Have a look at
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/e...g-the-economy/
this is what the powers that be want for us.

Rick... (The other Rick)

On 26/01/2012 12:07, Rick... (The other Rick) wrote:
Have a look at
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/e...g-the-economy/
this is what the powers that be want for us.

That explains why it seems almost impossible to drive anywhere in
Germany without there being a wind farm in view somewhere.

Colin Bignell

On Jan 26, 12:07*pm, "Rick... (The other Rick)"
wrote:
Have a look athttp://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/energy-expert-germanys-renewable-e...

"As a result, surplus wind power cannot be delivered to the markets,
and thus either has to be destroyed, dumped on the market at “negative
prices”, or wind park owners are simply ordered to stop generating."

How would you "destroy" the surplus generated wind power? Are there
big load banks in the grid to burn it off? Maybe they have big motors
driving fans?

On 26/01/2012 16:35, Onetap wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, "Rick... (The other
wrote:
Have a look athttp://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/energy-expert-germanys-renewable-e...

"As a result, surplus wind power cannot be delivered to the markets,
and thus either has to be destroyed, dumped on the market at “negative
prices”, or wind park owners are simply ordered to stop generating."

How would you "destroy" the surplus generated wind power? Are there
big load banks in the grid to burn it off? Maybe they have big motors
driving fans?

You mean one wind farm generating, and the other absorbing power,
providing 'wind'?

Onetap wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, "Rick... (The other Rick)"
wrote:
Have a look athttp://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/energy-expert-germanys-renewable-e...

"As a result, surplus wind power cannot be delivered to the markets,
and thus either has to be destroyed, dumped on the market at €œnegative
prices€�, or wind park owners are simply ordered to stop generating."

How would you "destroy" the surplus generated wind power? Are there
big load banks in the grid to burn it off? Maybe they have big motors
driving fans?

what they do is simply feather the windmills and claim for what they
COULD have produced.

On Jan 26, 4:49*pm, Fredxx wrote:

You mean one wind farm generating, and the other absorbing power,
providing 'wind'?

Yeah. ;-)

If the Germans can't do sensible wind power, what hope do we have?

Lunatics, asylum, ****-up, brewery, etc.

Onetap wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:49 pm, Fredxx wrote:

You mean one wind farm generating, and the other absorbing power,
providing 'wind'?

Yeah. ;-)

If the Germans can't do sensible wind power, what hope do we have?


'sensible wind power' is an oxymoron.


Lunatics, asylum, ****-up, brewery, etc.


Katastrophe durch technik und politik

In article ,
Onetap writes:
On Jan 26, 12:07=A0pm, "Rick... (The other Rick)"
wrote:
Have a look athttp://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/energy-expert-germanys-r=
enewable-e...

"As a result, surplus wind power cannot be delivered to the markets,
and thus either has to be destroyed, dumped on the market at =93negative
prices=94, or wind park owners are simply ordered to stop generating."

How would you "destroy" the surplus generated wind power? Are there
big load banks in the grid to burn it off?

Sounds like global warming to me ;-)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:07:11 +0000, "Rick... (The other Rick)"
wrote:

Have a look at
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/e...g-the-economy/
this is what the powers that be want for us.

Rick... (The other Rick)

Aren't the main problems caused by the switching off of a number of
(nuclear) power stations, rather than the presence of wind farms
etc..?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article ,
Mark writes:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:07:11 +0000, "Rick... (The other Rick)"
wrote:

Have a look at
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/e...g-the-economy/
this is what the powers that be want for us.

Rick... (The other Rick)

Aren't the main problems caused by the switching off of a number of
(nuclear) power stations, rather than the presence of wind farms
etc..?

That's a big issue (I work with several german colleagues).
Their electricity prices are doubling as a result of turning
off the nucs.

The inability of many countries to build new power grids
is a big issue. In the UK, it takes longer now to get through
the planning for one new line than it took to build the whole
of the original national grid, or the whole of the later
supergrids.

The problems with wind are very well known in this group.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:07:11 +0000, "Rick... (The other Rick)"
wrote:

Have a look at
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/e...g-the-economy/
this is what the powers that be want for us.

Rick... (The other Rick)

Aren't the main problems caused by the switching off of a number of
(nuclear) power stations, rather than the presence of wind farms
etc..?

Both really.

The loss of nuclear means the south is undersupplied and the north is
then oversupplied with highly variable energy. In the north they used to
dump the wind surplus (when there was any) onto Scandinavia which could
use it to offset its hydro. Now they need it all (and more) and the
cables from north to south dont exist.

In addition it destabilizes the grids badly to have all the surges..
hence the usual problem that on good wind days you cant absorb it
locally because neither the grid nor the demand exists, and so you tell
the farms to go off grid (and pay them for it anyway)

On bad wind days the grid you have built is then idle and wasted, and
you have to import from poland or france and keep the coal fires burning
anyway.

The costs of doing this which are never mentioned in greenwash
marketspin are very large - both economically, in environmental terms
(pylons DC interconnectors and windmills everywhere) and in terms of
increased emissions from the coal fired stations which have to be kept
at least up to temp and idling.


