Met Office Records Hottest Day of the Year at a Weather Station Next to a Massive Heat-Generating Electricity Sub-Station

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

Earlier this month the Met Office declared the hottest day of the year so far in the U.K. with the temperature reaching 34.8ºC in Cambridge. The Met Office claimed it was only the eleventh time since 1961 that the temperature had reached that level, with six of these occasions having been recorded in the last 10 years. Needless to say, missing from the account was a note that the station in Cambridge’s National Institute for Agricultural Botany (NIAB) is located just metres from a massive heat-generating electricity sub-station complex.

Electricity sub-stations give off so much heat into the surrounding atmosphere there are even plans to trap it for commercial use. The Cambridge station at Histon has recently benefitted from a £5 million upgrade including the installation of a third heat-pumping transformer. It is difficult to think of a worse place to locate an instrument to accurately measure nearby uncorrupted air temperatures, other than favoured Met sites at international airports and solar farms.

Cambridge NIAB crops up regularly in the Met Office’s local daily ‘records’. Last year it claimed a recording at this site was the highest measured in the eastern region during September since 1949. The World Meteorological Office (WMO) rates Met Office sites from class 1 to 5 and Cambridge NIAB is said to have a pristine class 1 designation with no temperature ‘uncertainties’ due to local natural and unnatural influences. But how reliable is this superior rating? The view from Google Earth suggests that questions about its validity can legitimately be asked.

WMO guidelines state that any heat source in class 1 sites must be at least 100 metres away. But the google map above suggests that 100m is a very generous distance between the Histon grid and the red Met station marker. An even nearer straight line path or road might also not be considered helpful in taking an uncorrupted measurement. Recent expansion at Histon has added a third heat-pumping transformer to help increase capacity.

Electricity sub-stations release huge amounts of heat into the nearby surroundings. There have even been plans to capture the output from these ‘boilers’ for commercial use. In 2021, SSE Energy Solutions and the National Grid unveiled plans to use the heat generated to produce hot water and space heating for domestic and industrial premises. As Nathan Sanders, managing director at SSE, noted: “Electric power transformers generate huge amounts of heat as a by-product when electricity flows through them. At the moment, this heat is just vented directly into the atmosphere and wasted.”

Not entirely wasted, the cynical might observe. It serves to boost temperatures – highly useful for spreading political Net Zero panic and alarm – across the entire U.K. Met Office measuring network. As regular readers will know, this network is composed of largely junk stations in class 4 with WMO ‘uncertainties’ of 2ºC, and super-junk class 5 with possible errors up to 5ºC. Almost eight in 10 stations across the 380-strong network are labelled class 4 and 5. Many of these stations, such as the urban heat furnace that is Heathrow airport, produce regular daily ‘records’. Incredibly, the overall data is used by the Met to claim it can measure air temperature across the four countries of the U.K. down to one hundredth of a degree centigrade.

The Daily Sceptic is obliged to citizen journalist Ray Sanders for drawing our attention to the obvious corruptions at Cambridge NIAB. Ray is a frequent contributor to Paul Homewood’s blog, an excellent online publication that has long drawn attention to the obvious and widespread problems at the Met Office sites. Earlier this year, the Daily Sceptic broke the story that revealed most of the stations are junk following a freedom of information request. Interest in this scientific scandal is now widespread on social media, but it remains of little concern to mainstream media. Most writers captured by the lazy Net Zero narrative continue to tout the heat corrupted figures and ‘records’. To date, the Met Office has failed to respond to the growing critical interest in its obviously flawed temperature readings.

Heat corruptions caused by electricity sub-stations can be found at other locations used by the Met Office. Ray has also drawn our attention to the ‘notorious’ Bingley No 2 site, in use since 1972.

Again, it is just metres away from a major city sub-station. Unsurprisingly, in this case it has a class 4 junk designation.

