More CO2 insanity. I thought being “green” was about being efficient. In this case it’s striking to see that something people beleive is good and green is so inefficient. Are people being suckered into believing in wind power?
After spending millions on wind farms you may not only get a bad return on your investment, you might not generate much power either. Yep, according to this article in Telegraph.uk.co they have some major problems.
The first detailed study of onshore wind farms has found that 20 of the sites produce less than 20 per cent of their maximum output with some producing less than 10 per cent.
Blyth Harbour in Northumberland is thought to be the least efficient wind farm producing just 7.9 per cent of its maximum capacity while Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at 8.7 per cent of its capacity.
Cost efficient it’s not. 7.9 percent isn’t what I’d consider very good especially when you consider the major eyesore, noise and the fact they’re not too friendly to birds.
While some are better and some pretty good, per the study they cite, the majority are not efficient at all.
The best wind farms operate at about 50 per cent of their predicted maximum capacity while the majority produce around 25 per cent to 30 per cent.
Now there is a good reason for some of this which is as follows.
Experts warned that subsidies for green energy are encouraging wind farms to be built in unsuitable areas. Prof Michael Jefferson, of the London Metropolitan Business School, said developers ‘grossly exaggerate’ the energy producing potential of their sites. He said: “The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was available.”
Let’s not just put these things up anywhere. If they’re going to do this, I hope someone wakes up and starts studying where to put them where they will be most efficient instead of creating a wasteland of basically useless bird killing eysores just so they can by stylishly green.