"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

It did everything we asked of
it but there was something ... could never put my finger on it.

I really liked mine. If I could find a good condition 1500 or 1750
estate again I'd have one.

I can't remember the last time I saw one. But there again cars are so
unimportant (except as work horses) that I don't spend much time looking at
them.

Mary

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 21:31:26 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:


(*)Odd that the military have infra sound weapons. If infra sound can't
hurt you what use are weapons using it?

The French carried out some trials about 40 yrs ago with the
intention of using various frequency sounds for crowd control. One
of the things they did find was that frequencies around 6Hz at quite
low power levels could induce clinical depression.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:32:23 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

FX: Google WiMAX... not convinced that WiMAX will live up to the
hype there is some WiMAX in the network it works but not up to
expectations. I'll pass it on though. We have one bit of Proxim kit
that has basically been fit and forget, unlike the Cisco stuff that
has a (weird) mind of it's own.

Mmm.... not clear where that's going.

Where what is going?

Is CLEO the present provider?

Yes, over the WiFi links they provide for the three schools up here.

I was going to say that £8 is way too cheap, but if the available
market and other constraints determine it, it limits the options.

The social remit is a bit of pain commercially but does provide a hook to
hang some grant funding on. B-)

Would covering a larger area help at all, or is the return on
investment likely to make that impractical?

There always has been some talk of expanding coverage down the South Tyne
valley but that wouldn't bring all that many more households within
range, maybe a couple of hundred? Pretty much every household on Alston
Moor is within range of an AP now and we have roughly 1/3 take up.
Getting that level of take up without the orginal, government funded,
free computer, would not be easy. Oddly sheep or rabbits don't seem
interested in fast internet connections. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On 2006-10-09 13:48:32 +0100, "Dave Liquorice" said:

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:32:23 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

FX: Google WiMAX... not convinced that WiMAX will live up to the hype
there is some WiMAX in the network it works but not up to expectations.
I'll pass it on though. We have one bit of Proxim kit that has
basically been fit and forget, unlike the Cisco stuff that

has a (weird) mind of it's own.

Mmm.... not clear where that's going.

Where what is going?

WIMAX.

Is CLEO the present provider?

Yes, over the WiFi links they provide for the three schools up here.

Ah OK.


I was going to say that £8 is way too cheap, but if the available
market and other constraints determine it, it limits the options.

The social remit is a bit of pain commercially but does provide a hook
t o hang some grant funding on. B-)

Sounds like if you had to take commercial (business) services it would
be more expensive?



Would covering a larger area help at all, or is the return on
investment likely to make that impractical?

There always has been some talk of expanding coverage down the South
Tyn e valley but that wouldn't bring all that many more households
within range, maybe a couple of hundred? Pretty much every household on
Alston
Moor is within range of an AP now and we have roughly 1/3 take up.
Getting that level of take up without the orginal, government funded,
free computer, would not be easy. Oddly sheep or rabbits don't seem
interested in fast internet connections. B-)

Nuisance, isn't it. Perhaps they know something we don't

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:43:35 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2006-10-09 13:48:32 +0100, "Dave Liquorice" said:

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:32:23 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

FX: Google WiMAX... not convinced that WiMAX will live up to the hype
there is some WiMAX in the network it works but not up to expectations.
I'll pass it on though. We have one bit of Proxim kit that has
basically been fit and forget, unlike the Cisco stuff that

has a (weird) mind of it's own.

Mmm.... not clear where that's going.

Where what is going?

WIMAX.

Is CLEO the present provider?

Yes, over the WiFi links they provide for the three schools up here.

Ah OK.


I was going to say that £8 is way too cheap, but if the available
market and other constraints determine it, it limits the options.

The social remit is a bit of pain commercially but does provide a hook
t o hang some grant funding on. B-)

Sounds like if you had to take commercial (business) services it would
be more expensive?



Would covering a larger area help at all, or is the return on
investment likely to make that impractical?

