You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to
stay that way all day.

It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.


Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.

(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)


It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..


You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to
stay that way all day.

You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.

ROFL

You clearly aren't 'on message'!

Have you noted how there's much less talk/bull**** about the planet
combusting in recent months?

TF

On 28/03/2011 10:13, Terry Fields wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to
stay that way all day.

You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.

ROFL

You clearly aren't 'on message'!

Have you noted how there's much less talk/bull**** about the planet
combusting in recent months?

TF

Dunno. Whatever Brian Cox says

In article ,
says...
Dunno. Whatever Brian Cox says


Can't hear him over the music.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

stuart noble wrote:
On 28/03/2011 10:13, Terry Fields wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the
metered wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity'
and looks to stay that way all day.

You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.

ROFL

You clearly aren't 'on message'!

Have you noted how there's much less talk/bull**** about the planet
combusting in recent months?

TF

Dunno. Whatever Brian Cox says

Well

http://newsthump.com/2011/03/14/i-must-be-on-the-moon-to-explain-about-the-moon-brian-cox-tells-licence-fee-payers/

--
Adam

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
stuart noble wrote:
On 28/03/2011 10:13, Terry Fields wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the
metered wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity'
and looks to stay that way all day.

You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.

ROFL

You clearly aren't 'on message'!

Have you noted how there's much less talk/bull**** about the planet
combusting in recent months?

TF

Dunno. Whatever Brian Cox says

Well

http://newsthump.com/2011/03/14/i-mu...explain-about-
the-moon-brian-cox-tells-licence-fee-payers/

Lets all chip in for a one way ticket



--
geoff

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered wind
output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to stay
that way all day.

It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert own
bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely capable
of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.


Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.

(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)


It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice nuclear
energy currently being imported from France..


You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.



Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

Tim W

Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered wind
output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to stay
that way all day.

It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert own
bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely capable
of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.


Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.

(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)


It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice nuclear
energy currently being imported from France..


You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.



Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction
in so doing.

And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.



Tim W

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to
stay that way all day.

It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.


Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.

(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)


It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..


You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.



Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction in
so doing.

And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.




Still puzzled.

I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' . Not
sure what that means.
Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.

Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.
Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you will.

Tim W

Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to
stay that way all day.

It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.


Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.

(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)


It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..


You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.


Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction in
so doing.

And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.




Still puzzled.

I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' . Not
sure what that means.

Wind power hasn't delivered carbon emission reduction. Certainly nothing
like 7% of Germany's CO2 attributable to electrical generation. I can't
say clearer than that.


Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.


No, you simply 'misquoted' them. 7% of electricity generation NOT 7% of
'Germanys energy'.

Dont worry, most of the wind lobby has trouble dsistuingusighing between
electrical power and total energy requirements and none have a clue
about exported carbon footprints to e.g. China in terms of energy used
to make stuff there we use here..or a clue about what load average means
or when 'could power X homes' meas 'will on average power 30% of X homes
the home being about one sixth of the power we use altogether, with
transport, industry and so on making up the other 5/6ths), and sometimes
won't power anything at all)



Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.

So they can! Mostly, however, they don't.


Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you will.


Sorry, the facts don't bear that out.

If the *extra* fuel you have to burn to compensate for the wind output
going up and down loses all the advantages the wind seemingly has, you
end up with an net zero change in carbon emissions.


The point being that the more wind you have - as against nuclear or
hydro - the more fossil fuel stations you need to balance it.

Having to bring - say - 20GW of fossil online in a hurry when the wind
drops overnight, and not necessarily very good fossil either, since its
not used fully, so there is little incentive to make it efficient, costs
you a huge amount of fuel JUST TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING.

As near as I can judge over 75% of winds 'zero carbon' gains are lost to
that process.

That's the trouble with simple pictures. The world is not simple.

Germany remains one of the highest CO2 emitters in Europe with respect
to electrical power generation. DESPITE all this so call low carbon wind.

Denmark is similar. The real stars of Europe are France and Switzerland,
both hugely nuclear and in Switzerland's case, with abundant hydro as
well to cover short term demand fluctuations.

