A couple of videos, brought to my attention by a Canadian contact:

Wind power works in the grid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m294sS-4m0g
and won't kill you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spba-L0gm88
despite what some might say
http://www.thecomedychannel.com.au/shows/the-colbert-report/video.html?playlist=2069957822001#1972334634001

Can it power a large city.......????????

IS there an example in the world yet.......????????

Yes, it can. For example Wind Power is 21% of total baseload in Denmark.  China has over 70 Gigawatts of installed wind power, which is more than the total electricity generation capacity in Australia.

It's also cheaper than conventional coal generation in a number of countries.

I was involved in lots of agricultural managed investments, all of them failed

If the government had the same deal for windfarms we would be selling electricity from this country.

I would be happy to have a windfarm on my property, however its not the most reliable place for wind.
When the east breeze starts in about November we could probably power half the state however

Offshore wind generation in Europe seems to be the most cost effective.

Well we are sending everything else offshore why not power generation

I mean in the middle of the sea. That's what Denmark have.

muso wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 8:09pm:

Yes, it can. For example Wind Power is 21% of total baseload in Denmark.  China has over 70 Gigawatts of installed wind power, which is more than the total electricity generation capacity in Australia. It's also cheaper than conventional coal generation in a number of countries.

Then why is a coal fired power station going up every week in China......???????

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 10:43am:

muso wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 8:09pm: Yes, it can. For example Wind Power is 21% of total baseload in Denmark.  China has over 70 Gigawatts of installed wind power, which is more than the total electricity generation capacity in Australia. It's also cheaper than conventional coal generation in a number of countries. Then why is a coal fired power station going up every week in China......???????

Because China's economy is growing rapidly.

And while coal is still used there - it's importance in China's energy production is declining:

China’s generation capacity will more than double to 2030, with half of all new plants powered by renewable energy and coal remaining the most important fuel, analysts said...While coal-fired capacity will drop as renewables and gas generation rise, the fuel’s share in the power mix will remain highest at 58 percent in 2030, down from 72 percent last year, according to BNEF.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/china-power-seen-doubling-with-renewables-as-coal-holds-sway.html


China is changing.

Why aren't we?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 11:37am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:43am: muso wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 8:09pm: Yes, it can. For example Wind Power is 21% of total baseload in Denmark.  China has over 70 Gigawatts of installed wind power, which is more than the total electricity generation capacity in Australia. It's also cheaper than conventional coal generation in a number of countries. Then why is a coal fired power station going up every week in China......??????? Because China's economy is growing rapidly. And while coal is still used there - it's importance in China's energy production is declining: China’s generation capacity will more than double to 2030, with half of all new plants powered by renewable energy and coal remaining the most important fuel, analysts said...While coal-fired capacity will drop as renewables and gas generation rise, the fuel’s share in the power mix will remain highest at 58 percent in 2030, down from 72 percent last year, according to BNEF. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/china-power-seen-doubling-with-renewables-as-coal-holds-sway.html China is changing. Why aren't we?

China emits 25% of all Human CO2 emissions.

Australia emits 1.5% of all Human CO2 emissions.

Whether we stop or not will not make one little bit of difference to the overall world Human CO2 emissions.

So why impose such a heavy burden on Australian industry..???

muso wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Offshore wind generation in Europe seems to be the most cost effective.

Really....not everyone blindly agrees it seems

http://stopthesethings.com/2013/08/29/the-great-wind-power-fraud-a-tale-from-two-continents/

its probably not a peer pal reviewed site Muso, guess you'll diss the authors for some reason, presumably because they have the audacity to call bullsh1t on this 15th century technology.

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 11:43am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 11:37am: Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:43am: muso wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 8:09pm: Yes, it can. For example Wind Power is 21% of total baseload in Denmark.  China has over 70 Gigawatts of installed wind power, which is more than the total electricity generation capacity in Australia. It's also cheaper than conventional coal generation in a number of countries. Then why is a coal fired power station going up every week in China......??????? Because China's economy is growing rapidly. And while coal is still used there - it's importance in China's energy production is declining: China’s generation capacity will more than double to 2030, with half of all new plants powered by renewable energy and coal remaining the most important fuel, analysts said...While coal-fired capacity will drop as renewables and gas generation rise, the fuel’s share in the power mix will remain highest at 58 percent in 2030, down from 72 percent last year, according to BNEF. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/china-power-seen-doubling-with-renewables-as-coal-holds-sway.html China is changing. Why aren't we? China emits 25% of all Human CO2 emissions. Australia emits 1.5% of all Human CO2 emissions. Whether we stop or not will not make one little bit of difference to the overall world Human CO2 emissions. So why impose such a heavy burden on Australian industry..???

Yes.

And China represents 19% of all Humans
Australia represents 0.3% of all Humans

On average, very single Australian emits about 4 times more than every Chinese person.