There always has been some talk of expanding coverage down the South
Tyn e valley but that wouldn't bring all that many more households
within range, maybe a couple of hundred? Pretty much every household on
Alston
Moor is within range of an AP now and we have roughly 1/3 take up.
Getting that level of take up without the orginal, government funded,
free computer, would not be easy. Oddly sheep or rabbits don't seem
interested in fast internet connections. B-)

Nuisance, isn't it. Perhaps they know something we don't

These "computer" things'll never catch on.

Hopefully.

They're just a passing fad, like skateboards and hula-hoops.

Oh, and spacehoppers.

--
Frank Erskine

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:07:43 +0100, Frank Erskine wrote:

These "computer" things'll never catch on.

Hopefully.

They're just a passing fad, like skateboards and hula-hoops.

Oh, and spacehoppers.

You've forgotten Choppers, mind they are back on the market now but sans
the gear shift on the frame. Spoil sports. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:00:45 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:07:43 +0100, Frank Erskine wrote:

These "computer" things'll never catch on.

Hopefully.

They're just a passing fad, like skateboards and hula-hoops.

Oh, and spacehoppers.

You've forgotten Choppers, mind they are back on the market now but sans
the gear shift on the frame. Spoil sports. B-)

I'd love a noriginal Chopper bike.

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 09:31:28 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

You misunderstood what I meant. David has it that 2 units could cover
failures while the other 4 supply the grid.

That is precisely how the station can be used, but not the only way
it can be used.

I was suggesting that all
Dinorwig can do is what all other power stations connected to the grid
do - supply the grid.

That is all any station does when it is supplying the grid. At other
times it may also be taking electricity from the grid. That is not
just while a pumped storage is pumping. A station may be taking
small amounts of electricity from the grid for various purposes,
including keeping hydro sets ready for instant response.

That's as maybe but David was responding to my post which stipulated a
whole power station.

Those who follow the thread will see that I was the person who
introduced this. Sloppy wording on my part, which I subsequently
corrected.

All very interesting but built on a misunderstanding of the point I was
trying to make - that as a generator Dinorwig supplies the grid, not
individual power stations.

Please indicate where anyone has said otherwise.

To the extent that anything is independent on
an interconnected system it will be satisfying the load closest to it
which is unlikely to be the same load that the disconnected power
station was satisfying.

That sentence contradicts itself. The first eleven words indicate
the true situation.


--
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 Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:22:31 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

Well to be honest my gasted is well and truely flabbered. If people are
paying those prices they really are mugs.

Electricity prices are split into 14 areas. Moving to a different
area because of the price of electricity is a lot of unnecessary
disruption for most people.

Even so the top of the quoted range (16 - 10p) looks low by 4p and the
bottom high by 3p. The range being more like 7 to 20p, which I find quite
incredible and some what distrubing that the postcode lottery applies to
electricity prices to such and extent.

It has always been the case. Electricity in Southern Scotland was
once cheap. However, people there are now paying for mistakes like
Torness with high bills.


--
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 Sun, 08 Oct 2006 08:59:35 +0100 someone who may be Dave Fawthrop
wrote this:-

Spinning reserve with a coal or gas fired power station running at less
than full load costs a lot of waste heat, which is of course money.

It also costs carbon dioxide emissions.

The advantage of Dinowgig is that it costs very little when not generating
it used very little power/money.

And emits little or no carbon dioxide.

If government was serious about carbon dioxide emissions the coal
fired would be run in a more steady state, producing more
electricity for the emissions. Gas turbine stations, would be used
more for reserve.


--
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 Sat, 07 Oct 2006 21:31:26 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

The way you included it was out of context.

I simply quoted it as it is.

If you dig deep enough on the
BWEA site you can find it in context but only if you dig.

Incorrect. I read all the supporting documents the first time I read
that page. No digging involved at all. They don't change the
context.


--
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:

You misunderstood what I meant. David has it that 2 units could cover
failures while the other 4 supply the grid.

That is precisely how the station can be used, but not the only way
it can be used.

See the paragraph immediately below.

I was suggesting that all
Dinorwig can do is what all other power stations connected to the grid
do - supply the grid.

That is all any station does when it is supplying the grid. At other
times it may also be taking electricity from the grid. That is not
just while a pumped storage is pumping. A station may be taking
small amounts of electricity from the grid for various purposes,
including keeping hydro sets ready for instant response.

