On Sep 26, 6:32*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:

On 9/26/2012 9:23 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
"Doctor *Drivel" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote
"Doctor *Drivel" wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Sunshine is inexhaustable and in my garden. *And no-one can
cut my
supply off.

1) Not during the night it's not.

You store it during the day.

The Aussie solar plants are proposing to do that by using some of
the solar heat to melt salt. That salt then drives the gennies
during the night. These are proposed plants producing about 300MW
each. They cover large amounts of land.

We don't have the land for that

Daily Mail & Torygraph propaganda. The UK is EMPTY - only 7.5% of the
land settled.

Empty eh? Tell that to the swarms who live in London and the Midlands.
Also the "unsettled land" is used for growing food - or hadn't you
noticed?

And some of the unsettled land is unsuitable for either housing or
agriculture.

Good place for the nukes we need then.

Its all in porridgeland and they don't want any at all. Stupid porridge
wogs.

All that fuss about Dounreay. I've been there. No one else ever goes.
Dead and alive piece of landscape with nothing to recommend it apart
from a few stone age barrows like the ones harry wants us to live in.


The panels have self cleaning glass,**** for brains.
Rain cleans them perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_cleaning_glass
Unbelievable how ignorant you are.

On Sep 26, 8:31*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus









On Sep 26, 2:11*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus

On Sep 24, 8:47*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus

On Sep 24, 10:49*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Volkswagen have been experimenting with *thermpiles in the exhaust to
make electricity and thus eliminating the alternator.

Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.

Really, why is that and just how inefficient?.

It's inefficient because it's made to a price and petrol was cheap.

Thats err, a very scientific argument Harry;!...

It's an economic argument not scientific..

You should try the science one Harry the money one isn't that
convincing...



They could be made far more efficient with say neodymium magnets
instead of electromagnets. The air gaps in the magnetic circuit could
be reduced.

All costs money. *More than people are prepared to pay when petrol is
cheap.


Money rules. If a car isn't cheap enough,no-one will buy it.
Everything is made to the minimum price they can get away with.

On Sep 26, 8:31*pm, tony sayer wrote:
Just having an alternator with a clutch that cuts out when accelerating mean
the engine can be downsized and acceleration improved. *Also the starter
motors can be downsized as well (cheaper & less weight

That really going the make any real difference how much of a percentage
is that compared to the weight of the battery system. Course I suppose
once the cars rolling on leccy it can be bump started...

and power drawn from
the battery). *All this is easy to do, like the next model update could have
it all - Instead of a 1600cc the engine could be 1300cc.

--
Tony Sayer

The ancilliaries all have their own electric motors. They only run to
the level actually needed.
This is old hat. You can buy this stuff now.

And that power comes from where?...
--
Tony Sayer

The alternator of course. But far less total power is needed then
running it purely mechanically. And if the power from exhaust gases
proves viable, it will come from there.

On Sep 26, 8:42*pm, SteveW wrote:
On 15/09/2012 21:13, tony sayer wrote:









In article , Doctor *Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
t.uk...
On 11/09/2012 23:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:
You could *have a 10 year old car and slap in a new battery set and it
is transformed.

I have a ten year old car. *I haven't had to buy a new engine, gearbox, or
anything else big.

You must pay attention. The car can "transformed". Replacing your auto box
will cost about the same as battery set but the car is not transformed, just
still the same as it was.

My 17 Y/O petrol engined *Audi A6 is on is original engine transmission
and a lot else thanks...

Yes. In my youth, my parents had a succession of old cars, gradually
getting newer and newer ones over the decades. One car wrecked its
engine when a piece of the auxiliary belt broke off and went stright
through a tiny slit in the timing belt cover and one car had a second
hand gearbox to change it from three speed column shift to four speed
floor shift. Some were part-exed, but the vast majority reached the end
of their lives when the bodywork repairs were too much. None suffered
failure of any major components. These days the bodywork and the
mechanics are far better, it's getting so that you are unlikely to
change the clutch, never mind the gearbox in the life of a car! Its the
eventual failure of expensive electronic boxes that are likely to end
the lives of many modern cars, not the mechanical bits and pieces.

SteveW

It is all part of a plan to force you to buy a new car. The life of
these things is deliberately contrived.
But it won't matter. We will have perfect cars and no petrol to put in
them.

On Sep 26, 8:58*pm, geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes



You just can't get your head round the fact that there is no
alternative.

To nuclear power? No there isn't. In the medium term.
renewables will be dead in 5 years.