Whether we stop or not will make quite a significant difference to the overall world Human CO2 emissions.  SInce we are amongst the world's worst polluters - unless we stop, why would anyone else?

And what is this "heavy burden on Australian industry" you are talking about?
How is switching to renewable resources without ongoing fuel costs a "heavy burden"?  Seems like a  sensible choice to me.  And to China - that is why they are using more and more renewables.

Why aren't we?

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 10:43am:

muso wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 8:09pm: Yes, it can. For example Wind Power is 21% of total baseload in Denmark.  China has over 70 Gigawatts of installed wind power, which is more than the total electricity generation capacity in Australia. It's also cheaper than conventional coal generation in a number of countries. Then why is a coal fired power station going up every week in China......???????

Why aren't you focusing your complaints on the USA?

The USA generates about 30% of the worlds pollution and waste. The USA also consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources. And yet only make up about 5% of the worlds population.

The morality is in the per capita emission of carbon. Australia is number 1 in the world on a per capita basis. On a gross or net basis australa is still ranked 17th in the world.

And you want to point fingers at other developing nations?

muso wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 8:09pm:

Yes, it can. For example Wind Power is 21% of total baseload in Denmark.  China has over 70 Gigawatts of installed wind power, which is more than the total electricity generation capacity in Australia. It's also cheaper than conventional coal generation in a number of countries.

Yeah right, read all about how bl00dy good it is here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html

wind power....great for cottage industries

Rider wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 1:15pm:

... http://stopthesethings.com/2013/08/29/the-great-wind-power-fraud-a-tale-from-two-continents/ its probably not a peer pal reviewed site Muso, guess you'll diss the authors for some reason, presumably because they have the audacity to call bullsh1t on this 15th century technology.

Of "Stop These Things", Sourcewatch says
Quote:

Stop These Things (STT) is an anti-wind website promoting anecdotes and pseudoscience intended to cast doubt on the effectiveness of wind energy. The website also promotes claims alleging people living in close proximity to wind turbines suffer assorted detrimental health conditions. The creator and moderator of the website is unknown and unaccountable yet readily posts any unfounded, ill informed attack, distortion or blatant lie directed at pro-wind individuals or groups.[1] The STT About Page makes a number of unsubstantiated and demonstrably false claims such as:[2][list bull-blackball] We are appalled by how wind industry supporters dismiss victims, ridicule those who have different opinions and vilify those who are opposed to industrial wind power generation. We are appalled by the dishonesty of the wind industry, its supporters and those who operate within it. We are disappointed that the many who claim to have been made sick are segregated and dismissed. We believe the rampant installation of turbines across this country must be stopped or at least paused until a full examination of the facts is undertaken AND (most importantly) acted upon. STT complains about vilification and victimisation without providing any evidence yet the site moderator and many supporters consistently engage in vilification of opponents as illustrated by these various posts.[3] The site frequently employs descriptors such as "greentard", "fraud", "wind factories" etc. [4] The website does not pretend to be objective, it only posts comments and opinions that are opposed to wind energy while it actively blocks any comments that favour wind energy or contradict claims made on the blog. STT does not allow those it criticises to have a right of reply. STT accuses wind energy proponents of dishonesty yet it engages in exactly that practice by insisting landholders hosting turbines are forced to sign clauses despite evidence to the contrary from numerous industry sources. [5] The site also presents numerous claims that are factually incorrect. STT promoted its belief there is strong opposition to wind farm developments by publicising an event called the National Wind Power Fraud Rally which was held on June 18, 2013 in Canberra, Australia.[6] Rally flyer.pdf A large number of Conservative politicians and a well-known radio personality were supposed to speak at the rally but just prior to the event, many speakers pulled out for various reasons, leaving just a few speakers to contribute on the day. Only a few hundred people turned up for the event while a pro-wind rally held on the same day at a different location in Canberra had around five times larger. These and other claims ignore industry support for further independent research which has to date demonstrated no link between wind farms and ill-health but has pointed to a psychosomatic condition dubbed the nocebo effect [7], and, industry efforts to assist those few individuals who believe wind turbines have affected their health or are too noisy. To date STT has consistently denied the effectiveness of renewable energy, it promotes opinions from climate change denialists [8] such as Maurice Newman [9], it frequently mentions and criticises subsidies but fails to mention much larger subsidies provided to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. STT promotes belief in a condition called wind turbine syndrome[10] even though the condition is unrecognised by any medical body anywhere in the world. Wind turbine syndrome is the invention of a doctor Nina Pierpont,[11] the condition is also promoted by Sarah Laurie a non-practising GP in Australia and the Waubra Foundation

Sounds to me like the definitive disreputable source.

Rider wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 7:28pm:

... Yeah right, read all about how bl00dy good it is here ...

