harry wrote:
On 26 Sep, 10:00, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:
About the only thing in Denmark worth having.
And the women.
Mostly.
No.
Most selfish self centred bunch of idiots you will find east of Chelmsford.
I've mostly found them quite easy to get on with.
One or two exceptions, of course.
anyway...meanwhile..returning to energy and leaving the Danes to their
bacon..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...erbooker/80251...

Now all that is exactly correct.

The remarkable coincidence is that I sent a very large essay on this
exact subject to Mr Booker last weekend.

To his credit, his article is slanted somewhat differently, and is more
focussed on the cost....mine was focussed on the fact that no real
authoritative study has ever been done - or has been needed to be done -
to establish whether or not large scale windpower in the context of
inadequate energy storage, actually results in any significant CO2
reductions *overall*, whatsoever.

My conclusions are that it would be a miracle if it did: certainly pound
for pound of public money spent, it has to be the least effective way of
doing it.

I.e. the government policy makes it actually irrelevant whether
windpower saves fossil fuel or not. You get paid for producing the
electricity no matter if its effects are totally negated by the carbon
cost of building and maintaining it, and its associated extra
infrastructure, and the carbon cost of running the rest of your
generating system in "whores' drawers mode" to balance out its fluctuations.