But even in those two places, wind power requires subsidies and tariffs to be competitive. I can't see Australian wind power being competitive in the foreseeable future.
I believe the subsidies were needed to get the wind farms up and running to prove up whether they will be effective for the long term.
You can't see them being competitive, because you can't see what research and knowledge gained from setting them up (in practical terms), will produce by way of new technology.
Anyone want to hazard a guess at how much subsidy money has gone into producing the set of wheels you drive?
Gubbmints hand out major subsidies to motor car manufacturers (and - gasp, yes - aircraft manufacturers as well), and a lot of that motor-car manufacturing (or aircraft manufacturing) handouts doesn't necessarily go into producing new, cutting edge designs, either! Seems like a lot of it ended up in senior executives and CEO's pockets!
I seem to recall Australia has supplied about $2.5B in motor car subsidies over the decades since car manufacturers started whining about handouts - which was not long after WW2.
Subsidies took the form of free land for buildings, substantial tax concessions, ports and roads and infrastructure, installed specifically for the manufacturer - and so on and so on.
I'm sitting on the fence when it comes to wind generators. I neither dislike them, nor do I like them enormously. I do feel they're worth adding to the energy supply mix, just to create competitiveness in the market. Perhaps wave energy will take over from wind, it's pretty promising, and it supplies more continuous power. However, it only takes one breakthrough to sometimes provide a quantum leap in the status quo. Who saw LED's providing such a bonus in low energy requirements?