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