On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:05:30 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

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.

The UK electricity system operates with a one hour gate closure. As
the reports I have referred to illustrate, wind power can be
forecast accurately over this timescale. Over a few days wind
forecasts are less accurate, but accurate enough to wind up standby
plant if there is likely to be a lull over part of the UK.

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.

If you really want to push the infrasound then I will respond with
http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html which contains the
following:

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

In response to concerns that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause
associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise
Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low
Frequency Noise and its Effects, says:

"I can state quite categorically that there is no significant
infrasound from current designs of wind turbines."

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


--
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 21:38:48 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

"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."

You have yet to provide a source for this quotation, preferably with
a URL. When you do so we can consider it and the context in which it
was made.



--
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

Mary Fisher wrote:

"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.

Surely everything said here is an 'opinion' especially when relating
to subjective things like unsightliness. If I say something like
"that painting is horrible" it's inevitably my opinion, there's really
no need to add IMHO to everything one says.

--
Chris Green

Mary Fisher wrote:

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?

I don't know, but you said "Surely anything which goes some way to
reducing fossil .....". All I was saying was that, no, it's not true
that *anything* that reduces fossil fuel use is good. One needs to
study the relative costs (both monetary and environmental) of the
alternatives before you can decide.


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)

See above, I didn't say that there were *definitely* better ways to
spend your money, I was complaining that you were saying that
doing this (presumably installing a wind turbine) must be good
regardless of any alternatives available.

--
Chris Green

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:57:34 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

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

What makes you think I don't? However, all this was considered by
UKERC and you have yet to demonstrate a flaw in what they did.

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

I didn't claim that they are *the* answer to anything. That is just
a distortion. However, they are part of a sustainable answer to the
problems concerned.

Greater London alone has a larger population than the whole of
Scotland.

Correct, roughly double. Now if I had claimed that wind farms on
their own would provide all the electricity for London you would
have a point, but that is not something I have claimed.

So why raise it in the first place?

As I said, Sloy is an example of a hydro station that is used to lop
peaks. Hydro stations are extremely flexible and thus can be used
for several tasks. For example two of the units at Dinorwig could be
in immediate response mode to cover failures while the other four
are supplying the grid.

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.

Those power stations do not represent a single point of failure,
because there are a number of boilers, turbines and transformers.

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."

Then you will have no trouble in telling us which report you are
talking about and where in the report that part of a sentence is.



--
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 ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

"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."

non-expert mode

Surely it's better to have that power generated renewably whenever possible
and non-renewably as a standby than to stick your hands in the air and go
"Well, the renewables won't work 100% of the time, so let's not bother at
all"...?

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:48:44 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

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

How much from nuclear?

In 2002 it was 34%.

And how much is really exported to England?

About 12%.


--
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 t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

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'll go with either, too.

I'm not happy with coal fired power stations.

The smokey old thing down the road from us, Buildwas Power Station, is
going soon. It'll be nice to get our microclimate back to something
approaching normal. There are days when the estate would be better named
Land of the Long White Cloud.

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

On 06 Oct 2006 12:14:22 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

Surely it's better to have that power generated renewably whenever possible
and non-renewably as a standby than to stick your hands in the air and go
"Well, the renewables won't work 100% of the time, so let's not bother at
all"...?

Indeed. It makes sense to run wind turbines as much as possible,
because we know for certain what the price of the fuel will be in
the future.

Provided not more than 20% of output is from wind there is no great
cost penalty for doing this. It may involve varying the output of
some "conventional" stations more frequently than now. However,
these stations are no longer the largely steady state stations that
those who remember the 1970s may think they are. Since the dash for
gas these stations have been operated as load following stations.
Any extra emissions caused by extra variations will be small in
comparison to the emission savings made by using wind turbines. This
is all laid out in the UKERC report.



--
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 12:23:23 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

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.

I find it interesting that some claim that wind farms are noisy.
They have presumably not listened to the noises made by coal fired
power stations.


--
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 12:27:59 +0100 someone who may be " cupra"
wrote this:-

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

Operating wind turbines on land was essential during the early days.
It was the only way to develop the engineering expertise. However,
engineering has now developed to the stage where offshore wind farms
are possible. The foundations, grid connection and maintenance are
all more expensive. So are the turbines, for example they need
pressurised nacelles to keep the salt out. Against this wind
conditions are better and it is easier to get permission for larger
turbines. The results from some of the first offshore wind farms
have been mixed, but it is early days.


