The Telegraph–Where 28.5% = 26.2%
By Paul Homewood
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/wind-doesnt-blow-sometimes-coal-cant-answer/
You will all recall this classic schoolboy error from Ben Marlow, which I complained about to the Telegraph. They have now responded to me:
Thank you for contacting The Telegraph regarding the above-referenced article.
You have raised concerns about this sentence:
"What opponents of renewables neglect to mention is that wind has provided 28.5pc of our total energy output over the past year. "
Thank you for highlighting that in fact what Mr Marlow was referring to was total electricity output not energy. We have amended the article. In respect of the statement that 28.5pc of our total electricity output over the past twelve months this data can be found at https://www.nationalgrideso.com/. The monthly figures for the last twelve months were as follows:
Nov. 2022: 33.9pc
Oct: 36.2
Sept: 24.2
Aug: 15.9
July: 19.1
June: 21.3
May: 24.4
April: 23.4
March: 23.3
Feb: 39.7
Jan: 27.5
Dec: 26
Which when added and then divided by 12 gives an average of 26.2pc. We do not consider the slight discrepancy between 28.5 and 26.2 amounts to a significant inaccuracy such that requires correction under Clause 1(ii) particularly as the data fluctuates daily.
We have however added the following wording to the bottom of the online article:
CORRECTION: The original article referred to wind power providing a ‘total energy output’. This should have referred to ‘total electricity output’. The article has been amended.
,
It’s bad enough that their Chief City Commentator does not know the difference between ENERGY and ELECTRICITY.
But to suggest that there is no real difference between 28.5% and 26.2% is a stunner!
Perhaps they need to buy poor old Ben a new calculator.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Paul if you really want to get up their noses tell them that the average is not the months averages divided by twelve because the months are of different lengths.
My thoughts exactly, averaging averages was a complete no-no when I was at school.
Looking at the gridwatch data for dec 2021 – Dec 2022 the number is around 22.7%
Not to mention higher demand in winter than in summer because of day length and temperature – aside from the Christmas shutdown, of course, which produces some of the lowest demand.
So a 2.3% difference doesn’t matter, but more than 1.5 degrees warming is going to kill us all?
I’ve always thought that the inclusion of the 0.5 degrees shows the absurdity of this 1.5degC figure, since it pretends that “scientists” can predict the effect of global temperatures on climate to within 0.5degC. By this flawed reckoning, if we could limit the rise to 1degC all will be well, but if it goes to 2degC armageddon will befall us. Talk about old fashioned fire and brymstone preaching!
The 1.5 C. degrees is not a percent. The % change has to be calculated using the average atmospheric temperature in Kelven (~280.35 K), so
1.5 ÷ 280.35 = 0.00535 [ or 0.535% ]
Because 1.5 is a bogus number, so is all the rest. 😂
I cancelled my 40+ year Telegraph subscription a few years ago when they jumped on the AGW bandwagon.
I want to read critical reviews not consensual acceptance of a false narrative that prioritises sales at the expense of reality!
Right this makes me very angry indeed. The respondent is incredibly efffing thick to the point of being a complete moron.
For them to think that you can add percentages of VARYING amounts together and then divide by the number equally variable periods and come up with a derived average is just pure refined and distilled incompetence.
Paul do you have a name for this person because I really want to correspond with this person’s manager. To actually commit to writing such crap is beyond the pale.
p.s. this moron could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment and simply referred to Doctor Andrew Crossland CEng who is an energy expert and very much a green energy advocate.
His website specifically shows last 12 months rolling data on energy mix. Wind is currently at 22.7% so nothing like the bullshit figures the Telegraph likes to publish.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/
Agree. See my duplication of your comments below. Gridwatch gives 23.2% when correctly calculated, so answer is about 23%?
Unless unrecorded embedded wind is somehow being included?
After all it’s only a minor diffgerence of 8.78%. I wonder if the Telegraph would be so blase if their circulation dropped by 8.78% and they charged their advertisers the same rates?
Note to Telegraph. Poor work. Must try harder
I don’t have a Telegraph subscription. Did Mr. Marlow explain how “a modern digital economy which is rapidly electrifying” will cope with varying quantities of electricity and who will decide who gets power and who doesn’t at any particular moment?
At least the Torygraph responded & partially corrected its article a damn sight quicker than does Aunty.
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Annual figures are shiny objects. Demand is continuous. What is wind doing for you RIGHT NOW? That wind provided x percent of your energy over the last year is the proclamation of a third world el presidente for life.
Many thanks for the wonderful analogy. “A third world el presidente for life” sums up perfectly the approach of our UK policy makers
You cannot average percentages like that.
You must add the original quantity and dived by the total. It’s only correct to average the percentages if the monthly demand is the same. Its clearly not (summer vs winter demand)
If you sit two multiple choice exams and get 20% on the first and 60% on the second your average is 60%. But if exam 1 had 10 Qs and exam 2 had 40 Qs you would have correctly answered 26/50 = 52%
Sorry naive average is 40%. Typing on phone without glasses
So following on from this (and now at home with glasses) I went to the DT linked website. I note you can only get the reports in %.
So I went to gridwatch.templar.co.uk and downloaded demand and wind for the interval:
00:00 01 December 2021
23:55 30 November 2022
Which I think is a full year.
Total demand recorded = 3141799184
Total Wind recorded = 729064656
Wind proportion = 23.2%
I haven’t checked the time slicing, but given there are over 105,064 readings in the download and nominal 5 min reporting would equal = 105,120 its pretty close. So wind actually appears to be much lower than reported.
So wonder why the authority reports % and not actual monthly numbers? Maybe it makes wind look better?
Discrepamc could be embedded wind high reduces demand?
But does Naional Grid actually know what that is? Gridwatch notes it is a factor
Today’s DT has an article about the boss of Octopus Energy whose answer to a lack of wind and solar electricity is to reclaim it from the EV batteries to keep the lights on.
Hi TS, looking at the National Grid ESO figures (only expressed as percentages) they are including Solar all of which is embedded and none is grid connected. Knowing NG and their staggering levels of idiocy, however, it would not surprise me if they are selectively adding and omitting things to “cook” the books. After all there are some quite large CCGT which are embedded in the DNO – do they include them? I guarantee they do include units like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Power_Station
Anyone wanting to extract historical estimates of embedded wind power could try the following, it contains the link to NG data archives, and some guidance:
Averaging averages = mathematicle nonsense along with the rest of the article
‘We do not consider the slight discrepancy between 28.5 and 26.2 amounts to a significant inaccuracy such that requires correction’
Then the Telegraph should be forbidden by law from using decimal points.
“…decimal points”
If you say 28.5, you are implicitly claiming it is either 28.4 or 28.5 or 28.6.
If you say 28, you are claiming it is in the range 27 to 29.
I say they can’t use decimal points and then use the “close enough” defense.
Had marlow said 28 pct originally, then claiming “close enough” would be acceptable.
But then the number is not what this is all about. The government has announced a new tractor production record, and Paul had to go and challenge the number. The new record is the point, not the actual number.
On 2nd November 2022 wind reached a record high of 20.9GW generation. It was only for 30 minutes (12.00pm to 12.30pm) but no doubt that statistic will start appearing in the MSM over the coming months, without the time period!
PS I received the same reply from the Boy Scout / Girl Guide at the Telegraph’s complaints desk! Hopeless grasp of mathematics – a sign of our failing education system.
Can you let me have the name of the person who wrote to you please? I really want to follow up on this one as it is completely unacceptable to have such idiots in these positions.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.