Aiden, so your 37.4% is the average over a period of time of the rated output ? Y/N ?
That was my understanding and it is not related to the demand at any time.
It is just a integrated measure of output of that equipment.
So if an energy system has to deliver the peak load of that equipment,
then it has to spread the turbines around at least three wind systems.
But what if two wind systems are in calm ? And the sun has set ?
So, in reality is 3 a big enough multiplication ?
You raised the matter of batteries, but they have to be recharged.
Can you use the same three turbines ?
Would the time of low demand needed to recharge be available ?
Is six times a big enough multiplication of turbines enough ?
The argument you put suggests that no multiplication is needed.
That is my argument that the cost of the system is unaffordable.
Then the grid has to be more capable of sending all power everywhere.
How large has the grid got to be to get enough different wind systems ?

I'm still waiting for you SR to refute the rock solid science I quoted in my first post.

Try staying on the subject if you want to earn any respect around here old boy, not your airy fairy twaddle.

Hasbeen,

When you quote from rather dubious sources you're
in no position to talk about anything "airy-fairy".
You look silly.

Foxy,

If you want to put a global warming/climate change denier to the test just ask what evidence he needs to see to demonstrate that it is real.

If he can't answer that convincingly then you know he is full of hot air.

Me thinks Squadron Leader West (aka Hasbeen nee Phil) plays with the joy stick a bit too much when he's in the cockpit of his imaginary fighter plane.

And I bet he's had more than a few rough landings too.

Mr O,

Hasbeen and I go a way back on this forum. He's a top
bloke most of the time.

A balanced debate;
http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-polar-ice-caps-are-melting/