If you want to permanently get rid of fossil fuel usage, nuclear for the
base load and hydro for the demand fluctuations is the way. Wind is
completely useless. A grid that had - say - 30% wind and no nuclear or
hydro at all would at times have no fossil in use at all, but on average
would need *70% fossil to balance it*.

Now if we say that without wind, a good CCGT can do say 60% thermal
efficency IF FULLY WARMED UP AND LEFT RUNNING, then your carbon fuel
rate is 1/60% = 1.667 times grid power

If the use of that fossil fuel plant drops to 70% due to adding 30%
wind, you still cant get rid of it. You are just using it on average 70%
of the time.

Let's say its efficiency running like that is is X, so that the fuel
burn is then 0.7/X the grid power. And calculate when it's no better
than the kit running without any wind. its when 1/0.6=0.7/X

which makes the critical value of X = 42%.


SO *if the net result of adding 30% average wind to the grid is to
reduce the CCGT efficiency from 60% to 42%*, there is *no net emissions
gain from wind whatsoever*.

A CCGT set running before the secondary cycle gets going, is simply a
37% OCGT gas turbine..every time you start that CCGT set up, it takes
fuel to warm it up. Energy that you lose when you switch it off and it
cools down.

If you add more than 30% wind to the grid, there will be times when you
have to throw it away as well, because peak output will mean you have
more than you need when the wind DOES blow.

You MIGHT put it in pumped storage, at 75% efficiency losing 25% of the
value..if you HAD any pumped storage capacity..

We don't really have much, neither does Germany...

So at best, 30% windpower on the grid (more is unlikely to actually
achieve much more because you start to throw it away)might reduce carbon
emissions from electricity generation by perhaps 20%. At best. Maybe
5-10% is likely.

20% nuclear on the grid that totally replaces fossil, could net you a
real 20% decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity.At one fifth the
cost.

80% Nuclear - as France has - reduces fossil usage by 80%.

The optimal UK mix would be something like 80% nuclear and 20% fast
start CCGT. If you really want low carbon electricity. If we had a bit
more hydro, we could do a bit better. Sadly geography doesn't favour us
there. Dumping our total coal stations could net us something like
70-80% CO2 reduction.

No amount of wind can ever produce anything like that sort of emissions
reduction.

It is simply a complete waste of time and money. It's only there because
the Greens run Germany, and the Greens hate nuclear power, and Germany
runs the EU.

And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a
sort of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes

Denmark being a
sort of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.

Danish embassy on line 1 for you...

--
Mike Tomlinson

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Wind power hasn't delivered carbon emission reduction. Certainly nothing
like 7% of Germany's CO2 attributable to electrical generation. I can't
say clearer than that.

You could be lot clearer. Wind power has reduced emissions, but consumption
has increased so much that there is no overall reduction.

Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.

No, you simply 'misquoted' them. 7% of electricity generation NOT 7% of
'Germanys energy'.

Yes the figure is for electricity, if that wasn't clear from the context
then that was careless of me.
No, now you misquote, it is 7% of consumption, not generation.

Dont worry, most of the wind lobby has trouble dsistuingusighing between
electrical power and total energy requirements and none have a clue about
exported carbon footprints to e.g. China in terms of energy used to make
stuff there we use here..or a clue about what load average means or when
'could power X homes' meas 'will on average power 30% of X homes the home
being about one sixth of the power we use altogether, with transport,
industry and so on making up the other 5/6ths), and sometimes won't power
anything at all)

Not just the wind lobby. the nuclear lobby are at least as blind, happily
quoting figures for low radiation while ignoring waste, or for low land use
while ignoring mining abroad.


Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh produced
so if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a big
saving in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how
you will.

Sorry, the facts don't bear that out.

If the *extra* fuel you have to burn to compensate for the wind output
going up and down loses all the advantages the wind seemingly has, you end
up with an net zero change in carbon emissions.


The point being that the more wind you have - as against nuclear or
hydro - the more fossil fuel stations you need to balance it.

Having to bring - say - 20GW of fossil online in a hurry when the wind
drops overnight, and not necessarily very good fossil either, since its
not used fully, so there is little incentive to make it efficient, costs
you a huge amount of fuel JUST TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING.

As near as I can judge over 75% of winds 'zero carbon' gains are lost to
that process.

That's the trouble with simple pictures. The world is not simple.

