What is not amazing but rather all too typical is such characterization of the entire opposition to industrial wind power by one imperfect aspect of it and then using that example to divert attention from the actual argument at hand.

I completely agree with blair about coal and nuclear. Their problems are well known, and opposition to them is already well organized and long established. Industrial wind development is relatively new. It does not distract from the facts about coal and nuclear to also point out the shortcomings of big wind.

Eric, I'd submit that most of the people who have contributed to this forum have attempted to learn at least a little about wind energy, and, they would accept wind energy is not perfect or the complete solution to our energy needs.

The disappointing thing about this discussion is that valid concerns about wind energy are not always applied with equal vigour to existing power sources or other renewable alternatives. If you can name a technology that was perfect from its inception and has not evolved at all, please enlighten us all.

You do not promote practical, available, renewable alternatives that can compete with wind (other than hydro, which in Australia has limited growth potential anyway, unlike wind). You do not acknowledge wind energy is an evolving technology and you consistently portray wind energy proponents as people who ignore its shortcomings.

It's the typical ploy of wind energy opponents and very transparent.

I hope wind, solar, wave and other renewable technologies provide increasing percentages of our energy needs and I'll be encouraging their development. Wind energy is growing around the world. Get over it.

One of the things that stands out about wind is its apparent inability to replace other sources. That is a big shortcoming. At least other sources -- renewable and otherwise -- produce useful electricity for the grid, so there is something against which to weigh the costs. As for the growth of the wind energy business, religious fundamentalism is growing around the world, too. That in itself does not make it right or true. The fact of the issue at hand is that the industry has yet to show any evidence of actual benefit from wind power on the grid. Their massive erections seem more like the giant statues on Rapa Nui, a desperate but very wrongheaded effort to fend off environmental disaster.

Thank you Eric for demonstrating so completely, the points I made previously.

Allan MacRae is an engineer from Canada. This is what he wrote on the subject:

Unfortunately, wind energy just does not work economically, except perhaps in certain remote locations. The key is the abysmally low "Substitution Capacity", for example, it is now 8% in Germany, and is projected to drop to 4% by 2020. Substitution Capacity is the percentage of conventional electric power generation capacity that can be permanently idled by adding wind power capacity to the grid. So they will have to build 100 MW of wind capacity to idle just 4 MW of conventional generation.

This is all explained in the excellent report
E.On Netz Wind Power Report 2005
http://www.eon-netz.com/EONNETZ_eng.jsp

For more information please see Figure 7 - "Falling substitution capacity".

Wind Variability and Grid Operability are related problems. The E.on report further states on page 8: Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year at 6,024MW,it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours,a difference of over 4,000MW.This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks.

The rapid growth of wind power can be attributed entirely to excessive, foolish government subsidies. Once the complete stupidity of these subsidies becomes apparent, governments will cease paying them and many wind farms will go bankrupt.

end of quote

What will farmers do, with a bankrupt windfarm on their property?

Mark

I am amazed at the mentality, "if we cannot have all renewable energy we will have none. My son lives in remote Australia, and has just installed solar power, now his diesal generator only runs for up to 4 hours per day instead of 24. On your premise he should have stuck with burning up diesal 24 hours.
I live with noise in one of the windyest parts of Australia, often woken at night, other times the roar of the waves. It would be a delight to occassionally wake to a turbine and know atleast it is doing some good for future generations.
I ask you all to open your minds and learn about modern renewable energy, not that of 30 years ago. Grandmother