@DJO
"Are you really that dumb or just pretending for the lols?"
I dunno about Jellied Eel but that was my first thought when I read your response. It seems to be very wrong.
"Wind is by far the cheapest power available in quantity"
What is this goalpost of quantity? Wind is expensive, and not included are the transmission costs and batteries (technology we dont have but need to make them work). Simply they were sold as free energy, then it changed to cheap energy, then it was 'save the world' because quite simply they are stupidly expensive for something that doesnt work.
"Intermittency does not matter, there is always wind blowing somewhere, especially offshore"
Nope. Intermittent really does matter. We need power when we need it, not when the conditions are favourable to generate it. In our current civilization (never mind the electric dream) we need power on demand. Also the 'always blowing somewhere' was shown wrong. However lets hypothetically pretend it is true and the wind is always blowing 'somewhere'. That requires our minimum demand of power (from wind) to be built in every place that counters the lack of wind somewhere else.
So an offshore wind farm must be replicated in that 'somewhere' else to make up for the potential lack of wind in one place. Except it might not blow in those two places so replicate the wind farm again, as many times necessary to meet the minimum required energy from wind.
Then we must also factor in the cost of the grid. If London needs the power but Scotland has the wind (or visa-versa) there must be sufficient connectivity ALL through the grid for EVERY replicated wind farm otherwise we pay power companies to not produce energy because there isnt an interconnector to pull the power to England.
"This fantasy you have of all windmills idly sitting there while everybody suffers power cuts is just that, a ridiculous fantasy"
You are assuming sufficient gas powered backup probably supported by coal and nuclear and maybe oil. Otherwise it would be a reality if we had to rely on wind for our stable energy supply. Thankfully we can rely somewhat on the French nukes.
"Once again - wind is not the only source but part of an integrated energy policy"
Except it doesnt work. Supply really is weather dependent which is not a stable energy policy. So wind requires gas backup with wet dreams of a future technology (doesnt exist yet) to store vast quantities of electricity economically and supply it when we actually need it and where we actually need it. Potentially days of energy due to the variability and unreliability of the wind blowing (and just right).
"Yes burning crop waste is not too much of an issue as it's not fossil CO₂ but reducing emitted CO₂ also has no downsides."
I assumed his banana example was stabbing the stupidity of burning wood (drax) for energy. I am not sure why you think reducing C2 emissions has no downsides as it has made us all poorer, less energy secure and relies on technologies that doesnt exist but being deployed now. It has no downsides like setting yourself on fire has no downsides.
"ever heard of the "precautionary principle"? If we cut CO₂ and it turns out you were right then no harm done. If we don't cut CO₂ and you are wrong then there is huge damage"
That would work if that was true, but it isnt. There is extensive harm in cutting CO2 which is why this is such a discussion. It is extremely harmful to cut CO2 and so should only be done if there is a damn good reason, and the so called evidence of a reason is very shaky and open to wide interpretation. If after devoting all these resources and self harm it turns out you were wrong, but we need to counter an actual threat, we would not be able to because the resources are squandered on green madness.
Compare that to MMCC co2 skeptics being wrong. First of all the idea that we are all gonna fry/drown/die is bull even in the so called 'science'. Adaptation is a real thing that we have technologies to do now, they are real and not a pipe dream. We would have the resources to actually react to a real problem assuming there is one.
"Steam replace wind and water so industry could be sited where people lived instead of where resources were available."
People suffered the hostility of the natural world and struggled to eek out a life. Human ingenuity moved power generation to where it was needed and deliver resources to where they are of use.