Tch you are a halfwit.
It would take ten years to build a nuclear power station, but it's not
going to happen.

dated Sept 1st 2012

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...re/110312.aspx

e.g. "Government policy is that new nuclear power should be able to
contribute as much as possible to the UK’s new capacity"

--
geoff

Well done. The date of 2050 is mentioned. So let's see, that's 38
years. Longer than I thought. I think we can get renewables a lot
sooner than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...power_stations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...r_power_plants

Still seems unlikely.


I wonder if carbon capture will work?

On Sep 26, 9:23*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
SteveW wrote:
On 20/09/2012 07:56, harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 2:12 pm, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:43:02 PM UTC+1, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:53:27 +0100, djc wrote:

But these electric cars aren't designed for driving across europe or

any great distance. They are for the wage slaves doing the M-F 9-5 25

mile round trip commute.

But the wage slaves are just the people who can only afford one
car, so

it has to do all the other occasional, but so often vital, trips too.

So they use some of the money they save from the cheap energy, reduced

tax, etc on the day to day electric car to hire a more suitable vehicle

as required.

Figures were posted recently about how much one of these cars would
save

someone communing into central London with, no congestion charge, free

parking and charging etc. I forget the numbers but it was several

thousand pounds...

I wonder which comedian came up with the figures.....

I'm also suspcious of this free charging, will it be free from home too?

--

It's obviously a kick start thing. But if it isn't done, we will be
left behind/back in the horse age..
You can't get it into your head, there is no alternative. Regardless
if the primary power is nuclear or windmills.

If the primary power is nuclear then using the power to produce
synthetic fuels to provide all of the advantages of petrol and diesel,
while being cleaner would seem to make sense. Pure electric vehicles
cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of
the "old" technology.

That is essentially correct.

Until and unless some other way of storing energy beyond the ones we
know turns up. Something subatomic perhaps.

So more pollution from synthetic fuels?

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I did this because the haynes manuals of the time recommended that you
did.

A very good reason not to, then.

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
harry wrote:
Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to
anything. If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also
worn/damaged.

But next time, don't let it run out of oil. And your electric pump
won't help there either.


The crankshaft was fine. I ran he car another 10,000 miles before
sold it.
All down to how soon it is before you notice it twerp.

What did you 'notice'?

--
*It was all so different before everything changed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 6:32 pm, The Natural Philosopher

All that fuss about Dounreay. I've been there. No one else ever goes.
Dead and alive piece of landscape with nothing to recommend it apart
from a few stone age barrows like the ones harry wants us to live in.


The panels have self cleaning glass,**** for brains.

What ARE you drivelling on about.
Dounreay is - or as - a nuclear research reactor.

It doesn't have any glass panels.

Rain cleans them perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_cleaning_glass
Unbelievable how ignorant you are.

Well that's as may be, but I am sure it is better than being totally
deranged.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:49:34 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I did this because the haynes manuals of the time recommended that you
did.

A very good reason not to, then.

Refitting is the reverse of removal, except when it's not. Now where's my
big hammer...

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:50:49 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The crankshaft was fine. I ran he car another 10,000 miles before sold
it.
All down to how soon it is before you notice it twerp.

What did you 'notice'?

He noticed it twerp, which is obviously a technical term for the need to
replace bearings without bothering to attend to the crank.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:54:59 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:08:27 -0700, harry wrote:
The main benefit of an electric oil pump is that you can start it
before starting the IC engine so reducing wear to almost nil.

Does it make a significant difference? It's still going to be pumping
cold oil, and for any engine that was recently run I'd expect it to
have a film of oil still clinging to any sliding surfaces.

And pumping oil through a stationary engine will have virtually no
effect. It certainly won't coat all the bearing faces.

Indeed; and even if it does allow the oil to coat the surfaces more
quickly once things do start rotating, I think it needs the oil to be
warm before it'll really do its job properly anyway.

Pre-heating everything prior to start might be kinder, but that takes
power (or, if you're a little farther north than me, lighting a fire
under the engine block isn't unheard of ;-)

An immersion heater in the block coolant is a good way. Makes for a near
instant heater too.

Yes, common around these parts. I've got one fitted to the van, but have
never used it - when it's -30 outside it's too much hassle to plug it
into the AC and then anticipate what time I'll need it next so I can set
a timer to kick the heater on.

Some vehicles have oil pre-heat - either in the sump, or an external kind
which mounts to the sump via magnets (and I'm really not convinced of the
latter's ability to stay put!).

Oh, and heating pads which sit under the battery to keep it cosy, too.

cheers

Jules

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I had to fit new big end shells and main bearing shells to a Rover V8
engine about ten years ago.
Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to
anything. If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also
worn/damaged.


No.

Crankshafts are hard steel,. bearing caps are IIRC lead indium
plated, they wear much sooner.

Fallacy. And I thought you knew something about cars.

http://www.austin-healeys.com/austin...ine-details-2/

says I am in fact completely right.