You imply that wind power will cause problems with variable supply and
demand. This is disingenuous because the industry already has to deal with
the variations in supply and demand, day, night, weekend, half time on Match
of the Day etc.. Yes wind power needs to be part of a mixed industry. We
know that.


Germany remains one of the highest CO2 emitters in Europe with respect to
electrical power generation. DESPITE all this so call low carbon wind.

This is disingenuous. Germany is one of the highest emitters because it is
the largest economy and one of the biggest populations.

Denmark is similar. The real stars of Europe are France and Switzerland,
both hugely nuclear and in Switzerland's case, with abundant hydro as well
to cover short term demand fluctuations.

If you want to permanently get rid of fossil fuel usage, nuclear for the
base load and hydro for the demand fluctuations is the way. Wind is
completely useless. A grid that had - say - 30% wind and no nuclear or
hydro at all would at times have no fossil in use at all, but on average
would need *70% fossil to balance it*.

Wind power needs to be part of a mix. We know that. Why all the straw men?

Now if we say that without wind, a good CCGT can do say 60% thermal
efficency IF FULLY WARMED UP AND LEFT RUNNING, then your carbon fuel rate
is 1/60% = 1.667 times grid power

If the use of that fossil fuel plant drops to 70% due to adding 30% wind,
you still cant get rid of it. You are just using it on average 70% of the
time.

Let's say its efficiency running like that is is X, so that the fuel burn
is then 0.7/X the grid power. And calculate when it's no better than the
kit running without any wind. its when 1/0.6=0.7/X

which makes the critical value of X = 42%.


SO *if the net result of adding 30% average wind to the grid is to reduce
the CCGT efficiency from 60% to 42%*, there is *no net emissions gain from
wind whatsoever*.

A CCGT set running before the secondary cycle gets going, is simply a 37%
OCGT gas turbine..every time you start that CCGT set up, it takes fuel to
warm it up. Energy that you lose when you switch it off and it cools down.

If you add more than 30% wind to the grid, there will be times when you
have to throw it away as well, because peak output will mean you have more
than you need when the wind DOES blow.

You MIGHT put it in pumped storage, at 75% efficiency losing 25% of the
value..if you HAD any pumped storage capacity..

We don't really have much, neither does Germany...

So at best, 30% windpower on the grid (more is unlikely to actually
achieve much more because you start to throw it away)might reduce carbon
emissions from electricity generation by perhaps 20%. At best. Maybe 5-10%
is likely.

20% nuclear on the grid that totally replaces fossil, could net you a real
20% decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity.At one fifth the cost.

80% Nuclear - as France has - reduces fossil usage by 80%.

The optimal UK mix would be something like 80% nuclear and 20% fast start
CCGT. If you really want low carbon electricity. If we had a bit more
hydro, we could do a bit better. Sadly geography doesn't favour us there.
Dumping our total coal stations could net us something like 70-80% CO2
reduction.

No amount of wind can ever produce anything like that sort of emissions
reduction.

Nobody afaik has ever claimed that wind power alone will reduce power
station emissions by 80%
It needs to be part of a mix. We know that.Why the straw men?

Wind Farms generate electricity without emissions. In conjunction with other
methods of generation they are a valuable efficient technology. They work.

It is simply a complete waste of time and money. It's only there because
the Greens run Germany, and the Greens hate nuclear power, and Germany
runs the EU.

And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a sort
of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.

I see. Another agenda then? Read the Daily Mail much?

Tim W

On Mar 28, 1:27*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and *looks to
stay that way all day.

It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.

Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.

(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)

It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..

You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.

Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction in
so doing.

And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.

Still puzzled.

I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' . Not
sure what that means.

Wind power hasn't delivered carbon emission reduction. Certainly nothing
like 7% of Germany's CO2 attributable to electrical generation. I can't
say clearer than that.

Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.

No, you simply 'misquoted' them. 7% of electricity generation NOT 7% of
'Germanys energy'.

Dont worry, most of the wind lobby has trouble dsistuingusighing between
electrical power and total energy requirements and none have a clue
about exported carbon footprints to e.g. China in terms of energy used
to make stuff there we use here..or a clue about what load average means
or when 'could power X homes' meas 'will on average power 30% of X homes
the home being about one sixth of the power we use altogether, with
transport, industry and so on making up the other 5/6ths), and sometimes
won't power anything at all)

Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.

