has lots of dams handy - albeit in other countries. This is not the case in Australia. It makes no sense of any kind to back a technology that does not save carbon, even if we agree that carbon is a problem. the immense costs of these systems make them all the more futile.
But even if we factor in duture costs costs of climate change - again, assuming any changes have been induced by carbon - then the economic calculations come up short by billions. Virtually the only group that says anything differnt is Stern, and that report's been kicked around quite a bit.
That's all for a seperate article, or you can read the book when it comes out.

Mark, a collegue of mine in the UK has been in the power generation business for 40 years. He wrote the following recently in reference to wind farms.

“Each of the 20 turbines as a hub height of 80 metres with blades 125 metres tip to tip. each of the turbines is rated at 3MW. The cost is £50M. At best output will be 20% ie 12MW although current stats show some wind farms running last quarter at just 6%-10%.
Fiddlers Ferry and Ferrybridge a coal stations, each delivers 2000MW and are due to close in 2015. However each could be given a 15 year life extension for a total of £200M to remove the NOx problem that after 30 years of operations is suddenly such a problem. Those of us simple souls who divide £ by MW and dare to suggest that coal at £50k/MW is better value than wind at just under £1M/MW (and I’m using the ludricrous 60MW rating for the things) are described as flat earthers.”

I pointed to the economic madness of such technology and asked about the basis for justfying such nonsense, he replied.

“ Councils make their decisions based upon the Hayes McKenzie/Dti report. Which links its academic pedigree back to Salford University, which is owned lock stock and campus by Peel Energy, one of the biggest wind farm constructors in the UK.”

He indicates a groundswell of technical opposition to Government(s) investment in renewables which is spreading throughout Europe. The cost of energy is staggering and an impediment to recovery. So much of a concern is this, that “energy security” is seen as a bigger problem then even the horrendous costs.

I guess it’s a bit like “pink bats” and “school halls” in Australia. Put some free money into the market place and everyone who can make a buck, will. Ideologically we are told that all is well regardless of the growing evidence that all is definitely not well. Hope we can learn from Europe?