Remember Germany has almost no gas at all - that comes from Russia. But
it and Poland have vast reserves of coal - especially brown coal which
is filthy carbon and sulphur emitting stuff.

So that's what they are burning and building more of.

On 27/01/2012 11:22, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
....
The inability of many countries to build new power grids
is a big issue. In the UK, it takes longer now to get through
the planning for one new line than it took to build the whole
of the original national grid, or the whole of the later
supergrids.
....

Things were easier in those days. The Public Enquiry into the building
of Heathrow Airport lasted 45 minutes.

Colin Bignell

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:07:11 +0000, "Rick... (The other Rick)"
wrote:

Have a look at
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/e...able-energy-tr

ansition-will-fail-spectacularly-heavily-damaging-the-economy/
this is what the powers that be want for us.

Aren't the main problems caused by the switching off of a number of
(nuclear) power stations, rather than the presence of wind farms
etc..?

That's what'll bring matters to a head.

The problem is connected. Since the idea at policy level insofar as its
being spun to the greens is no nuclear, more wind.

The reality is it will be no nuclear, more coal.

The absolute fact is that beyond a few percent of wind on the grid, you
have to totally redesign the grid to cope with, first of all, the
massive peak to mean ratio of the windpower - that usually means for an
average sort of grid a 2-3 times what conventional power needs, and
secondly if you are going to derive *any emissions benefits at all*, you
MUST replace coal powered stations - with their inherent long warm up
ties, high thermal losses,and low thermal efficiencies - with gas or if
you can, hydro.

But that of course makes you inherently dependent on gas - and if you
haven't got it and it all comes from Russia..well....

You cannot by any stretch of the imagination go 'all renewable' - my
own calculations for that, in respect of the UK show that it leads
irrevocably to a unit electricity cost price of something like £9.80 per
unit. A 200 times increase in price simply reflecting the fact that to
GUARANTEE adequate wind power on the grid at the times of lowest wind,
you need about 200 times more capacity than the AVERAGE demand.

And a nightmare of cables and windfarms every where.

Basically its all in the nature of wind, and the peak to mean ration.

The general rule is that if you want reliability, you must engineer for
the worst case. Sadly your income derives from the average. If these are
wildly different, you have an expensive inefficient technology. Aircraft
carry extra weight and extra engines so they don't crash in minor
turbulence or if an engine packs up in flight. That extra weight adds
to the cost of flying.

The same goes in every machine. Your brakes are good for the one
emergency stop that may save your life. not for the average gentle
braking you do. The engine is big enough to get you up the steepest
hill, not to keep you at 70mnph on a motorway.

..
In power engineering, the demand is relatively straightforward: there is
a daily variation of about 50% and an annual variation of similar, that
is daylight and temperature related. Plus a sharp peak in the early
evening, catered for by what pumped storage we have more ore less.

Overall UK demand is almost never less than 20GW on a summer night, or
more than 50GW at 6pm on a cold dark chilly January evening. Build a
grid capable of 60GW at worst, and that's all you need.

Now look at 30% renewables on the grid. Or whatever fantasy figure the
Huhnatic has dreamt up. The capacity factor is less than that - say 22%
so to achieve 30% you absolutely will have at some point in time a
situation where you will have to throw the excess power away. It cannot
be realistically stored. On the other hand you know statistically there
will be periods where it contributes so little that it, its grid
connections and all associated with it is just so much scrap metal. And
you will still need every single conventional power station you have
running flat out to keep up with demand.

Its not a question of not knowing when this will happen either - so
solar and wave are no different. As long as you know it WILL happen you
have to engineer for it.


Not only are the windy bits of grid useless when there is no wind, but
the conventional bits of grid are useless when there IS wind.

So as well as adding te expense of 'making wind work' you are devaluing
the parts of the grid that are NOT wind. CCGT stations (the cleanest
fossil there is) are being shut down because with wind being balanced
with gas, the profit in them is decreasing. They are not being run hard
enough to justify their existence - and yet this is incredibly dangerous
- not only does it overall increase emissions as only coal can compete
with subsidised renewables - but the total generating capacity is
thereby reduced..and when we do get that cold anticyclone, subzero
temperatures and zero wind, we may not have enough.

It is a recipe for an hugely expensive and utterly terrifying disaster.

Especially as we are being forced down Germany's route by the
governments inability to make up its mind whether or not we should do
this or that or the other.

Right now we are utterly dependent on coal and nuclear for the bulk of
our baseload generation, with gas and wind dancing with each other with
a few trills from hydro thrown in.

The government policy is no more coal at all ever, and right now,
nuclear hangs in the balance because no one has the guts to grasp the
nettle and sort out the waste problem and the operating licensing.

Gas isn't being built either because you cant make a profit running
2/3rds of the time at half power and sometimes not at all.

But the government is happy to guarantee prices for 'renewables' at 3-10
times the current market rate for technologies that don't actually work
in the context of a real live operating stable electricity supply.

Germany will end up with no emissions saved trying to balance coal and
wind.