So they can! Mostly, however, they don't.

Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you will.

Sorry, the facts don't bear that out.

If the *extra* fuel you have to burn to compensate for the wind output
going up and down loses all the advantages the wind seemingly has, you
end up with an net zero change in carbon emissions.

The point being that the more wind you have - as against nuclear or
hydro - the more fossil fuel stations you need to balance it.

Having to bring - say - 20GW of fossil online in a hurry when the wind
drops overnight, and not necessarily very good fossil either, since its
not used fully, so there is little incentive to make it efficient, costs
you a huge amount of fuel JUST TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING.

As near as I can judge over 75% of winds 'zero carbon' gains are lost to
that process.

That's the trouble with simple pictures. The world is not simple.

Germany remains one of the highest CO2 emitters in Europe with respect
to electrical power generation. DESPITE all this so call low carbon wind.

Denmark is similar. The real stars of Europe are France and Switzerland,
both hugely nuclear and in Switzerland's case, with abundant hydro as
well to cover short term demand fluctuations.

If you want to permanently get rid of fossil fuel usage, nuclear for the
base load and hydro for the demand fluctuations is the way. Wind is
completely useless. A grid that had - say - 30% wind and no nuclear or
hydro at all would at times have no fossil in use at all, but on average
would need *70% fossil to balance it*.

Now if we say that without wind, a good CCGT can do say 60% thermal
efficency IF FULLY WARMED UP AND LEFT RUNNING, then your carbon fuel
rate is 1/60% = 1.667 times grid power

If the use of that fossil fuel plant drops to 70% due to adding 30%
wind, you still cant get rid of it. You are just using it on average 70%
of the time.

Let's say its efficiency running like that is is X, so that the fuel
burn is then 0.7/X the grid power. And calculate when it's no better
than the kit running without any wind. its when 1/0.6=0.7/X

which makes the critical value of X = 42%.

SO *if the net result of adding *30% average wind to the grid is to
reduce the CCGT efficiency from 60% to 42%*, there is *no net emissions
gain from wind whatsoever*.

A CCGT set running before the secondary cycle gets going, is simply a
37% OCGT gas turbine..every time you start that CCGT set up, it takes
fuel to warm it up. Energy that you lose when you switch it off and it
cools down.

If you add more than 30% wind to the grid, there will be times when you
have to throw it away as well, because peak output will mean you have
more than you need when the wind DOES blow.

You MIGHT put it in pumped storage, at 75% efficiency losing 25% of the
value..if you HAD any pumped storage capacity..

We don't really have much, neither does Germany...

So at best, 30% windpower on the grid (more is unlikely to actually
achieve much more because you start to throw it away)might reduce carbon
emissions from electricity generation by perhaps 20%. At best. Maybe
5-10% is likely.

20% nuclear on the grid that totally replaces fossil, could net you a
real 20% decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity.At one fifth the
cost.

80% Nuclear - as France has - reduces fossil usage by 80%.

The optimal UK mix would be something like 80% nuclear and 20% fast
start CCGT. If you really want low carbon electricity. If we had a bit
more hydro, we could do a bit better. Sadly geography doesn't favour us
there. Dumping our total coal stations could net us something like
70-80% CO2 reduction.

No amount of wind can ever produce anything like that sort of emissions
reduction.

It is simply a complete waste of time and money. It's only there because
the Greens run Germany, and the Greens hate nuclear power, and Germany
runs the EU.

And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a
sort of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, you'll be glad to know I have just ordered a 4Kwp PV array for
my roof.
It's very profitable to own one. Maybe not so profitable for everyone
else.

In article , Tim W
writes

Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.

Germany's a big country with plenty of free land for building wind
farms. We're a small, overcrowded island about to become even more
crowded with the influx of migrants fleeing uprisings in Arab states.

--
Mike Tomlinson

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:25:07 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Germany's a big country with plenty of free land for building wind
farms. We're a small, overcrowded island about to become even more
crowded with the influx of migrants fleeing uprisings in Arab states.

