I think the primary influence on the generating mix should be an emissions target, not guaranteed market share for preferred technologies. With a CO2e cap we could feel more confident the different technologies stand or fall on their merits. If the cap was tough enough (say 300 Mt CO2e not 500+) I suspect all current wind power would be safe while much coal fired generation would have to go.

If this analysis is correct there is little point in South Australia with 30% penetration getting more wind power assuming interstate power exports are limited. There is something odd about public perceptions of energy costs; they hated $24 carbon tax but by implication support $59 abatement costs under the RET. A more recent poll showed half thought solar would soon become our main electricity source yet it was just 1.5% in 2013.

Value of wind turbines should include help they provide to reduce air pollution. However some wind turbines built in the ocean might slow ocean surface currents and consequently impact living ecosystems.

And then there is the question of whether or not it is CO2 causing climate change or whether the cause is warmth in unprecedented sewage nutrient proliferated ocean algae plant matter. Perhaps both are a cause.

"Previously unsuspected" is not good enough in 'the science' that is generating additional law and tax and costs that are taking up valuable time and throwing many lives and business into economic turmoil worldwide.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929
and
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

Be sure there is algae almost everywhere in the world ocean ecosystem and there is no science to establish that only Arctic algae blooms are (maybe) warmed during photosynthesis.

It is just amazing to me that warmth in ocean algae plant matter has not been measured and assessed in AGW - UN and IPCC linked science.

Yes Peter, and if we could just change the terminology/circular thinking/renewables, to carbon mitigating alternatives, we would have a virtual smorgasbord of ALTERNATIVE options to chose from!

I've heard recently, that much more reliable southern wave power could supply all our power requirements three times over; and for far less than coal fired power?

However, not as something one would use via a national grid, but via micro grids?

Given scales of economy, and using geothermal as a water pre-warming option, solar thermal could be considered?

As the set up costs are comparable to similar sized coal fired options; however, in the former the fuel is forever completely free!

The nuclear option needs to be on the table, given micro-grids and smaller modules (thorium or pebble reactors) being able to be factory built and trucked on site, and producing power in days not the literal years normal for current coal fired options!

Which by the way, have a much larger harm caused component in any fair comparison with the nuclear option, which becomes progressively safer!?

And if emission abatement was the genuine concern, then why isn't treating waste and turning it into the world's cheapest energy also on the table. And with it algae farming, and the ethanol industry that would spring from that. Albeit, one not needing to use food or arable land.

Finally, why aren't we at least trialing hydrogen production, where it may be possible to produce almost costless eternally sustainable fuel, by utilizing a vastly modernized version of cracking the water molecule; utilizing solar thermal options and endlessly available sea water; and therefore, for just cents per cubic metre.

We can not only power fuel cells with hydrogen, but conventional engines as well!

And adding innovations like using injected water, with every sixth power stroke, eliminate the need to carry radiators and energy consuming pumps. Compete with petrol in terms of range!

And given the water is turned to steam, add the power of steam to the engine?
Rhrosty.

When Peter Lang gives thought to how much of other people's money he wants spent; how turbines affect people; the recent findings that turbines have a 10 year life before expensive refurbishment; how the turbines can be covered so that native birds (part of our environment) will not be chopped to pieces, and how long before we see a price drop in power prices in South Australia (instead of regular, steady increases) where we have more windfarms than anywhere else (producing about a quarter of total electricity) yet pay the highest power prices in the country. When he does that, I might read his articles

Hey TTBN, did you actually read Peter Lang's article or just jump to the conclusion he is advocating more wind farms?

From what I see, Lang is stating the cost is not justified if the reason for installation is to reduce CO2 emissions. Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.

Also, your concern about the wind turbines killing birds is somewhat unfounded. More birds are killed by individually by cats, power lines, cars, flying into windows and flying cell phone towers than the number "chopped to pieces" by the turbines.

I don't know what kind of wind turbines you have down there is SA, but every wind turbine I've ever seen has very large slow blades. Way too slow to chop anything up, except maybe fog.

I have turbines near me no problem. Farming under and around no problem. Perhaps we should get rid of large transmission lines (EMR). Many studiess can prove that living close to these cause massive cell disruption within the body of all animals and plants.