Really. I would like to see some proof of that. Starting with a chart that lists proposed and under construction renewable energy installations by size. How much total capacity is in the <10kW range, 10-100kW, 10MW and up, and so forth. And while you're at it, how do you explain the giant wind farms with their required grid connections along with the proposed European Supergrid? That is somehow not, and I quote, a "hugely complex mechanisms for wheeling gargantuan quantities of power over long distances"? You're in the power grid business, tell me what I'm missing here.
1) As I stated above, I'm in the automation business, specifically simulation softwares. The company I work for though is very much in the energy business.
2) Proof of what? I did strikethrough on about twenty-thirty sentences, how about you pick one and we go from there?
3) Which thing did you think would be disproven by the capacity numbers? Please explain your line of thinking otherwise its impossible to argue for or against it.
4) You are mixing issues that have nothing to do with eachother.
5) You can't falsify a whole business segment by pointing at a single project or installation. Just like you can't say car manufacturing will never work because some car models didn't.
6) What do you want me to explain about windfarms that you don't understand? Feasability studies? ROI calculations? Governement subsidies? The difference between euro and americas politics?
7) The so called european supergrid is not a requirement for larger windfarms or even for huge ones. Where did you get that silly idea?
8} The so called european supergrid is just a vision. It is not a project. So that is a huge strawman if you want to disprove the validity of specific energy sources. Especially since such a vision would work equally well with other power sources.
Most of that vision is pure speculation on extrapolation from existing market trends anyway.
9) You do realise that if country X, Y and Z do a grid investment with a good ROI etc. Then whether or not the polititians claim that it is part of the "future euro supergrid" then that has zero relevance as a pro-con to the project itself?
Like if the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Offshore_Grid
is a viable project just for opening the energy markets of those involved, regardless of type of energy supplied into it. If the polititians want to get some extra EU grants or voter credibility by adding certain currently popular key words then that is their business, but it does not in any way reduce the viability of the project itself.
10) Burden of proof. You do realise that the burden of proof lies on the one making a claim, right? J made the claims, you made the claims, the article made the claims. I simply pointed out the ones which where unsubstantiated, unfounded or aimed at strawmen.
11) Whether or not the vision of the so called european supergrid is viable or not is not an argument in itself against renewable power sources. Please explain why you back this strawman.