The final meteorological horror show can be seen at Amersham where temperatures at this class 4 site are again taken just a few metres away from the area’s main sub-station. This site is a new one, having been established in 2015. It begs the question why the Met Office continues to locate scientific measuring stations in such unsuitable places. Another recent FOI request has revealed that over eight out of 10 of the 113 stations opened in the last 30 years are in classes 4 and 5. Worse, 81% of the stations started in the last 10 years, including Amersham, are junk, as are eight of the 13 new sites in the last five years.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 27 votes
Article Rating
77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
strativarius
August 21, 2024 2:14 am

 It begs the question why the Met Office continues to locate scientific measuring stations in such unsuitable places

The answer is because without junk stations there is nothing to worry about; and… no alarm

atticman
August 21, 2024 2:14 am

22 miles away we recorded just over 2C lower than that. I wondered how on earth it could be that much warmer in Cambridge…

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  atticman
August 21, 2024 2:18 am

Very easily.

strativarius
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
August 21, 2024 2:49 am

UHI

atticman
Reply to  strativarius
August 21, 2024 8:53 am

That was my assumption.

Boff Doff
Reply to  atticman
August 21, 2024 3:45 am

I logged UK airport temps all that day. Cambridge Airport, which is 3.9 miles away and itself an UHI, didn’t report more than 33 deg C all day.

atticman
Reply to  Boff Doff
August 21, 2024 8:55 am

Not much happens at Cambridge Airport nowadays. I’ve heard it’s in the process of being closed down and the site re-developed. Great pity because it was a small, user-friendly airport with free parking!

SCInotFI
August 21, 2024 2:34 am

Garbage in, garbage out

MrGrimNasty
August 21, 2024 2:42 am

I was watching live temperature maps on the day in question because it was predicted to be so hot. There was a pool of heat well into the 30s and NIAB appeared near the centre. Indeed the pool of extraordinary heat persisted well into the night and spread west on the breeze raising the temperature to 30C after sunset in places not even that hot during the day.

In July 2022 NIAB recorded 39.9C, as did at least 4 other places, so it was entirely consistent.

The Cambridge area is always going to be a likely location for the highest temperatures in a UK heatwave.

It seems unlikely to me that NIAB has been significantly affected by waste heat.

Nick Stokes
August 21, 2024 2:55 am

“Weather Station Next to a Massive Heat-Generating Electricity Sub-Station”
”just a few metres away from the area’s main sub-station”

It is in fact 117 metres away in a straight line:

comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 21, 2024 3:15 am

And shielded by tall trees close to the sub station, it appears.

Bill Toland
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 21, 2024 3:50 am

It’s mind boggling that you are defending a junk site.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 21, 2024 4:13 am

What actual measured facts make it a junk site?

Bill Toland
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 21, 2024 5:01 am

I read the original article and this is one of the comments. It seems clear that if the wind is blowing from the sub-station that the weather site displays anomalously high readings. I think that this site therefore qualifies as a junk site.

Ray Sanders permalink
August 20, 2024 2:25 pm

Climanrecon, please go to this website displaying the live (and last 7 days ) of all UK SYNOP stations which includes both Rothamsted and Cambridge NIAB
https://weatherobs.com/
Now explain why Cambridge NIAB (with a gentle northerly breeze shown) was recording several degrees hotter than ALL its neighbouring SYNOP sites including Rothamsted which at 12:00 was over 4 degrees cooler. And then the wind changed and its next reading at 13:00 dropped over 7 degrees.
Why do you try to deride those looking objectively at the real data when all you do is concoct meaningless pictures. Are you even in the UK?

Reply to  Bill Toland
August 21, 2024 8:40 am

For a start, the wind on the day of the record is described in your own link as “a gentle northerly breeze”. In that Google Earth image north is at the top, so the breeze from the substation would have been going south towards the crop fields. The Met site is almost due west of the sub station.

Secondly, even if the wind was blowing from the substation directly towards the Met site then its impact would immediately be attenuated by the thick stand of trees that border the substation to its south and west.

Thirdly, heat tends to disperse upwards in the open atmosphere, especially in low wind conditions. The distance between the substation and the Met site is 170 metres!

