harry wrote:
On Sep 28, 9:26 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/09/2012 09:53, harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 5:26 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/09/2012 10:27, harry wrote:
On Sep 24, 6:20 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/09/2012 20:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:30 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.
How is anyone going to make solar paneles without oil? The manufacture
of solar panels is extraordinarily wasteful of energy. The price of
solar panels is closely linked to the price of oil.
So which part of a solar panel comes exclusively from oil?
Its energy content* by and large.
* the energy required to make it. And mine all the things that go into
it. And get it to where its got to go. And to make all the complex
electronics that help defraud consumers.
You can see why "big oil" probably quite likes these things... they can
champion them, claim all sorts of green subsidy for encouraging them,
while watching them indirectly convert their fossil fuel into expensive
electricity ;-)
All electricity producing devices need energy to manufacture.
But with renewables it's a one off.
Have you been taking dribble pills?
How do you suppose the van load of gear and its crew gets to each wind
turbine to maintain it? What about the grid workers looking after all
those extra miles of expensive copper?
They can't just turn up at work in the morning and do the whole power
station when is spread over every bit of previously green and pleasant
wilderness.
Big oil is getting on the bandwagon. They own windfarms now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_...rnative_Energy
Don't be influenced by TurNiP.
Of course - they know how to milk subsidies and incentive schemes even
better than you. Not only that, they get to supply all the fuel to
maintain the kit, and that to keep the lights on when the wind is not
blowing.
--
So we've suddenly changed the topic to maintenance?
Not in the least - maintenance is an embodied cost of production. Why do
you think wind power is so damned expensive?
Well a wind turbine needs far less maintenance that a steam boiler.
Except you need several hundred of them to give you the capacity of a
moderate sized conventional power station, and you also need the
conventional power station.
And Solar PV panels need nil maintenance.
other than the power station, and the replacement inverters etc.
Also they need no plant attendants, no buildings to house them in. no
cooling towers and no chimneys. All of which require maintenance.
Yes a valid argument, for when they do a 75MW turbine with 100% load
factor.
Sad the way you clutch at straws.
They are pretty big straws.
--
Well no doubt you can provide statistics regarding maintenance costs
of wind turbines?
yes. Generally reckoned to be around 15% of capital cost per annum.
And a replacement inverter is not a maintenance cost, it's breakdown.
Coems to the same thing. I suppose a worn out bearing is not maintenance
cost, its a breakdown.
ALL these things come under O & M on the balance sheet. Operation and
maintenance.
I realise you have never looked at a balance sheet in yor life, buty
hey, learn.
I haven't heard of a single invertor failure yet.
But unlike you, I can provide written evidence instead of backyard
theoretics.
http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf
"Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik"
So we can expect a fully paid up shill for the renewable industry to
give us impartial; peer reviewed articles, right?
Poor old harry. He doesn't realise how badly he is being conned.
In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.
no, it means that the pv industry needed some bs written to convince
fools like you that they were reliable.
So they went top Rentadoktor and spoofed up a 'white paper'
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.