Andy Champ wrote:
On 29/10/2010 11:40, David Hansen wrote:

These plants may be at the end of their useful lives as generating
stations operating much of the time, but that does not mean they are
at the end of their lives for occasional use. The capital cost of
constructing them should be paid off. Their engineering foibles are
known. Maintenance of them for low running hours should be minimal.
Obviously they can't just be left completely alone, for the cobwebs
to be blown off and them to start when needed, but a gentle system
of maintenance will keep them ready. It is hardly a novel suggestion
that elderly bits of equipment are retained as a reserve, it is done
in all sorts of industries.




Surely a lot of the end of life plants are coal (or old nuclear) which
take days to go from cold to generating? I don't think the wind
forecasts are that good.

In fact, I _know_ they aren't that good!

Open-cycle gas turbines are about the only old plant I'd want to see
used that way.

Yup. Actually nuclear reactors can be wound up faster than coal can in
terms of part load to full. They cant go lower than a significant
fraction of the total load though.
Places like Lithuania that burn coal or oil shale are in deep trouble if
they go with wind. Likely to see no benefit whatsoever unless they
replace those plants with CCGT, and in which case they get tied to
Russia, for gas. And in any case simply going gas CCGT is a huge drop in
carbon emissions - the windmills sim-ply add expense and complexity and
give no benefit.

The whole wind thing is complete lunacy. Hansen is the chief lunatic.





Andy