8:00AM BST 12 Sep 2010
Nothing current, then?

muso wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 8:09pm:

Yes, it can. For example Wind Power is 21% of total baseload in Denmark.  China has over 70 Gigawatts of installed wind power, which is more than the total electricity generation capacity in Australia. It's also cheaper than conventional coal generation in a number of countries.

Windpower is the second cheapest way to generate electricity with Hydro being the cheapest.

We have stronger average winds on our coastline compared to China or Europe which is one reason why Australia does well in Yachting/sailing,China and Europe are what sailors consider light wind venues.

In summer we get good sea breezes at coastal areas on sunny days, inland is not as strong.
The majority of the people live near the coast where the winds are usually stronger.

I think windpower is great, i would like to install a 2.5 KW turbine in the back yard.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Yes. And China represents 19% of all Humans Australia represents 0.3% of all Humans On average, very single Australian emits about 4 times more than every Chinese person. Whether we stop or not will make quite a significant difference to the overall world Human CO2 emissions.  SInce we are amongst the world's worst polluters - unless we stop, why would anyone else? And what is this "heavy burden on Australian industry" you are talking about? How is switching to renewable resources without ongoing fuel costs a "heavy burden"?  Seems like a  sensible choice to me.  And to China - that is why they are using more and more renewables. Why aren't we?

AArrhh yes the per capita statement, its the only way to panic the average person who doesn't know WTF is going on.

Well my gum tree has "X" amount of leaves per capita.

What does this tell you about

1. the leaves
2. the tree
3. the health of the above
4. the population
5. the location

Per capita is economic jargon for economists to somehow compare nations, its absolute rubbish.

Its the only way the alarmists can make Australia look bad in the global warming stakes.

Australia emits 1.5% of ALL manmade CO2 emissions.
1.5% = (450 mega tonnes)

China emits 25% of ALL manmade CO2 emissions.
25% = (7500 mega tonnes)

China emts about 17 times more CO2 than Australia does.

We are not even close to China's output so stop scaring your average Joe Bloggs with the per capita nonsense.

Ajax wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 5:14pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 5:43pm: Yes. And China represents 19% of all Humans Australia represents 0.3% of all Humans On average, very single Australian emits about 4 times more than every Chinese person. Whether we stop or not will make quite a significant difference to the overall world Human CO2 emissions.  SInce we are amongst the world's worst polluters - unless we stop, why would anyone else? And what is this "heavy burden on Australian industry" you are talking about? How is switching to renewable resources without ongoing fuel costs a "heavy burden"?  Seems like a  sensible choice to me.  And to China - that is why they are using more and more renewables. Why aren't we? AArrhh yes the per capita statement, its the only way to panic the average person who doesn't know WTF is going on. Well my gum tree has "X" amount of leaves per capita. What does this tell you about 1. the leaves 2. the tree 3. the health of the above 4. the population 5. the location Per capita is economic jargon for economists to somehow compare nations, its absolute rubbish. Its the only way the alarmists can make Australia look bad in the global warming stakes. Australia emits 1.5% of ALL manmade CO2 emissions. China emits 25% of ALL manmade CO2 emissions. We are not even close to China's output so stop scaring your average Joe Bloggs with the per capita nonsense.

I see.

So if China divided itself tomorrow into 20 independent nations - all with emissions less than Australia - then the problem would be fixed?

Is that how it works?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 5:16pm:

I see. So if China divided itself tomorrow into 20 independent nations - all with emissions less than Australia - then the problem would be fixed? Is that how it works?

????????????

Who says we have a problem....?????

If the US broke up tomorrow.......???????

Ajax wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 5:22pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 5:16pm: I see. So if China divided itself tomorrow into 20 independent nations - all with emissions less than Australia - then the problem would be fixed? Is that how it works? ???????????? Who says we have a problem....????? If the US broke up tomorrow.......???????

I'd say that you have a problem understanding simple concepts.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 5:03pm:

Windpower is the second cheapest way to generate electricity with Hydro being the cheapest. We have stronger average winds on our coastline compared to China or Europe which is one reason why Australia does well in Yachting/sailing,China and Europe are what sailors consider light wind venues. In summer we get good sea breezes at coastal areas on sunny days, inland is not as strong. The majority of the people live near the coast where the winds are usually stronger. I think windpower is great, i would like to install a 2.5 KW turbine in the back yard.

The trouble is that costs are not static. Some are falling and some are rising, and if you want to build a Power Station, you need to know what else is happening in power generation. 

It also comes down to horses for courses. I think there is a place for all of them. It depends on which resources are available. Hydro power is limited by rainfall, but there is such a thing as pumped hydro power. There is a small pumped hydro scheme at Wivenhoe dam near Brisbane.  There is no reason why Solar energy can't be stored using pumped hydro.

There is a well referenced Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

You can see that there is a fair bit of variety in the relative costs between different countries.

The other thing to consider in these costings is the cost of construction. Australia is the land of the ballooning cost over-runs.
Two virtually identical projects can differ in cost by as much as 200%.