Bad wind

[sasguru]

You eco guys are funny.

Whereas you're just thick?

[Mich the Tester]

I assumed this thread was about something completely different...

Me too. I thought it was about DimPrawn's last visit to the kebab shop he left behind in Swindon.

[phantom bootlegger]

I assumed this thread was about something completely different...

[DimPrawn]

Wow, that is one fantastic spin (accidental pun) on the facts there.

1. The Reading turbine "produced enough electricity for 815 homes for a year. Burradale [on the Shetlands] powered 2,180". So, Reading is being criticised for not producing as much as it could do if it was in a very windy area, but it is still producing a lot of electricity without burning any fossil fuel (beyond the original fossil fuel energy used to build it in the first place, but that's another matter).

2. The "subsidy" is not being paid just to keep the thing operational, which is implied for much of the story, but is a standard payment made for the electricity generated. Private homeowners can claim the same payment by putting solar panels or wind generators on their own houses. Whether that payment is a bit high is another matter, and really the article should say, "This wind turbine is really impressive and clean and generates lots of electricity, but we're paying the owners a bit too much for it really and we could do with reviewing that payment".

3. If the wind turbine was positioned on some godforsaken windy hillside on the North Pennine Moors it's unlikely that it would be visited by 20,000 schoolchildren every year, demonstrating sustainable energy in action and allowing them to imagine how impressive the same devices are when placed on islands in the Outer Hebrides. Maybe they could open it to adults as well.

You eco guys are funny.

[dang65]

Can the warmists please tell me how paying for a windmill to go round is going to save us all from the inferno of Global Warming?

Wow, that is one fantastic spin (accidental pun) on the facts there.

1. The Reading turbine "produced enough electricity for 815 homes for a year. Burradale [on the Shetlands] powered 2,180". So, Reading is being criticised for not producing as much as it could do if it was in a very windy area, but it is still producing a lot of electricity without burning any fossil fuel (beyond the original fossil fuel energy used to build it in the first place, but that's another matter).

2. The "subsidy" is not being paid just to keep the thing operational, which is implied for much of the story, but is a standard payment made for the electricity generated. Private homeowners can claim the same payment by putting solar panels or wind generators on their own houses. Whether that payment is a bit high is another matter, and really the article should say, "This wind turbine is really impressive and clean and generates lots of electricity, but we're paying the owners a bit too much for it really and we could do with reviewing that payment".

3. If the wind turbine was positioned on some godforsaken windy hillside on the North Pennine Moors it's unlikely that it would be visited by 20,000 schoolchildren every year, demonstrating sustainable energy in action and allowing them to imagine how impressive the same devices are when placed on islands in the Outer Hebrides. Maybe they could open it to adults as well.

[MarillionFan]

That reminds me. I need to go to Costco

[Mich the Tester]

I used to drive past that monstrosity every day a few years back.

It was probably more useful when you lived nearby and produced a storm of hot air every day.

[DimPrawn]

Britain's most useless wind turbine: Costs £30,000 more than it raise in electricity | Mail Online

Passed by millions of drivers a year, it is one of England’s best known wind turbines. It is also one of its most useless.

According to latest figures, the 280ft generator towering over the M4 near Reading worked at just 15 per cent of its capacity last year. And although it generated electricity worth an estimated £100,000, it had to be subsidised with £130,000 of public money.

Since it was switched on in 2005, it has been given £600,000 in public subsidies while working at an average of 17 per cent of its capacity.



I used to drive past that monstrosity every day a few years back.

Can the warmists please tell me how paying for a windmill to go round is going to save us all from the inferno of Global Warming?