"nuclear power is even more expensive, can't be online in time to fill the yawning energy gap, and could only provide a tiny proportion of our energy needs (it's essentially an expensive white elephant that's only back on the agenda thanks to very effective lobbying by the nuclear industry)
Not too sure that's completely correct old chap. Nuclear is very cheap for the marginal cost of electricity production, so to shift from 1MW to 2MW is almost nil. That's mostly why France's electricity (75% nuclear, so unsure about "could only provide a tiny proportion" either) is so cheap compared to ours. Nuclear plants are expensive to build because of Very Important Safety Measures, and expensive to dismantle after for the same reason. Running is similar to a coal plant. Waste storage (in the context of generating power for a country) is a minimal cost - look at Drigg for example. If thorium reactors were allowed, the waste would be even lower, with more energy output. The other thing is, it's actually the safest technology per MWh produced because of all the levels of H&S built into each part of the process. More people die each year installing windmills than have died in the whole of the UK's nuclear power history, and it was pretty shady at the beginning. Nuclear's biggest problem is the word "radiation" which is little understood, and thanks to decades of spider-man comics and disaster films is perceived as "very bad indeed" by the general populace. The same populace who happily go on holiday to Cornwall, have X-Rays, take long haul flights, sunbathe...
Of course, if we put all these subsidies into nuclear fusion we'd have cheap, clean, and safe energy for ever (the universe won't run out of hydrogen any time soon), but the powers that be would rather tilt at windmills. The current investment into fusion by the whole EU over the next ten years is just short of the cost of the Olympic Games. Personally I'd rather the cash was spent on saving the human race than a bunch of people poncing about in lycra, but that's a personal view.
Talking of being online - how quickly can we make the the wind blow should the grid consumption rise? Can we make the sun shine at night for those cold, still winter evenings? Which valleys and villages and towns would you flood to pump water for "potential energy storage"? That's one of the issues with those "renewables" quite often when we need the power there is no wind, or it's dark. I use quotes around "renewable" because it's not. Once gone the energy is gone, we need more from the sun to make wind or light or whatever.
IF you can get the higher rate for a pv array, it's financially very attractive, as it can give 12% or more return on capital - even the new lower rate will give around 6% (which is around double what you'll get from a bank), so it is both financially attractive, and really does play a part in fighting climate change (after the initial 3 years "paying back" the energy used in their making, they will probably produce effectively "free" electricity for another 50 years)
Two comments on that - are you aware of any PV panel performing at the same level for 50 years? I thought the "intended" life was closer to 10. I may be wrong.
Secondly - who pays for all the electricity generated? That will be those who cannot afford PV panels (or have no space for them, in a flat for example). As a rule of thumb, those are the people at the poorer end of the spectrum, so we're shafting "the poor" once again. I agree with the sentiment that we need to shift away from fossil, but I don't think this is the way to do it.
* I have worked within the industry, and have costed medium sized turbines (which are not as cost-effective as the biggies), and even down here in the relatively windless south they pay back financially within a very few years, and repay their embodied energy (the important part) in just over a year...
This I find interesting. What level of output did you use compared to the rated output of a windmill? Did you include costs of firing up a fossil station when the wind isn't there, or is too strong?
In short - we need a mixture of energy sources. Oil and gas won't last forever. Wind and sun are too unpredictable. Tides are predictable, but I don't think we have enough surface area to cover all our needs. For me fusion is the answer, but it's still "30 years away" as it has been for the last 30 years. Why we can't throw serious money at that I do not know. The physics is now well understood, it's more or less a series of engineering problems to be overcome (big engineering problems I hasten to add).
