ArabiaTerra

Some food for thought: http://skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html (my emphasis)

^^^^ Well, if there's anything specific I've said that you disagree with then post it here and we can argue about it. Maybe I'll change your mind, maybe you'll change mine.

I have a general engineering background and have been following the climate change debate for the last 20 years. That's the only expertise I claim. As for Bookers lies, read on... http://www.monbiot.com/2011/10/13/a-random-nonsense-generating-machine/ http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/13/for-how-much-longer-can-this-go-on/ http://www.monbiot.com/2010/09/21/evolving-madness/ http://www.monbiot.com/2010/07/06/a-bookful-of-bookerisms/ http://www.monbiot.com/2008/09/23/the-patron-saint-of-charlatans/ I would go as far as to say that Booker is the worst journalist currently working in the UK when it comes to climate science,... except the Telegraph also publishes Delingpole!

Given that Booker lied about that, the appropriate question should be: Why should I believe anything else he says? Booker is a well documented liar on the subject of climate change and renewable energy. Nothing he says on this subject can be taken at face value. Climate Change! It doesn't matter how much oil, coal and gas is left in the ground. We can't afford to burn it. We're already close to the limit of what we can safely burn. To avoid the 2 degree rise which is agreed to be the danger point we need to be cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 5%/year until 2050. The longer we wait before we start these reductions, the bigger they will have to be and the more expensive they will be.

Ok. I'll see if I can enlighten: If you take the nameplate capacity of the generator, then assume 24/7 operation at 100% load, then you will get a total amount of power produced by that generator over the time period in question (typically 1 year). But no power generator runs 24/7/365. So you take the actual power produced and express that as a percentage of the maximum possible and that gives you the percentage efficiency I was quoting. With wind, it's around 35% nationally. In Shetland it's much better, with Burradale averaging around 53% over the 10 years or so it's been operating (making it the most efficient windfarm on the planet). VE can be expected to produce similar figures. From the VE website:

^^^^ Must be a fluke. I bitched upthread and mines no better: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2318475760.png

So am I, I believe.

6.28pm, usual crap: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2318388714.png

Here's the thing about the author of this piece, Christopher Booker:- He's a liar. He claims the average output from UK windfarms is 25%. This is a lie. It is actually around 35%. The 25% figure comes from small household turbines such as the ones powering our country halls. The lower figure is due to the fact the turbines in question tend to be built close to the user, rather than in the windiest locations. Chief executive of a gas company says gas is good. Well duh! That's what he's paid to say.

Re-test at 10.45 am: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2311284210.png Bizarre!

Speed at 10.40 am Friday: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2311276023.png It's getting worse. Usually I don't get speeds like this unless it's between 6 pm and midnight.

Yeah, I complained to my ISP (TalkTalk), but just got fobbed off with the standard boilerplate reply - check your equipment, check your set-up etc despite telling them that everything was fine outside of the particular times I specified. I'm considering changing my ISP anyway as TalkTalk are too expensive these days (£40/month for unlimited compared to the Post Office - £26/month for the same deal), but that's the only statement I can make which might get them to take notice.

^^^^ So what's to be done?

I've been noticing over the last couple of months that there seems to be some severe network congestion/throttling going on between the hours of 6pm and midnight. It's so bad sometimes that I can't even get Google to load without repeated attempts, nevermind youtube or iplayer. I thought BT were supposed to be using this shiny new cable now. Is this the case?... or are they still dragging their heels with it?

Count the stars: http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1242a/zoomable/

Here's a graph which demonstrates how the Daily Fail is continuing it's stalwart tradition of being completely and utterly wrong every time it mentions climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/TempEscalator.gif From here. Edit: And as SP's link above shows, they're not just wrong, they are actively and knowingly lying to you about it. Why do you read newspapers which have been proven to repeatedly lie about things like this? Seriously! Why do you accept a single word these lying scum say? I would love to know because I just can't get my head around it. What is your major malfunction?