Eh? All it does is give a list of specifications. I already have the
BMC/BL workshop manuals. Who certainly don't mention changing bearing
shells at some specific mileage. As I said, the only time you can do this
and they will last, is if you change them before they are worn. So totally
pointless.


If you let them wear to the coppper backing of course you WILL score
the crank.

And copper is harder than hard steel?

Dont be silly, the copper is plated on the steel shells first then the
lead-indium is plated onto that. But if you can see the copper the
bearing is finished and its LIKELY the steel shells have started to
score the crank.

So one softer metal doesn't wear the crank while another will?


Having rebuilt more engines than I can remember in my time, I've never
found a case where replacing shells only when there are signs of
bearing problems works. Only time I'll replace bearing shells without
a crank grind is when carrying out other work which requires splitting
the bearings. Because they are cheap, it makes sense to replace them -
in much the same way as you fit new gaskets.

In the bad old BMC days I used to replace big ends at 30k, mains at
60k and have a bloody good look at the crank and bores at 120k, if
the whole car lasted that long.

You replaced them on spec - or when there was signs of wear?

It turned out to be the same thing Dave, I'd drop the sump and if I
could find any rock in the big ends I'd drop the caps and replace the
shells - not a big job.

You dropped the sump on spec?

at 60K I replaced the mains on spec, and that too is doable - by
dripping the main bearing caps - just.

I did this because the haynes manuals of the time recommended that you
did.

I'm wondering if they based this on the original version of the A Series
which had bypass oil filtering. Changing the shells as a precaution
*might* just extend crank life. But all A-H and MGs used the later
version(s) with full flow filtering, so it is a pointless waste of money
and time.

BTW, it's a common mistake that where you have one hard and one soft
material in a plain bearing, only, the soft one wears.

--
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I had to fit new big end shells and main bearing shells to a Rover V8
engine about ten years ago.
Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to
anything. If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also
worn/damaged.

No.
Crankshafts are hard steel,. bearing caps are IIRC lead indium
plated, they wear much sooner.
Fallacy. And I thought you knew something about cars.

http://www.austin-healeys.com/austin...ine-details-2/

says I am in fact completely right.

Eh? All it does is give a list of specifications. I already have the
BMC/BL workshop manuals. Who certainly don't mention changing bearing
shells at some specific mileage. As I said, the only time you can do this
and they will last, is if you change them before they are worn. So totally
pointless.

If you let them wear to the coppper backing of course you WILL score
the crank.
And copper is harder than hard steel?

Dont be silly, the copper is plated on the steel shells first then the
lead-indium is plated onto that. But if you can see the copper the
bearing is finished and its LIKELY the steel shells have started to
score the crank.

So one softer metal doesn't wear the crank while another will?


essentially the shells are hard carbon steel. The same as the crank so
they wear the crank as fast as the crank wears them.

Even water will in time wear away much harder rock. Its not a binary
thing Dave, despite your brain being wired that way.

Cranks are hard, shell casings are hard, a sacrificial layer of lead and
indium is plated onto the shell inners to provide a lower friction and
sacrificial surface for the crank to run in. Get it? IF you replace
shells before they are totally worn out the crank will NEVER need
regrinding until well beyond the engines other lifetime limity, like
having been rebored a dozen times.




I'm wondering if they based this on the original version of the A Series
which had bypass oil filtering. Changing the shells as a precaution
*might* just extend crank life. But all A-H and MGs used the later
version(s) with full flow filtering, so it is a pointless waste of money
and time.


No. Its plan good engineering practice, Bearing shells wear about ten
times faster than cranks do.

BTW, it's a common mistake that where you have one hard and one soft
material in a plain bearing, only, the soft one wears.


Its a common truth. Not a fallacy The soft one wears FASTER. That
doesn't mean the hard one doesn't wear at all.

Otherwise why bother to have soft bearing shell coatings at all? after
all MOST of the running is dine on an oil film .


And I've got not a few steel in bronze bearings clapped out on electric
motors to prove it.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you let them wear to the coppper backing of course you WILL score
the crank.
And copper is harder than hard steel?

Dont be silly, the copper is plated on the steel shells first then the
lead-indium is plated onto that. But if you can see the copper the
bearing is finished and its LIKELY the steel shells have started to
score the crank.

So one softer metal doesn't wear the crank while another will?


essentially the shells are hard carbon steel. The same as the crank so
they wear the crank as fast as the crank wears them.

You have steel shells in contact with a steel crank? I'm not surprised you
need to change things so often.

Even water will in time wear away much harder rock. Its not a binary
thing Dave, despite your brain being wired that way.

Think your wiring is confused...

Cranks are hard, shell casings are hard, a sacrificial layer of lead and
indium is plated onto the shell inners to provide a lower friction and
sacrificial surface for the crank to run in. Get it?