--
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 t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

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?

I used to wash my clothes in the kitchen sink before I graduated to a
washing machine.

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

Launderettes allegedly have larger machines.

--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:38:48 +0100, Roger
wrote:

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

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.

The whole basis of the design of Dinorwig, designed in the late
60's/early 70's was to cater for the simultaneous failure of the two
largest single generators (not power stations) on the UK grid system
or for the failure of a double circuit 400kV line (with the conductors
available at the time) the former is 1320MW (2 x 660MW), the later
around about 1800MW.

That Dinorwig can generate pretty close to the latter figure starting
from the units "spinning in air" to full load in around 15 seconds
means it will always play a very important part in ensuring system
stability.



--

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:04:04 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:17:40 +0100, Matt wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:09:48 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

You appear to have snipped the part where I referred to Cragside, which was
a single, private house.

.....which just happens to be the size of Godalming

It started as a rather modest hunting lodge. But size doesn't matter, as
Drivel says to his wife.

But can she hear him over the sound of all that gushing water?


--

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

"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."

You have yet to provide a source for this quotation, preferably with
a URL. When you do so we can consider it and the context in which it
was made.

http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/2004-05/v17n2/05.shtml

--
Roger Chapman

The message . 170
from Adrian contains these words:

"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."

non-expert mode

Surely it's better to have that power generated renewably whenever possible
and non-renewably as a standby than to stick your hands in the air and go
"Well, the renewables won't work 100% of the time, so let's not bother at
all"...?

That's as maybe but junking existing generating capacity in order to
build new wind capacity of at least 3.3 times the nominal capacity to
replace it and on top of that 90% new back up capacity doesn't make
sense.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

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

What makes you think I don't? However, all this was considered by
UKERC and you have yet to demonstrate a flaw in what they did.

The only thing I can find is the vague statement that there has always
been some wind somewhere in the UK and that not even qualified by being
enough wind to persuade a wind turbine to generate any electricity. If
the whole of the UKs wind industry on average only produces 27% - 30% of
rated output there must be considerable periods when it is producing
markedly less than average.

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

I didn't claim that they are *the* answer to anything. That is just
a distortion. However, they are part of a sustainable answer to the
problems concerned.

Greater London alone has a larger population than the whole of
Scotland.

Correct, roughly double. Now if I had claimed that wind farms on
their own would provide all the electricity for London you would
have a point, but that is not something I have claimed.

More exaggeration.

So why raise it in the first place?

As I said, Sloy is an example of a hydro station that is used to lop
peaks. Hydro stations are extremely flexible and thus can be used
for several tasks. For example two of the units at Dinorwig could be
in immediate response mode to cover failures while the other four
are supplying the grid.

Direct line to every power station in the country, I don't think so. All
Dinorwig can do is supply the grid.

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.

Those power stations do not represent a single point of failure,
because there are a number of boilers, turbines and transformers.

You moved the goal posts, I just moved them back to where they were, but
it doesn't take a genius to come up with a scenario where a whole power
station has to be taken off line.

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."

Then you will have no trouble in telling us which report you are
talking about and where in the report that part of a sentence is.

http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/2004-05/v17n2/05.shtml

--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:48:44 +0100, Roger wrote:

And how much is really exported to England?

See for yourself in realtime:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Elect...Data/Realtime/

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:29:43 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

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.

Check Message-ID: I think
you will find that text is in that message.

If you include a quote to support your argument failing to standby them
when queried seriously weakens your case.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

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

How much from nuclear?

In 2002 it was 34%.

Where do you get your figures from? I came across a claim that as
recently as 2004 nuclear accounted for 44% of generation in Scotland and
another by a politician that in 2006 it amounted to over 50%.

And how much is really exported to England?

About 12%.

Really?

--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:15:31 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

Remember commercial wind companies are *not* building turbines to save
the planet they are building them to make money for their
multinational parent companies and/or their shareholders.

So someone working in a caring profession is only doing it for money
and doesn't care about those they serve?

No, individual "shop floor" workers have little or no say in the policies
or direction of the company they work for. Only The Board has that power
and they act to protect their own interests and share holding(s) in the
company.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

"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.