So?

That's as maybe but David was responding to my post which stipulated a
whole power station.

Those who follow the thread will see that I was the person who
introduced this. Sloppy wording on my part, which I subsequently
corrected.

All very interesting but built on a misunderstanding of the point I was
trying to make - that as a generator Dinorwig supplies the grid, not
individual power stations.

Please indicate where anyone has said otherwise.

You have repeatedly done so, see above.

To the extent that anything is independent on
an interconnected system it will be satisfying the load closest to it
which is unlikely to be the same load that the disconnected power
station was satisfying.

That sentence contradicts itself. The first eleven words indicate
the true situation.

Don't be silly. All one needs to do is consider the transient changes on
the grid in response to taking a power station off line.

Or consider the following situation. A grid that is virtually split in
two with just one link between the two halves. If the generators in each
half happen to exactly satisfy the demand in each half no current should
flow in the link. Ergo the closer generators are satisfying the local
demand and the remote generators are contributing nothing to it.

--
Roger Chapman

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 08:59:35 +0100 someone who may be Dave Fawthrop
wrote this:-


The advantage of Dinowgig is that it costs very little when not generating
it used very little power/money.

And emits little or no carbon dioxide.

Ignoring with a hand-wave the huge quantities of costs (money, labour,
cement, steel, lost-opportunity costs , et. al) of building the facility in
the first place. [why no mention of the aluminium smelters, 'White hot
Technological Revolution ... and all the other centralist
'man-in-Whitehall-knows-best' rhetoric?

--

Brian

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:33:32 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

2MW rated wind turbines are big, *very* big.

They are certainly big. However, they are also graceful even in
large numbers.

Most land based wind farms in this country are using
turbines 1/2 to 1/3 this size.

http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/construction.asp indicates that 2MW is
about the average size for turbines on sites being constructed at
the moment and http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/operational.asp indicates
that this has been a fairly common size since the end of 2004.


--
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 Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:33:32 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

2MW rated wind turbines are big, *very* big.

They are certainly big. However, they are also graceful even in
large numbers.

Most land based wind farms in this country are using
turbines 1/2 to 1/3 this size.

http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/construction.asp indicates that 2MW is
about the average size for turbines on sites being constructed at
the moment and http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/operational.asp indicates
that this has been a fairly common size since the end of 2004.


--
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


We have a "crop" of them on Anglesey at Cemaes and off the coast along
up to Rhyl. The kids love em!! teletubbies windmills !!

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:33:32 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

2MW rated wind turbines are big, *very* big.

They are certainly big. However, they are also graceful even in
large numbers.

Graceful - another positive word. I always think theyt're elegant, I shall
add 'graceful'.

Thanks, David.

Mary

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:45:21 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

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.

Perhaps I have confused people by not referencing all the relevant
reports. The report on wind patterns in the UK is
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications...windreport.pdf
from which the following is a summary:

There was not a single hour over the study period when wind speeds
at every location were too low to generate any electricity.

Low wind speed conditions extending across 90% or more of the UK
during winter occur around one hour in every five years.

At an individual site low wind speed conditions are experienced
15-20% of all hours.

The single windiest site experienced high wind conditions for less
than 2% of all hours.

There has never been an occasion when the UK experienced high wind
speeds at the same time.

The windiest hour in the study period affected around 43% of the UK
and one would expect this to happen around one hour in every ten
years.

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

Not a document that I have ever referenced. Interestingly you have
not bothered to mention what is written at the bottom of that page,
which is "Oliver Tickell is a freelance writer based in Oxford".

Should one wish to get one's information from the horse's mouth,
rather than a freelance writer, then this is easy to do at
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/renewable.php which can be
reached by going to www.ox.ac.uk and following the departmental
links.

Mr Tickell claims that, "In evidence he presented to the House of
Lords Science and Technology Committee in 2003", yet the horse's
mouth says this was presented in 2004.

