David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:00:23 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

I assumed it was sufficiently well known not to need references.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...Commentary.pdf

The 2004 PB Power report for the Royal Academy of Engineering. Yes,
it is well known.

This is what UKERC had to say about it
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/06/0604Intermittency/0604IntermittencyReport.pdf

"Within the data on reserve impacts and costs we have included (but
not shown on figure 3.1) a notable outlier (Royal Academy of
Engineering and PB Power 2004) (ref.239). This report is difficult
to categorise. This is because the report does not use the systemic
approach to estimating system costs common to other studies, but
works on the premise that wind generation requires dedicated back
up. Since this back up would be expected to provide both balancing
and reliability, the data in this study are therefore a combination
of system balancing reserves and capacity installed to maintain
reliability. This highlights the scale of the implications of
methodological differences and the importance of terminology to
estimates of the impacts of intermittency."

"The study that does not show a penetration level (Royal Academy of
Engineering and PB Power 2004) (ref.239) is an extremely high
outlier at a cost of £17/MWh. This report has the unusual
characteristics noted previously, and appears to be an amalgamation
of balancing and reliability costs."

See also Box 3.1.

In less academic language, they started from a false premise and
built their house on that sand.



Like wind people you mean?

Show me one study that conclusively demonstrates that wind power in any
way reduces OVERALL carbon emissions in the UK.

No? Thought not.

No one's done it.

"they started from a false premise and
built their house on that sand".