Surely everything said here is an 'opinion' especially when relating
to subjective things like unsightliness. If I say something like
"that painting is horrible" it's inevitably my opinion, there's really
no need to add IMHO to everything one says.

If you say you don't like a painting you have experience of the painting.

People do tend to make statements about things of which they have no
experience - except hearsay.

There's a big difference.

--
Chris Green

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

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

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

You've done comparitive tests?

I used to wash my clothes in the kitchen sink before I graduated to a
washing machine.

That's not a bath! Hand washing isn't always very effective, I grant you.

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

Launderettes allegedly have larger machines.

I believe they do but I couldn't walk to the nearest carrying my load and if
I drove it would be polluting and difficult to park and I don't want to
waste the time sitting in a place like that or makinig two journeys. I
prefer to be at home, where I can be served with drinks, have the telephone
to hand and listen to the radio. I also end up with beautifully soft feet
:-)

There's also the cost element for those who care. The water was heated by
yesterday's sun, I didn't need to hand over any cash as I would in a
laundrette.




--
Roger Chapman

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Roger ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

"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."

non-expert mode

Surely it's better to have that power generated renewably whenever
possible
and non-renewably as a standby than to stick your hands in the air and go
"Well, the renewables won't work 100% of the time, so let's not bother at
all"...?

I think so.

Mary

In article , Matt
writes
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:38:48 +0100, Roger
wrote:

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

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.

The whole basis of the design of Dinorwig, designed in the late
60's/early 70's was to cater for the simultaneous failure of the two
largest single generators (not power stations) on the UK grid system
or for the failure of a double circuit 400kV line (with the conductors
available at the time) the former is 1320MW (2 x 660MW), the later
around about 1800MW.

That Dinorwig can generate pretty close to the latter figure starting
from the units "spinning in air" to full load in around 15 seconds
means it will always play a very important part in ensuring system
stability.




Well I always thought it was for the sudden demand for cuppa's during
Corrie;?, but whyda I know!...
--
Tony Sayer

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:15:31 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

Remember commercial wind companies are *not* building turbines to save
the planet they are building them to make money for their
multinational parent companies and/or their shareholders.

So someone working in a caring profession is only doing it for money
and doesn't care about those they serve?

No, individual "shop floor" workers have little or no say in the policies
or direction of the company they work for. Only The Board has that power
and they act to protect their own interests and share holding(s) in the
company.

Are you saying that all commercial wind companies are only doing it to make
money for parent companies and/or shareholders?

Mary Fisher wrote:

wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

"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.

Surely everything said here is an 'opinion' especially when relating
to subjective things like unsightliness. If I say something like
"that painting is horrible" it's inevitably my opinion, there's really
no need to add IMHO to everything one says.

If you say you don't like a painting you have experience of the painting.

People do tend to make statements about things of which they have no
experience - except hearsay.

There's a big difference.

Weren't we discussing the unsightliness (or otherwise) of wind farms?
Surely nearly everyone has seen one or more of these now so will not
be using hearsay.

--
Chris Green

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:15:31 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

Remember commercial wind companies are *not* building turbines to save
the planet they are building them to make money for their
multinational parent companies and/or their shareholders.

So someone working in a caring profession is only doing it for money
and doesn't care about those they serve?

No, individual "shop floor" workers have little or no say in the policies
or direction of the company they work for. Only The Board has that power
and they act to protect their own interests and share holding(s) in the
company.

Are you saying that all commercial wind companies are only doing it to make
money for parent companies and/or shareholders?

They are virtually required by law to do so, unless they are something
other than a Ltd./Plc. that is.

--
Chris Green

On 06 Oct 2006 14:31:44 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

Weren't we discussing the unsightliness (or otherwise) of wind farms?
Surely nearly everyone has seen one or more of these now so will not
be using hearsay.

A month or so ago I went on a journey by train from the Central Belt
of Scotland to the South Coast of England. Judging by the postings
of the anti-wind lobby I should have seen wind turbines on just
about every peak and hillside.

In fact I saw a number of things on peaks and hillsides. Electricity
pylons and telecommunications masts of various sorts. I only saw two
wind farms though. One can see the top third or so of some of the
blades at Black Law when the train is near Carstairs and most of the
small wind farm near Lancaster. From this I suspect that nearly
everyone has not seen a wind farm.