As to the claim you quoted, this is a rewording of paragraph 26 of
Mr Sinden's evidence to the House of Lords in 2004, available at
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/ene...useoflords.pdf
As one can see from the whole of the evidence this is actually a
comparison between placing all one's eggs in one basket and having a
variety of sources. I suspect that selective quoting of this
evidence is why Mr Sinden expended on it subsequently in his oral
evidence and particularly the Supplementary Memorandum
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...99/4021103.htm
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...99/4021106.htm



--
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 09:57:34 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

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."

Incorrect.

The report entitled "The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency: An
Assessment of the Evidence on the costs and impacts of Intermittent
Generation on the British Electricity Network (2.77 MB)" is the
report referenced at that link and it does not contain those words.

In another message you will see where those words do come from.


--
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 17:59:51 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

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.

Several appeared on the server I use at one go, presumably a
propagation problem. Unfortunately by then it was too late to
respond properly and I have been busy with other things, including
work, since then.

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.

The basic work in this area was done by Oxford University
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications...windreport.pdf
and that does allow for low and high winds.

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.

Electricity suppliers don't work on averages. If they did the lights
would go out rather often.

Rather they work on statistical models, including forecasts of
supply and demand, which are outlined in the UKERC report. So far
you have yet to demonstrate a flaw in that report. "The Costs and
Impacts of Intermittency: An assessment of the evidence on the costs
and impacts of intermittent generation on the British electricity
network" March 2006.

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.

What in those two sentences is an exaggeration?



--
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 14:43:14 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

That's as maybe but junking existing generating capacity

Is anybody proposing this, by which I assume you mean throwing away
capacity which still has plenty of life left?

on top of that 90% new back up capacity

Ditto.

One needs to be very careful in separating out "backup" that would
be provided no matter how the electricity is provided and any extra
"backup" that is provided solely because of the use of intermittent
generation.

Having done that one then needs to consider whether that "backup" is
new, or existing plant that is either not run so often or is run at
less output.

One also needs to understand the different forms of "backup" and
their varying timescales. The report I have referenced before, "The
Costs and Impacts of Intermittency: An assessment of the evidence on
the costs and impacts of intermittent generation on the British
electricity network", covers these in section 2 and is well worth a
read for those who want to know more.


--
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 20:32:46 +0100 someone who may be Guy King
wrote this:-

The message
from Matt contains these words:

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.

But only for a few minutes.

300 minutes (5 hours) according to http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm


--
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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:38:09 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

Graceful - another positive word. I always think theyt're elegant, I shall
add 'graceful'.

Another word is relaxing (and the related calming).

I suspect that some who have never seen such a machine imagine the
blades hurtling round like an aeroplane propeller. In reality they
rotate relatively slowly (which is one reason why they are not a
great danger to birds) and people have reported watching them as
being rather relaxing.


--
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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:51:29 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

You misunderstood what I meant. David has it that 2 units could cover
failures while the other 4 supply the grid.

That is precisely how the station can be used, but not the only way
it can be used.

See the paragraph immediately below.

I was suggesting that all
Dinorwig can do is what all other power stations connected to the grid
do - supply the grid.

Well, I can see it above what I'm typing now. Your point is?

Or consider the following situation. A grid that is virtually split in
two with just one link between the two halves. If the generators in each
half happen to exactly satisfy the demand in each half no current should
flow in the link. Ergo the closer generators are satisfying the local
demand and the remote generators are contributing nothing to it.

The generators are generating into the grid and electricity is being
taken out elsewhere. Electricity is not a flow of electrons,
particularly AC where the electrons hardly move but are simply
waggled back and forwards a bit.


--
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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:05:47 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock"
wrote this:-

The advantage of Dinowgig is that it costs very little when not generating
it used very little power/money.

And emits little or no carbon dioxide.

Ignoring with a hand-wave the huge quantities of costs (money, labour,
cement, steel, lost-opportunity costs , et. al) of building the facility in
the first place.

Nice try, but incorrect. Life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions are a
great concern to people who think like me. However, those emissions
(in running and upgrading, as well as building the place) are
outweighed by the reductions in carbon dioxide the place achieves.

One may ask about decommissioning, but hydro schemes are seldom
decommissioned. Indeed the pumped storage scheme at Foyers was an
upgrade to the original scheme which was installed for aluminium
production.

