Hi All,
Today at work Jeff told me about the latest Christopher Booker article he had read,
apparently "they" were shown to be wrong by 100,000%.
Wow, I thought, and there was me thinking the IPCC was bad with the odd decimal place being wrong..

It appears new levels of inaccuracy have been attained, the subject matter was windpower, according to Jeff,
so off I went to find with a search engine the mentioned 100,000% error.
It was not difficult to find.

Telegraph.co.uk

How can wind turbines generate so much lunacy?
By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:48PM BST 18 Jul 2009

Excerpts,
" It would be hard to beat the sad gullibility with which the media last week reported
the plans of Lord Mandelson and our Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband to cover
our countryside and sea with 10,000 more huge wind turbines. According to one newspaper,
it would need "an area of only 70 square miles to generate Britain's total power requirements".

Well, no, actually. To meet our peak demand of 56 gigawatts of electricity would require
112,000 turbines covering 11,000 square miles, or an eighth of Britain's entire land area. "

and,
" Another newspaper solemnly reported that a new study shows that
"a well-placed turbine could make enough energy to power 825,000 homes".
Well, no, actually. The figure for a single 2 megawatt turbine would be just 825 homes,
meaning that the newspaper was only 100,000 per cent wrong. "


Link to article.


Another related, very interesting, and worthwhile read is this article,
(where you will also find several good links)
[color=red]Christopher Booker's notebook - Join battle with the giants

Thank you Jeff.

Hi All,
I think this comment, amongst many...
makes some good basic points worth remembering..

Harry
on July 19, 2009
at 12:30 PM

? Wind energy is free ? extracting it is not.

? The electricity produced by the turbine cannot be stored.

? Feeding the electricity produced into the national grid is complex and costly
the bill for which is picked up the customer.

? Below 8-10 mph wind speed, they do not generate.

? Above 56 mph, they have to be shut down.

? The maximum generated is at 32mph ? uncommon in UK and as a result,
onshore turbines produce approximately 26% of potential electricity and 30-33% if offshore.
26% is known as the ?load factor?

? Wind power needs support from other forms of power to keep the lights on
when the breeze slackens.

? It is claimed that turbine life expectancy is 20-25 years. Many are replaced after 9-12 years.

? Various figures given for CO2 saved for 1megawatt (1MW) generated:-
(a) British Wind Energy Association fig. 0.86 tonnes saved;
(b) DEFRA, DTI, Ofgem, Carbon Trust and House of Commons say 0.43 tonnes of CO2 saved.
© House of Commons figures for 2010, 0.31 tonnes of CO2 saved.

? 1,500 wind turbines would occupy 20 square KM and when the wind blows, would generate
the same electricity as a 1,000 Megawatt Nuclear power station.

? Swedish and Netherland Governments have scrapped investing in wind power.
Germany sees the subsidies as a ?bottomless pit?.

? A 2megawatt (2MW) turbine generates ?300,000 of taxpayers? subsidy for the developer.

Derek:
What is missing in the wind equation is the minor fact that a reliable source needs to be "HOT" to pick up when wind fails so there is "NO" carbon savings but rather a carbon deficit when wind turbines are installed. some countries are realizeing that.

Yes Mike, as I understand it that is why most of the on permanent standby (back up ?)
conventionally powered fossil fuel power stations that have to be built with these schemes
are gas powered as they can respond quickly.
Gas is not the cheapest way to generate electricity, coal on it's own would be far, far cheaper.

As you say the constant running on standby is often over looked,
as is the fact that the "back up" is rarely the cheapest (fossil fuel powered) option
that would of been used, if the "wind farm" was not there in the first place.

BTW - Just in case anyone asks which newspaper wrote that.
Also in the comments,

Chris
on July 19, 2009
at 10:58 AM
" The 825,000 homes, from a well sited turbine, was printed in the Daily Mail,
and was a quote from a Southampton study, of well sited Domestic Turbines.
The study itself claims that 825,000 homes could be supplied by 450,000 domestic wind turbines.
(The Daily mail failed to notice the difference.) "

Well sited ??? 425k to provide power for 825k Impressive. Do they need to ship the turbines from another country? That sould not take up much land at all. I believe that Buckingham palace has spare room for something loke this and your MPs should be more than happy to have one in each corner of their yards. That would only leave the climate researchers and the other ararmist advocates to provide space for the remainder of the turbines. Of course you could always export all of your fanatics to the South Pole research station to study the effects of sub freezeing temperatures for about 50 years.

