Pseudo-Science

I read a report some years ago that solar panels are so inefficient that they never generate enough electricity in their lifetime to compensate for the environmental cost of making them. Perhaps things have improved since then although I have not heard some great announcement to this effect. But now I read the following in the Observer:

“Home wind turbines are significantly underperforming and in the worst cases generating less than the electricity needed to power a single light bulb, according to the biggest study of its kind carried out in Britain.

An interim report revealed that homeowners could be being misled by the official figures for wind speeds because they are consistently overestimating how much wind there is - sometimes finding that real speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of the turbine in the first place.”

Of course the things won’t last for 15 years so you are doing the environment a disservice if you buy one. And of course the problem is not just caused by the misjudgment of wind speeds, as any paper other than the Guardian/Observer or the Independent would have told you: it is the miscalculation of how much scarce resource was used to make the things. Obviously the manufacturer isn’t going to tell you and no ‘independent’ scientist ever got a grant by saying we might just as well use coal.

And on top of that, because even the pseudo-scientists agree that sometimes there isn’t any wind, but you might want some electricity (and the same goes for solar panels: not too effective at night) the fossil fuel power stations have to be fired up and running all the time anyway.
So actually these pseudo environmentalists are causing net damage to the environment. Yes, Mr Cameron?

But bit by bit the truth will out. More pseudo science during the course of the year.