These two articles suggest it does

http://www.bentekenergy.com/WindCoalandGasStudy.aspx

http://www.clepair.net/windsecret.html

Wind turbines are a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money which will have zero effect on any supposed "Global Warming".

Alarmists love it. They think they're sticking it to the man while in reality the're sticking it mainly to the middle class and poor people.

Most of the electricity in the UK is generated by coal and gas, (both of which have gone up even more then electricity.) [1] And if you want cost estimates by energy source for the Uk, have a look at wikipedia. [2]

There is a ton of information out there, all you need to do is open your eyes and look.

Edit:

@ Barry UK "The operators of these wind farms should have to provide the backup for when the wind drops" You are arguing that government should prescribe the amount of product a privately owned company should have in stock in a free market economy? What is next, are you proposing to force privately owned companies to sell a minimum amount of product?

@ Ian I am not an alarmist nor am I "sticking it to any one" (ironically a claim which is alarmist) I am advocating we take responsibility for the negative externalities of doing business. The alternative would be to stick my head in the sand and claiming there is no problem, unrealistic when the overwhelming majority of the experts tell us there is a problem.

The first article tells a lie and then attacks its own lie as if it someone else said it..

>>Wind energy promises ... and generates zero emissions. <<

No, it doesn't. It promises to "reduce" emissions - largely by removal of fossil fuel based energy sources.

http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.as...

=====

Barry UK ---

>> They are getting lucrative subsidies<<

Actually, Congress has not approved the tax credits they were promised.

>> This shows them to have a low moral <<

My clients in the wind energy industry are paying people $10,000 (+ an annual 10% increase) / per turbine / per year / for life - to lease the footprints for them. If I could get them to put a dozen or so in my back yard, I could learn to live with the moral ambiguity.

There are draw backs to any energy source. Using coal fired energy plants for back up generation is certainly one way to reduce the CO2 efficiency of wind and solar energy sources.

In the case of Bentek Energy, it would not be a leap of faith that it would prefer natural gas being used for a backup energy generation source. I am having trouble as to if they are against solar or coal or both. Perhaps it is just for natural gas? - http://www.bentekenergy.com/About.aspx

As far as your second link goes, it seems that every climate change denialist website around the world is in love with Dr. le Pair

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/20...

http://greenhousebullcrap.wordpress.com/...

http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?articl...

http://alleghenytreasures.com/tag/dr-c-k...

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2012/0...

Someone needs to wake Anthony Watts. I did not see a link to this on his blog.

And here is the rebuttal to all of this nonsense - http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/01/inaccur... - Enjoy!

Added

Kano, that is the sad truth of it all, is it not? Energy costs continue to rise for the consumer. Even the fossil fuel costs. Were the renewable energies subsidized as much as are the fossil fuel industries then I believe that the costs of renewable energy sources would be much more competitive.

The operators of these wind farms should have to provide the backup for when the wind drops. They are getting lucrative subsidies and obliging others to bear the costs of back up. This shows them to have a low moral standard.

No they don't, except for that involved in the manufacture

These two articles suggest it does

http://www.bentekenergy.com/WindCoalandGasStudy.aspx

http://www.clepair.net/windsecret.html