Those nuclear “subsidies” are cleanup loans paid back by the utility. Not to mention that nuclear is four times more expensive than it has to be due to 70s regulations which add nothing to safety.

Apparently there’s a bit of a problem with the paper you grabbed.

Delucchi, Mark A. and Mark Z. Jacobson (2011) Response to “A Critique of Jacobson and Delucchi’s Proposals for a World Renewable Energy Supply” by Ted Trainer. *Energy Policy* 44, 482 – 484
Abstract:

Ted Trainer’s “A critique of Jacobson and Delucchi’s proposals for a world renewable energy supply” (hereafter T11), directed at our two *Energy Policy * articles “Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials” (hereafter JD11) and “Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies” (hereafter DJ11), makes two main points:
(1) that JD11 and DJ11 do “not deal effectively with the problems set by the variability of renewable energy sources,” and

(2) that the JD11/DJ11 “analysis of investment costs is inadequate.”

Neither of these criticisms is valid. We show here that T11’s first main point is based on a misrepresentation of what is stated and referenced in DJ11, and that his second main point is based on mistakes and unreasonable assumptions. As a result, T11’s critique does not affect our original analyses or our conclusion that it is technically, economically, and environmentally feasible to provide all global energy with wind, water, and solar power.

We organize our response around T11’s two main criticisms (variability and investment costs) and under each main criticism by T11’s topic headings.
——

Here you can read part of the problem with the Turner paper. Turner, it seems, misrepresented what was written in the original Scientific American paper. First of three pages is readable without paying.
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/response-to-a-critique-of-jacobson-and-delucchi-s-proposals-for-a-vg17M7mD3k

—

You are reading too much into the article about offshore wind in Holland. The government is having to pull back on financing wind at the moment. Offshore is still a bit expensive but likely to fall to what onshore costs (higher installed cost but higher capacity).

You just can’t grab something that you think sounds like it supports your position and fling it out. You need to understand what you read.

That took 30 seconds.  Here’s a nice news article on how wind has screwed the Dutch.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-dutch-wind-idUSTRE7AF1JM20111116 .

Please don’t bother me with the comments on web sites. I’ve been through many and there is no there there.

And please drop the dishonest wind farm math.

Oh, and drop that “spinning reserve” nonsense. There’s no need to keep turbines spinning to backup wind and solar. Wind farms are already adding battery storage in order to insure blocks of power and gas turbines can be spun from off to full speed in 10-15 minutes if needed.

We’ve got far more of those resources that we need.

I’ve never seen anyone claim that we should get 100% of our power from a single source.  (However that straw man argument is made by “fossil fuel friends”)

And what does the ” land use / power density average is 34.5 ha/MW / 2.9 W/m2″ have to do with the price of little green apples?

We’ve got far more land than we need in windy places to put turbines.  And, remember, less than 2% of the land in wind farms gets used for turbine tower footings, etc.  The other 98+% is still usable for original purpose.

Denholm, Paul, Maureen Hand, Maddalena Jackson, and Sean Ong. Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, August 2009. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf ).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 

Read it all, all five pages, and read with comprehension.

I get the feeling that you’re actually trying to figure stuff out.  Perhaps if you had a better grasp of what is possible you could do a better job.

Click on “Capacity Factor”.

If you want more detail it’s on the EIA site.

Do you not comprehend that fossil fuels and nuclear have received massive public money sup accelerate nature’s role in sequestering CO2, and that is by increasing green biomass growthort over the time of their development and are still being gifted with tax payer dollars when they can easily stand on their own two feet?

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “Estimated U.S Energy Use in 2010: ~98.0 Quads.” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2011. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2010/LLNLUSEnergy2010.png).

Right now we could move all our personal transportation to either EVs or PHEVs.  That would cut our use of oil by at least 75%.

We could move our public ground transportation largely to electricity by using electric buses, subways, light rail and high speed rail.  Much of our air travel could move to electrified HSR – just as fast and a lot more comfortable.

We could shut down coal quickly by  accelerating wind and solar installations, using natural gas to fill in the gaps.  As we develop better storage we can gradually reduce NG usage and rely on stored renewable energy.

There is essentially no place on Earth that does not have access to some sort of renewable energy.  There are no shortages of critical materials that would stop us from providing clean energy to everyone, everywhere.

It might (notice that I said might?) make sense to use plant material for airplane/ship fuel.  Better that we recycle some of the carbon already above ground rather than bring more to the surface to fuel planes (and cargo ships).