Aiden;
In some cases it would be possible to install a higher capacity
generator on the wind turbine.

It would increase the possible maximum o/p .
The annual capacity factor would be the same, same wind.
However that 37.4% would be a bigger 37.4% !
Got it ?

Hasbeen,
Dispachability and reliability are two very different things, and the renewables are reliable no matter how many times you push the lie that they're not. As for the real unreliables, I had not considered the unreliability of NSW's coal fired power stations to be a reason for building Snowy 2.0, but I guess it makes sense - they've been breaking down a lot.

What do you mean about "buying out Victoria"?

Despite their unwise decision to phase out nuclear power, Germany's transition to renewables is far from a catastrophe. Though they had some reliability problems a few years ago, those have all been fixed.

The UK is not trying to phase out nuclear power, though there's a limit to how long the lifespan of their reactors can be extended, and obtaining commercially viable replacements has been problematic. Nor is there a policy of closing gas fired power stations - occasionally old ones close, but new ones open. And though they want to phase them out eventually, new ones open. There's a policy of phasing them out eventually, but it will not be at the expense of reliability.

Britain has been buying nuclear power from France for man decades, due to it being cheap (as the costs of their power stations were inflated away in the 1970s).

Have the French REALLY threatened to stop exporting electricity to the UK? A quick Google search revealed speculation that they could do, but no reports of them actually making that threat.

The cost of global warming, if nothing is done about it, will be in the quadrillions. Fossil fuels have to be replaced, and in most (though not all) cases, renewables can do the job more cheaply than nuclear power.

Bazz,
>It would increase the possible maximum o/p .
Correct. However that would only make a difference in VERY windy conditions.
Most of the time, the output would be the same.
Therefore the capacity factor would be lower.
Got it?

As far as the global warming goes, obviously I do not KNOW what the
truth is and I doubt anyone here does.
All we can do is try to understand what the various groups say is the
cause of the rise in temperature.
The "settled" theory is that it is ALL caused by CO2.
"settled" in the sense that a majority have accepted a CO2 cause.
However it so happens that the temperature rise has occurred at the
same time as a rise could be expected due to a long term well known
cycle whose last peak was known as the Medieval Warming Period around
900AD 1300 AD. Midway between then and now, the late 18th century to
early 19th century was known as the Maunder Minimum.
At that time the climate was colder and the sunspot count was lower
than usual.

As the Maunder Minimum climate temperature increased it coincided
with the increase in CO2 due to industrialisation with the burning of coal.
The length of the cycle appears to be between 600 years and 1000 years.
The current warm peak is believed to have occurred around mid 1990s.

Significant Dates:
Roman Warming 100 BC to 300 AD Grapes grown in Scotland by Romans.
Dark Ages 300AD 800AD
Medieval Warming 800AD 1300AD Vikings settle Greenland.
1400 AD Vikings leave Greenland.
1790 to 1840 Maunder Minimum Thames freezes over every year
1814 Last year London's Ice Festival held on Thames.
1950 to ? Global warming
Next cold period 2600 ?

I understand that all the above will offend the
sensitivities of some people so I can only apologise.
Plenty of info available. Search Turku & Kobe Universities
on the subject Henrik Svenmark for original work regarding Cosmic Rays
and clouds.
The authors have been attacked of course for their suggestion that
CO2 has only caused a rise of 0.1 deg C.
Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi are the Finnish scientists at Turku
University in Helsinki.
Kauppinen was a member of the IPCC.

Aiden said'
Most of the time, the output would be the same.
Therefore the capacity factor would be lower.
Got it?

No, because for the same windspeed the output would be higher
therefore the Capacity Factor would be unchanged.
Bigger turbines, bigger blades.
OK ?

For gods sake Aidan, just try to keep your lights on if connected to nothing but wind & solar power.

The fact that you have to spend tens of billions backing up renewables with coal, gas & some form of incredibly expensive storage system proves they can't do the job. If that is not seen as unreliability in your eyes, you must be totally blind.