warmair,

Your comment does not deal with the issue raised in the article - i.e. the CO2 abatement cost with wind power is very high and cannot be justified. Therefore, inecentives for wind power cannot be justified and should be scrapped.

If you cannot show a significant flaw in the analyses, and if you are intellectually honest, you will acknowledge that incentives for wind power cannot be justified and should be scrapped.

Your statement "The cost of the RET adds approximately 4% over all to the retail price of electricity." is disingenuous and irrelevant. It is disingenuous because the impactr on retail costs is nowhere near the full cost increase being caused by the RET. It is irrelevant because the costs will be much greater as the RET forces higher penetration of wind power and as the penalties of $96/MWh kick in around 2018 or so.

http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2015/06/the-ret-joyride/

Peter
Dr Joseph Wheatley uses actual data from the power generators, to try and determine the real savings made in CO2 emissions by using wind power. He then calculates that wind is only 78% effective based on the idea that wind power represents 4.5 % of the power generated but only reduces carbon emissions by 3.5%. This argument has a major flaw, that is impossible to know what generation source would have been used had the wind power not been added to the grid, or as the quote below says:

“The CO2-e emissions reductions achieved will depend on the emissions-intensity of the fuel source that would have otherwise been used. This counterfactual scenario cannot be observed, so the level of abatement can only be estimated, not measured.”

http://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/22-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-electricity-sector

A significant flaw in the Wheatly submission is the fact that he choose 2014 as the year for his data. 2014 is problematic because the carbon tax was removed half way through the year in July. Prior to the removal of the tax there was a greater economic incentive to use hydro and gas, but after it was removed the incentive to use coal was greater. What this implies is that wind power is now replacing more coal emissions now that the carbon tax has been removed. This was predicted even before the carbon tax was introduced and is one of the reasons, why wind generation was expected to become less effective as it share of the market rose and as the carbon tax increased. If it makes you feel better I agree the carbon tax was probably lowering emissions cheaper and faster than adding additional wind farms. It also means that your assumption that the effectiveness of of wind power would decline to 60% is no longer valid.

http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/australia-repealed-its-carbon-tax-%E2%80%94-and-emissions-are-now-soaring

In terms of cost wind power systems are still declining in relative cost and becoming bigger and more efficient, all of which suggests that wind power will become financially more attractive not less. Apart from hydro, wind remains the cheapest source of renewable energy in Australia.

Warmair,

I think you may have misunderstood the analyses.

>“based on the idea that wind power represents 4.5 % of the power generated but only reduces carbon emissions by 3.5%. This argument has a major flaw, that is impossible to know what generation source would have been used had the wind power not been added to the grid, or as the quote below says:”

It’s not an “idea”. It’s a calculation from empirical data. Do you have a better estimate? If so what is it? Please provide the basis of your revised estimate. You may not be aware that the method is the same as used for Ireland which is published in the peer reviewed journal ‘Energy Policy’. So far, no substantial criticism has been made. You can do the analyses yourself. “co2calc contains the details of the emissions model and the simple statistical analysis” http://joewheatley.net/category/wind-energy/page/2/

The 2p014 year was chosen for the analysis for obvious reasons: it is the most recent year of data, which is important since wind penetration is increasing. For these reasons 2014 is clearly the preferred year to use; an earlier year would have been criticized for not being the latest data.

The fact that the carbon tax stopped in 2014 is irrelevant. It has little if any effect on the dispatch in 2014. If you believe it has, please quantify the magnitude of the effect on dispatch and the changes in the generation per 5 minute intervals.

Your quote from the Warburton Review is fully understood by Wheatley, as you would know if you’d actually read his report carefully, which it seems you haven’t.

Your comments suggests you failed to understand that the economic analyses done for the Warburton Review did not take CO2 abatement effectiveness into account. That is what my post points out - and quantifies the effect on the projected CO2 emissions avoided and the CO2 abatement cost with wind generation. I’d urge you to re-read the post, Wheatley’s report, and my submission to the Select Committee.

Unquantified assertions and innuendo cannot be taken seriously.

I am reading Warmair & Peter's posts and I am struggling to get a grip
on it all.

Warmair said;
This argument has a major flaw, that is impossible to know what
generation source would have been used had the wind power not been
added to the grid, or as the quote below says:

Surely, only a coal fired power station would have been available if
wind was not used ?

Peter said in relation to eroei;
I suspect the declining investment in wind and solar in Europe is a
reflection of the fact they are not close to being economically
viable, even with the huge incentives they receive.

But isn't poor eroei the cause of wind being uneconomic ?
After all if they had a higher output for the same cost and material
used to install and maintain would they not have a better eroei and economy ?

Bazz,

I can''t explain the Wheatley analysis in 350 words. You, warmair and others will need to read it, digest it and think about it (and Wheatley's analysis for Ireland, and my Submission to the Senate Select Committee on wind turbines. I am happy to answer specific questions and explain.

Regarding ERoEI, it is important for the long term sustainability with a high penetration of renewables - i./e renewables are not sustainable for the reasons previously discussed. But at low penetrations, ERoEI is no the cause of the high cost of intermittent renewables, IMO.