Roses1
I have an apology .. I didn't mean capacity factor in my earlier posts that's the average output.. for a wind farm that is around 30 per cent.. I was talking about the contribution factor. Its in http://www.aemo.com.au/~/media/Files/Other/planning/0410-0079%20pdf.pdf

The table in chopped up form is below.. the first % is the figure for capacity factor, and the second two are the contribution factors for the summer and winter peaks respectively.

Region Average Capacity Factor (2010–11)
Contribution Factor Summer MD
Contribution Factor
Winter MD
New South Wales 25.6% 9.2% 0.4%
Victoria 29.2% 7.7% 3.9%
South Australia 32.6% 5.0% 3.5%
Tasmania 39.2% 1.0% 1.0%

confusing but never mind. As for the rest of your post.. at all times a certain amount of spinning reserve is kept off the grid - a practice that long predates wind.. the amount of reserve depends on quite arcane calculations which involve risk estimations. Even green groups agree that some increase in reserve is required for wind, the crucial question is how much extra? Green groups say very little; engineeers say a lot. At the moment nothing would be required in eastern Aus because wind's still just 3 per cent of total supply.

Hence your point about SA, where local production of wind is much higher. SA can import or export power from the rest of the grid so local reserving probably isn't necessary - the rest of the grid can absorb any changes

But, and this is my crucial pont..

Hardly any of this had been discussed by anyone with a show of independence. We don't know anything about the reconfiguration of the grid when serious amounts of wind power go on it.. will it actually save carbon?? At 3 per cent (20 per cent in SA) some might be saved as they probably adjust the power on the grid by that much quite routinely anyway.. But for heaven sake, what's the saving, if any, for larger amounts..

Hasbeen's points are quite correct.

(sigh) Thanks Curm, I'll look up your link to this 'contribution factor' term. And cohenite you've added another - 'unreliability factor' - but you've provided a link so I'll dutifully look that one up too. This blogging can lead to more learning on the subject despite the tedium. But I will add that there are 'obfuscation factors' too that have led us off the point which is the cost of networks and whether they are suitable for the modern world of renewable energy

Hasbeen I don't feel so kindly toward your pompous assertion that I 'only google greenie sites'. S'pose I could assert that you only google sceptic sites but I wouldn't be so silly. At least the rest of us give links - yes I think most of us mortals get our info through Google or some other web search method these days.

No matter that you've made me cross; here is the link you requested re coal power stations closing down.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/carbon-price-claims-sas-largest-coal-fired-generator-95197. I suggest you read this site to keep abreast of energy matters. That is of course if it's not too green for you.

So how about a link to the coal fired power stations in Germany? A link to what Germany is doing to their networks to accommodate their 8% and rising component of wind generation would be useful too.

PS I actually occasionally read 'The Australian' although it's certainly too brown for my liking. Don't find much useful information on energy in there; maybe they censor it out.

The 90% reliability factor at Table 1 in the link I provide is to do with the % of times that the CF % can be achieved; so the capacity of wind to supply power is worse than thought.

CF is the actual power supplied, averaged over a reasonable period of time, usually a 1/4, peferably a year, and expressed as a % of the Installed Capacity.

The CF of wind is 20-38%, actually 20% world-wide. The reliability factor tells us the % of any time when that CF will be provided. So, at any one moment wind will be supplying power about 3% of its CF; that's 3% of 20%, not the 100% of the IC.

Wind and solar, which is worse, are dead-ends. If you are serious about challenging the fossils, you have to, in the short term, go 3rd generation nuke and Thorium, and for the long term really start looking at Fusion.

Although, if you want to look outside the square, forget the microbes and algae and geothermal, and look at this:

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2299

Thanks for your links cohenite. Re the article by Miskelly and Quirk, it has some interesting graphs showing big variations in wind generation output over time and significant periods of low generation across the whole of the SE. None of this is new to me.

Of course wind isn't a reliable base load electricity source, but that doesn't alter the fact that it already supplies 20% of some grids' electricity and has the potential to supply over 30% without loss of grid stability.

Note: Spinning reserve is much less than base load; the two are not the same. With base load supplied by modern 'smart, distributed' grids and turbines driven by gas, stored heat or water, spinning reserve would be even less.

Of course other sources are needed for base load; here is a quote form the AEMO: http://www.aemo.com.au/~/media/Files/Other/planning/0410-0079%20pdf.pdf. (section 8.3.2; thanks for the reference Curm).

'For a $50/t CO2-e carbon price, both solar thermal and geothermal technologies are near the technology frontier ... As they obtain income from Large scale Generation Certificate sales, they may become competitive with Combined Cycle Gas Turbine technology and are, therefore, interesting options for base load applications when this technology matures".

PS Like most scientists I'm skeptical about all information I read and always check out the source. Sadly the sites you inked to don't cut the mustard. Australian Environment Foundation is a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'. By its own description, it actually refutes science / policy that may threaten certain industry groups, from fossil fuel to fishing. The other - 'Wind Farm Performance' is of similar ilk, with unexplained graphs that show variablity in wind performance and the fact that wind is a very small part of total generation at present (as cars were of transport in 1900; it was 99% horses).

Both take real data and state their own conclusions (or spin, as there is no peer review). They masquerade as 'scientific', aiming to sow doubt and confusion by appealing to the time poor / uneducated section of society and turn them against real peer reviewed science.

Roses1, you keep missing the point; what wind produces is energy NOT usuable electricity; it is not usable for the reasons I have given; it is implacably unreliable.

The lie is that the energy wind produces is misleadingly included in the electricity supply figures; it is misleading because it is not taken up; the conventional electricity sources still are.

Please prove me wrong on this point; if you can't then this is just a scandal and fraud on the taxpayers who are subsidising what is an inherently unusable energy source.

Roses1,

The issue is that due to the lack of reliable supply from renewables, even if wind and solar were able to provide 30% of electricity generated, almost the entire infrastructure of base load would have to be maintained for when renewable generation was low at peak period. As the majority of cost of these units is not replaced, but duplicated.