This message will sell better if it wasn't bundled with climate change denial. The point remains though that wind power is already generously subsidised to the tune of $52 a Mwh via the LGC payment. That is added to generating costs in retail bills while coal power is generally under $40 all up on a wholesale basis. Now wind power interests want soft loans from CEFC as well as the generous subsidy.

From of the point of view of emissions reduction wind power is not that great. At 15% penetration studies suggest it is only 60% effective at reducing emissions from the backup source due to the inefficiencies of stop-start operation. Wind power also lets us down at times of need such as heat waves associated with blocking highs. In my opinion it's not worth one subsidy let alone two.

Don, can you please name one or two large scale coal fired power stations built in Australia that did not receive government support?

Cobber the Hound - where does this nonsense come from? Its the other way around. Can you name any conventional power station that receives support, part from a tax break or two, which does not count? Where did you get the idea that the government subsidised power stations? You want to make an effort to catch up with the history of power networks in Australia and the very recent change from state owned grids returning dividends to state governments, to the semi-privatised system where they bid to supply power. Then look at the Australian Energy Regulator's benchmarking reports comparing Vic (privatised) and NSW (still government owed) grids..

Once in a while we can actually agree on something Don!

Wind power is far too unreliable unless used to store power when it is being generated or when the turbines are placed in a narrow band where the wind blows all the time,i.e., the roaring forties?

All of which makes the so called alternatives the dearest electricity on earth.

With the "GREEN" philosophy being, send a price signal and behavior will change! i.e.,our impoverished grannies will refuse to put on the air conditioners and die of heat stroke, with the very next heat wave.

Not a bad outcome eh?

We get the required behavior change and we reduce the welfare budget in one fowl swoop; plus we send all our manufacturing and their pollution offshore!

Albeit, given we live on a single globe, still share it with the rest of the world. We just don't see it!

You can see by the intended result, the permanently errant Greens have really thought this through!?

We just don't need the "renewables" to reduce carbon.

What will far better suffice is walk out the door carbon neutral or carbon free power!

And the very best examples will allow us to cut the power bill in at least half! And in so doing, resuscitate our own manufacturing base!

Cheaper than coal thorium connected to micro grids will do just that; and turning our biological waste into methane then using that via ceramic fuel cells to power our homes as well as provide endless free hot water, will halve the power bill yet again.

Thanks to the 80% energy coefficient of this combination; the best in the world, coal providing at best just a comparable 20%! Or Granny killing power bills 4 times more expensive!

Very broad scale solar thermal power matches the roll out cost of coal fired power stations and matches them as base load power suppliers given very recent technological advances! And the fuel is forever free!

All ofthe above are far better options for proof of concept investment with finite taxpayer's money!

None of which will destroy the economy!
Rhrosty.

I don't suppose there's a chance that subsidies paid to rent seekers for windmills will be repaid to taxayers?

Home solar with ever efficient-cheaper home batteries is the best answer.

Batteries may soon allow a significant number of homes to go off the grid - hence not reliant on power station backup.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/13/battery-costs-may-drop-100kwh

Plantagenet, when you have some of those batteries, with a minimum of 10 years satisfactory & proven economical history, do give me a call.

Prior to that I'll stick to reliable coal powered electricity, which has the advantage of helping in a minor way, to return the planet to an adequate level plant feeding CO2 in the atmosphere.

Aging batteries are just not as reliable as bladder stored methane made from the average family's biological waste!

Used to power up a ceramic fuel cell, costing around the same as the battery wall, most families produce enough waste to cater to their entire power needs needs 24/7, and given the massive energy coefficient of the gas powered ceramic fuel cell (80%) produce a (50%) salable surplus!?

Plus free hot water day and night!

Given I already have a roof full of solar panels the batteries can't get cheap enough soon enough!
I don't believe I'm alone in resenting the hell out of being a captive cash cow for a patently dishonest energy supplier who has clearly reneged on the deal I signed up for when the panels were installed. which resulted in the meter wind backwards, earning me around $50.00 a month!
Not what the power authority wanted?

Given they replaced the old meter, which was perfectly fine before I installed the panels, with another all over the place electronic meter, which just didn't register my surplus?

And destroyed my modest contribution ( a very fair unsubsidized 8 cents per kilowatt hour) to the grid and instead started to charge me (around $ 50.00 a month) once again!

This in spite of the fact based on last year's averages the system was designed to produce more Kilowatts per month than I ever used last year!

And reminiscent of moving the goal posts once the kick had been taken, or being gazumped by another buyer when the contract had been signed?

