@Curmudgeon: Its sole real use is to offset fossil fuel plants, when the wind blows.

I thought a child could understand these words from the Wikipedia page:

"Wind does have a capacity credit, using a widely accepted and meaningful definition, equal to about 20% of its rated output (but this figure varies depending on actual circumstances). This means that reserve capacity on a system equal in MW to 20% of added wind could be retired when such wind is added without affecting system security or robustness."

I guess it takes a journalist to be able to read something else into it.

@Curmudgeon: In any case its dated and the data from the real world trumps it.

I am not sure what you are referring to. The wikipedia pages quote references from 2007..2011, most are from 2010. Danish report was is dated December, 2010. They use real world figures.

@Curmudgeon: Bbbbwwwwhahahahah!

Thanks for this convincing analysis on why the figures provided in the report are wrong. To quote the report: "Consequently, one can say for a fact that a minimum of 0.1 percent of the Danish wind power production in 2008 was exported and a minimum of 63 percent was used in Denmark." Picking a number within that 0.1%..37% is fair enough. CEPOS didn't.

More tellingly, Denmark exports power when, and only when, it has a price advantage. That is not a sign of a country struggling to manage the variability of wind. On the contrary, variably doesn't seem to be a problem, because the introduce more of it by selling power at random times. This mind in a country all of 400kmx400km, which means their they can't widely wind their farms to reduce correlation.

And I notice you still have not answered my final question. Why do you persist in posting these articles, when really it should be left to the market to sort it out? The only explanation I can see is you are an fossil agit-prop. You are so fond of flinging the term around, yet it seems to apply really well to you.

Oops - my apologies to Galileo. Thankfully nobody noticed.

To Curmudgeon: I live in the Lower Hunter Valley - precisely 100k from Martin Place, according to my map. The decision to go solar was not because we couldn't connect to the grid - the cost of doing so was about the same as going solar, but involved cutting down a lot of trees, and besides - my wife and I wanted to be friendly to the environment. I've since discovered that being green is quite expensive, an experience obviously not yet impacting our 'save the planet at any cost the sky is falling' friends.

However, as long as they can pass on the cost (or think they can) via a new tax, heaven knows what they'll try to foist on us.

Mark

Proponents of the plan to provide more than $7 billion to the current owners of Australia's most emission intensive coal-fired power stations have provided little justification for the need to do so.

The main argument that is relied on to support this $7 billion 'subsidy' is that it will help provide stability and security to the electricity industry. This can be criticised in two distinct ways.

First:
The advice of leading economists and a number of independent reports suggests that there is no real threat of Australia's coal-fired power stations ceasing their generation as a result of the introduction of a carbon price.

Similarly, if the 'problem' is that the existing owners of these assets may be susceptible to their current financiers withdrawing their funding, such a problem can be overcome at much lower cost via the provision of loan guarantees by the Government to the existing owners. Abbott & Co will scream.

Second:
If energy security is the issue of concern it is inconceivable that spending $7 billion dollars in exchange for no new generation capacity could be considered to be the answer.

Diverting the funds from ESAS towards investment in renewable energy investment, research and supporting infrastructure would provide a double dividend of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased employment.

Amicus - yes the subsidies thing is clearly wrong. In no sense can fossil fuels be said to be subsidised. There are tax concessions for very large aspects of it, but the green reports insists on saying subsidies and the media repeats it.

rstuart - the point I make is that there is now evidence that wind dies for hours across a large region, and that planners have to take that into account. As grids are run conservatively that means, obviously, not a single fossil fuel plant can be retired. This basic point cannot be over ruled by referring to dated reports pushing the wind industry line, and referring to very limited tests of wind reliability.
But after making no attempt to counter that basic point, you then have the hide to ask why I'm in the debate. I'm in it so that people will understand the true limitations of wind, and not what wind advocates want them to think.
Now much as I've enjoyed our discussions, I'll have to leave it at that. Other commitments press. I will read your no doubt well judged riposte at some point.

bonmot
now you've wandered into a quite different arguement. There was a lot of investment on hold, awaiting the carbon tax announcement. If some of it is unnecessary then it really for the market to sort out. Much of the government interference in the power industry is being unwound

@Curmudgeon: the point I make is that there is now evidence that wind dies for hours across a large region, and that planners have to take that into account.

Yes, well I am sure the planners will, but possibly not in the ways you expect. It might be pumped storage, it might be large DC lines, it might be being more flexible with hydro, it might be solar thermal, it might be smart meters doing minute by minute offloads to electric hot water systems, lord knows it might be batteries in electric cars. The idea that the wind stops isn't exactly novel, and despite your claims about new evidence it has been studied in detail ever since there have been wind farms, which is somewhere in the region of 30 years now. And the links posted here illustrate that.

And here is something new for you to read. It is another take on the COPES report. http://www.biee.org/downloads/index.php?dir=2010+Conference%2FPapers%2FSupporting+Renewable+Energy%2F&download=Andrew_Smith-Danish_wind_exports.pdf

I got a figure from it I had been itching to learn. The picture painted by CEPOS is that wind is a net loss for Denmark. They say that since they are forced to dump the excess onto the market they sell wind power low, and when the wind stops the are forced to buy high. It struck me that proof of the pudding would be in the relative prices Denmark pays for power it imports versus the power it exports. I won't spoil the fun - I'll let you look it up.

PS: It also says Denmark is expecting to expand it's wind capacity to 50% by 2035, and I've definitely come across new Danish wind farms being built. Where did this claim they were stopping come from? This time there is no argument they will have to redesign their grid, and at 50% that will no doubt mean the retirement of some coal fired plants.

rstuart
You're beginning to get it! Congratulations! You've grasped the point of the article, that wind farms certainly by themselves will be unable to replace any conventional power station, and made some response. Sure people have pointed out that wind is variable, but no one knew just how variable and over how large an area, until they analysed the actaul figures from the wind farms. So that's the next point along.

As for this business that you can diversify into other alternative sources, if you look back another poster was pushing that idea. Dunno anyone who's been able to make it work. It certainly doesn't on a small scale (see one of the early posts). Solar concentrators using molton salts in very sunny areas are your best bet, but I don't think they are anywhere yet reliable enough, and its all very costly.

You've now lost me on Demark. I never said they were going to stop. They are going to expand capacity and they can do it, because they can store power in dams in Sweden and Norway (across the Baltic), and then re-import from those systems when the wind stops - that's a major advantage we don't have. So their approach actually does save carbon - probably a reasonable amount. So exporting is a strength, not a weakness. As hydro is very responsive (quick to start and stop), they also won't need nearly as much backup. Although its all very expensive, of course. Your last reference is interesting, although I'm not sure of its relevence. All look through it properly another time. tnks for that.