Ah, aluminium production. Certain aluminium products are marketed as
being produced using hydro electricity. I suspect the number of
products marketed this way will increase as more people understand
the issues.


--
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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:38:09 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

Graceful - another positive word. I always think theyt're elegant, I shall
add 'graceful'.

Another word is relaxing (and the related calming).

YES! Keep 'em coming :-)

I suspect that some who have never seen such a machine imagine the
blades hurtling round like an aeroplane propeller. In reality they
rotate relatively slowly (which is one reason why they are not a
great danger to birds) and people have reported watching them as
being rather relaxing.

I find them relaxing, but almost hypnotic.

I can't understand the damage to birds reports.

Cue for lots more flack :-)

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

David Hansen wrote:

Or consider the following situation. A grid that is virtually split in
two with just one link between the two halves. If the generators in each
half happen to exactly satisfy the demand in each half no current should
flow in the link. Ergo the closer generators are satisfying the local
demand and the remote generators are contributing nothing to it.

The generators are generating into the grid and electricity is being
taken out elsewhere. Electricity is not a flow of electrons,
particularly AC where the electrons hardly move but are simply
waggled back and forwards a bit.


No, he has a valid point. Net AC current flow through the grid is a
function of the position of generation and load.

However line losses are the least worry...the transformers probably lose
more.

BUT the fact remains that small scale generation is in itself inherently
less efficient, in almost every way. The costs - particularly labour and
energy costs - of lots of little turbines - do not scale linearly. The
wind speeds closer to the ground are particularly inclined to be less,
and fluctuate more.

In short, a turbine in your back garden is likely to be a carbon
negative investment.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
Graceful - another positive word. I always think they're elegant, I shall
add 'graceful'.

You could add "poised" and "dignified" if you had a thesaurus.

It won't surprise you to know that I have a Thesaurus - a very well thumbed
1982 one - which is next to the computer. It's only consulted when I'm
writing an article, not for self expression.

Mary

Owain

Owain wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
Graceful - another positive word. I always think theyt're elegant, I
shall add 'graceful'.

You could add "poised" and "dignified" if you had a thesaurus.

Owain

You add poised and dignoified if you are taking the right DRUGS, but to
me they just look angular spiky and man made against a more or less
semi-natural landscape.

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

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.

What in those two sentences is an exaggeration?

That the population of Greater London is roughly double that of Scotland.

Per Wikipedia, estimates for 2005

7,517,700 and 5,094,800

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Or consider the following situation. A grid that is virtually split in
two with just one link between the two halves. If the generators in each
half happen to exactly satisfy the demand in each half no current should
flow in the link. Ergo the closer generators are satisfying the local
demand and the remote generators are contributing nothing to it.

The generators are generating into the grid and electricity is being
taken out elsewhere. Electricity is not a flow of electrons,
particularly AC where the electrons hardly move but are simply
waggled back and forwards a bit.

No current, no power.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from David Hansen 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."

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

Not a document that I have ever referenced. Interestingly you have
not bothered to mention what is written at the bottom of that page,
which is "Oliver Tickell is a freelance writer based in Oxford".

Should one wish to get one's information from the horse's mouth,
rather than a freelance writer, then this is easy to do at
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/renewable.php which can be
reached by going to www.ox.ac.uk and following the departmental
links.

Mr Tickell claims that, "In evidence he presented to the House of
Lords Science and Technology Committee in 2003", yet the horse's
mouth says this was presented in 2004.

The submission doesn't actually say when it was submitted but even if
the year was wrongly quoted the words quoted are accurate.

As to the claim you quoted, this is a rewording of paragraph 26 of
Mr Sinden's evidence to the House of Lords in 2004, available at
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/ene...useoflords.pdf
As one can see from the whole of the evidence this is actually a
comparison between placing all one's eggs in one basket and having a
variety of sources. I suspect that selective quoting of this
evidence is why Mr Sinden expended on it subsequently in his oral
evidence and particularly the Supplementary Memorandum
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...99/4021103.htm
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...99/4021106.htm

The selective quoting is your own. When I originally quoted the item
above I went on to say:

"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."

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

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.