There are about 70 million people here. How many extra would it take to
make it noticeably more crowded: 10%? 5%? 2%? Are you saying we're really
going to have *millions* of migrants fleeing uprisings in Arab states,
moving to the UK? Or just that the few who do make it here are dark-
skinned, eat different food, speak different languages, have different
imaginary friends in the sky and don't read the Daily ****ing Mail?

We all came out of Africa anyway: maybe we should all migrate off back
there where we came from.

--
John Stumbles

If a tree falls in a forest, can one hand hear it clap?

On Mar 28, 12:28*pm, "Tim W" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...





Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and *looks to
stay that way all day.

It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.

Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.

(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)

It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..

You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.

Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction in
so doing.

And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.

Still puzzled.

I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' . Not
sure what that means.
Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.

Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.
Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you will.

Tim W- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It takes five years on avaerage for a windturbine to pay back the
carbon emitted in it's manufacture and erection.
What is the life of a windturbine?

harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:28 pm, "Tim W" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...





Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to
stay that way all day.
It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.
Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.
(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)
It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..
You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.
Not too sure what you are on about.
Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.
So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.
German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction in
so doing.
And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.
Still puzzled.

I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' . Not
sure what that means.
Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.

Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.
Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you will.

Tim W- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It takes five years on avaerage for a windturbine to pay back the
carbon emitted in it's manufacture and erection.

Now is that in terms of what it produces at its shaft? Or the OVERALL
carbon cost of it to the nation, including maintenance?

You wont find the answer on the wind lobby sites.


What is the life of a windturbine?

At best 15 years.

On Mar 28, 10:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction
in so doing.

But carbon reduction is not important, so why should anyone try to
reduce it (which they will not succeed in doing even if they try).

Matty F wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction
in so doing.

But carbon reduction is not important, so why should anyone try to
reduce it (which they will not succeed in doing even if they try).

In which case, why do we bother with wind at all?

On Mar 28, 2:39*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction
in so doing.

But carbon reduction is not important, so why should anyone try to
reduce it (which they will not succeed in doing even if they try).

In which case, why do we bother with wind at all?

ideology

On Mar 29, 1:39 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction
in so doing.

But carbon reduction is not important, so why should anyone try to
reduce it (which they will not succeed in doing even if they try).

In which case, why do we bother with wind at all?

Only if wind is economic, which it is on some occasions. e.g. we used
a wind generator rather than pay for 10km of powerline to the main
grid.

Here in NZ wind can be a good idea. We have vast hydroelectric power
capability, with not enough rainfall to keep them running all the
time.
The power from wind generators means the power from hydro generators
can be reduced quickly, saving the water in the large dams.
Not an option in the UK I agree, but wind power can be economic in
some places so let's not rubbish it completely.

Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.

Wind generators can be supplied and installed quickly and generating
power, while your large nuclear and other generators take years to
build, with no income until they are finished years later.

Then there are transmission losses. The power from wind generators can
be used locally, while everybody wants nuclear power stations and coal
burning stations to be as far away as possible, hence high power
transmission losses and expensive lines.

In article , Tim W
scribeth thus

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered wind
output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to stay
that way all day.

It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert own
bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely capable
of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.


Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.

(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)


It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice nuclear
energy currently being imported from France..


You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.



Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

Tim W



All of the time;?...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered wind
output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to stay
that way all day.

It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert own
bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely capable
of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.


Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.

(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)


It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice nuclear
energy currently being imported from France..


You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.


Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

Tim W



All of the time;?...
None of the time. To do that it would have to represent an average of
21% of all German electrical generation (that being about 1/3rd of 'the
energy consumed in Germany')

which means that at times, it would exceed the total grid output..

Its a typical wind lobby lie.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

All of the time;?...
None of the time. To do that it would have to represent an average of 21%
of all German electrical generation (that being about 1/3rd of 'the energy
consumed in Germany')

which means that at times, it would exceed the total grid output..

Its a typical wind lobby lie.


I don't know what is going on in your head of course but I _think_ you have
muddled the import of energy with the import of electricity. That is why you
are making a nonsense of the facts and believe you are being lied to.