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.


--
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 12:42:53 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html which contains the
following:

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

In response to concerns that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause
associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise
Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low
Frequency Noise and its Effects, says:

"I can state quite categorically that there is no significant
infrasound from current designs of wind turbines."

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


The British Wind Energy Association, not exactly an unbiased source. B-)

That quote is out of context and, IMHO, his work has technical flaws.

At the bottom of the page you reference there is a link to the "Technical
Annex" which should be read. A major assumption is made about how low
frequency noise affects the human body basically if you can't hear it
(with your ears) it doesn't affect you. Thus most of the figures quoted
use the "A" weighting(*) on the sound level meter to mimic the human ears
response. There needs to be serious and extensive research either using
the G weighting or preferably flat down to some fraction of a Hz.

begin

Leventhall 2004

Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics and
author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects,
predicted levels at a proposed wind farm using a calibrated tape
recording of noise from a 1.3 megawatt (MW) wind turbine. The tape was
analysed in order to investigate any presence of low frequency noise.

Leventhall's analysis confirmed the presence of tonal peaks in the low
frequency region. However, their levels were found to be below the
hearing threshold of most people, and therefore the research concluded
that noise from the proposed wind farm installation in the low frequency
(10Hz to 200Hz) range was unlikely to be a problem.

In fact, Dr Leventhall has since said in personal communication that "I
can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound
from current designs of wind turbines. To say that there is an infrasound
problem is one of the hares which objectors to wind farms like to run.
There will not be any effects from infrasound from the turbines."

The turbines produce a modulated higher frequency - the swish, swish -
which people may not like, but this is not infrasound. There is no low
frequency in it. There is negligible infrasound and very little low
frequency noise from wind turbines - a few low level tones from the
gearbox. Whatever might be making people ill it is not low frequency
noise - there just isn't enough of it from modern wind turbines.

end

Note:

The quote you use is in a "personal communication" rather than in any
official report.

Dr Leventhall also only analysed a tape recording rather than doing any
real field work. How was this recording made? What limitations are
inherent in the recording equipment or technique? Is it a single
recording or a collection of recordings made under varying wind
conditions and locations relative to the turbines?

Dr Leventhall's analysis only covered the band 10Hz to 200Hz. What about
sounds below 10Hz?

(*) "A" weighting reduces the signal level such that at 10Hz it is 70dB
below the *actual* environmental level. A 70dB level reduction is enough
to make a pneumatic drill barely audible.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:57:10 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

No I didn't write that.

Check Message-ID: I think
you will find that text is in that message.

Oh the text is in the message alright, but that is not the point. I
quoted it, as I made clear in the message. My point is that you
falsely claimed that I had written it. Glad you seem to accept that
now.

If you include a quote to support your argument

I did.

failing to standby them when queried seriously weakens your case.

Please indicate where I have failed to standby that quote?

I could have edited out bits of it I suppose, rather then quoting
the whole thing, but then people would have whined about something
else.

I have just looked at tariffs for Edinburgh in uswitch.com. Pay on
receipt of bill. The cheapest was Atlantic with 16.40p (and 9.84p
per unit above 900 units per year). The most expensive, ignoring the
green ones was Npower, 21.01p (and 10.45 above 728). While there
have been large increases in prices recently it does show that the
quote was in the right ballpark.


--
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:
On 06 Oct 2006 14:31:44 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

Weren't we discussing the unsightliness (or otherwise) of wind farms?
Surely nearly everyone has seen one or more of these now so will not
be using hearsay.

A month or so ago I went on a journey by train from the Central Belt
of Scotland to the South Coast of England. Judging by the postings
of the anti-wind lobby I should have seen wind turbines on just
about every peak and hillside.

In fact I saw a number of things on peaks and hillsides. Electricity
pylons and telecommunications masts of various sorts. I only saw two
wind farms though. One can see the top third or so of some of the
blades at Black Law when the train is near Carstairs and most of the
small wind farm near Lancaster. From this I suspect that nearly
everyone has not seen a wind farm.

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.

Well having been to Germany recently I have to say that I think they
make a real mess of the landscape. Driving across the North of
Germany my guess would be that you're just about never out of sight of
a wind farm. I was amazed at how many there are there. What
proportion of their electricity is now generated by wind?

