David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:06:04 GMT someone who may be "Clot"
wrote this:-

I'm surprised at this. I wonder how the stats were pulled together. Thanks
for the link. When I've a bit more time I'll read that.

That report is a good summary of the overall position at the time.

You can download the report on the weather data work from
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden05-dtiwindreport.pdf
In essence they looked at weather records going back to the 1970s
and then compared them the cut in and cut out speeds of wind
turbines. There has been no convincing attack which undermines the
work, though the usual suspects have tried.


it all works reaosanbly well when wind turbines are an insignificant
fraction of total capacity, and falls apart if they get to be
significant, when if one area of the countr is becalmed, for sure other
areas wont be, but the net flow of power from where its being produced -
e.g. Scotland - to where its being used - e.g. London would make for a
massively and unnecessarily over specified infrastructure with respect
to the alternatives.

In short the most efficient thing is to generate where you use. Moving
power around uses power. and involves a lot of materials and capital
costs. All conveniently ignored by the likes of Dynamo Hansen and his
ilk.After all if the government subsides the power you generate and the
grid is required to take it wherever you deliver it, its Not Your
Problem is it?


Sadly people who need access to power do not tend to inhabit the wild
desolate windswept reaches of our country, or indeed the North sea.;-)

Windmills are probably fine to generate up to about 10% of the
electricity at no more than 2-3 times the cost of any competing
technology. Beyond that they really have no place at all.