Sacrificial? Not a word I'd use.


IF you replace
shells before they are totally worn out the crank will NEVER need
regrinding until well beyond the engines other lifetime limity, like
having been rebored a dozen times.

********. Plain and simple. What you seem to be suggesting is the only
time you'll get crank wear is after the shells are worn. This simply isn't
so. But perhaps you've never had the tools to measure it.

--
*On the other hand, you have different fingers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you let them wear to the coppper backing of course you WILL score
the crank.
And copper is harder than hard steel?
Dont be silly, the copper is plated on the steel shells first then the
lead-indium is plated onto that. But if you can see the copper the
bearing is finished and its LIKELY the steel shells have started to
score the crank.
So one softer metal doesn't wear the crank while another will?


essentially the shells are hard carbon steel. The same as the crank so
they wear the crank as fast as the crank wears them.

You have steel shells in contact with a steel crank? I'm not surprised you
need to change things so often.


Are you drivel? they are lead indium plated and that is what does the
wearing UNTIL you hit te steel, when you get crank damage

Even water will in time wear away much harder rock. Its not a binary
thing Dave, despite your brain being wired that way.

Think your wiring is confused...

Cranks are hard, shell casings are hard, a sacrificial layer of lead and
indium is plated onto the shell inners to provide a lower friction and
sacrificial surface for the crank to run in. Get it?

Sacrificial? Not a word I'd use.


No. Theres a lot of words you don't use.


IF you replace
shells before they are totally worn out the crank will NEVER need
regrinding until well beyond the engines other lifetime limity, like
having been rebored a dozen times.

********. Plain and simple. What you seem to be suggesting is the only
time you'll get crank wear is after the shells are worn. This simply isn't
so. But perhaps you've never had the tools to measure it.

The only time you get significant crank wearing yes.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 27/09/2012 09:43, harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 5:05 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,









harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:22 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

All solar panels are 100% efficient as the energy you get is free.

No, on your calculation it would make the efficiency = infinity.

Once again the energy you get is FREE.

So is oil.

There is Capital costs in extracting the oil. Some oil unviable. Once
oil
is burnt it is gone. Not the case with sunshine every dawn.

There is capital costs too with the solar panels, chump.
Are you illiterate? Don't you read stuff? There are no energy running
costs with renewable energy sources.

No one maintains the windmills then? In particular the offshore ones,
subject to all that salt water? No one has to do maintenance on hydro
dams and their gennies? The Aussies won't have to maintain their
solar/molten salt setups, if they ever build them?


So somehow we have moved from maintaining PV solar panels to wind
turbines?

No-one maintains steam boilers?
No-one maintains oil rigs?
No-one maintains coal mines?


Look up the thread, Harry. The point is because of the maintenance and
repair there are running costs for windmills and solar panels, so the
energy is not free even if you ignore the capital costs.

I don't think anyone has suggested that a fossil fuelled system has zero
running costs, because we all know they use fuel.

Andy

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
essentially the shells are hard carbon steel. The same as the crank
so they wear the crank as fast as the crank wears them.

You have steel shells in contact with a steel crank? I'm not surprised
you need to change things so often.


Are you drivel? they are lead indium plated and that is what does the
wearing UNTIL you hit te steel, when you get crank damage

Perhaps you might read what you wrote. At the top of this post. You don't
need to explain to me what shells are made of. And if you think you don't
get crank wear until the shell backing hits the crank, you're even madder
than I thought.

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
essentially the shells are hard carbon steel. The same as the crank
so they wear the crank as fast as the crank wears them.

You have steel shells in contact with a steel crank? I'm not surprised
you need to change things so often.


Are you drivel? they are lead indium plated and that is what does the
wearing UNTIL you hit te steel, when you get crank damage

Perhaps you might read what you wrote. At the top of this post. You don't
need to explain to me what shells are made of. And if you think you don't
get crank wear until the shell backing hits the crank, you're even madder
than I thought.

That last one. Just add tribology to the long list of things that TurNiP is
ignorant of but too ignorant to ever admit it. It does make me laugh that
he calls himself a natural philosopher without having a clue what the term
means.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:51:22 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Anyone got a really good graphical representation of the power
consumption/ load/ and output of a modern day IC engine at all?..

Not to hand and I'm nowhere near my library at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption

and scroll down to "Examples of values of BSFC for shaft engines"


--

On 27/09/2012 09:53, harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 5:26 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/09/2012 10:27, harry wrote:









On Sep 24, 6:20 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/09/2012 20:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:30 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.
How is anyone going to make solar paneles without oil? The manufacture
of solar panels is extraordinarily wasteful of energy. The price of
solar panels is closely linked to the price of oil.