--
Chris Green

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 15:23:19 +0100 someone who may be tony sayer
wrote this:-

Well I always thought it was for the sudden demand for cuppa's during
Corrie;?, but whyda I know!...

The great flexibility of hydro stations means they can do many
tasks. For example they can be scheduled to run for a few minutes in
a surge and then stop. Then run for a few minutes in the next surge.
Others run most of the time, others only during the day, others can
be held at instant readiness to cover emergencies.

Hydro stations can also be doing several things at once, for example
the small turbine at Foyers can be generating purely as a hydro
station. Some of the output of this turbine will go into the system
and some will go into keeping the two pumped storage turbines ready
for action. These two turbines can be kept in readiness for long
periods, without emitting any greenhouse gases, but they are ready
within a few seconds to keep the lights on. Their 300MW will not
cope with the failure of Sizewell B, but they are adequate to deal
with likely problems in the North of Scotland. I have seen a figure
of over 10,000 stop-starts in a year, which is over 27 a day.

This flexibility is a great attraction and it is good to see that
construction has started on more recently, Glendoe being the largest
at the moment. However, this flexibility does mean there can be
confusion, whether accidental or deliberate, about what such
stations can and do get used for.


--
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 2006-10-06 10:41:26 +0100, "Dave Liquorice" said:

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.

OK, makes sense. It's easy enough to traffic shape to control
bandwidth where the WLAN connects to the fixed service. Quite an
achievement to do this. I imagine that you don't have the easiest of
terrains where you are.

wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Are you saying that all commercial wind companies are only doing it to
make
money for parent companies and/or shareholders?

They are virtually required by law to do so, unless they are something
other than a Ltd./Plc. that is.

And several are.


--
Chris Green

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:58:36 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right HERE.
It's awful.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:05:38 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

The British Wind Energy Association, not exactly an unbiased source. B-)

They state very clearly what their angle is, unlike some
participants in the discussion (not this particular discussion, but
the general discussion about sustainable electricity). I was also
careful to provide a link to the source of the quote, unlike some,
so people would be aware of where it came from.

That quote is out of context

Had they wanted to do that then they are unlikely to have provided a
link to the annex.

and, IMHO, his work has technical flaws.

Noted.

I also note that they provide a link to the Keele rebuttal of the
REF assertions regarding infrasound by the link to the annex.



--
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 2006-10-06 17:38:58 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:58:36 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right HERE.
It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:49:34 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-06 17:38:58 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:58:36 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right HERE.
It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

I spend some considerable time earlier in the day responding to this and
several other messages but the have so far not appeared even on zetnets
server and I think they may well have disappeared into a black hole. I
have repeated some at least of what said the first time around in this
response but I have other things to do with my time over the next 24
hours so don't have the time to repeat everything and no doubt so of the
wording will have changed although the sentiment hasn't.

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

What makes you think I don't? However, all this was considered by
UKERC and you have yet to demonstrate a flaw in what they did.

Claiming there hasn't been a single instance where there was not some
wind somewhere in the UK is of no consequence particularly as they don't
even limit their claim to wind sufficient to generate any electricity.
If the average for the whole UK wind farm industry is 0.27% - 0.30% of
rated output then there must be substantial periods where the overall
output is considerably below average.


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

I didn't claim that they are *the* answer to anything. That is just
a distortion. However, they are part of a sustainable answer to the
problems concerned.

Greater London alone has a larger population than the whole of
Scotland.

Correct, roughly double. Now if I had claimed that wind farms on
their own would provide all the electricity for London you would
have a point, but that is not something I have claimed.

More exaggeration.

So why raise it in the first place?

As I said, Sloy is an example of a hydro station that is used to lop
peaks. Hydro stations are extremely flexible and thus can be used
for several tasks. For example two of the units at Dinorwig could be
in immediate response mode to cover failures while the other four
are supplying the grid.

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.

Those power stations do not represent a single point of failure,
because there are a number of boilers, turbines and transformers.

You moved the goal posts so I was merely moving them back to where they
were. In any event it doesn't take a genius to devise a scenario where a
whole power station is unexpectedly taken out of service.

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."

Then you will have no trouble in telling us which report you are
talking about and where in the report that part of a sentence is.

http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/2004-05/v17n2/05.shtml

--
Roger Chapman