No.

I concur after a small amount of research (makes you wonder what journalists do all day)
It turns out that Michael Jefferson used to work for Shell.( make of that what you will)
According to Shells own research they believe that in 2060 Wind power will account for 50%
of the worlds energy production.

Current prices of energy production are ( cents kWh ,Worldwatch 2004)
Wind 3-5
Gas 3.4-5
Coal 4.3-4.8

Interestingly if you factor in Environmental and heath costs associated with energy production.
Wind 3.1-5.3
Gas 4.5-9.5
Coal 6.6-21.7

So on the contrary, Wind works well.

windfarms can produce electricity at around 25 -35% of their capacity if properly sited. Unfortunately, as the number of windfarms proliferate, a grid system (either existing or hypothetical) can absorb only a declining % of the available electricity produced by windfarms. The surplus generated is euphemistically termed 'curtailed' ie switched off or wasted.The effective maximum which can be aborbed is 5 to 10% of annual power consumed. The reason for this is that consumers require guaranteed continuous supply, but wind is variable and uncontrollable. The matter has been explored incessantly in very great depth by leading consulting engineers on behalf of governments etc, and is a reality .

The only exception to this rule is where a large portion of the grid is supplied by hydroelectric power, as this can be turned on and off quickly. Of course, if you already have immense hydroelectric capacity, you don't need wind turbines anyway. In Denmark for example it is claimed that up to 20% of electricity is generated by windfarms. This is highly misleading. In reality only about 5% of this is utilised in Denmark for the reasons outlined above, and the rest exported at low prices by grid connections to neighbouring countries, mainly Norway and Sweden which have large hydroelectric supplies.

As a separate matter, it is the case that spikes of high demand or low supply (eg the latter arising from 'light wind') mean use of high-cost stand-by generating capacity - which is chosen for its instant responsiveness, not for its cheapness nor greenness. That is a very high external cost attributable to windfarms which is not factored into most politically-inspired cost comparisons.

As it happens authorative published reports estimate that the return on emmission savings by national investment in windfarms cost about 130 Euros per tonpa. This compares withthe current emission trading price in the open market of E20 to E30 /tonpa. In other words, more thgan 6 times as much carbon emissions could be saved by investment in other industries or methods of reduction.

windfarms are a political con which line the pockets of rich investors and disfigure the countryside in order that governments can claim serious attention to emissions.

of course governments secretly know that a collision with reality is approaching, and worse still it is now getting too close for their comfort and can't be ignored for some future government to solve. That is why without exception, all major countries are now preparing the public for more nuclear power.

Animal Farm lives!

How would you propose we solve the problem of non-continuous generation from wind turbines then Biff?

George Monbiot recognises the problem in his book "Heat" suggesting that we "pair up" offshore wind farms and new pumped storage sites in the Scottish Highlands to provide continuous output linked to the grid with high voltage direct current cables. It is one idea which sounds feasible. However, you would have to weigh the total cost of this whole infrastructure against other options (nuclear or coal burning with carbon capture), not just the cost of the wind turbines.

The lecture I attended by a leading scandinavian designing engineer stated the more wind farms installed around a wider number of locations creates reliability and consistancy (a bit like a balanced portfolio).

Having a flexible demand side i.e. using smart metered residential homes would use surplus over supply!

Right Tony, it's a non-problem at least until you get up to around 20% wind. Over-production of electricity on windy days is actually a bigger problem than the calm days. The Danes more or less give electricity away to the French sometimes.

Posted By: fostertomUse the wind electricity to electrolyse hydrogen from water, then burn that in turbines (or CHP plants)

Anyone know what the efficiency of these 2 steps wd be - how much of the originally-generated energy wd be lost? How wd that compare with the losses in pumped storage? Note that the hydrogen could be electrolysed and stored right at any gas turbine power station.

Posted By: biffvernonPointless waste

Really? - how wasteful?
Are you saying it's more economic to invest in tidal, even enormously expensive tidal barrage, letting it lie idle ready for instantaneous start-up when the wind drops, than it is to do same with other alternatives, pumped storage or biofuel or hydrogen zero-carbon turbine generators/CHP?
How wd the deep dry rock geothermal get turned into electricity? - surely not hot enough to drive turbines?
I suppose one advantage of pumped storage is that the plant doesn't lie idle - it's either full-on in accumulation or generation mode.

Posted By: alex_doorisyou need conventional power stations behind

That's business-as-usual counterpropaganda, to e.g. justify nuclear - we're here discussing the green(er) alternative ways to 'smooth the production'.

Here here.

