https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

On 07/13/2014 06:27 PM, harryagain wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

6 million people at half the pop density. Population and it's rate of
increase is the fundamental problem.

On 13/07/2014 19:16, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/13/2014 06:27 PM, harryagain wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

6 million people at half the pop density. Population and it's rate of
increase is the fundamental problem.

The highest number of pig farms in the EU, creating an unknown but
substantial amount of methane from the pig slurry.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:49:34 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 13/07/2014 19:16, Andy Cap wrote:
On 07/13/2014 06:27 PM, harryagain wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

6 million people at half the pop density. Population and it's rate of
increase is the fundamental problem.

The highest number of pig farms in the EU, creating an unknown but
substantial amount of methane from the pig slurry.

It's worth bearing in mind that methane is, iirc, some 60 times more
effective than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (presumably per
litre).
--
J B Good

harryagain wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

"Danes pay the highest residential electricity rates in the European Union"

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

"Danes pay the highest residential electricity rates in the European
Union"


That's the price we'll all be paying soon. Even more for nuclear.
But no-one can take it away from them.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:12:29 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

"Danes pay the highest residential electricity rates in the European
Union"

That's the price we'll all be paying soon.

More greenwash price terrorism from Bunker Harry

The only solution, the final solution as some have termed it is to remove all
FIT incentives and make the money grabbing *******s previously in receipt of FIT
payments pay them all back with compound interest at 50%. Bankrupt them if
necessary. Make them remove all wind turbines onshore and offshore and solar
farms returning the sites to as they were always intended to be. Then shoot the
greens, all of them. Stick Greenpeace FoE etc on the same prohibited list as
all the other terrorists. Stop all closures of gas and coal fired plant.

The result is a country rid of the extremely toxic effects of the greens and a
sub 10p per kWh for all, 24 hours a day with 100% guaranteed supply.

--

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:12:29 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

"Danes pay the highest residential electricity rates in the European
Union"

That's the price we'll all be paying soon.

More greenwash price terrorism from Bunker Harry

The only solution, the final solution as some have termed it is to remove
all
FIT incentives and make the money grabbing *******s previously in receipt
of FIT
payments pay them all back with compound interest at 50%. Bankrupt them if
necessary. Make them remove all wind turbines onshore and offshore and
solar
farms returning the sites to as they were always intended to be. Then
shoot the
greens, all of them. Stick Greenpeace FoE etc on the same prohibited list
as
all the other terrorists. Stop all closures of gas and coal fired plant.

The result is a country rid of the extremely toxic effects of the greens
and a
sub 10p per kWh for all, 24 hours a day with 100% guaranteed supply.



My, you really are ****-fer-brains.
All energy sources are subsidised.

On 15/07/2014 06:29, harryagain wrote:

My, you really are ****-fer-brains.
All energy sources are subsidised.


I'd like to know where the subsidy comes from when I use the boat engine
to generate electricity and move the boat. Or when I drive my car, using
heavily taxed petrol to move it. Or when my friend uses the wind to move
his yacht. Or the guy I used to live next door to, who cut his own
firewood from trees he'd bought off the Forestry Commission.

I know, however, that most "green" energy needs to be massively
subsidised to get the cost to the user somewhere near the cost of fossil
or nuclear. I've been thinking of getting solar power for the boat, but
it's not economically viable yet, and shows very little sign of becoming
so in my lifetime, as long as I have grid power and a generator available.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:29:11 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

All energy sources are subsidised.

A statement by Bunker Harry simply plucked out of thin air

--

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:27:19 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark


Figures for 2009 (CARMA haven't published anything more recent):

Denmark produced 15,395,000 tonnes CO2*, for a population of 5.5
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita. Renewables were 30.4% of
total power output*.


UK produced 174,630,000 tonnes CO2**, for a population of 61.8
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita, the same as Denmark.
Renewables were 4.8% of total power output**.

Strange that; with all that wind power you'd have thought Denmark
would be way down on the CO2 emission per capita compared with the UK.
Just goes to show that having a lot of wind power doesn't reduce your
CO2 output. Something to do with hot spinning, I dare say.

Never mind, Harry, I'm sure you mean well.

* http://carma.org/region/detail/2623032

** http://carma.org/region/detail/2635167

*** http://tinyurl.com/pnc3blb and scroll down

You never read the text did you?
Statistics are gathered in a different way.

On 14/07/2014 17:45, harryagain wrote:

....
Statistics are gathered in a different way.

Alternative statistics for alternative energy; how apt.

--
Colin Bignell

On 14/07/2014 21:54, Chris Hogg wrote:
... Lets see some detailed figures from you, not
just vague arm-waving and links to irrelevant web sites.


Don't hold your breath.

