Windmills - just no good? or more untruths in the press

The statements are mainly led by this document

http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/280/ref.hughes.19.12.12.pdf

worthy of note is this blasting of prof hughes
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/468709/imperial-college-supp-evidence-to-eec-wind.pdf

Nuclear and coal are often cited as always available
For example DRAX in uk is mentioned in bishops hill

But figures for recent availability (excludes time not required and not producing) come out at approx. 80%

Some plots using data from REFs own database

Each Turbine with approx 10 years record load factor plotted against year

A linear curve fit to Turbines output gives change in load factor per year

Note that the first graph shows all turbines load factor reducing until 2011 when a large recovery occurs. Is part of the loss caused by a reducing wind speed profile which then improves in 2011?

The second plot does show a general loss in efficiency over 10 years but nearer 7% total not the 15% suggested by Hughes document.

The REF site admits that 2010 was a low wind year:

"Overall, it is clear that the load factor for 2010 was low in comparison with preceding years, indicating that winds in this year, and particularly in the winter 2009-2010, were themselves relatively low."

There are 2 plots on the REF site:

http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/217-low-wind-power-output-2010
http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/229-renewables-output-in-2010

Note offset zero! If you ignore 2010 (low wind) the load factor looks pretty flat for the remaining 6 years

Offshore and onshore data combined?

Both plots from the owner of the daming report of Hughes show a different outcome to the reports conclusion.

2013-05-31
Diseases/disturbances reported by opponents:
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.pdf
Well worth a read if you are looking for reasons to oppose the construction!