RET is aimed at lowering human emissions, so we should not be having this conversation. There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
The IPCC used laboratory science to run climate models, and made predictions based on the computer results. They have proved that their science does not translate into the real world, yet they persist with the nonsense that lowering human emissions will affect climate.
Human emissions are 3% of the carbon dioxide cycle, so it is not surprising that the effect is trivial and not measurable.
What is surprising is the longevity of the climate fraud, which has no basis other than dishonesty.
We need a Royal Commission, to uncover the means whereby the nonsense is promoted, with a view to appropriate legislation to put a stop to it

Thank you everyone for your comments.

Peter: the “extremely efficient” comment refers to employment, not GHG emissions. I do take your point though.

Martin: the calculations are different because I used megawatts, opposed to gigawatt hours. I was unable to verify the gigawatt hours of the Macarthur Wind Farm. Additionally, I also compared to the Nyngan Solar plant which is where the range figures came from.

Curmudgeon: the figures relied on originate from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. If anything, government would provide the lowest possible figure; if the figure is higher it would only support the argument more.

Dave: the $1 billion figure is from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. As per their annual report 2013/14 and section 46 of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act, they are credited with $2 billion in funds (held by Treasury) in addition to funding for operational expenses. If the Corporation spends less than half of their investment on renewable projects, they have to explain why under section 74(1)(c) - this is were the $1 billion came from. Also for your interest, the current government has failed to repeal the Corporation twice through the Senate.

Thanks again.

Spencer
Author.

The problem is Spencer, doing any performance analysis on generators should never be done based on capacity (MW) rather than energy generated (MWh). It will almost certainly be misleading. I suggest you research the term "capacity factor" and see how it varies significantly between a coal fired power station and a wind farm or solar farm.Typically a wind farm will produce about a third of the energy generated from an equivalent sized coal plant.

I agree with Martin Nicholson's important point. There is much relevant information in this new report on CO2 emissions avoided by wind energy in the NEM in 2014. It lists the energy generated by technology per state and NEM total; the generators displaced by wind generation; the amount of CO2 avoided by wind; the average capacity factor of wind in each state:

Wheatley, 2015 'Emissions savings from wind power: Australia': http://joewheatley.net/emissions-savings-from-wind-power-australia/

Background (explains the methodology):

Wheatley, 2013, paper on Ireland ( published in ‘Energy Policy’) 'Quantifying CO2 savings from wind power' http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513007829
and also a free pre-submission version here):
Wheatley, 2012, 'Quantifying CO2 savings from wind power: Ireland' http://joewheatley.net/how-much-co2-does-wind-power-save/

The 'The Sustainability Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) report: http://joewheatley.net/quantifying-co2-savings-from-wind-power-redux-ireland-2012/

Other: http://joewheatley.net/category/wind-energy/page/2/

For the CO2 abatement cost and policy implications see my Submission (No 259): http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions .

Martin, I agree with you. The method was perhaps too simplistic for individuals such as yourself. As I mentioned, I was unable to verify the GWh from a reliable source. From your figures, you'd be right with 2 to 3. However, keep in mind the biggest wind and solar plants would normally be the most efficient regarding GWh to staff. Moreover coal miners, transport staff, contractors etc would also add to the ratio. I'd be interested to know the actual ratio.

Peter, I do not dispute the very clear evidence that wind farms in Australia reduce GHG. In essence the argument states that if Australia wants to offset the "most" emissions, we'd do it in places such as China.

Spencer Wright,

I didn't understand the point of this comment "Peter, I do not dispute the very clear evidence that wind farms in Australia reduce GHG." Could you please clarify what you mean and the relevance to my point? What evidence are you referring to? What proportion of NEM's average GHG emissions intensity do you think wind energy avoids per MWh?

I don't dispute that wind and solar avoid some emissions. But it is less than most people believe. Furthermore, the CO2 abatement effectiveness decreases as wind penetration increases. At 15% wind energy penetration in the NEM (as would be required to achieve the existing RET by 2020), CO2 abatement effectiveness would be around 60%. That means the CO2 abatement cost of wind would be some 67% higher than the estimates in the RET Review. That's 2-4, times the carbon price that was rejected by the voters at the 2013 election, 4-8 times the average CO2 abatement cost at the first Direct Action auction, 6-12 times the EU carbon price, and 100-200 times the International carbon price futures.

The key point is that wind and solar power are a very high cost way to reduce emissions. Therefore, all incentives for wind and solar should be discontinued. Allow Direct Action to do what it is designed to do - cut emissions at least cost.

I'd urge readers to stop advocating for economically irrational policies. They are not sustainable and inevitably will not succeed. All major reductions to GHG emissions have been achieved by direct action policies, not by policies such as carbon pricing and renewable energy mandates.
.
If we want to reduce emissions sustainably, we should do what France did 50 to 30 years ago and is still doing. France has near the lowest cost electricity in Europe, near the lowest emissions intensity of electricity in Europe and its emissions intensity is 1/10th of Australia's. It's been like that for over 30 years. And that was achieved by direct action.