This sort of caveat emptor power company response, is sure to force as many people as can somehow afford to do so; buy batteries and go completely off the grid; with or without the power authorities permission!

Waiting to see what that will do to an already dropping power company profit graph line; given enough of us are being treated like the proverbial mushroom?

I mean I used to work for a power authority and there's an electrician in the family!

"Honesty" is it's own reward!
Rhrosty.

No worries Hasy.

Footnote: The Aussie invented ceramic fuel cell produces mostly pristine water vapor as the exhaust product; regardless of the source of methane! Be it homemade biogas or CSG or NG!

Me I'd opt for endlessly sustainable homemade biogas and all the other advantages it confers, including getting most folks off the ultra costly gold plated grid!
Rhrosty.

There are very few countries if any that do not utilize wind on a commercial scale and numerous have achieved 15% or better and a few close to 50%. Currently the world is producing 330 Gw/hr of wind power and rising fast. A number of contributors on this forum seem to think they know something the rest of the world does not know. I suggest the following sites as giving some basic information on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Economics

The bottom line is wind power is very close to achieving price parity with new fossil power generators, but without the pollution problems associated with burning and mining fossil fuels. Wind power when combined with solar, hydro and biomass is perfectly viable . The energy needed to cover the building and construction of a modern wind turbine takes less than 3 months of generation to recover, but will continue to produce power for at least 20 years, which is a massive energy gain overall, don't yourself to be bamboozled amateurs talking about ERoEI.

Some erroneous ides pushed on this thread are
1 Renewables push up the price of power,
Wrong because there are no fuel costs which allows them to always under cut the fossil fuel generators especially during peek periods thus putting downward pressure on prices.
2 Wind needs too much back power
Wrong because this issue applies to all forms of power when a massive fossil fuel station goes down they can put the whole system at risk. Wind units being smaller and more geographical diverse is less of a problem.

Rhosty

Maybe you missed my last post to you, but please let me know what "endlessly sustainable homemade biogas" you have (or are planning on) investing in? Is this commercialized or just at concept stage?

warmair - again the material you are trying to peddle has all been disproved. You must check activist material - including wikipedia - against other sources. The business about wind being cost competitive only applies on a per output basis. When renewables are part of a network they have to be heavily subsidised, or there has to be legislation compelling its use. I have written about this issue, as Mark Lawson, on this site.

Without both compulsion and/or subisidies there is no hope of wind power being used on a network in anything other than small amounts.

Hydroelectric with Solar and wind power pumping water back to the top of the dam problem solved no batteries required
Putting all our energy production in small areas whats wrong with solar cells spread over the top of the water on the dam ?
Combine all 3 and you have a good supply even in drier regions
I think this is the future of power not separate identies

Cobber the Beattie Labor government in Queensland ripped a quarter of a billion, yes billion dollars a year out of the government power generation sector, then demanded a "special dividend" of half a billion when he got into budgetary trouble with stupid spending. Some subsidy hey!

We had a falling down ramshackle network, with a billion required to fix the polls & wires when we got rid of him & his sidekick.

God help us if the Greens & Labor get their hands on national government in less than 3 terms of sensible government. You can see the stupidity in every interview with Palaszczuk up here.

Lets hope Tony keeps his aspiration to shut down spending on fool windmills.

Don, I can still ride my old horse, just give me a lance, & I'll get a few.

Curmudgeon
No I am not convinced by activist material and particularly that put out by the anti wind lobby. Once a wind power turbine has been built it can always undercut all forms of power that have to use or pay for fuel, simply because there are no fuel costs, wind has in fact being responsible for putting downward pressure on power prices especially during peek periods.

The issue of backup is not that much of an issue as all forms of power require back up, even coal power stations in Australia are online only 87% of the time. When a large power station breaks down whether it is fossil or nuclear it creates big problems and they don't give any warning either for an extreme example see the Fukushima disaster.

Simplistic garbage warmair.

There are thousand of broken down useless windmill eyesores in California, because the huge operating subsidies had a sunset clause built in.

The moment the subsidies stop flowing the owners walked away, abandoning the things. They could not earn the cost of maintenance, & were nothing but a liability.

There is no windmill yet developed that is worth erecting. They are a total loss & only a business proposition for the smarties, if most of the initial cost is paid by taxpayers, & large subsidies keep flowing, whether they produce power or not.

Hasbeen, are you referring to those old wind turbines from the1980s that are much smaller than the current ones and were dangerous to eagles because they used truss towers which looked like attractive nesting sites?

Technology has moved on. The economics of wind power are a lot better now than when those were built.

Yes Aidan, the technology has moved on, making those eyesores bigger & much more expensive, but every bit as useless without huge subsidies.