Electricity suppliers don't work on averages. If they did the lights
would go out rather often.

Rather they work on statistical models, including forecasts of
supply and demand, which are outlined in the UKERC report. So far
you have yet to demonstrate a flaw in that report. "The Costs and
Impacts of Intermittency: An assessment of the evidence on the costs
and impacts of intermittent generation on the British electricity
network" March 2006.

What is average but a statistic.

"The second implication is that 'system margin' as defined in Section
2.3.2, becomes less meaningful when intermittent generation is
introduced onto a system. The difference between installed capacity and
expected peak demand is no longer a good indicator of how reliable
supplies are likely to be. Intermittent generators will be generating at
full capacity for only a small percentage of the time, and only at 30%
or less of their capacity (assuming a 30% capacity factor) for half the
time, and at 15% for a quarter of the time."

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

I suspect that some who have never seen such a machine imagine the
blades hurtling round like an aeroplane propeller. In reality they
rotate relatively slowly (which is one reason why they are not a
great danger to birds) and people have reported watching them as
being rather relaxing.

So the documented deaths of a Red Kite in Wales, four White Tailed
Eagles in Norway and thousands of birds in California is relaxing is it?

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

I suspect that some who have never seen such a machine imagine the
blades hurtling round like an aeroplane propeller. In reality they
rotate relatively slowly (which is one reason why they are not a
great danger to birds) and people have reported watching them as
being rather relaxing.

So the documented deaths of a Red Kite in Wales, four White Tailed
Eagles in Norway and thousands of birds in California is relaxing is it?

'documented' can mean all sorts of things.

Everything dies. I'll die, but I doubt that it will be because of the solar
panel on our roof. No doubt, though, some clever dick will make a link.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:15:50 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

So the documented deaths of a Red Kite in Wales, four White Tailed
Eagles in Norway and thousands of birds in California is relaxing is it?

Nice try. Is the best that you can do?


--
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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:22:31 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I find them relaxing, but almost hypnotic.

That was what is reported about one of the Ayrshire ones. Before it
was built the antis said that it would be a great visual intrusion,
after it was built people said they liked looking at the turbines.

Not many people look at Drax or Torness for long.


--
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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:33:55 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

BUT the fact remains that small scale generation is in itself inherently
less efficient, in almost every way. The costs - particularly labour and
energy costs - of lots of little turbines - do not scale linearly.

That was partly the case in the past, when things like
synchronisation involved people operating manual controls and there
was a lot of maintenance.

There was also political pressure to produce electricity at the
cheapest price. The result was producing electricity a few percent
cheaper, at the expense of being unable to use the heat for heating
(which would have been a better use of the coal).

Together with institutional pressures within the CEGB and SSEB the
result was a centralised system with a small number of large power
stations.

However, that was then and this is now. Decentralised electricity
systems now have many more advantages.

The
wind speeds closer to the ground are particularly inclined to be less,
and fluctuate more.

The lesser speeds are demonstrated in the DTI's wind energy database
which gives average wind speeds for any square on the UK at ISTR
three heights above ground level.

Fluctuations depend on the local conditions. Some sites are good,
some bad, some indifferent.

However, none of this means local wind generation is not a
worthwhile part of a decentralised system.


--
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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:14:33 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Per Wikipedia, estimates for 2005

7,517,700 and 5,094,800

The former figure is a little low, though it depends on what one
calls London.


--
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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:15:36 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

What is average but a statistic.

Very well. Rather they work on more complicated statistical models,
including forecasts of supply and demand, which are outlined in the
UKERC report.

I note that you have yet to demonstrate a flaw in the 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

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

So the documented deaths of a Red Kite in Wales, four White Tailed
Eagles in Norway and thousands of birds in California is relaxing is it?

'documented' can mean all sorts of things.

Really? Be specific.

Everything dies. I'll die, but I doubt that it will be because of the solar
panel on our roof. No doubt, though, some clever dick will make a link.

But if you were found on the ground outside your house with the your
head bashed in and the blood stained solar panel in pieces beside you
the man on the Clapham omnibus would have no difficulty believing the
solar panel was the immediate cause of your death.

--
Roger Chapman