[quote author=Mike Davis link=topic=111.msg718#msg718 date=1248130426]
Of course you could always export all of your fanatics to the South Pole research station
[/quote]

Good point Mike, we know they have enough supplies........ ;D

Now does anyone remember those "horrifying excess" posts / links to the South Pole supply stories from the old forum. ?

don't forget, wind and solar are sustainable :rollseyes:

Thanks, I won't forget.
However, I won't forget either that,

The wind and the sun may be apparently for "free",
but harnessing them ain't.

Therein lies the "problem"............

[quote author=Derek link=topic=111.msg1752#msg1752 date=1253567811]
Thanks, I won't forget.
However, I won't forget either that,

The wind and the sun may be apparently for "free",
but harnessing them ain't.

Therein lies the "problem"............
[/quote]

I find it amazing that when the greenies preach 'sustainable' power, they somehow forget to include that fact in there.

Therein lies the "answer",

"sustainables"- at what cost to me AND the company I work for, so called Mr & Mrs Greenies,
answer me that,
when my job (and therefore my families) security is under threat in a recession.

[quote author=Derek link=topic=111.msg1755#msg1755 date=1253569739]
Therein lies the "answer",

"sustainables"- at what cost to me AND the company I work for, so called Mr & Mrs Greenies,
answer me that,
when my job (and therefore my families) security is under threat in a recession.
[/quote]

don't get me started on 'sustainble'.  If wind power was so great, then why, in order for it to flourish, require tonnes of gov't subsidies (which translates into tax payer dollars ?).

As far as I'm concerned, going green costs jobs, it does not create them contrary to what the greenies say.

Friends:

I copy something I wrote in another thread of this forum.

If wind power were economically competitive with fossil fuels, then oil tankers would be sailing ships. 

I take the liberty of drawing attention to an Annual Prestigious Lecture I was given the privilege of being asked to provide three years ago.  It is titled:
“A suggestion for meeting the UK Government’s renewable energy target because the adopted use of windfarms cannot meet it”
and it can be accessed in pdf form from
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprin...cture.html

The lecture covers each point made above and others.

I hope my copying the above is helpful and not impertinence.

Richard

[quote author=Richard S Courtney link=topic=111.msg1837#msg1837 date=1254309391]
If wind power were economically competitive with fossil fuels, then oil tankers would be sailing ships. 
[/quote]

exactly ! 

From the link:

Quote:However, this paper suggests the use of windfarms cannot make significant contribution to reducing the emissions and suggests the construction of tidal coffer dams instead. Windfarms for power generation provide intermittent power so they merely displace thermal power stations onto standby mode or to operate at reduced efficiency while the thermal power stations wait for the wind to change. They make no significant reduction to pollution because thermal power stations continue to use their fuel and to produce their emissions while operating in standby mode or with reduced efficiency that can increase their emissions at low output.

The very same windmills that kills birds,degrade the environment with transmission lines and roads,that were cut out from the possibly virgin regions.

It is plain to me that Environmentalists,are not interested in rational thinking.

[quote author=sunsettommy link=topic=111.msg1842#msg1842 date=1254402479]
From the link:

Quote:However, this paper suggests the use of windfarms cannot make significant contribution to reducing the emissions and suggests the construction of tidal coffer dams instead. Windfarms for power generation provide intermittent power so they merely displace thermal power stations onto standby mode or to operate at reduced efficiency while the thermal power stations wait for the wind to change. They make no significant reduction to pollution because thermal power stations continue to use their fuel and to produce their emissions while operating in standby mode or with reduced efficiency that can increase their emissions at low output.

The very same windmills that kills birds,degrade the environment with transmission lines and roads,that were cut out from the possibly virgin regions.

It is plain to me that Environmentalists,are not interested in rational thinking.
[/quote]

are greenies ever interested in rational thinking ?  It still boggles my mind that birds die in a tailing pond from the oilsands and the greenies get uptight over it, yet an undisclosed number of birds are killed by these supposedly green wind farms and the greenies don't say a peep.