I believe Germany does import large amounts of gas for instance from Russia,
maybe its imports equate to 2/3 of its energy needs, but I am pretty sure it
doesn't import electricity on that scale. In fact the high levels of imports
of energy in fuel form must be to serve the power stations. You google the
figures. I have to go and do some work. Then come back and apologise to the
wind lobby LOL.

tim W

Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus
German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

All of the time;?...
None of the time. To do that it would have to represent an average of 21%
of all German electrical generation (that being about 1/3rd of 'the energy
consumed in Germany')

which means that at times, it would exceed the total grid output..

Its a typical wind lobby lie.


I don't know what is going on in your head of course but I _think_ you have
muddled the import of energy with the import of electricity. That is why you
are making a nonsense of the facts and believe you are being lied to.


No, YOU have.

I believe Germany does import large amounts of gas for instance from Russia,
maybe its imports equate to 2/3 of its energy needs, but I am pretty sure it
doesn't import electricity on that scale. In fact the high levels of imports
of energy in fuel form must be to serve the power stations. You google the
figures. I have to go and do some work. Then come back and apologise to the
wind lobby LOL.


Why?
Its not me who lies.

tim W

On Mar 28, 1:08*pm, "Tim W" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

All of the time;?...
None of the time. To do that it would have to represent an average of 21%
of all German electrical generation (that being about 1/3rd of 'the energy
consumed in Germany')

which means that at times, it would exceed the total grid output..

Its a typical wind lobby lie.

I don't know what is going on in your head of course but I _think_ you have
muddled the import of energy with the import of electricity. That is why you
are making a nonsense of the facts and believe you are being lied to.

I believe Germany does import large amounts of gas for instance from Russia,
maybe its imports equate to 2/3 of its energy needs, but I am pretty sure it
doesn't import electricity on that scale. In fact the high levels of imports
of energy in fuel form must be to serve the power stations. You google the
figures. I have to go and do some work. Then come back and apologise to the
wind lobby LOL.

tim W

The biggest percentage of electricity place in Europe is Denmark. But
only because they can export their surplus to Germany on windy days.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus
[...]


German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.


All of the time;?...


It's total, for the year.

Tim W

In article , Tim W
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus
[...]


German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.


All of the time;?...


It's total, for the year.

Tim W



OK so what happens when the wind doesn't blow, what do you do then?..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus
[...]

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

All of the time;?...

It's total, for the year.

Tim W



OK so what happens when the wind doesn't blow, what do you do then?..


fire up low efficiency cheap generators that chew fuel, of course.

Tim W wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus
[...]

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

All of the time;?...


It's total, for the year.


Yes, they have an 'installed capacity' of about 26GW, which relates to
an average grid demand of about 72GW

It produces, *on average*, about 5GW. so a typical load average of about
20%, reflecting the fact that its onshore wind by and large. An
appallingly crap figure.

By my estimation *at best* it displaces 2.5GW of fossil fuel.

So a couple of medium (1.25GW) nuclear power stations only.

When Sizewell C comes online, (1.6GW) it will, together with Sizewell B,
(1.2GW) represent about 3 times the total installed UK wind power in
terms of average power generated, and probably save 6 times as much
fossil fuel.


Two nuclear reactors could easily have done Germany's fossil fuel usage
far more good than all the wind, and at a fraction of the cost.

Tim W

On 28/03/2011 12:34, Tim W wrote:
"tony wrote in message
...

In , Tim
scribeth thus

[...]


German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.


All of the time;?...


It's total, for the year.

Tim W



I wonder how much energy has gone into constructing the damn things,
installing them and building an electrical distribution system? What is
the payback period? without the subsidy of course.
Don

Donwill wrote:
On 28/03/2011 12:34, Tim W wrote:
"tony wrote in message
...

In , Tim
scribeth thus

[...]


German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in
Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.


All of the time;?...


It's total, for the year.

Tim W



I wonder how much energy has gone into constructing the damn things,
installing them and building an electrical distribution system? What is
the payback period? without the subsidy of course.

what is one over a negative quantity? greater than infinity...

There is no payback period, with an MTBF of about 2 months and a
lifetime of less than 20 years, the ruddy things will always be a net
drain on the economy.


