CP,

Had you read my post on Peter Lang's criticism of Senator Leyonhjelm's article about people's complaints about noise transmitted by windmills, you would have known that there was little chance that I had any empathy with Peter Lang's stand on windfarms, and that I would be highly unlikely to read an article written by him.

You assumed that I either hadn't read his article, or I had "jumped to the conclusion the he is advocating more wind farms". I do not jump to conclusions about anything. And I did not read his article for the reasons given in my post today. I hope that answer is satisfactory. If it is not, we'll have to work something else out.

There are ample recordings of bird deaths caused by windmills. I am no crusader, and I have no problems if you doubt them. That is your right.

ttbn > if you refuse to read an article and then make comments on the content of the article, or decide you have no empathy with the author's position, you can only do so by assuming you know what the article says.

I'm sure birds have died by crashing into a wind turbines. What I question is whether the birds are being chopped into pieces, as you claim.

To be totally honest, when I read your comments on this particular thread, I got the distinct impression you really didn't know what you were talking about. I even wondered if you have ever seen a wind turbine operating.

Thank you for the comments

@ JF Aus, ""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. "

Good point.

@ Rhosty, I agree cherry picking preferred technologies and types of technologies is unlikely to succeed. To make sustainable progress we need to deregulate. Competition and innovation will provide the products and services that are fit-for-purpose at least cost for the various markets around the world.

@ Conservative Hippie, “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.”

Thank you for pointing that out to readers who jumped to conclusions without even reading the post.”

The justification for regulations and subsidies to incentivize wind power is that it reduces CO2 emissions cost effectively. However, the justification is flawed. As the Warburton Review points out: “The analysis indicates that there are many measures offering abatement at lower cost compared with the RET” https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/56-cost-abatement. What this post shows is that it’s worse than we thought. The CO2 abatement cost with the wind power in 2020 is likely to be around 60% to 70% higher than the estimates quoted in the Warburton Report.

From the post:
“The cost of CO2 abatement with wind power in Australia in 2020, under the RET as currently legislated, is likely to be:
• 2 to 5 times the carbon price which was rejected by voters at the 2013 election
• 4 to 8 times the Direct Action average price at the first auction
• 6 to 12 times the current EU ETS price
• 100 to 200 times the international carbon price futures to 2020”
In short, wind power is a high cost way to avoid CO2 emissions and much higher than the Warburton Report’s estimates.

CH,

I can't say that I appreciate being told that I don't know what I'm talking about, but it makes clear to me the sort of person you are, and how you attempt to deal with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Your tactics do not work, and never will.

ttbn

You didn't know what you were talking about and unfortunately it appears you still don't.

I'm sorry being told the truth is so disturbing to you.

Peter, what does "cost-effectiveness" mean in the context of your article?

A "cost" implies that there is some unreplaceable resource being used that would otherwise be available for some other use. For example, time is a resource that is finite for each individual, therefore the notion of a "time cost" is entirely sensible when deciding between competing choices of activities. Similarly, the notion of an "energy cost" is sensible when considering how to use the output of a power station to supply new demands. The notion of "opportunity cost" is one dear to my own heart at the moment, since in choosing to study, I have lost the opportunity to use my time to earn money.

What is the "cost" of wind power that you feel is ineffective?