Aiden, I am certain that you know that if you put up a wind generator
and the wind blows it produces the cheapest power. We all agree with that.
I am also certain that you know the same applies to solar cells.

However your comments suggest to me that you think that is all there is to it.
You must know if you build a complete system like that you do not just
divide the maximum demand by the nameplate rating of a wind generator
and that tells you how many you install.
Your comments suggest that is what you suggest.
I find it hard to accept that is what you believe.

ALTRAV,
You seem to have a Trumpian delusion about what facts and truth are!

Facts are always true, so if you ignore the facts in favour of what you assume to be true, and dismiss real developments as "crap" (as you have done) you will remain ignorant for ever.

Yes, moving parts need maintaining. The generation companies do factor this into their calculations.

As for the idea that windmills equate to visual pollution is at best subjective and more likely downright silly. Fossil fuel burning power stations look far worse IMO.

And what's with the strawman about cooling towers? Nobody here said anything other than steam comes out of them, whether or not the power station they're part of is nuclear.

I'm not opposed to nuclear power, BTW. But nor am I willing to exaggerate the case for it – and because of that, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't make economic sense in the Australian context.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Bazz,

It is your bias, not my comments, which suggests to you that you "just
divide the maximum demand by the nameplate rating of a wind generator
and that tells you how many you install".

If you were less biased, and therefore considered my comments more carefully, perhaps you'd understand that, even with power from fossil fuels, nameplate capacity seldom equates to actual demand. Whether you get your power from renewables or fossil fuels, storage or peaking capacity will always be needed.

Aidan, you believe what you want, I'll stick with the truth.
You're too invested in this renewable farce, stop being subjective, and believing in what makes YOU feel good and be objective about what you hear and read.
I'm now going to give you a lesson in how facts DO NOT equal truths.
For example someone is standing over a dead blood covered body with blood on his hands, holding the very knife that killed the deceased.
Now, typically, our moronic, useless law enforcement officers immediately charge the man standing over the body with murder.
They don't bother doing the work and studying the facts of the case with the purpose of finding the TRUTH behind this murder.
So, the facts are clear to them, that the accused is the murderer, but the truth is he happened upon the body and picked up the knife, for whatever reason.
This scenario is not a fiction, it actually happened and continues to happen.
So Aidan, still want to keep pushing the lie that facts are always true?
They are only true as facts, not as fait accompli.
Your lesson for today is, "facts do not tell the full or true story".
Like any story they are made up of a lot of facts which on their own mean nothing, only the correct assembly of the facts tell the true story, or the TRUTH!

Aiden, the way you quoted my post gives the impression that is what
I believe.
I realise that you do understand that multiples of the numeric division
have to be installed. That it is needed to have multiple times the
simple division that makes wind & solar the most likely the most
expensive of all electricity generation systems.
This also results in a higher capacity & expensive grid.
Then the smaller the area of the grid the greater the multiplication
needed as the chances of getting sufficient wind somewhere reduces.
The increase in the multiplication I suspect, although I cannot prove it,
is exponentially inversely proportional to the reduction in the grid area.
Do you dispute that possibility ?

A fact is something that is indisputable based
on empirical research and quantifiable measure.
Facts go beyond theories. They're proven through
calculation and experience.

Truth is entirely different. It is based on belief.
It may include fact but often times people will accept
things as true because they fall closer to their
comfort zones or reflect their pre-conceived notions
of reality.

Facts help to determine what is true and what is not.

You've made my point as usual, repeating someone else's words or comments another futile attempt to make yours.
Quoting excerpts from dictionaries or other publications do not maketh you right.
Anyone with a modicum of maturity and common sense will scoff at your inane attempt to win the point.
Sorry, don't bother, I and most others know what I said and agree with me.
You sound just like the law enforcement in general, who must win at all cost and no concern for the TRUTH!
Foxy, just give it a rest, every now and then.
You have become well beyond wearisome and many of us here have been more than patient and tolerant of your continual flaunting and covert indignations.
But don't fret, whilst I can, I will always be here to set you and your followers straight.
I sense that this will continue ad infinitum if left unchecked.
I am now needed in another place, so I bid you all adieu.