So which part of a solar panel comes exclusively from oil?

Its energy content* by and large.

* the energy required to make it. And mine all the things that go into
it. And get it to where its got to go. And to make all the complex
electronics that help defraud consumers.

You can see why "big oil" probably quite likes these things... they can
champion them, claim all sorts of green subsidy for encouraging them,
while watching them indirectly convert their fossil fuel into expensive
electricity ;-)

All electricity producing devices need energy to manufacture.
But with renewables it's a one off.

Have you been taking dribble pills?

How do you suppose the van load of gear and its crew gets to each wind
turbine to maintain it? What about the grid workers looking after all
those extra miles of expensive copper?

They can't just turn up at work in the morning and do the whole power
station when is spread over every bit of previously green and pleasant
wilderness.

Big oil is getting on the bandwagon. They own windfarms now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_...rnative_Energy
Don't be influenced by TurNiP.

Of course - they know how to milk subsidies and incentive schemes even
better than you. Not only that, they get to supply all the fuel to
maintain the kit, and that to keep the lights on when the wind is not
blowing.

--

So we've suddenly changed the topic to maintenance?

Not in the least - maintenance is an embodied cost of production. Why do
you think wind power is so damned expensive?

Well a wind turbine needs far less maintenance that a steam boiler.

Except you need several hundred of them to give you the capacity of a
moderate sized conventional power station, and you also need the
conventional power station.

And Solar PV panels need nil maintenance.

other than the power station, and the replacement inverters etc.

Also they need no plant attendants, no buildings to house them in. no
cooling towers and no chimneys. All of which require maintenance.

Yes a valid argument, for when they do a 75MW turbine with 100% load
factor.

Sad the way you clutch at straws.

They are pretty big straws.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 27/09/2012 09:53, harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 5:26 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/09/2012 10:27, harry wrote:









On Sep 24, 6:20 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/09/2012 20:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:30 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more
expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.
How is anyone going to make solar paneles without oil? The
manufacture
of solar panels is extraordinarily wasteful of energy. The price of
solar panels is closely linked to the price of oil.

So which part of a solar panel comes exclusively from oil?

Its energy content* by and large.

* the energy required to make it. And mine all the things that go
into
it. And get it to where its got to go. And to make all the complex
electronics that help defraud consumers.

You can see why "big oil" probably quite likes these things... they
can
champion them, claim all sorts of green subsidy for encouraging them,
while watching them indirectly convert their fossil fuel into
expensive
electricity ;-)

All electricity producing devices need energy to manufacture.
But with renewables it's a one off.

Have you been taking dribble pills?

How do you suppose the van load of gear and its crew gets to each wind
turbine to maintain it? What about the grid workers looking after all
those extra miles of expensive copper?

They can't just turn up at work in the morning and do the whole power
station when is spread over every bit of previously green and pleasant
wilderness.

Big oil is getting on the bandwagon. They own windfarms now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_...rnative_Energy
Don't be influenced by TurNiP.

Of course - they know how to milk subsidies and incentive schemes even
better than you. Not only that, they get to supply all the fuel to
maintain the kit, and that to keep the lights on when the wind is not
blowing.

--

So we've suddenly changed the topic to maintenance?

Not in the least - maintenance is an embodied cost of production. Why do
you think wind power is so damned expensive?

Well a wind turbine needs far less maintenance that a steam boiler.

Except you need several hundred of them to give you the capacity of a
moderate sized conventional power station, and you also need the
conventional power station.

And a typcal MTBF on a boiler is 10 years, on a wind turbine its ten weeks.

And Solar PV panels need nil maintenance.

other than the power station, and the replacement inverters etc.



Also they need no plant attendants, no buildings to house them in. no
cooling towers and no chimneys. All of which require maintenance.


He's taliking drivel again. Those are advanatges. Would you rather take
a warehouse crane to lift out a rotor in a warm shed, or use a
helicopetr and a bloke perched up a 300ft pole in the North sea?


Yes a valid argument, for when they do a 75MW turbine with 100% load
factor.

Sad the way you clutch at straws.

They are pretty big straws.

Harruy is rather sad really. He knows he boobed badly, but he hasn't the
balls to admit it.

But all solar panel salesmen are like that.





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes
En el artículo , John Williamson
escribió:

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood
the Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all
the politicians

And Drivel.

So, what would we do for entertainment? tell me that


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes
En el artículo , John Williamson
escribió:

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood
the Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all
the politicians

And Drivel.

So, what would we do for entertainment? tell me that


Good point. Back to the drawing board....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

And a typcal MTBF on a *boiler is 10 years, on a wind turbine its ten weeks.


