Skip to content

The facts about wind power are more awkward than Obama would admit – Booker

November 20, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




A timely article from Booker today, which picks up on two of my recent posts:


I must apologise for having last week mistakenly reported that, despite the drive of the US in the Obama years to build ever more heavily subsidised wind and solar farms, the entire contribution of wind and solar to US electricity consumption is still only “less than 14 percent”.

Foolishly, I cited that figure only after a quick internet trawl. where it is quoted on various websites, including Wikipedia. Only when I subsequently referred to a more reliable source did I find that the figure was in fact absurdly exaggerated. All the US was actually getting last year for all the billions of dollars it has spent on wind and solar farms was just 5.4 percent of its electricity. Most of the rest of course came from those CO2-emitting, “planet-destroying” fossil fuels that Obama was so keen to see disappear.


So how does this compare with the position here in England, where we are continually told that wind and solar are now providing ever more of our own power? The official headline figures do not separate England, where most of us live, from the rest of the UK. But thanks to some very clever detective work by Paul Homewood on his Not A Lot Of People Know That blog, we can see that the English figures are in fact strikingly similar to those for the US. The contribution of English onshore wind and solar farms to electricity used in England amounted last year to just 5.3 percent.

That intermittently generated by all the thousands of wind turbines spread across the English countryside was just 2.4 percent: rather less than that fed into the grid by a single medium-size gas-fired power station like that recently opened at Carrington outside Manchester – which, thanks to the “carbon tax” and the Climate Change Act, could be the last we ever see built. There’s another very uncomfortable fact you will never see quoted on Wikipedia.


The two posts referred to are:

  1. Joe Public permalink
    November 20, 2016 12:18 pm

    On the subject of wind, but across the North Sea from us …..

    Twitterer Kees van der Leun boasted on Thurs 17th “Denmark did it again: Power produced by its wind farms equals 100.3% of national electricity demand at the moment, and still going up!”

    He followed up with the fact that the Danes were actually producing so much, they couldn’t give it away, prices went negative & they had to pay for it to be taken off their hands.

    Meanwhile, this morning German wind production was ~30GW which pushed wholesale prices negative.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 20, 2016 12:56 pm

      Good comment. I have read before of Norway getting lots of cheap, free, or as this shows paid to take energy from Denmark. And then they wonder why those running thermal plants close them down as being uneconomic but then since they are still needed they then receive taxpayers’ money on top of the taxpayers’ money used for the windmills to stay open. I think the UK rather than give away the electricity, pays the windmills to stop generating and passes the cost onto users. Mental doesn’t really go far enough to describe this policy, and what does it achieve? Nothing.

      • saxonboy permalink
        November 20, 2016 6:11 pm

        Checkout ‘Degrowth’ Gerry, Windmills are the weapon of choice for the Green Cultural Marxist maniacs. = Reduce the economy with degrowth and then reduce the population..simples

  2. November 20, 2016 12:54 pm

    Be aware that those low prices are a bad thing, destroying the viability of base load producers.

  3. November 20, 2016 2:01 pm

    Just hope that when Trump kicks the climate change boondoggle into America’s dustbin of history the morons over this side of the pond take notice.

  4. November 20, 2016 4:35 pm

    The GB situation is even worse than Booker suggests, the govt is “consulting” about forcing the closure of the remaining 10GW of coal, in a desperate attempt to send a precious “signal” to the market to get more CCGTs built. No doubt they will be deluged with encouragement from the usual suspects, much guff about the number of lives that will be saved, the vastly improved prospects for the lesser spotted newt, and the avoidance of Green Zombie Apocalypse, and then there will still be … no more CCGTs, because of the rapidly diminishing market for its output.

    • saxonboy permalink
      November 20, 2016 6:07 pm

      Recon.. i can’t argue with your all.

  5. saxonboy permalink
    November 20, 2016 6:05 pm

    The eye watering costs alone are a threat to the UK’s economy but the threat goes even deeper than that. National security is despensible according to this Green Moll.

  6. November 20, 2016 10:06 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Unreliable” energy update…

  7. November 20, 2016 11:09 pm

    Why don’t you look at the Department of Energy number rather than the fabricated ‘English’ ones from Booker? The real numbers are here:

    Click to access Press_Notice_March_2016.pdf

    So you will see that when Booker says that Wind Power is “…just 2.4 percent: rather less than that fed into the grid by a single medium-size gas-fired power station like that recently opened at Carrington outside Manchester” he is totally misrepresenting the situation.

    The truth is that the Carrington power station is a 0.88 GWatt power source and wind power generated around 4.6 GWatts on average in the UK. Surely even Booker can see that 0.88 is not bigger number than 4.6?

    • November 21, 2016 10:58 am


      Perhaps you should have read my original post, which I have linked to, and which is where Booker’s figures came from, and which are based on official DECC data. Then you would not have made yourself look quite such an idiot.

      1) The figures are for ENGLAND, and not the UK.
      2) The figures are also only for onshore, as Booker makes clear.
      3) Onshore capacity in England was 2514 MW at end of 2015, producing approx 6.2 TWh a year. English total generation was 260.9 TWh, hence 2.4%
      4) At 85% capacity utilisation, Carrington would produce 6.5 TWh.

      Surely even you can see that 6.5 is bigger than 6.2!!!

      • November 21, 2016 1:18 pm

        [SNIP – Irrelevant]

        My point is simple, why build your own estimates from 2014 when the actual official data for 2015 is available? You are not just cherry picking data, you are cherry picking your own estimates.

      • November 21, 2016 8:24 pm

        You keep repeating yourself. The DECC publication you keep referring to for 2015 DOES NOT INCLUDE SEPARATE FIGURES FOR ENGLAND.

  8. November 21, 2016 9:07 am

    Nothing much seems likely to change in electricity generation policy unless or until the UK government gets its collective head banged against the wall of serious power blackouts.

  9. November 25, 2016 1:56 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: