dennis@home wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mary Fisher wrote:
Wind generated power is not polluting, does not use precious resources
and
does not produce carbon dioxide.

The fact that more energy is probably used manufacturing them than they
will ever produce obviously isn't a consideration.


This could well be true.
And it is encouraged by the way savings are done in monetary terms.
It is quite possible to pay for the energy now at £X /W and save lots of
money in 15 years time when its 10x£X /W.
It makes economic sense but wrecks the environment.



Yes, I was considering how expensive a 10,000 litre oil tank would be.
If I give up the lawn, and the kids in the school next door don't mind
the smell, I could buy enough now at 32p/l to last a decade or so (when
oil will cost 3.20/l + UK Gold Plated euro-environ-tax).

R.

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

/Alleged/ installed capacity.

And I'm quite sure that should you wish to study the product they
will be able to supply the conditions under which the turbine will
generate that output.

Which will be unlikely to occur frequently in the UK!

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:40:43 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

If there were enough, that might be true. However, at £1500 this is
not going to produce a significant sales volume.

Time will tell whether B&Q manage to shift many or not. However, the
manufacturers of such small turbines have been growing steadily for
some years.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

There are other reasons for double glazing, such as improved comfort
and (possibly) reduced maintenance. What other reasons are there for
buying a wind turbine other than saving money: if the answer is
saving the planet, then there are much better ways of using the
money - buy a condensing boiler for your elderly neighbour!

Move your elderly neighbour into your house and save all his energy needs!

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:36:41 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

Wind power is diffuse and variable, but that doesn't mean it is not
a useful way of generating large amounts of electricity. It is clear
that with current prices up to 20% of total generation can be by
wind without the need for expensive changes to the electrical
system.

As long as its a small percentage then maybe.
However if you build enough to generate 20% at all times you will need to
beef up the distribution system (expensive).

That rather depends on the precise status of the system in any one
place. For example if we manage to ditch the white elephant nuclear
stations in Scotland then the lines that export electricity to
England can be used to export sustainable electricity. On the other
hand the distribution system between Beauly and Denny does need
upgrading. None of this is unforseen.

Its not going to be easy to move all the power from Linconshire to London at
10am and then from Cornwall to London at 11am, etc. as the winds move around
the country.

It will be very easy, the system to do this already exists and
people have looked at what would need to be done to it at various
wind penetrations. That work is one of the reason why the 20% figure
exists.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:22:32 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Thats the trouble with localised power generation. Its pro rata more
expensive that centralised - in cash and CO2 generation terms both, and
its not necessarily in the best place for efficiency.

It is if one ignores the large losses from a centralised system.
However, despite the best attempts of Mr Liar these costs are
unlikely to be forgotten.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

As I said above. Some doesn't have to be very much at all. Why the
reluctance to be more precise?

Because it is a subject that doesn't permit soundbite "answers". Few
interesting questions can be answered yes or no. That is why the
report is worth reading for those who are interested.

What makes you think I didn't read it? Actually I did so I can say with
some certainty that the reason you wouldn't be more precise was because
your source wasn't. The relevant paragraph is as follows:

"Fortunately, the need for backup can be reduced, by, for example,
distributing wind turbines widely. 'There has not been a single moment
in the last 40 years when the wind has not been blowing somewhere in the
UK', says Sinden, who has examined decades of wind speed records from
weather stations across the country. 'You may have calm, still weather
in southern England, but the wind will still be blowing across the
Highlands. The key to creating a reliable electricity supply from wind
is to have the turbines in lots of different places, even in less windy
parts of the country. That way, the need for spinning reserve and other
backup is reduced.' "

What a load of tosh. A large stationary high situated over say Lichfield
would give little or no useable wind anywhere in England or Wales
(including coastal waters) for maybe a week or more. Having wind
turbines in Northern Scotland would be next to useless in such
circumstances however many they were.

And siting turbines "in less windy parts of the country" would mean even
more wasted capacity as the load factor wouldn't even reach the 0.3 that
the propagandists expect from a "reasonable" location.

All the wind power is doing is forcing conventional
generating capacity into reserve capacity when the wind blows.

Incorrect, for reasons outlined in the links I have provided.

"In evidence he presented to the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee in 2003, Sinden showed that if offshore wind power alone were
to provide 10 per cent of England and Wales's electricity demand, 3,500
megawatts of conventional capacity could be closed down, but an
additional standby generating capacity of 3,135 megawatts would be
required, negating most of the benefits."

Sinden goes on to say that the standby capacity could be reduced to 400
megawatts if the 10% was provided by 65% wind, 25% dCHP and 10% solar
but no mention is made of what would be the case if wind was left out of
the equation not what the installed wind capacity would have to be in
order to provide its minor share in reducing the standby capacity.


No but you just plug windpower.

Incorrect. I "plug" a whole variety of sustainable forms of
generation. When someone knocks one of them I will rebut incorrect
assertions.

Dinorwig as you very well know is a pump storage scheme whose purpose is
to cover peak demand, not to hang around waiting for primary generators
to fail.

Incorrect. There are hydro schemes which are operated simply to lop
the peaks, Sloy is a good example.

Sloy is a conventional hydro scheme, not a pump storage scheme, and with
an installed capacity of 160 megawatts it wouldn't be any use covering
peaks anywhere South of the border with Scotland.

Dinorwig fulfills a number of
purposes.

"Pump storage generation offers a critical back-up facility during
periods of excessive demand on the national grid system."

One of these is to cover failures in large power stations.

Failures? Pull the other one. It would be hard pressed to cover for one
large power station.

Lose a major power station and Dinorwig would quickly run out of water.

In a relatively few hours, as the operators state on their web site.
However, as I said before in this thread, that gives enough time to
resolve the fault or wind up other forms of generation.

But as its busy covering "periods of excessive demand on the national
grid system" it won't have the capacity to do much of anything else.

I don't recall suggesting that it can be started and stopped at will
to deal with emergencies.

Not much use then is it?

Incorrect. It provides base load generation that largely displaces
fossil fuelled generation.

But the fossil fuel plant is still required for back-up and while that
remains the case it is pointless wasting time, effort, energy and money
providing wind generation capacity.

--
Roger Chapman

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-05 16:37:44 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-05 09:10:41 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:13:52 +0100 someone who may be Dave Fawthrop
wrote this:-

Worse synchronising the turbine output with mains AC at the correct
frequency, phase etc, then adjusting the phase angle to feed power back
into the mains is **VERY** **VERY** difficult.

It *was* difficult in the days of manual control systems. However,
engineering has advanced and now it is very easy, simply a matter of
connecting the box between turbine and mains.

It's just that the whole exercise was pointless, is pointless and
always will be pointless apart from to those gullible enough to spend
£1500 on junk in B&Q (and buy Lottery tickets). As long as no return
is expected, both seem eminently sensible.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it and if mains 'leccy prices
don't increase lots. If they do increase as they may well if we get a
carbon tax then the economics change. Also depends on how much carbon it
takes you to earn the difference between purchase and savings.

Peter

A lot of ifs there. It would take a lot of economic distortion
directed at individuals in order to alter the economics and that
probably wouldn't be politically acceptable.

Depends how it's sold. The polls show people are becoming more and more
accepting that things need to be done. What they want is systems whereby
firstly they can change their behaviour to reduce costs and secondly
that everyone is in the same boat.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country

"Roger" wrote in message
k...

But the fossil fuel plant is still required for back-up and while that
remains the case it is pointless wasting time, effort, energy and money
providing wind generation capacity.

Your opinion.

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

That rather depends on the precise status of the system in any one
place. For example if we manage to ditch the white elephant nuclear
stations in Scotland then the lines that export electricity to
England can be used to export sustainable electricity. On the other
hand the distribution system between Beauly and Denny does need
upgrading. None of this is unforseen.

The nuclear power plants at Hunstanton and Torness seem ideally placed
to provide electricity for Scotlands central belt rather than for export
to England. When they close you will need your upgraded transmission
lines from the far North to supply lowland Scotland.

--
Roger Chapman

On 2006-10-05 21:54:50 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

Depends how it's sold. The polls show people are becoming more and more
accepting that things need to be done.

Probably true.

However, if you ask the supplementary questions of:

- Are you prepared to make personal investments with no return?

and

- Are you willing to spend 5-10% of your net income on a product to
produce electricity ecologically but with no clear figures of how much
and the payback period.?

it gets a little muddy.


What they want is systems whereby
firstly they can change their behaviour to reduce costs

For that there needs to be a clear and demonstrable ROI



and secondly
that everyone is in the same boat.

Most people don't care about that if one looks at behaviour rather than
what they would like others to think.



Peter

"Richard Downing" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mary Fisher wrote:
Wind generated power is not polluting, does not use precious
resources
and
does not produce carbon dioxide.

The fact that more energy is probably used manufacturing them
than they
will ever produce obviously isn't a consideration.


This could well be true.
And it is encouraged by the way savings are done in monetary
terms.
It is quite possible to pay for the energy now at £X /W and save
lots of
money in 15 years time when its 10x£X /W.
It makes economic sense but wrecks the environment.



Yes, I was considering how expensive a 10,000 litre oil tank would
be.
If I give up the lawn, and the kids in the school next door don't
mind
the smell, I could buy enough now at 32p/l to last a decade or so
(when
oil will cost 3.20/l + UK Gold Plated euro-environ-tax).

R.

But the government of the day will slap a windfall tax on your gain
and wipe the smile off your face !!!

AWEM

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:00:59 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

But the fossil fuel plant is still required for back-up and while that
remains the case it is pointless wasting time, effort, energy and
money providing wind generation capacity.

Your opinion.

I'd add a caveat: at the expense of other renewable energy sources.

If The money being spent of unreliable (as in availabilty), unsightly and
noisy (at *all* frequencies not just "audible" ones) wind turbines was
spent on smaller but widespread renewables and energy saving the returns,
in reduced carbon emmissions, could be much greater.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:38:48 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

What a load of tosh.

So you assert.

A large stationary high situated over say Lichfield
would give little or no useable wind anywhere in England or Wales
(including coastal waters) for maybe a week or more.

Something the weather records would show happening regularly. I note
that you didn't provide any evidence that they show this.

Having wind
turbines in Northern Scotland would be next to useless in such
circumstances however many they were.

Even if such a thing was to happen (and it may do from time to time)
that does not mean that wind farms in Scotland would be "useless".
They would still be generating. The shortfall in generation in
England and Wales would be made up in other ways. However, it is a
mistake to think that this means dedicated backup just for wind
farms. In an interconnected system backup is shared amongst all
forms of generation.

Sloy is a conventional hydro scheme, not a pump storage scheme,

Which is why I did not claim that Sloy is a pumped storage scheme.

and with
an installed capacity of 160 megawatts it wouldn't be any use covering
peaks anywhere South of the border with Scotland.

Not a claim I made either.

However, the traditional operating regime was to run it six days a
week to lop the peak in Glasgow. I suspect this has not changed.

Failures? Pull the other one. It would be hard pressed to cover for one
large power station.

You will agree that Sizewell B is rated at 1320MW, or so and is the
largest single point failure?

http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm says "Synchronised and
spinning-in-air Emergency load pick-up rate from standby 0 to 1,320
MW in 12 seconds". Note that represents only four of the six 330MW
sets.

But the fossil fuel plant is still required for back-up and while that
remains the case it is pointless wasting time, effort, energy and money
providing wind generation capacity.

Incorrect. Claims that 100% backup are necessary are mildly amusing,
but still incorrect. Those who wish to study the subject can read
the report at http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/258/852 but the
summary is:

================================================== ==================

100% ‘back up’ for individual renewable sources is unnecessary;
extra capacity will be needed to keep supplies secure, but will be
modest and a small part of the total cost of renewables. It is
possible to work out what is needed and plan accordingly

The output of fossil fuel plant will need to be adjusted more often
to cope with fluctuations in wind output, but any losses this causes
are small compared to overall savings in emissions
Renewable energy, such as wind power, leads to a direct reduction in
CO2 emissions

None of the 200+ studies UKERC reviewed suggested that the
introduction of significant levels of intermittent renewable energy
would lead to reduced reliability

If wind power were to supply 20% of Britain’s electricity,
intermittency costs would be 0.5 - 0.8p per kilowatt an hour (p/kWh)
of wind output. This would be added to wind generating costs of 3 -
5p p/kWh. By comparison, costs of gas fired power stations are
around 3p p/kWh

The impact on electricity consumers would be around 0.1p p/kWh.
Domestic electricity tariffs are typically 10 - 16p p/kWh.
Intermittency therefore would account for around 1% of electricity
costs

Costs of intermittency at current levels is much smaller, but will
rise if use of renewables expands.

Wide geographical dispersion and a diversity of renewable sources
will keep costs down

================================================== ==================




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:26:22 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

If The money being spent of unreliable (as in availabilty),

Incorrect, as the UKERC report demonstrates.

unsightly and

In your opinion.

noisy (at *all* frequencies not just "audible" ones) wind turbines

When I visited Black Law, a large wind farm, I made a careful note
of the noise outside the farm. There was no noise that I could hear
from the generation of electricity. Motor vehicles were the loudest
noise. After that there was the sound of humans talking, sheep,
birds and the wind itself. It is a quiet enough area for the sound
of humans and animals to carry some distance. Obviously there is
some noise when one is standing near a turbine, but there is no
problem speaking in a normal voice.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:04:54 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

The nuclear power plants at Hunstanton and Torness seem ideally placed
to provide electricity for Scotlands central belt rather than for export
to England.

These white elephants were built during a fairly disastrous period
of the nationalised industry, when money was squandered on gross
overcapacity to fulfill fantasy predict and provide targets. Torness
was entirely unnecessary and customers have been paying for it in
their bills ever since. Export to England only covers some of the
excessive cost foisted on people by those decisions. Defenders of
that period seem to have forgotten about Inverkip too.

While I wouldn't have started from here there is a way out of the
mess that doesn't involve new nuclear stations and allows the
exports to continue.

When they close you will need your upgraded transmission
lines from the far North to supply lowland Scotland.

In 2006 Scotland should get 19% of its electricity from renewables,
12% hydro, 7% wind.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:00:59 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

But the fossil fuel plant is still required for back-up and while that
remains the case it is pointless wasting time, effort, energy and
money providing wind generation capacity.

Your opinion.

I'd add a caveat: at the expense of other renewable energy sources.

If The money being spent of unreliable (as in availabilty), unsightly and
noisy (at *all* frequencies not just "audible" ones) wind turbines was
spent on smaller but widespread renewables and energy saving the returns,
in reduced carbon emmissions, could be much greater.

In my opinioin wind turbines are not unsightly. The very large ones are
beautiful. Small ones are no more unsightly than pylons, phone masts, radio
transmitting masts, tv aerials, lorries, houses, people ...

:-)

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:26:22 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

If The money being spent of unreliable (as in availabilty),

Incorrect, as the UKERC report demonstrates.

unsightly and

In your opinion.

noisy (at *all* frequencies not just "audible" ones) wind turbines

When I visited Black Law, a large wind farm, I made a careful note
of the noise outside the farm. There was no noise that I could hear
from the generation of electricity. Motor vehicles were the loudest
noise. After that there was the sound of humans talking, sheep,
birds and the wind itself. It is a quiet enough area for the sound
of humans and animals to carry some distance. Obviously there is
some noise when one is standing near a turbine, but there is no
problem speaking in a normal voice.

I had the same experience when visiting the one at Ogden Water.

Motor vehicles are very noisy and many of them smell too.

Mary




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

The nuclear power plants at Hunstanton and Torness seem ideally placed
to provide electricity for Scotlands central belt rather than for export
to England.

These white elephants were built during a fairly disastrous period
of the nationalised industry, when money was squandered on gross
overcapacity to fulfill fantasy predict and provide targets. Torness
was entirely unnecessary and customers have been paying for it in
their bills ever since. Export to England only covers some of the
excessive cost foisted on people by those decisions. Defenders of
that period seem to have forgotten about Inverkip too.

Careful, your paranoia about nuclear power is showing.

While I wouldn't have started from here there is a way out of the
mess that doesn't involve new nuclear stations and allows the
exports to continue.

When they close you will need your upgraded transmission
lines from the far North to supply lowland Scotland.

In 2006 Scotland should get 19% of its electricity from renewables,
12% hydro, 7% wind.

How much from nuclear?

And how much is really exported to England?

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

What a load of tosh.

So you assert.

A large stationary high situated over say Lichfield
would give little or no useable wind anywhere in England or Wales
(including coastal waters) for maybe a week or more.

Something the weather records would show happening regularly. I note
that you didn't provide any evidence that they show this.

Just watch the weather forecasts. Blocking highs are a regular feature
of the weather at certain times of the year.

Having wind
turbines in Northern Scotland would be next to useless in such
circumstances however many they were.

Even if such a thing was to happen (and it may do from time to time)
that does not mean that wind farms in Scotland would be "useless".
They would still be generating. The shortfall in generation in
England and Wales would be made up in other ways. However, it is a
mistake to think that this means dedicated backup just for wind
farms. In an interconnected system backup is shared amongst all
forms of generation.

Wind farms in Scotland are not the answer to Englands energy problems.
Scotland is just too remote from the centres of population South of the
border and what might just work for a large thinly populated country
with lousy weather doesn't for a densely populated area with much milder
weather. Greater London alone has a larger population than the whole of
Scotland.

Sloy is a conventional hydro scheme, not a pump storage scheme,

Which is why I did not claim that Sloy is a pumped storage scheme.

and with
an installed capacity of 160 megawatts it wouldn't be any use covering
peaks anywhere South of the border with Scotland.

Not a claim I made either.

So why raise it in the first place?

However, the traditional operating regime was to run it six days a
week to lop the peak in Glasgow. I suspect this has not changed.

Failures? Pull the other one. It would be hard pressed to cover for one
large power station.

You will agree that Sizewell B is rated at 1320MW, or so and is the
largest single point failure?

No. Why should I when most modern coal fired stations are 2000MW nominal
or larger and Drax is 4000MW.

http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm says "Synchronised and
spinning-in-air Emergency load pick-up rate from standby 0 to 1,320
MW in 12 seconds". Note that represents only four of the six 330MW
sets.

So, and that figure is gross. I am not sure whether the figures I have
quoted above are gross or net but either way Dinorwig would be hard
pressed to substitute for a single 2000 MW stations and couldn't for the
loss of Drax.

But the fossil fuel plant is still required for back-up and while that
remains the case it is pointless wasting time, effort, energy and money
providing wind generation capacity.

Incorrect. Claims that 100% backup are necessary are mildly amusing,
but still incorrect. Those who wish to study the subject can read
the report at http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/258/852 but the
summary is:

Do please read what I wrote. Your own source claimed that:

"if offshore wind power alone were to provide 10 per cent of England and
Wales's electricity demand, 3,500 megawatts of conventional capacity
could be closed down, but an additional standby generating capacity of
3,135 megawatts would be required, negating most of the benefits."

At 20% the vagaries of wind power would make the situation even more
problematical.

================================================== ==================

100% ‘back up’ for individual renewable sources is unnecessary;
extra capacity will be needed to keep supplies secure, but will be
modest and a small part of the total cost of renewables. It is
possible to work out what is needed and plan accordingly

The output of fossil fuel plant will need to be adjusted more often
to cope with fluctuations in wind output, but any losses this causes
are small compared to overall savings in emissions
Renewable energy, such as wind power, leads to a direct reduction in
CO2 emissions

None of the 200+ studies UKERC reviewed suggested that the
introduction of significant levels of intermittent renewable energy
would lead to reduced reliability

If wind power were to supply 20% of Britain’s electricity,
intermittency costs would be 0.5 - 0.8p per kilowatt an hour (p/kWh)
of wind output. This would be added to wind generating costs of 3 -
5p p/kWh. By comparison, costs of gas fired power stations are
around 3p p/kWh

The impact on electricity consumers would be around 0.1p p/kWh.
Domestic electricity tariffs are typically 10 - 16p p/kWh.
Intermittency therefore would account for around 1% of electricity
costs

But 16% to the already more costly wind power.

Costs of intermittency at current levels is much smaller, but will
rise if use of renewables expands.

Wide geographical dispersion and a diversity of renewable sources
will keep costs down

And transmission costs up.

================================================== ==================

--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:37:40 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

If The money being spent of unreliable (as in availabilty),

Incorrect, as the UKERC report demonstrates.

*Provided* you have large area diversity. Any given wind turbine is only
available when the wind blows and that is, on average, only 1/3 of the
time at best and is unpredictable beyond a few days. By comparision to
other generation sources that is extremely unreliable.

unsightly and

In your opinion.

Am not entitled to my opinion?

noisy (at *all* frequencies not just "audible" ones) wind turbines

When I visited Black Law, a large wind farm, I made a careful note
of the noise outside the farm. There was no noise that I could hear
from the generation of electricity.

Read what I wrote. There is a lot of measurement of "noise" done in
relation to wind turbines but the vast majority of it is only at audible
frequencies. Very little, if any, measurement is done for infrasound and
little is known about the physiological effects low levels of infrasound
has on people.

There are enough reports of "illness"(*) increasing in the local
population when a wind farm is built that warrants further investigation.
It is even more disturbing when people suffering from "illness" move away
from the turbine site and their illness goes only to return when back
near the turbines.

(*) Anything from increased headaches, nausea, or feeling of general
malaise and apathy. All rather vague and as there isn't a pill to pop to
cure it the medical profession struggle to make a diagnoses.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 20:12:24 +0100 someone who may be Guy King
wrote this:-

And I'm quite sure that should you wish to study the product they
will be able to supply the conditions under which the turbine will
generate that output.

Which will be unlikely to occur frequently in the UK!

Depends which part of the UK one is talking about. In Benbecula the
conditions may well be exceeded for much of the year. In a deep
valley somewhere the conditions may be rare.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:30:42 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

Domestic electricity tariffs are typically 10 - 16p p/kWh.

Pardon? I pay, even after the current increases and VAT, 7.55p/kWh. Even
if I take into account the effect of the standing charge it only adds
0.5p/kWh to the price, so no more than 8.1p/kWh *all in*.

Even the expensive (but *very* good for low users) EquiPower tarrifs I
have are 10.3p/kWh Std or 3.98/12.26p/kWh E7 again all in. No standing
charge (not even a "hidden" one), flate rate per unit.

What world is this UKERC in 'cause it aint the one I inhabit. If they
can't get basic, public, facts at least half right I'm afraid it casts
doubt onto all of their figures that are not so easy to independantly
check.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:25:19 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

The uninformed might believe your statement indicates that there is
something different about wind turbines. However, it is a fact that
all forms of electricity generation do not produce 100% of their
rated output over a year.

This is true but I expect most other sources are signifcantly above even
the generous 1/3 of rate output for a wind turbine.

So? Surely anything which goes some way to reducing fossil fuel generation
is good?

Not if it produces worse effects than those it's replacing and not if
the same money spent in other ways would do more good.

--
Chris Green

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:49:16 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

I see. So topology is kind of like a tree ...

Very ish. Think of a couple of main backbones, linked, with pockets of
APs at intervals.

Do you do anything to contend the bandwidth per user?

Yes, the Linux based servers bandwidth limit each user. Don't ask me what
is actually used to do it 'cause I don't know but it works. Orginally it
was free for all but one or three users would hog bandwidth and slow
service down for everyone.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 5 Oct 2006 05:48:53 -0700 someone who may be "Chris"
wrote this:-

Was actually referring to the ones in B&Q

That doesn't alter the fact that the energy used to make them will
be recovered, except in the strangest of circumstances.

Obviously it is likely that such turbines will not be ideally
situated in many cases and they will not be as efficient at
converting wind into electricity as a large turbine. Thus it is
likely that they will take longer to recover the energy used to make
them, let's say a year to be generous.

That is an energy balance however. A financial balance is a
different thing. I expect that, as with almost anything else, the
early adopters will have other reasons for purchase and that the
result of their purchases will be to drive the cost down.

Wind turbines on top of your house are a load of bull until they become very
cheap and simple to produce. You'd be better off spending your £1500 on
insulating your house properly and putting in energy saving bulbs, sorting
out all your radiator valves, and getting rid of all the lamp fittings with
3 or 4 bulbs in and replacing them with one bulb. In fact, it'd be better if
everyone STFU ****ing about with them and spent the money on insulation (ie,
upgrades of insulation and energy efficiency for all houses, say by making
the current subsidised insulation schemes mandatory, minimum insulation for
conservatories etc).

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

And I'm quite sure that should you wish to study the product they
will be able to supply the conditions under which the turbine will
generate that output.

Which will be unlikely to occur frequently in the UK!

Depends which part of the UK one is talking about. In Benbecula the
conditions may well be exceeded for much of the year. In a deep
valley somewhere the conditions may be rare.

I'll bet if you compared it to population density it'd turn out that few
people get a decent whack at it.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...

unsightly and

In your opinion.

Am not entitled to my opinion?

Yes, but you didn't say that it was your opinion, you said it as though it
were a fact.

Mary

"Roger" wrote in message
k...


Wind farms in Scotland are not the answer to Englands energy problems.

England's energy problems could be greatly reduced if people were less
wasteful of energy. How much are you prepared to sacrifice?

Mary
who has just been treading washing in the bath :-)

wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:25:19 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

The uninformed might believe your statement indicates that there is
something different about wind turbines. However, it is a fact that
all forms of electricity generation do not produce 100% of their
rated output over a year.

This is true but I expect most other sources are signifcantly above
even
the generous 1/3 of rate output for a wind turbine.

So? Surely anything which goes some way to reducing fossil fuel
generation
is good?

Not if it produces worse effects than those it's replacing

What worse effects?

and not if
the same money spent in other ways would do more good.

How would you spend it? to do more 'good' (a subjective, value laden word at
best)

"Roger" wrote in message
k...

Careful, your paranoia about nuclear power is showing.

There's an awful lot of paranoia about wind power in this thread :-)

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
k...

Careful, your paranoia about nuclear power is showing.

There's an awful lot of paranoia about wind power in this thread :-)

A lot of it is NIMBYism, but that's opinion based - I wouldn't want a wind
farm nearby but I'm happy with Nuclear!

" cupra" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
k...

Careful, your paranoia about nuclear power is showing.

There's an awful lot of paranoia about wind power in this thread :-)

A lot of it is NIMBYism, but that's opinion based - I wouldn't want a wind
farm nearby but I'm happy with Nuclear!

I'd be happy with either. I'm not happy with coal fired power stations.
Living on the Yorkshire coalfields I've experienced what coal mining does to
people.

Mary

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:


Wind farms in Scotland are not the answer to Englands energy problems.

England's energy problems could be greatly reduced if people were less
wasteful of energy. How much are you prepared to sacrifice?

Why should I make any sacrifice at all when the average Brit has a
larger energy footprint than I do? Let those who positively waste more
energy make the sacrifices.

Mary
who has just been treading washing in the bath :-)

Bully for you but washing machines are just so much more effective.

Incidentally I would put up a decent sized wind turbine if I thought I
would be able to make even a tiny profit out of it but I cannot afford
to waste either my pension or my capital on grandiose schemes that don't
pay for themselves.

Unlike you I have sufficient land, open aspect and altitude to give a
turbine a chance of working. What I might not get is planning
permission. According to the local rag a householder in an isolated
position up the valley was refused planning permission for a wind
turbine he wanted to install to replace his 30 year old diesel
generator. There was something odd about the circumstances though which
might have contributed to the refusal. The householder apparently
claimed he was getting too old to go out and start his generator
whenever they needed electricity and the turbine was the only way to get
round that. Odd in that even 30 years ago auto start generators had been
around for at least 20 years.

But I already have mains electricity so cannot use even his feeble excuse.

--
Roger Chapman

Mary Fisher wrote:
" cupra" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
k...

Careful, your paranoia about nuclear power is showing.

There's an awful lot of paranoia about wind power in this thread :-)

A lot of it is NIMBYism, but that's opinion based - I wouldn't want
a wind farm nearby but I'm happy with Nuclear!

I'd be happy with either.

IMO, wind power is best suited to offshore locations, but again that's
personal....

I'm not happy with coal fired power
stations. Living on the Yorkshire coalfields I've experienced what
coal mining does to people.

Mary

In an ideal world, all coal fired should go....

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:44:08 +0100 someone who may be "Doki"
wrote this:-

Wind turbines on top of your house are a load of bull until they become very
cheap and simple to produce. You'd be better off spending your £1500 on
insulating your house properly and putting in energy saving bulbs, sorting
out all your radiator valves, and getting rid of all the lamp fittings with
3 or 4 bulbs in and replacing them with one bulb.

What I do is not in the least important to the discussion.

Were I to be asked about such things I would say that there are
other things to do first, including the things you mention. However,
having done that if someone wanted to install a wind turbine on
their house I would point out the advantages and disadvantages of
such a scheme.

I draw my own conclusions about those who loudly imply that someone
should never install a wind turbine on their house.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:27:14 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:30:42 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

Domestic electricity tariffs are typically 10 - 16p p/kWh.

No I didn't write that.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:09:42 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

There's an awful lot of paranoia about wind power in this thread :-)

Indeed. The rather desperate looking attempts to regurgitate "facts"
that have been disproved are not convincing.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:44:08 +0100 someone who may be "Doki"
wrote this:-

Wind turbines on top of your house are a load of bull until they become
very
cheap and simple to produce. You'd be better off spending your £1500 on
insulating your house properly and putting in energy saving bulbs, sorting
out all your radiator valves, and getting rid of all the lamp fittings
with
3 or 4 bulbs in and replacing them with one bulb.

What I do is not in the least important to the discussion.

Were I to be asked about such things I would say that there are
other things to do first, including the things you mention. However,
having done that if someone wanted to install a wind turbine on
their house I would point out the advantages and disadvantages of
such a scheme.

I draw my own conclusions about those who loudly imply that someone
should never install a wind turbine on their house.

Indeed.

There are often alternative sites. When we considered it we were going to
fix it to the concrete block garage to avoid vibration on the house wall.
That would also have got it further away from wind disturbance from the
house.

We were advised by the supplier that it still wouldn't have been suitable
because of all the other buildings round us. I'm prepared to take the
expert's view and not be ruled by opinion or unfounded scepticism.

I'd say never mind, we can wait for things to get better, of which I'm
confident, but we'll probably be dead by then. We haven't as much time left
as many round here.

Mary


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:


Wind farms in Scotland are not the answer to Englands energy problems.

England's energy problems could be greatly reduced if people were less
wasteful of energy. How much are you prepared to sacrifice?

Why should I make any sacrifice at all when the average Brit has a
larger energy footprint than I do? Let those who positively waste more
energy make the sacrifices.

No comment

Mary
who has just been treading washing in the bath :-)

Bully for you but washing machines are just so much more effective.

You've done coparitive tests?

In this case the items was too big for effective machine washing.

Incidentally I would put up a decent sized wind turbine if I thought I
would be able to make even a tiny profit out of it but I cannot afford
to waste either my pension or my capital on grandiose schemes that don't
pay for themselves.

I apologise, I didn't realise you were so hard up.