JEFF nz; The portfolio idea only makes a small difference owing to the high statistical correlation of the presence of windy conditions over very wide geographical areas. The power available for harvest in the wind increases with the cube of the wind speed, so although only a small proporetion of days are calm, nevertheless only a small proportion of windy days account for the majority of the power.To be viable and provide continuous power for consumer needs, it would require an immense number of windfarms in the Uk, sufficient to produce not only enough power for the Uk in light wind, but also for say half of Europe which happens to be calm; and vice versa. ALSO, there are serious transmission losses over large distances. FINALLY, consumer needs are high in the day and low at night in winter high demand seasons - but the wind doesn't know this.

Biff: dismissing posts from othe contributors (eg me) as simply 'not true' is simply an assertion backed with neither reason nor evidence. Furthermore I suggest your comments regarding exports by the Danes are wrong for two reasons; (1) The grid inter-connectors are Denmark/Scandinavia and Denmark/Germany, and (2) France has a large surplus of generating capacity, with a very large baseload of nuclear power. It exports 15% or more of production, much to the Uk, and nuclear accounts for 78% of its output (90% of its own needs)

dead right chris. Pumped storage is probably not really viable on a large scale in the uk, as in principle it needs two adjacent reservoirs for starters.

All engineers love hydro because it is cheapest long term, but sites are few in densely populated countries, and mostly long-since exploited. reservoirs and tidal barrages have big environmental downsides too. The other futuristic ideas are just that: a long long way off any viable industrial scale. that leaves only nuclear and fossil fuel for the next 50 years.

Much of green-speak is wishful thinking or cottage industry stuff. Until more environmentalists face up to hard facts, they will never win the war.

Succinctly put, Chris, very informative, changes things, thanks. What does Biff/oildrum say?

So storage is the key issue, with pumped storage is the height differential between the two bodies of water a major issue?
Or would, say a 10m fall suffice?

Just thinking allowed, I was reminded of the International rivers network report about microhydro, small is beautiful.
Although that was mainly about energy use in remote parts of the world.

Tidal Turbine's look interesting, should be cheaper and cause less "environmental damage" than a barrage.
http://www.seageneration.co.uk/default.asp

Tony et al: Grid managers in every country contradict Biff regarding % of manageable windpower. The range 5 to 10% (depending on national consumption patterns, wind propensity and base load stations)is the maximum before curtailment becomes so serious as to render any extension of windpower futile. Denmark's oft repeated claim of 20% (they would say that wouldn't they - they manufacture turbines!)disguises the fact that 3/4 of it is sent to scandinavia and germany at give-away prices. The grid operators in Ireland refused to connect any more windfarms above approx 2%, and had a year-long stand-off for a year with the government. There followed a report by UK consulting engineers essentially backing the grid managers' view. The Irish Government's reponse was to make it a statutory obligation to connect windfarms whilst agreeing to spend £500m (estimate) on a grid connector to wales (subject to UK approval). This will increase the grid stability, but not to anything remotely like a 20% windpower content.

Grid interconnectors are expensive, of limited capacity, and increase the power losses in transmission. Obviously, it is inherent in an grid that the larger it is, by the law of averages it becomes better able to cope with fluctuations. But reaching a target of 20% of electricity from wind must take account of low-wind days, which thus means getting 100% of national electricity from wind during windy periods,NOT a level 20% every day. And because electricity demand fluctuates heavily with time of day and time of year, that 20% target means having sufficient turbines to produce nearly 100% of any PEAK demand which happens to coincide with windy periods. Otherwise, you can't get to the 20% average. But that means a lot windy days below peak demand when wind power is surplus; as well as all the calmer days when power stations must fill the gap.

That means having a grid which in peak demand can cope with either distributing electricity from power stations, or from wind farms, whilst being able to switch between the two at a moment's notice, as well as coping with fluctuating demand. And somewhere, if only at the end of an international interconnector, there has to be the power stations.

In the case of Denmark the population is only 5million, and they have interconnected to about 100m grid population in Germany and Scandinavia to 'solve' their grid stability problem. The german grid of 85million gains virtually no stability from joining with the paltry 5m Danes - it just buys curtailed (thrown away) electricity from them at very cheap prices, and the chance to sell back to the Danes base-load power at high prices when Denmark is becalmed.

Remember the basic consumer requirement is for uninterrupted electricity. Both excess generation and non-guaranteed supply have a low value, with only very few economic applications. And the more you have of these, the less they are worth. So as windfarm % rises, the value of their non-guaranteed marginal supply quickly falls to a tiny fraction of guaranteed supply.