Protagoras - glanced briefly at your link. It doesn't disprove anything. The installed capacity reported, although its sounds impressive, actually doesn't not add up to much world wide, and they quote estimates for power generation by wind that is wildly wrong. Nor are they concerned with trying to make wind power effective. The energy authorities who actually have to deal with the stuff, all say the same thing - which I've reported - sorry..

As for the comment by another writer about making electrical equipment able to work on a range of voltages I can't see that it would make the slightest difference to this enormous problem with wind. Wild swings in the output voltage don't seem like a good idea.. but please give further details, I'll certainly read it.

Mark,

Your ideas are (mostly) similar to those that have been promoted by a number of people (both inside the industry and outside) about the added complications of balancing supplies with an increasing amount of variable (and unpredictable) wind generation.

This does add to the cost of power supplies (because of the shadow capacity required, as you say). There is much work being done around the world to see how this can be reduced. Everyone has their own point of view, and there is no commonly accepted "truth" in terms of the scale of the cost.

However, you then make a fundamental flaw in confusing the measure of MW (megawatts - an instantaneous measure) with MWh (megawatthours - a unit of volume, if you like).

You are JUST PLAIN WRONG if you state that a MWh of wind power is not a MWh saved from "black" power. I see you are the editor of AFR's "Carbon Quarterly", in which case I would think you really should understand the difference.

Your point that wind power is more expensive than simply the installed capacity cost is true (because of the back up required), but this is talking about a capital cost (i.e. $/MW). When a wind turbine does produce a MWh of generation then (just like any other generation source) this DOES REPLACE the need to source it elsewhere.

The organisation you refer to is the Clean Energy Council (not the "Green" Energy Council) and the website is here
http://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/

Also, "Undidly" you might want to check this out for an explanation of why maintaining frequency is important in interconnected electricity systems:
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/Public/Article.aspx?aid=66#_Toc221058950
Your ideas are just a little simplistic!

Hope this helps.

Cheers

ClarkKent

"Also, "Undidly" you might want to check this out for an explanation of why maintaining frequency is important in interconnected electricity systems:
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/Public/Article.aspx?aid=66#_Toc221058950
Your ideas are just a little simplistic!"

I said nothing about frequency changing.
If the system is overloaded then the frequency would drop.
Load shedding puts it back where is was,50 Hz here in Australia.
The article is interesting and agrees with my post.
Modern power electronics can easily and cheaply compensate for varying voltage and undo any effect of wind energy changes.

"UNDO any effect of voltage changes."
The frequency stays the same BECAUSE the voltage change is corrected.

As with most debates related to renewable energy sources, the focus is on the scientific detail, mega thingies per whatsits. Diving into content serves no purpose other that to demonstate the undoubted technical knowledge that each side uses to substantiate their case or to refute that of another.

Why can't we learn from those nations that have tried renewable sources over many years?

Why is there no instance of wind farms being run by the private energy generators? Could it be because there is no financial return on investment therefore only political (public money) decisions support it? Is that why the Europeans have described renewables as "eye wateringly inefficient and expensive"? Could the fact that every single wind turbine built with cost 1.5 million euros to decomission? the massive concrete foundation and land fill/restorations are not included in that figure.Could that be why the Swedish government has decided to go nuclear?

Surely we can learn something from those who have been there, done that? What are we, myopic lemmings

Clark Kent - there was no confusion over Megawatt hours and megawatt. If you go back to the article you will see I was simply referring to the output of power stations at a given time.. the megawatt hour thing is a measure of output over time.. I made no attempt to discuss total contributions of generators. Take you point on clean and green however - my apologies..

Spindoc - yes we are learning from nations who have been using renewables for years.. that's the point of the article. We have at least some chance of designing a renewables system that will make a contribution, rather than just be symbolic. At the moment we are heading towards symbolism..

Power stations are only part of the strategies to reduce CO2, therefore one straw does not make for a whole broom. Other industries emit equally as much, if not more specific carbon pollutants (plus other hazardous compounds) than the electricity sector.

Nevertheless, given the time constraints in building just one nuclear reactor, Toshiba, General Electric et al will now need to find a way to physically and economically supply a world’s appetite for nuclear components - a virtual impossibility considering the urgency, time lags for construction and the gargantuan costs for construction and decommissioning.

With regard to spindoc's claim on Sweden, the UK’s Guardian media reported that Jean McSorley, a senior nuclear adviser at Greenpeace stated: "No way can this be seen as a ringing endorsement given the parties concerned only hold 180 of 349 seats. The largest party in Sweden is still against nuclear and the people are not enamoured by it either,"

Additionally, Swedish ministers have also outlined plans to lift the proportion of renewable energy consumption to 50% of the total. In the transport sector alone, the target was set at 10% and Sweden has become a major importer of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. Sweden already gets much of its power from hydroelectric and biomass schemes.

The new energy package also included plans to expand wind power and tough new taxes on CO2 and energy.

Nuclear may be attractive to those countries which do not mine uranium. Australia has a disgraceful past and present record in its uranium industry and is one of deadly deceit which appears not to concern unscrupulous corporate lemmings or successive governments.

Currently, ERA’s Ranger mine in the NT is leaking about 100,000 litres of contaminated water every day, which is seeping from a tailings dam at the mine.

Industry captive and NT Resources Minister, Con Vatskalis said: "The Ranger Uranium Mine is one of the most strictly regulated uranium mines in Australia and the Office of the Supervising Scientist is controlling, is supervising, very strictly the mine," he said.

“So whats happening at the less supervised uranium mines, Mr Vatskalis?”