We can't even do that. We will be absolutely stuck with gas and wind
alone. And huge increases in price and overall a worse emissions as the
real thing that does bring emissions down is hydro electric or nuclear
power. Nothing else makes any difference worth having whatsoever.

And we haven't enough mountains...for hydro.

Everything else is pie in the sky 'could' cuckoo land ecotard
masturbatory fantasies.

Nightjar wrote:

On 27/01/2012 11:22, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
...
The inability of many countries to build new power grids
is a big issue. In the UK, it takes longer now to get through
the planning for one new line than it took to build the whole
of the original national grid, or the whole of the later
supergrids.
...

Things were easier in those days. The Public Enquiry into the building
of Heathrow Airport lasted 45 minutes.


wow...


--
Tim Watts

On Jan 27, 12:59*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...CCGT stations (the cleanest fossil there is)

Could the Germans not make gas from the coal, or does it not work like
that? (Just curious)

David Paste wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:59 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...CCGT stations (the cleanest fossil there is)

Could the Germans not make gas from the coal, or does it not work like
that? (Just curious)

I suspect that in terms of total energy, coal is coal and its all carbon.


making coal gas to run gas turbines on? ..hmm. I suspect the overall
efficiency would not be great.

once again its a nasty hack to satisfy an arbitrary criterion, rather
than a holistic analysis of 'what works best'

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:16:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So that's what they are burning and building more of.

And bringing coal stations that had been mothballed back online...
The german greenies knee jerk reaction to Fukishima of shutting down
a load of nukes does seem to have backed fired some what. I bet those
mothballed stations weren't the most effcient or cleanest stations
either...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , Fredxx
writes
On 26/01/2012 16:35, Onetap wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, "Rick... (The other
wrote:
Have a look
athttp://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/energy-expert-germanys-renewable-


"As a result, surplus wind power cannot be delivered to the markets,
and thus either has to be destroyed, dumped on the market at €œnegative
prices€�, or wind park owners are simply ordered to stop generating."

How would you "destroy" the surplus generated wind power? Are there
big load banks in the grid to burn it off? Maybe they have big motors
driving fans?

You mean one wind farm generating, and the other absorbing power,
providing 'wind'?



Perpetual motion ... who'd have thought


--
geoff

On Jan 27, 9:18*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
David Paste wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:59 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...CCGT stations (the cleanest fossil there is)

Could the Germans not make gas from the coal, or does it not work like
that? (Just curious)

I suspect that in terms of total energy, coal is coal and its all carbon.

making coal gas to run gas turbines on? ..hmm. I suspect the overall
efficiency would not be great.

once again its a nasty hack to satisfy an arbitrary criterion, rather
than a holistic analysis of 'what works best'

Oh yeah, I wasn't suggesting it should be done, I was just curious! I
did suspect it'd be a worthless idea, but not knowing the efficiencies
of various boilers / turbines / whatever, I thought I'd ask anyway.

On Jan 28, 9:03*am, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:58:46 -0800 (PST), David Paste

wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:59*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

...CCGT stations (the cleanest fossil there is)

Could the Germans not make gas from the coal, or does it not work like
that? (Just curious)

Coal gasification is a perfectly viable process, whether done in an
old-fashioned 'gas works' or in-situ underground. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification

But whether you burn the coal directly to generate steam, or convert
it into gas first by some process, you still generate the same amount
of CO2 in the end so there's no benefit from that POV. Also, the
gasification process itself uses energy. Consequently the gas contains
less potential chemical energy than the coal it's made from, so the
efficiency of that route will be less than by direct combustion. There
may be some advantage in in-situ gasification relative to doing it in
a gas works, in that you don't have to mine the coal, with all the
cost etc. that that entails, and you can gasify coal seams that would
otherwise be unworkable. But it will still produce more CO2 than
natural gas of the same energy content.

--

Chris

I see! Cheers.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:07:11 +0000, "Rick... (The other Rick)"
wrote:

Have a look at
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/e...g-the-economy/
this is what the powers that be want for us.

One can only hope that they get repeated total supply loss across the
network. At that point they then do the only decent thing and start
burning greens for energy.

If only the arseholes in HM Gov UK could understand the very serious
risk to our future prosperity caused by greenwash, so FFS lets get on
with building nukes now and if we are short of steel hack the wind
turbines down and melt the ****ers. Shred the blades and force feed
them to anyone who objects, after all its just fibre, and guaranteed
to improve the digestive system of all
eco-veg-2cv-save-the-planet-corduroy-wearing-****wits.


--

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:07:11 +0000, "Rick... (The other Rick)"
wrote:

Have a look at
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/e...g-the-economy/
this is what the powers that be want for us.

One can only hope that they get repeated total supply loss across the
network. At that point they then do the only decent thing and start
burning greens for energy.

If only the arseholes in HM Gov UK could understand the very serious
risk to our future prosperity caused by greenwash, so FFS lets get on
with building nukes now and if we are short of steel hack the wind
turbines down and melt the ****ers. Shred the blades and force feed
them to anyone who objects, after all its just fibre, and guaranteed
to improve the digestive system of all
eco-veg-2cv-save-the-planet-corduroy-wearing-****wits.


THAT'S the SPIRIT.