>>> But a plant operating at 95% capacity actually spits out LESS pollution than a plant operating at 50% capacity.<<<
Oh really? Try again.
It would probably be a true statement if you were talking about the plant EFFICIENCY.
But on a gross capacity basis, the plant at 50% will be emitting almost 1/2 the CO2, NOx, etc of the plant at full rates.
Now if I was running 2 plants at 50% versus 1 plant at 100%, I would prefer to run the one plant at 100% because it would run slightly more efficient and thus would emit slightly less CO2, NOx, etc.
However, if I am able to run 1 plant at 50% and get the rest of the power from wind turbines, then I would select to run this option as I would be halving my emissions and spending less on oil/gas from unreliable suppliers !!! {You know, the kind that cut you off for political reasons}
The arguement made about the increase cost of the wind farms and the high amount of land that needs to be used. Now that argument holds some weight.
I think perhaps the Europeans are more willing to subsidize wind power is because they are getting a lot of the Natural Gas from Russia. In the past, instability in Russia and the Ukraine, has caused widespread power outages in Europe.
One of the other counterpoints I have seen on the web, is that the cost of the Danish windpower is not that high in and of itself, but that the overall cost to the consumer is high because the government places a high tax on electic consumption.
I am with Palin on her energy policy -— ALL OF THE ABOVE.
The point is the same - bringing a megawatt of wind power on line doesn't mean you reduce the size of your coal plant - the coal capacity still has to be there when the wind dies down.