A landowner in the area punted this idea several years ago, but it seemed to go the way of the Titanic when nobody anywhere took an interest. I could be wrong here but I believe the catchment area for the Sandy Loch has to be left undeveloped to avoid pollution issues.

I watched Prometheus last night. I've been deliberately avoiding any of the media build-up to it as I prefer to go into things like this totally unspoiled if at all possible, so the only prior knowledge of the film I had was that it was a bit disappointing. What a steaming pile of unadulterated pish! Seriously, this movie was terrible. It makes Armageddon and Independence Day look good. It was beautifully shot, with flawless CGI, but the script and story were pants. It was so bad, it actually made me angry. If you haven't seen it, don't waste your money. The worst movie I've watched since the Star Trek re-boot. Avoid. 2/10

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2198248968.png Pretty awful in Lerwick tonight.

I didn't say the meters were online.

No if's and but's required. A meter records the output to the grid, the grid then pays for the power. Simple, really. (Though I expect it's the paying for the power bit where the accounting gets complicated, what with feed-in tariffs, ROC's etc) And up pops the same tired old conspiracy theory. For Dog sake, guys, change the feckin' record, this ones worn out.

Isn't average capacity factor different to average output? No. At least not in the way I was meaning it. There are a number of different phrases that are used to mean roughly the same thing. If you work out the amount of power the generator would produce if it was running 24/7 at 100% output (the nameplate capacity), then look at the actual output and work out the percentage thereof, that's the number I was quoting. The thing is, no generator works at nameplate capacity. The best, I believe, are hydro stations which average around 80-90%. Coal fired stations are in the 70-80% range, Nuclear is around 60-70% and Gas is around 60% (jet engines require a lot of maintenance). The last time I asked (you could just e-mail them, you know, they're happy to answer questions), I was told that the overall capacity factor for Burradale over it's entire lifetime was about 52%, the best year was around 56% and the best turbine on the best year achieved 57%. (Edit: Having now looked at your link, I realise the figures I quoted (from memory) were a bit on the low side.) Due to the way the accounting is done (or somesuch excuse I didn't really pay attention to), they don't get the figures for a full year until well into the next year, so at the mo', the latest figures they probably have will be for 2010. The 2011 figures will come in near the end of this year. Hope that helps.

More climate-change denying garbage. And this is just a flat out lie. The average output across the whole country is around 30%, Burradale consistently achieves over 50%, and so will VE.

Thanks, Grafter. I found it and answered above.

Any chance of a link to the actual article? Edit: Never mind, found it: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/terence-blacker/terence-blacker-the-wind-farm-myths-are-finally-nailed-7966174.html There's a simple question you have to answer: How much am I willing to pay for electricity? If the answer is: No more than I absolutely have to. Then you have to accept onshore windfarms, or you have to personally take responsibility for the billions of deaths and the utter destruction of the natural world from the deepest oceans to the tops of the highest mountains. Because that is what has already started and what will continue to happen until we de-carbonise our economy. Solar is more expensive than onshore wind (but rapidly catching up), offshore wind is more expensive, tidal is more expensive, nuclear is more expensive, wave power is horrendously expensive. Geo-thermal is geographically limited, so is new hydro. There really aren't any other options. Of course, there are drawbacks to onshore wind, there are drawbacks with all sources of power, but onshore wind is the cheapest, best developed option we have available at the moment, and we don't have another 10 years to waste waiting for something better to come along. Climate Change is at a critical point. If we aren't globally reducing emissions by 2020, then it's game over. The only way we're going to achieve that is to deploy the technology we've got, on a massive scale. What do you think the economic impact of a 2 metre sea level rise would be (Hint: This would flood the majority of the worlds ports, including London and New York)? That's what we're looking at for the end of the century if things go on as they are. How does that compare to a few rural residents having their house prices impacted? I think you need to adjust your sense of proportion here, and so does the author of that article.