Full of **** as usual TurNiP.
A steam boiler has to opened up up every year for statutory insurance
inspection
http://www.boileronline.co.uk/servic...al-inspection/

On Sep 28, 9:26*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/09/2012 09:53, harry wrote:









On Sep 26, 5:26 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/09/2012 10:27, harry wrote:

On Sep 24, 6:20 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/09/2012 20:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:30 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.
How is anyone going to make solar paneles without oil? The manufacture
of solar panels is extraordinarily wasteful of energy. The price of
solar panels is closely linked to the price of oil.

So which part of a solar panel comes exclusively from oil?

Its energy content* by and large.

* the energy required to make it. And mine all the things that go into
it. And get it to where its got to go. And to make all the complex
electronics that help defraud consumers.

You can see why "big oil" probably quite likes these things... they can
champion them, claim all sorts of green subsidy for encouraging them,
while watching them indirectly convert their fossil fuel into expensive
electricity ;-)

All electricity producing devices need energy to manufacture.
But with renewables it's a one off.

Have you been taking dribble pills?

How do you suppose the van load of gear and its crew gets to each wind
turbine to maintain it? What about the grid workers looking after all
those extra miles of expensive copper?

They can't just turn up at work in the morning and do the whole power
station when is spread over every bit of previously green and pleasant
wilderness.

Big oil is getting on the bandwagon. They own windfarms now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_...rnative_Energy
Don't be influenced by TurNiP.

Of course - they know how to milk subsidies and incentive schemes even
better than you. Not only that, they get to supply all the fuel to
maintain the kit, and that to keep the lights on when the wind is not
blowing.

--

So we've suddenly changed the topic to maintenance?

Not in the least - maintenance is an embodied cost of production. Why do
you think wind power is so damned expensive?

Well a wind turbine needs far less maintenance that a steam boiler.

Except you need several hundred of them to give you the capacity of a
moderate sized conventional power station, and you also need the
conventional power station.

And Solar PV panels need nil maintenance.

other than the power station, and the replacement inverters etc.

Also they need no plant attendants, no buildings to house them in. no
cooling towers and no chimneys. All of which require maintenance.

Yes a valid argument, for when they do a 75MW turbine with 100% load
factor.

Sad the way you clutch at straws.

They are pretty big straws.

--

Well no doubt you can provide statistics regarding maintenance costs
of wind turbines?
And a replacement inverter is not a maintenance cost, it's breakdown.
I haven't heard of a single invertor failure yet.
But unlike you, I can provide written evidence instead of backyard
theoretics.

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

harry wrote:
And a typcal MTBF on a boiler is 10 years, on a wind turbine its ten weeks.


Full of **** as usual TurNiP.
A steam boiler has to opened up up every year for statutory insurance
inspection
http://www.boileronline.co.uk/servic...al-inspection/

statory inspection is not a failure


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 28, 9:26 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/09/2012 09:53, harry wrote:









On Sep 26, 5:26 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/09/2012 10:27, harry wrote:
On Sep 24, 6:20 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/09/2012 20:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:30 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.
How is anyone going to make solar paneles without oil? The manufacture
of solar panels is extraordinarily wasteful of energy. The price of
solar panels is closely linked to the price of oil.
So which part of a solar panel comes exclusively from oil?
Its energy content* by and large.
* the energy required to make it. And mine all the things that go into
it. And get it to where its got to go. And to make all the complex
electronics that help defraud consumers.
You can see why "big oil" probably quite likes these things... they can
champion them, claim all sorts of green subsidy for encouraging them,
while watching them indirectly convert their fossil fuel into expensive
electricity ;-)
All electricity producing devices need energy to manufacture.
But with renewables it's a one off.
Have you been taking dribble pills?
How do you suppose the van load of gear and its crew gets to each wind
turbine to maintain it? What about the grid workers looking after all
those extra miles of expensive copper?
They can't just turn up at work in the morning and do the whole power
station when is spread over every bit of previously green and pleasant
wilderness.
Big oil is getting on the bandwagon. They own windfarms now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_...rnative_Energy
Don't be influenced by TurNiP.
Of course - they know how to milk subsidies and incentive schemes even
better than you. Not only that, they get to supply all the fuel to
maintain the kit, and that to keep the lights on when the wind is not
blowing.
--
So we've suddenly changed the topic to maintenance?
Not in the least - maintenance is an embodied cost of production. Why do
you think wind power is so damned expensive?

Well a wind turbine needs far less maintenance that a steam boiler.
Except you need several hundred of them to give you the capacity of a
moderate sized conventional power station, and you also need the
conventional power station.

And Solar PV panels need nil maintenance.
other than the power station, and the replacement inverters etc.

