At least I hope that the massive capital costs of fusion will mean that it will be expensive (and therefore valued more), at least for the first few generations of plants...

Even Bush's own country works around him...

While the government subsidised early development with carbon credits, and is about to impose a carbon tax on gas and coal, the real driving force is lack of gas.  As you point out above, New Zealand's gas supply is tenuous; a stupid decision 30 years ago has meant we've burned our major supply too quickly (or rather, exported it as fertiliser), and the cheap prices have discouraged further exploration.  But there's also the fact that in NZ, capacity factors are high.  I've been told that European wind farms generate around 25% of their maximum capacity.  The ones I can see from my letterbox generate at around 48% (and due to crap storage and fluctuating demand, our hydro dams do a shockingly low 56%). This makes wind extremely competitive. It also has wide public support, meaning it is easier to get through the consents process.  However, as gas supplies have grown short, exploration has picked up, and a significant discovery may change the equation again (though more likely it will simply mean our gas generators get to stay in business, without having to import LNG).

Because of this, wind generation grew by 365% last year.  It probably won't do the same this year, but it will at least double.  And it looks set to do so for a few years to come.

Idiot/Savant
No Right Turn - New Zealand's liberal blog

The AWEA website's FAQ has a table on wind potential in the windier US states. For reference, the US electricity production (which due to losses is usually higher than consumption unless there is significant net import) is 4,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year, and generating capacity gets close to 1,000 GW - so there you already see a potential exceeding demand.

However, this table, like the entire FAQ, is a bit outdated (the table is 1991 data). For an up-to-date estimate, I'll do some calculation. I start from this Stanford study, which looked for wind potential at higher altitudes than earlier studies, in line with the increase of wind turbine tower height since. They found "that U.S. windpower at 80 m may be substantially greater than previously estimated. It was found that 21% of all stations (and 39% of all coastal/offshore stations) are characterized by mean annual speeds >=6.9 m/s at 80 m, implying that the winds over possibly one fifth of the U.S. are strong enough to provide electric power at a direct cost equal to that of a new natural gas or coal power plant."

That's about 2 million square kilometres. Now, assuming 2 MW turbines which are placed at a typical density of 3.5/km^2, and which all produce only 4.4 million kWh at a 25% average power, the full potential would be 30.8 TWh per year, and 14,000 GW. That is, an eighth of the one fifth of the US land sureface suitable for wind power development (or less than 3% of all) would be enough - and that can be done easily even if inhabited areas, natural reserves, bird-nesting areas and bird migration routes are avoided.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

1.  It is using public money and public land for the enrichment of the private corporation building the wind turbines.

2.  The company never consulted with any of the locals (towns, etc) in asking for input on the wind farms.

3.  The company would use out-of-area people to build and maintain the turbines, instead of local people (unemployment is relatively high on the cape).  The turbines wouldn't bring very much money to the cape either.

4.  The placement of the turbines will harm local fisheries.  The wind company has refused to place the wind turbines further off shore where they would not interfere with fish due to the higher cost, despite public financing.

5.  Apparantly the turbines will need a several thousand gallon petroleum tank, which, if it spilled, would be an ecological disaster.

Source: Erickson, et.al, 2002. Summary of Anthropogenic Causes of Bird Mortality. A study done in the US; at the time, there was 4.5 GW installed, and a few eighties parks, especially Altamont Pass, were responsible for most birdkills. So even if wind is developed in the extent I calculated in reply to asdf (i.e. a 400-fold increase on 2002), birdkills will stay below that of any other significant causes.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

The heat pump technology offers huge potential for housing at cold winter time. It is being rapidly taken into service in Sweden at at least.

So, who will trust the electricity regulated from country X or Y for the 15 years typically needed to repay the investment?

On the other hand, offering to build wind turbines in poor countries would be a smart form of aid - with just a little bit of training to do the necessary maintenance, it would provide something valuable to the locals for many years.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

China may be world leader in grid-independent wind power, with lots of mini-turbines in Inner Mongolia. It catched on to the global trend of large grid-connected parks only recently, but is moderately ambitious: China had 764 MW at the end of 2004, and plans at least 3500 MW more by 2010. And, reflecting complaints in other high-tech sectors, Chinese producers are already copying Western technology :-) (Unfortunately, this is nothing compared to what the Party concrete heads plan in new coal-fired power plants.)

In Southeast Asia and Africa, I only know of Western-financed projects. The largest is in Egypt, where a total of 146 MW is on the grid.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}