So the wind was gentle and blowing to the south, not the west. A stand of trees beside the sub station would disrupt any wind that was blowing towards the Met site anyway. Being 170m away from the sub station, any residual heat would have dispersed long before it got anywhere near the location of the Met site – even if the wind was blowing in that direction (which it wasn’t) and there were no trees to disrupt it (which there are).

Bill Toland
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 21, 2024 9:10 am

How many mistakes can you make in a single post? The distance is 117 metres not 170 metres. The sub-station is to the north east, not the east. It is clear from the comment that there was a large change in temperature at the site when the wind changed. I have some advice for you. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Reply to  Bill Toland
August 21, 2024 8:51 pm

I don’t see 117 or 170 metres in the article, where are these numbers coming from?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 21, 2024 4:13 pm

So the wind was gentle and blowing to the south, not the west. A stand of trees beside the sub station would disrupt any wind that was blowing towards the Met site anyway.

You should stop now. Lol.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 21, 2024 10:10 am

Please link to the location of the NAIB hourly data.
I dispute your assertion of a northerly wind( see my post below).
And how is that from the substation, when that is to the ENE?

Aside from that hot air rises. And being over 100m away would certainly mean that it could not (even if blowing from it) have passed through the Stevenson screen.
Oh, and also have a screen of trees in the way.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 21, 2024 4:17 pm

Aside from that hot air rises. And being over 100m away would certainly mean that it could not (even if blowing from it) have passed through the Stevenson screen.

Oh, and also have a screen of trees in the way.

Another one.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 21, 2024 4:15 pm

What actual measured facts make it a junk site?

What actual measured facts make you defend a junk brain?

strativarius
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 21, 2024 4:25 am

Is it? Really?

decnine
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 21, 2024 5:10 am

The paved road immediately beside the ‘weather’ station should raise concern.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 21, 2024 6:48 am

Trees are shields?

Ok. So I will replace the insulation in my house walls with trees.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 21, 2024 8:42 am

You’ll find that if you walk from an open field into a copse of trees on a windy day you will have less exposure to the wind because the trees shield you from it, at least partially.

Try it some time and reflect on the amazing fact that trees shield you from wind.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 21, 2024 1:44 pm

Define shield.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 21, 2024 5:36 pm

You could always do a Google search.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 22, 2024 1:41 pm

A Google search would not give me your personal definition.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 21, 2024 4:18 pm

You’ll find that if you walk from an open field into a copse of trees on a windy day you will have less exposure to the wind because the trees shield you from it, at least partially.

Still at it?

Reply to  Mike
August 21, 2024 5:37 pm

Yep, still saying that trees shield you from wind.

Mad, isn’t it?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 21, 2024 8:04 pm

Yep, still saying that trees shield you from wind

But not from heat moving laterally

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Mike
August 21, 2024 10:14 pm

Heat doesn’t “move laterally”.(heated air)
Try lighting a fire and watch the smoke.
It rises and disperses.
Never heard the term “heat rises”?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 22, 2024 12:38 am

Heat doesn’t “move laterally”

Try lighting a fire 

Every winter I light several firs on my property, some as high as 5 meters.
You cannot get with 100 feet of them when they are raging. That’s called radiation. Radiation from a road or a building in summer can also move the same way (as well up up of course) but to say heat does not move laterally is nonsense.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Mike
August 22, 2024 8:09 am

“That’s called radiation. “
and
”to say heat does not move laterally is nonsense.”

I didn’t – I clarified it by putting “heated air” in brackets – so the obtuse on here would know I wasn’t talking of radiation.
And besides the thermo sensor is inside a Stevenson screen, which is specifically designed to block radiation.