Don

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

So you mix it..
that means you need the same generating capacity as the wind farms idling
away so they can switch in when the wind doesn't blow.
This costs £££ and generates carbon, so much for wind farms being carbon
neutral.
I suppose the solution is to back them up with something that doesn't
generate carbon, like nuclear, but then you wouldn't need the wind farms.
We could offset some of the problems by switching off all the people on
green tariffs as there isn't any green electricity for them.
We don't want them to get the idea that they are actually a part of the
solution rather than being a part of the problem.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

I bet they didn't, how much carbon does that mean they produce over their
life then?

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim W" wrote in message
...

Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

So you mix it..
that means you need the same generating capacity as the wind farms
idling away so they can switch in when the wind doesn't blow.
This costs £££ and generates carbon, so much for wind farms being carbon
neutral.
I suppose the solution is to back them up with something that doesn't
generate carbon, like nuclear, but then you wouldn't need the wind farms.
We could offset some of the problems by switching off all the people on
green tariffs as there isn't any green electricity for them.
We don't want them to get the idea that they are actually a part of the
solution rather than being a part of the problem.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany
in 2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

I bet they didn't, how much carbon does that mean they produce over
their life then?



well lets just say that that 7% of windpower on the grid has not
markedly changed carbon emissions in electrical power.

It (Germany) stands at 1351.
The UK is 1228
France (largely nuclear) is 193
Switzerland - hydro and nuclear, is just 11

(Source: http://carma.org/region/detail/185 et al).

In short Germany adds wind and switches off nuclear, and sees no
reduction in CO2. And has to add gas plant to balance the wind.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Tim W" wrote in message
...

Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

So you mix it..
that means you need the same generating capacity as the wind farms idling
away so they can switch in when the wind doesn't blow.
This costs £££ and generates carbon, so much for wind farms being carbon
neutral.
I suppose the solution is to back them up with something that doesn't
generate carbon, like nuclear, but then you wouldn't need the wind farms.
We could offset some of the problems by switching off all the people on
green tariffs as there isn't any green electricity for them.
We don't want them to get the idea that they are actually a part of the
solution rather than being a part of the problem.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

I bet they didn't, how much carbon does that mean they produce over their
life then?


A wind farm doesn't produce carbon. If you want figures you can google them
yourself.

Tim W

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:57:01 +0100, Tim W wrote:

A wind farm doesn't produce carbon. If you want figures you can google
them yourself.

Hum, so the concrete block (say 20m dia and 3m thick) that each
windmill sits on didn't require the release of carbon in it's
manufacture?

http://visitwalesnow.org.uk/environment-in-wales.htm

That uses rectangular olympic swimming pool size blocks...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Tim W
scribeth thus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Tim W" wrote in message
...

Not too sure what you are on about.

Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.

So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.

So you mix it..
that means you need the same generating capacity as the wind farms idling
away so they can switch in when the wind doesn't blow.
This costs £££ and generates carbon, so much for wind farms being carbon
neutral.
I suppose the solution is to back them up with something that doesn't
generate carbon, like nuclear, but then you wouldn't need the wind farms.
We could offset some of the problems by switching off all the people on
green tariffs as there isn't any green electricity for them.
We don't want them to get the idea that they are actually a part of the
solution rather than being a part of the problem.

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

I bet they didn't, how much carbon does that mean they produce over their
life then?


A wind farm doesn't produce carbon. If you want figures you can google them
yourself.

Tim W


OK .. so how do they build them then?..

Any carbon used at all?..
--
Tony Sayer

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

A wind farm doesn't produce carbon. If you want figures you can google
them yourself.

Of course it does.

Building it, maintaining it, decommissioning it.
They don't grow you know.

Other totally off topic things about electricity is the fact that vegans
can't use it as things like WD40 (FISH oil) are used, but the same is true
for cars, buses, trains, etc. and they ignore that. Funny how they can be so
vocal while using animal products.

On Mar 28, 2:57*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:

Other totally off topic things about electricity is the fact that vegans
can't use it as things like WD40 (FISH oil) are used

B*lls. See (for example) http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/wd-40.asp

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany
in 2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.

Yes but the Germans (i) legislated to make people pay for it earlier and
(ii) benefit from the ability to share with other countries through
trans-national connection schemes so there is a better chance of the
wind blowing somewhere at a time people want to use electricity. (We of
course will have to pay through the nose for undersea connections; and
probably pay yet more because the EU is involved.)
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com