Also they need no plant attendants, no buildings to house them in. no
cooling towers and no chimneys. All of which require maintenance.
Yes a valid argument, for when they do a 75MW turbine with 100% load
factor.

Sad the way you clutch at straws.
They are pretty big straws.

--

Well no doubt you can provide statistics regarding maintenance costs
of wind turbines?

yes. Generally reckoned to be around 15% of capital cost per annum.

And a replacement inverter is not a maintenance cost, it's breakdown.

Coems to the same thing. I suppose a worn out bearing is not maintenance
cost, its a breakdown.

ALL these things come under O & M on the balance sheet. Operation and
maintenance.

I realise you have never looked at a balance sheet in yor life, buty
hey, learn.

I haven't heard of a single invertor failure yet.
But unlike you, I can provide written evidence instead of backyard
theoretics.

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf


"Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik"

So we can expect a fully paid up shill for the renewable industry to
give us impartial; peer reviewed articles, right?

Poor old harry. He doesn't realise how badly he is being conned.


In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

no, it means that the pv industry needed some bs written to convince
fools like you that they were reliable.

So they went top Rentadoktor and spoofed up a 'white paper'

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf
In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

So if you have 100 of them (I assume there's one in each turbine?) that
gives you about a 2.8% chance that there won't be a failure, or 97.2%
chance that there will.

100 turbines, that's what, about 5 wind farms or so?

That's just about 2/3rds of my local one.

Tim

Tony Sayer

The ancilliaries all have their own electric motors. They only run to
the level actually needed.
This is old hat. You can buy this stuff now.

And that power comes from where?...
--
Tony Sayer

The alternator of course. But far less total power is needed then
running it purely mechanically. And if the power from exhaust gases
proves viable, it will come from there.

Wow!, a gas turbine genset;!...

--
Tony Sayer

On 28/09/2012 21:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Harruy is rather sad really. He knows he boobed badly, but he hasn't the
balls to admit it.

Depends on your perspective... if you wanted a good return[1] on your
capital, then they are a good way of dipping your snout into the subsidy
trough. With interest rates as they currently stand, its a resonable use
of money (so long as you don't need to borrow it). As Harry's own
figures demonstrate, with all the subsidies, its a nice little earner.
Take those away of course and you reveal the real picture, which
amounts to spending a shed load of money for a feeble return. With the
"hope" that energy prices might rise enough in the lifetime of the
system to eventually break even.

As long as you don't try to kid anyone you are saving the planet or
ending the energy crisis then its really down to if you are ethically
comfortable with striping up other bill payers.

But all solar panel salesmen are like that.

Indeed, but as a solar salesman you only need to shift product and then
your job is done.


[1] return being somewhat figurative since the actual capital will
depreciate to nothing in the lifetime of the "investment". Still you can
live with that if the income along the way is good enough.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 29/09/2012 10:50, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

So if you have 100 of them (I assume there's one in each turbine?) that
gives you about a 2.8% chance that there won't be a failure, or 97.2%
chance that there will.

100 turbines, that's what, about 5 wind farms or so?

Although on the bright side, since each one contributes the cube root of
FA most of the time, you might not notice ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sep 29, 9:09*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
And a typcal MTBF on a *boiler is 10 years, on a wind turbine its ten weeks.

Full of **** as usual TurNiP.
A steam boiler has to opened up up every year for statutory insurance
inspection
http://www.boileronline.co.uk/servic...al-inspection/

statory inspection is not a failure



We're talking about maintenence costs ****wit.

On Sep 29, 10:50*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. *As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

So if you have 100 of them (I assume there's one in each turbine?) that
gives you about a 2.8% chance that there won't be a failure, or 97.2%
chance that there will.

100 turbines, that's what, about 5 wind farms or so?



If you had a hundred of them I would need less than three replacement
inverters in 20 years. So that would be one every seven years.
I think that would be a pretty acceptable fail rate.

If you had 100 motor cars, how many breakdowns would you expect in 20
years?

As with other electronic devices most of the defects would fall within
the guarantee period or run for a long time.

On Sep 29, 2:48*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/09/2012 21:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Harruy is rather sad really. He knows he boobed badly, but he hasn't the
balls to admit it.

Depends on your perspective... if you wanted a good return[1] on your
capital, then they are a good way of dipping your snout into the subsidy
trough. With interest rates as they currently stand, its a resonable use
of money (so long as you don't need to borrow it). As Harry's own
figures demonstrate, with all the subsidies, its a nice little earner.
Take those away of course *and you reveal the real picture, which
amounts to spending a shed load of money for a feeble return. With the
"hope" that energy prices might rise enough in the lifetime of the
system to eventually break even.

As long as you don't try to kid anyone you are saving the planet *or
ending the energy crisis then its really down to if you are ethically
comfortable with striping up other bill payers.

