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?