Mr Lawson

One more attempt to make you see reason.

The three reports you source quite clearly say that renewable energy, wind and other sources reduce CO2 emissions and I have quoted the relevant sections of those reports in previous posts.

You have clearly ignored these statements.

I quoted the NETZ press release, although it didn't appear in your article for two reasons. One it was a further statement from NETZ saying that wind power reduced emmissions (with quantification) and two to respond to the statement in your article that "E.ON Netz has said nothing at all on that key issue since the 2005 report."

QANDA is right - this is deliberate distortion and misrepresentation.

Mr Lawson admit your error, the IPCC did regarding the Himalayan glaciers. You cannot hold them accountable for this error when you are committing the same sin.

As an electrical engineer I occasionally feel that I should be simple to show any intelligent person, on the back of an envelope, that an intermittent generator such as wind power with a capacity factor of <30% could never really compete with a fueled generator (fossil fuel or nuclear) with a capacity factor of >90% - even if some (yet to be invented) economic energy storage medium is available.

However, reading some of the above comments, it seems to me that the Dunning/Kruger effect coupled with a strong religious conviction is rampant in this area = so I don't think I'll bother to even try.

Dear Hasbeen,
Why should cost be a problem to socialists. They believe in social justice and wealth transfer, equal pay for all, after all you can always print more money. The greatest majority get no pay so when they transfer all the wealth from the rich which is us to the poor them, we will all be equal and ole sticky fingers satin who is in the detail will have acheaved his aim to rob, kill, and destroy Gods chosen which is all. Just put Qld health nopay czar in charge and we will all be saving the planet in no time at all.

Mark, there is something really strange in the opposition to your article. There seems to be a suspension of reality that defies description.

Ten years ago, the AGW phenomena began to gain strong political support from the EU and Scandinavian countries. The globe was warming and carbon emissions were the cause. Renewable energy sources were seen as an effective alternative, although even then, they were recognized as expensive however, to offset this cost differential, the intention was to raise the cost of carbon based energy. This had the effect of artificially lowering the already known high cost of renewable energy.

Governments began to invest in renewable energy because private enterprise would not invest in a zero return on investment. Private companies in renewables began to flourish as long as governments were paying.

The prospect of a high premium on carbon emissions and Global Carbon Trading scheme were the intended cost mitigation mechanism for renewables to cover research, development, construction and land purchase.

In 2010, we now know from real life experience that wind farms are “eye wateringly” expensive and inefficient, which would still be OK if the costs could be covered by carbon pricing and trading.

Now the base assumptions have evaporated. No price on carbon, no international trading scheme and no carbon tax revenues for governments to fund renewables.

Even if there was still hope for carbon revenues to cover renewable costs, the issue of the maximum contribution of renewables remains. In his publication “Sustainable Energy-Without Hot Air”, David MacKay calculates that maximum practical contribution for all forms renewable energy for the UK to be 18 kWh/d per person, (kilowatt hours per day per person) against an average demand of 125 kWh/d per person (excluding imports, and ignoring solar energy acquired through food production.).

Just what is it they can’t grasp?

On the issue of wind costs it seems to me that the most telling evidence comes from the wind farm investors. When the RECS price dropped recently, wind projects were put on hold and a local company making towers lost a lot of business. The most likely explanation is that building wind farms only made financial sense when the RECS price was high. It's probably safe to assume that if the RET scheme was abandoned then no wind farms would be built at all. How would this be if wind farms on a level playing field really could put coal plants out of business? Wind generation is fairly mature technology and has probably hit the flat of the learning curve so probably isn't going to get a lot cheaper.

On the issue of can wind reduce significant emissions, I agree with Mark that the evidence is thin. If wind is treated as negative load and can reduce the use of some fossil fuel plants then it will save emissions. The big open question is at what cost per tonne saved. An escalating carbon price with no other incentives would answer this question.

Interesting Mayrog, you say that a “generator such as wind power with a capacity factor of <30% could never really compete with a fuelled generator”.

A study “Wind Power in Ontario Its Contribution to the Electricity Grid” by the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada found that the wind farms' capacity factors vary from 27.6% to 35.6%, with higher values in winter as compared to summer; wind power performs better than the seasonal average during peak periods; wind is a better "partner" for the Ontario electricity system in the winter.

Also I note from the Danish study quoted by Mr Lawson that “In the USA, responding to more pragmatic considerations, most wind turbines are built in windy areas where the capacity factor is usually over 30%.” Of course, the US and Canada (and Australia for that matter) have more energy options than Denmark.

So Mayrog, presumably you would agree that wind power is a viable alternative in the US and Canada.

You and the study point out the other major concern I have with Mr Lawson’s article ie that you cannot extrapolate for the whole planet based on a couple of cases. Moreover, it ignores local issues such as off-grid situations which Australia has in abundance in rural and remote locations. There are also many more renewable energy options than wind (geo-thermal and mini-hydro) are two that can provide base load power, for example. So to damn renewable energy based solely on wind is also specious.

Additionally, I would also refer you to this response to the CEPOS study (http://www.energyplanning.aau.dk/Publications/DanishWindPower.pdf) which makes the interesting point that "the payment to wind power does not make Danish electricity prices any higher than those in other countries. In fact, Danish electricity prices (excl. tax and VAT) inclusive of all payments for 20 percent wind power are among the cheapest in Europe."