"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 29, 12:02 am, geoff wrote:
In message , Gib Bogle
writes









On 28/01/2013 1:51 p.m., geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windbelt
I feel sure he'll love this one.

Harry, you have SO missed the problem with wind

when it doesn't blow, you get no output

It cannot, therefore, be depended on in any way, shape or form to
generate power

However you want to dress it up, the argument is the same

That doesn't make sense. Power is still power, even when it is not
continuously generated.

You are missing the point

There are those who would say we have (purely hypothetical figures, for
illustration only)

10GW Nuclear,
15GW Coal
4GW Biomass
6GW Wind

making a total of 35GW available power

This is, of course, not true - no wind and we only have 29GW available.
The danger is when politicians see the first figure as reliable and
factor it in to the base load calculations

The cost of wind power might make it infeasible, but that's another
issue.

--
geoff

Tch tch. It's only a test device.
It's the sort of thing that might be useful for electricity generation
in remote places.

The first wind turbines were only a few inches in diameter.

There's a lot to be said for decentralised power generation using any
means.

Nope, nothing when its as poor as that.