Sven L, please provide evidence that fuel purchases by utilities decrease due to wind power on the grid. Denmark does not "get" 20% of its electricity from wind. The correct statement is that wind produces 20% of the electricity generated in Denmark. It is well known that most of it has to be exported to Sweden, where it displaces hydro, as it would on any system that has enough hydro. Without hydro, the rest of the grid just has to work harder to balance the inconstant wind. If there's enough to require reducing relatively efficient base load plants, then other plants have to be run more than they would have been without wind. The extra switching and ramping also increases their emissions. In other words, the lack of effect on fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions is not hard to understand.

Forecasting is indeed always improving, but it can provide only a general picture, not the minute to minute fluctuations.

Insisting on sensitive siting can hardly be construed as an endorsement -- it's simply dealing with reality. If the juggernaut's coming to town, whether one likes it or not, one ought to none the less ensure that its damage is minimal.

OK Eric, you want evidence, how about the report titled "Assessment of greenhouse gas abatement from windfarms in Victoria" by Maclellan Magazanik & Associates, July 2006, which showed that on average each megawatt hour of electricity from wind power means 1 tonne less greenhouse gas is produced. It also showed that Victoria's existing wind farms are reducing our greenhouse gas output by 250,000 tonnes per year on average.

Sure, it's not a simple sum like 1 MWh from wind equals 1 MWh less from brown coal, but it makes a significant difference & if Australia can be bothered, we can improve the system so that zero-emission sources of electricity like wind are given priority in the grid, rather than the dinosaur coal burners.

And don't give me that rubbish about power stations suffering for the addition of wind. The electricity grid is designed to cope with infinite changes in supply & demand. Is it the wind industry's fault if the coal industry can't keep up?

Or maybe you would rather we just kept digging stuff out of the ground & burning it until there's nothing left to burn.

It's time to do things differently to the ways they've been done in the past. Even if you don't believe in global warming, do you really think it's a good idea that we pump so much crap into the skies every day?

As for Denmark, let me get this straight - you're saying that because the elctricity crosses a border it no longer counts?

Come on, let's look for benefits, not nit-pick for problems.

That is not evidence. It is an assertion. It is untested and not even based on existing evidence.

There are 2 points about Denmark's dependence on international connectors: 1) the wind penetration is effectively 1 or 2% not 20%; 2) the system seeks hydro to balance to the wind, thus minimizing even any theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Europe-wide blackout of November 4th was largely a result of windpower. First, the windfarms tripped automatically when frequency dropped a notch. Then, automatically again, they tripped back into the grid when frequency was restored, thus causing more problems.

Here is a quote from the conclusion of the UCTE interim report on the causes of this major, unprecedented power outage in Europe:

"Generally, the uncontrolled behavior of generation (mainly
wind farms and combined-heat-and-power) during the disturbance complicated the process of reestablishing normal system conditions."

Another quote:

"During the disturbance, a significant amount of generation units tripped due to the frequency drop in the system which resulted in the increased imbalance. Most of this generation is connected to the
distribution grid (especially wind and combined-heat-and-power)."

And another:

"However the automatic restarting of a considerable amount of wind generation in the North part of Germany was not immediately compensated by a corresponding amount of decreased generation in
thermal or hydro power plants."

It thus appears that windpower acted like a loose cannon. And here is a final quote:

"One actual example of changing generation patterns is due to the rapid development of wind generation characterized by a short term predictability: within a few hours, the production of wind
farms can change from minimum to maximum and conversely."

www.ucte.org/news/e_default.asp

click here for the report:

30.11.2006 - UCTE releases detailed Interim Report on the disturbances of 4 November – sequence of events, root causes and critical factors identified

OK Mark Duchamp, let me get this straight: you're saying that wind farms caused the big European blackout, but you back up the claim with quotes that only say ONE complicating factor of RE-STARTING the system was the result of wind AND OTHER SOURCES.

Let's get serious here - you're not criticising wind energy, you're criticising the electricity distribution system which, like the coal-based generators, is so old that it's in desperate need of being updated.

So why don't we concentrate our energies on improving the infrastructure so that ALL forms of electrcity generation, especially the non-polluting ones, can be easily accommodated.

Unless of course you have some kind of vested interest in seeing clean energy shut out of the picture altogether ... which might explain why you bother writing to small regional newspapers on the other side of the world claiming to be an expert in their issues.....

Sound familiar, Mark?

The problem remains that management of the grid can not include telling wind turbines when or how much electricity to produce (you can't tell the wind when to blow). It can only shut them down when they start to surge, but that is generally opposed as it would reduce their already very low capacity factor.