Thing is I should never underestimate the ability of denizens to jump to a motivated conclusion.
Well done.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 22, 2024 1:40 pm

Yes, as are you.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Mike
August 26, 2024 12:58 pm

So a line of palm trees shield you from the wind. Got it.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 21, 2024 4:12 pm

Shielded? AAAAAha ha ha ha ha. What a fool.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Mike
August 22, 2024 8:15 am

Yes you are.
Motivatedly stupid.
How does a line of trees not shield?
Especially from your putative ‘radiation’.
Is the buoyant heated air going to leap-frog it and then descend to march “laterally” towards the Stevenson screen?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 22, 2024 4:11 pm

The UHI effect is not stopped by a row of trees dear boy.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 21, 2024 4:13 am

I don’t generally agree with Nick’s comments- but what about this one? If it’s that far away, what is the impact of that heat source? The story says “Electricity sub-stations release huge amounts of heat into the nearby surroundings.” Is it huge enough to effect that measurement location?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 21, 2024 4:13 am

And the wind was SSE 165° 12 mph gusts to 14 LINK

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 21, 2024 4:15 am

Its a trial field, with constantly changing crop characteristic.

Could have been hot bare Earth on the day in question.

Could have been a breeze blowing directly from the substation.

Could have been being ploughed.. Met-orifice certainly wouldn’t know.

Site wasn’t there in 2008.

Villa Rd – Google Maps

Also large industrial something to the NW and N and NE.

Reply to  bnice2000
August 21, 2024 4:29 am

Pic from G.Earth.

Cambridge
Reply to  bnice2000
August 21, 2024 6:16 am

it is a sewage works. distance is minimum at 140 metres. Try google earth and use the measuring tool

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
August 21, 2024 9:29 am

“Could have been hot bare Earth on the day in question”.

Not in August. At most may be a stubble field.

“Could have been a breeze blowing directly from the substation.”

No wasn’t – wind blowing from the south-SE so away from the station.

“Site wasn’t there in 2008”

So what? the claim is for the hottest day of the year, not for a period of years.

Could have been pixies blowing on the sensor more like.

DarrinB
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 21, 2024 1:48 pm

I live in the middle of farm country, they started working up fields mid July. That said I’m only about half surrounded by worked up fields as of today. Depends on the farmer (resources) and the crop. Truth told some of the fields could of been worked up at the end of May if they weren’t still in the middle of combining at that time.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 22, 2024 8:35 am

The uncertainty of a USCRN station for a single reading is ±0.3°C. If one assumes that is the baseline for a class 1 station, then a class 4 station would have an uncertainty of a single reading of ±2.3°C.

It should be stated that when quoting a temperature the uncertainty of the number should also be stated. Polsters always state this (maybe in the fine print) when they quote poll results.

rtj1211
August 21, 2024 3:13 am

It’s arguable that a lawsuit should be issued against the Met Office for ‘issuing propaganda based on fraudulently calibrated weather stations’. It should be made clear that, without proper standards pertaining to weather stations, no data generated should be releasable to the general public and that, for any statements about weather/climate to be made, the weather stations on which the data is based must have been benchmarked regularly and declared ‘first rate’.

If the Met Office were sued for £25m with the money being spent by the litigants to benchmark every single UK weather station and, where necessary, have them removed from every ‘weather network’ in the UK, then maybe we’d start having a weather service again.

Until that is done, it’s just climate propaganda.

Reply to  rtj1211
August 22, 2024 8:38 am

It is just as easy to always quote the uncertainty in a single measurement. God forbid scientists would appear to not know measurements to milli-kelvin.

August 21, 2024 3:43 am

Why don’t they just locate a temperature station inside aunt Martha’s oven and tell her to get baking and get it over with.

August 21, 2024 4:06 am

Wow, what a dorky looking weatherman.

strativarius
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 21, 2024 4:26 am

That is our hero of the non-hurricane – Michael Fish.

Reply to  strativarius
August 21, 2024 4:29 am

bad hair, bad teeth, cheap suit- I thought it must be fake 🙂

OK, nothing wrong with not being hot looking- but few of us are on public display either.

strativarius
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 21, 2024 4:40 am

https://youtu.be/NnxjZ-aFkjs?si=W3Pxd47_YBiN_tSQ

Forever famous and… totally wrong. Funnily enough, rather than call it a hurricane – which it most definitely was – they called it the Great Storm.

Roger Collier
Reply to  strativarius
August 21, 2024 8:46 am

The Great Storm of 1287.

