Mark Duchamp is right.

The intermittent output of wind generators has to be backed up by other generators in the system which means that "megawatt hour for megawatt hour" wind does not displace other generation. The coal saved is 40% or less of the amount consumed by a coal fired power station to generate 1 MWh.

The wind industry and its often uninformed but well-meaning environmentalist supporters, often claim that wind does not need this backup. State politicians make extravagant claims for CO2 savings that are often based on 100% displacement of coal. Either they are poorly advised, or they know the facts, but will not let them get in the way of the naive green vote.

In the future, large capacity battery and other technologies might overcome the intermittent problem with wind but they will probably be expensive and not competitive with emerging low emissions coal generation.

Wind generation would not be viable without the consumer subsidies provided by the MRET and proposed similar state schemes. Under MRET the electricity distribution companies have to accept wind output, despite its high cost and variability, or pay a substantial penalty.

Renewable energy systems such as direct solar hot water, hydro, tidal impoundment and geothermal, include energy storage and in some cases may be far more environmentally friendly and cost-effective for consumers than wind. Pity we did not get a proper debate about it, before being lumbered with wind "because it is a mature technology".

Hopefully, the forthcoming debate on nuclear electricity generation will be focused on facts and warts and not corporate PR and uninformed overstatement. At least we will get an informed debate before the event, which we did not get with wind

The Howard Governemt are environmental joke.
They would rather spent 500+ million on screwing Australian workers.
A real leader would spend this money on renewable energy and skills shortage, chilcare etc etc. Now they want to sell Snowy Hydro. Wake up Howard voters, its time to rise.

And so the Government appointed review panel is stacked in favour of the cost effectiveness of the Nuclear debate.

Figures are now being release that the uranium resources would be used up in 24 years.

This suggests that a review should be done on our current methods of energy supply and alternatives, such as solar, which is abundance in Australia because these resources will out last 24 years.

Current technologies with our current energies such as coal are now available to curb green house omissions.

A popular radio identity brings up consistently in his review the use of ethanol blends.

It seems America is going into full swing with production of this alternative fuel.

Australia plans to have just a few by 2015.

Does this suggest that America will be the major distributor and controller of production?

Forget about self sufficiency or the ability to sustains our own Nations efficiency.

The government could install grid connected solar power on all suitable homes across Australia and it would most likely be cheaper than building 5 nuclear power stations. The benefitt would be very little maintenance and no dangerous waste.

Well Sly, a good idea but not very practicle.
It means banks of batteries at every home, business premises, hospitals, workplaces, shops etc etc etc.
I have my doubts on whether the raw materials are available to produce this massive amount of batteries, solar cells, switchgear needed and where are the electrical workers that would be needed to install and maintain such a system ?

An enormous factory would be needed just to manufacture replacement batteries. We do it now for cars, but this suggestion is a multi scale up compared to cars.

These reasons are why we have central generating stations now.
The maintenance work does not go up linearly with the power rating.

Baz

Whoops, sorry, not Sly but Suebdootoo is where my reply should have been addressed.
Bazz