OT: Windpower real numbers

[Davey]

Interesting article in the current edition of The Spectator:

[Chris Hogg]

Matt Ridley is a great debunker of false gods. I'm a little surprised to see such an article in The Spectator though. I thought he was exclusively a contributor to 'The Times'.

More of his regular blog here

As you can see, he's fairly catholic in his tastes as to what he discusses and debunks; renewable energy is just one of his bêtes noir.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Davey brought next idea :

Now, there is a sensible point of view and assessment of the situation!

[newshound]

Good description of him.

Well worth subscribing to the blog. You won't always agree with him, but it usually leaves you with something to think about.

The Spectator often has some good reading, even for old lefties like me.

[newshound]

Just did another back of envelope calculation, over the entire 27 years of operation each of the two Magnox reactors at Berkeley generated 90 MW. (As joint first of a kind with Bradwell, it did not have particularly good availability).

The new local solar farm, which must occupy a similar area although I havn't been able to find a figure, is rated at 30 MW peak.

[Chris Hogg]

Something wrong with your units there? Do you mean 90 TWh? My own back of envelope calculation gives 65TWh (276*24*365*27), and assuming

276MW output from the two reactors combined. But that must be high because it takes no account of capacity factor.

Either that, or I've misunderstood what you're saying.

[Bill Taylor]

I guessed that he meant they averaged 90MW over their lifetime.

[whisky-dave]

Found this last night I'd kept on my desktop at home... from Viz I think.