Reply to  strativarius
August 22, 2024 10:19 am

The Great Storm of 1987 was easily of hurricane intensity, but was NOT a hurricane. Rather, it was an extremely deep mid-latitudes depression, with the lowest pressure recorded of only 953 mbar.

I lived through that night in Broadstairs in Kent, and will never forget it.

Reply to  Graemethecat
August 23, 2024 9:50 am

I slept through. Woke up and all the trees were down…

mrbluesky
August 21, 2024 4:33 am

Having previously had dealings with the corrupt Met Office for 20 yrs, this is not a surprise at all……

sherro01
August 21, 2024 4:57 am

Chris,
Surely your argument is stronger if you get a bod with a thermometer to actually measure if or how the temperature changes as you move from these Met Office stations to the alleged sources of contaminating heat on another hot day with the wind in the (best?or worst?) direction?
Likewise, when discussing the related alleged effectgs of hor aircarft jet wash at airport met Office stations, surely yoiu need to show some measured effect of the jet wash with distance from the blunt end of the engine. Plus how much energy is coming from jet wash in a dfaym is it enough to materially heat the air inside the aircraft perimeter? I tried to get info in Australia but got waved off as if I was a security snooper planning to blow up an airport. Where has trust gone in society today?
I simply do not know if there is any temperature gradient in the 150 metres separating the centre of the Hilston transformer complex from the Met Office station. It would not be easy to measure because the anticipated difference might be so small that it is within the measurement uncertainty of +/- 1.4 deg C 2 sigma that I estimate from data elsewhere.
I am with Nick Stokes on this one.
Data trumps guesswork. Geoff S

Reply to  sherro01
August 22, 2024 8:42 am

I believe for a class 4 station there is an additional ±2°C to the uncertainty of a class 1 station. Using the USCRN spec of ±0.3°C you would have ±2.3°C.

August 21, 2024 5:21 am

Well there is no doubt many weather stations are poorly located. That I do not dispute. However what kind of hair brained persons write such drivel without checking the facts? Grid substations typically operate at 99+% efficiency and are not humongous heat producers. I present the following paper detailing substation efficiency:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266888989_Power_substation_energy_efficiency_analysis_-_a_case_study

Notice the two test transformers have a combined throughput of approximately 1.8 MegaWatts, while generating a mere 24 kW of heat in the form of iron and copper losses.

And I should point out a typical 8 cylinder car truck or van, idling generates 28 kW of waste heat per hour. (my 5.7 liter engine burns 0.8 US gallons per hour at idle; and gasoline has 35.2 kWhr/gallon)

So for a 2 MW substation, it’s waste heat is as idling a work van. How about stop and go traffic on roads and freeways? – many, many orders of magnitude more waste heat than from electric substations!

The waste heat of substations is so low grade and so small as to be entirely impractical to harness – my 2 bedroom condo has 12 kW heating elements for cold winter days and I live in South Florida! Northern climates easily require double that or more for heating. So a 2 MW substation could maybe heat one home in winter, albeit not well as there are losses in capturing and transporting that waste heat energy.

I’m all for raging against climate cult propaganda, but get your facts right, else your arguments can be easily dismissed!

Editor
Reply to  D Boss
August 21, 2024 10:13 am

Some would disagree with that “99% efficiency”:
Heat recovery opportunities from electrical substation transformers
“This paper investigates how a novel waste heat source, namely transformer waste heat could be harvested and distributed via district heating networks. Firstly, the investigation considered nameplate heat loss factors to quantify the theoretical waste heat potential from electrical substation transformers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which varied from 3.0 to 5.4 TWh a−1, equivalent to between 0.7 and 1.25% of annual heat demand for these countries, depending on loading assumptions.” [my bold]

August 21, 2024 6:04 am

the nearest metalled road is 97 metres from station. the nearest building in the grid sub-station is 125metres. the nearest switching gear is 142 metres (switches should not produce heat.
A met temperature station should only measure air temp. so whatever heat from the substation will have to heat the air to have an effect (remember the temp measurement should not be affected by the suns radiation – much greater than any transformer or switch should produce). The warm air from substation/road will rise dragging in cool air past the met site!!
Wind blowing warm air from the transformers etc will be deflected from the met site by trees

Reply to  ghalfrunt
August 21, 2024 8:54 pm

Where are you getting all these numbers?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 22, 2024 6:23 am

Gaggle Maps. apparently.