But all solar panel salesmen are like that.

Indeed, but as a solar salesman you only need to shift product and then
your job is done.

[1] return being somewhat figurative since the actual capital will
depreciate to nothing in the lifetime of the "investment". Still you can
live with that if the income along the way is good enough.

--
You need to get your head out of your arse and you need to see the
news today. There is to be a steep hike in energy costs this Winter.
Again.
Solar PV will soon be cheap.

Things are changing fast. Some people are too dopey to see it and do
something about it.

On Sep 29, 4:03*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/09/2012 10:50, Tim Streater wrote:









In article
,
harry wrote:

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. *As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

So if you have 100 of them (I assume there's one in each turbine?) that
gives you about a 2.8% chance that there won't be a failure, or 97.2%
chance that there will.

100 turbines, that's what, about 5 wind farms or so?

Although on the bright side, since each one contributes the cube root of
FA most of the time, you might not notice ;-)


I expect you've got a link to verify this remark?

In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:50 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

So if you have 100 of them (I assume there's one in each turbine?) that
gives you about a 2.8% chance that there won't be a failure, or 97.2%
chance that there will.

100 turbines, that's what, about 5 wind farms or so?



If you had a hundred of them I would need less than three replacement
inverters in 20 years. So that would be one every seven years.
I think that would be a pretty acceptable fail rate.

If you had 100 motor cars, how many breakdowns would you expect in 20
years?

As with other electronic devices most of the defects would fall within
the guarantee period or run for a long time.

that's a very interesting view of the reliability of electronic components.
You do need to define "a long time". 5 years?, ten years?, most unlikely
to be 20 years.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 29/09/2012 17:26, harry wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:03 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/09/2012 10:50, Tim Streater wrote:









In article
,
harry wrote:

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

So if you have 100 of them (I assume there's one in each turbine?) that
gives you about a 2.8% chance that there won't be a failure, or 97.2%
chance that there will.

100 turbines, that's what, about 5 wind farms or so?

Although on the bright side, since each one contributes the cube root of
FA most of the time, you might not notice ;-)


I expect you've got a link to verify this remark?


Here, have a pro wind site's version:

http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html

25% to 40%

The more poorly sited on shore ones do even less than that.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 29/09/2012 17:25, harry wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:48 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/09/2012 21:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Harruy is rather sad really. He knows he boobed badly, but he hasn't the
balls to admit it.

Depends on your perspective... if you wanted a good return[1] on your
capital, then they are a good way of dipping your snout into the subsidy
trough. With interest rates as they currently stand, its a resonable use
of money (so long as you don't need to borrow it). As Harry's own
figures demonstrate, with all the subsidies, its a nice little earner.
Take those away of course and you reveal the real picture, which
amounts to spending a shed load of money for a feeble return. With the
"hope" that energy prices might rise enough in the lifetime of the
system to eventually break even.

As long as you don't try to kid anyone you are saving the planet or
ending the energy crisis then its really down to if you are ethically
comfortable with striping up other bill payers.

But all solar panel salesmen are like that.

Indeed, but as a solar salesman you only need to shift product and then
your job is done.

[1] return being somewhat figurative since the actual capital will
depreciate to nothing in the lifetime of the "investment". Still you can
live with that if the income along the way is good enough.

--
You need to get your head out of your arse and you need to see the
news today. There is to be a steep hike in energy costs this Winter.
Again.
Solar PV will soon be cheap.

Things are changing fast. Some people are too dopey to see it and do
something about it.

You keep telling us that the price of panels is falling. So what is the
point in buying them now?

When the £100 yours save you per year is worth £500, and the price of a
4kW install is a couple of grand, then we can all jump in without
because it makes sense, and without needing to to be spongers kept
afloat by subsidies pilfered from other people's artificially inflated
energy bills.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sep 29, 6:01*pm, charles wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:









On Sep 29, 10:50 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. *As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

So if you have 100 of them (I assume there's one in each turbine?) that
gives you about a 2.8% chance that there won't be a failure, or 97.2%
chance that there will.

100 turbines, that's what, about 5 wind farms or so?
If you had a hundred of them I would need less than three replacement
inverters in 20 years. So that would be one every seven years.
I think that would be a pretty acceptable fail rate.
If you had 100 motor cars, how many breakdowns would you expect in 20
years?
As with other electronic devices most of the defects would fall within
the guarantee period or run for a long time.

that's a very interesting view of the reliability of electronic components.
*You do need to define "a long time". *5 years?, ten years?, most unlikely
to be 20 years.


I have a 1960's radio still works. As long as the components don't
overheat ,or be subjected to vibration or get wet/dusty there's no
reason why they shouldn't last for many decades.
It's the mechanical bits goes wrong.