August 21, 2024 6:09 am

34-POINT-8 (not 7, not 9) — they call this “hot”?

46°C — this is HOT.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  karlomonte
August 21, 2024 7:28 am

they call this “hot”?”

No they called it the “Hottest” day of the year.
Grock the meaning now?

And it is hot for the UK …..

“This is only the eleventh year since 1961 that temperatures as high as 34.8C have been recorded, according to the Met Office’s provisional figures.
Six of those occasions have been in the last 10 years, the forecaster added.”

strativarius
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 21, 2024 8:33 am

Zzzzz

Anthony Banton
Reply to  strativarius
August 21, 2024 9:19 am

Indeed that effect afflicts me when I read the inane posts on here – such as yours above.

Reply to  strativarius
August 21, 2024 9:51 am

^^ +100 this

Anthony Banton
August 21, 2024 7:48 am

How about a proper meteorological analysis ….

There was a shallow Low over Lincolnshire and E Anglia drawing in air from the south to SE.
(hence air from the imagined hot source to the ENE could not affect the Cambridge NAIB site).

Additionally a veer in the wind advanced eastwards later in the afternoon behind a weak trough to reach Luton (FI) by 1350Z – behind that was a little cooler air.

https://www.ogimet.com/display_metars2.php?lang=en&lugar=eggw&tipo=ALL&ord=DIR&nil=SI&fmt=html&ano=2024&mes=08&day=12&hora=09&anof=2024&mesf=08&dayf=21&horaf=17&minf=59&send=send

(Wind veered from 17008KT to 22012KT)

At Cambridge A/P the veer occurred at 1520Z (an hour or so later).

https://www.ogimet.com/display_metars2.php?lang=en&lugar=eggw&tipo=ALL&ord=DIR&nil=SI&fmt=html&ano=2024&mes=08&day=12&hora=09&anof=2024&mesf=08&dayf=21&horaf=17&minf=59&send=send

comment image

In short the hottest air was located over E Anglia at the time of max temp and it was achieved before advection of cooler air from the SW.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 21, 2024 1:36 pm

WEATHER…not climate.

Bob
August 21, 2024 7:20 pm

Fire all top managers at the MET.

August 21, 2024 8:49 pm

The headline specifically states they are next to each other, but all the photos show them to be far apart,

“…..a Weather Station Next to a Massive Heat-Generating Electricity Sub-Station…”

What am I missing?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 21, 2024 10:26 pm

No you’ve grocked it.
It is at best an incredibly shoddy hit piece.

A fact that you and your fellow “sceptics” would have been unaware of but for fact checking.by people unaffected by the ideological tendency to believe anything that bad-mouths the MetO.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 23, 2024 9:48 am

So what is wrong with the piece, technically and factually? You have simply denied without any evidence, of which the piece has a lot. Which piece is wrong, how is it wrong, and what is right in your v evidence based opinion?

August 23, 2024 10:29 am

Interested in this because transformers should not get hot as in combustion like temperatures. If they do get hot inside the cooling oil can carbonise and track and there is a BIG bang, one of the small local distribution transformers in a local pub garden blew up while we were watching once. More than blew the bloody doors off.

The efficiency of a transformer depends on the iron core, and is 97-99%. But power ratings vary. If we take a 20KVA distribution substation and a lowest efficiency of 97% the losses are 3% or 20KVA so 600W. Half a hairdryer/Dyson.. But check my numbers.

They use KVA and not KW because current and voltage can be out of phase in AC circuits. LIke Brian May’s middle pick up on the Red Special, y’know………

Not a lot of energy density 100m away. If the power is greater you can pro rate these numbers.

CEng, CPhys