--
Colin Bignell

On 14/07/2014 21:54, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:45:16 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:27:19 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark


Figures for 2009 (CARMA haven't published anything more recent):

Denmark produced 15,395,000 tonnes CO2*, for a population of 5.5
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita. Renewables were 30.4% of
total power output*.


UK produced 174,630,000 tonnes CO2**, for a population of 61.8
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita, the same as Denmark.
Renewables were 4.8% of total power output**.

Strange that; with all that wind power you'd have thought Denmark
would be way down on the CO2 emission per capita compared with the UK.
Just goes to show that having a lot of wind power doesn't reduce your
CO2 output. Something to do with hot spinning, I dare say.

Never mind, Harry, I'm sure you mean well.

* http://carma.org/region/detail/2623032

** http://carma.org/region/detail/2635167

*** http://tinyurl.com/pnc3blb and scroll down

You never read the text did you?
Statistics are gathered in a different way.

A limp and inadequate response Harry. Nowhere in the article does it
mention that Denmark is still burning fossil fuels for electricity
generation, even though it is. The top five Danish CO2 producers
listed by CARMA are still functioning. There are no statistics on
fossil fuel consumption by Danish power stations in the Wiki article,
nor on their CO2 production, so how can they be gathered in a
different way as you claim. They just aren't there!

If the stats are different, show me the numbers. Present some
calculations, I challenge you. I would have expected a big difference
in the CO2 output per capita between the UK and Denmark, as I said,
but they are almost identical. It actually surprised me. Where is the
error in my analysis? Lets see some detailed figures from you, not
just vague arm-waving and links to irrelevant web sites.

And don't forget to add in the CO2 from the German coal fired stations
they buy power from when their own fossil fuelled stations can't cope.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 14/07/2014 21:54, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:45:16 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:27:19 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark


Figures for 2009 (CARMA haven't published anything more recent):

Denmark produced 15,395,000 tonnes CO2*, for a population of 5.5
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita. Renewables were 30.4% of
total power output*.


UK produced 174,630,000 tonnes CO2**, for a population of 61.8
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita, the same as Denmark.
Renewables were 4.8% of total power output**.

Strange that; with all that wind power you'd have thought Denmark
would be way down on the CO2 emission per capita compared with the UK.
Just goes to show that having a lot of wind power doesn't reduce your
CO2 output. Something to do with hot spinning, I dare say.

Never mind, Harry, I'm sure you mean well.

* http://carma.org/region/detail/2623032

** http://carma.org/region/detail/2635167

*** http://tinyurl.com/pnc3blb and scroll down

You never read the text did you?
Statistics are gathered in a different way.

A limp and inadequate response Harry. Nowhere in the article does it
mention that Denmark is still burning fossil fuels for electricity
generation, even though it is. The top five Danish CO2 producers
listed by CARMA are still functioning. There are no statistics on
fossil fuel consumption by Danish power stations in the Wiki article,
nor on their CO2 production, so how can they be gathered in a
different way as you claim. They just aren't there!

If the stats are different, show me the numbers. Present some
calculations, I challenge you. I would have expected a big difference
in the CO2 output per capita between the UK and Denmark, as I said,
but they are almost identical. It actually surprised me. Where is the
error in my analysis? Lets see some detailed figures from you, not
just vague arm-waving and links to irrelevant web sites.

And don't forget to add in the CO2 from the German coal fired stations
they buy power from when their own fossil fuelled stations can't cope.

You are full of crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy..._energy_policy

On 15/07/2014 06:58, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
.....
And don't forget to add in the CO2 from the German coal fired stations
they buy power from when their own fossil fuelled stations can't cope.

You are full of crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy..._energy_policy



That is the green ideal. This is the reality:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-survival.html

This is the result:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ion-jumps.html

--
Colin Bignell

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:45:16 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:27:19 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark


Figures for 2009 (CARMA haven't published anything more recent):

Denmark produced 15,395,000 tonnes CO2*, for a population of 5.5
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita. Renewables were 30.4% of
total power output*.


UK produced 174,630,000 tonnes CO2**, for a population of 61.8
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita, the same as Denmark.
Renewables were 4.8% of total power output**.

Strange that; with all that wind power you'd have thought Denmark
would be way down on the CO2 emission per capita compared with the UK.
Just goes to show that having a lot of wind power doesn't reduce your
CO2 output. Something to do with hot spinning, I dare say.

Never mind, Harry, I'm sure you mean well.

* http://carma.org/region/detail/2623032

** http://carma.org/region/detail/2635167

*** http://tinyurl.com/pnc3blb and scroll down

You never read the text did you?
Statistics are gathered in a different way.

A limp and inadequate response Harry. Nowhere in the article does it
mention that Denmark is still burning fossil fuels for electricity
generation, even though it is. The top five Danish CO2 producers
listed by CARMA are still functioning. There are no statistics on
fossil fuel consumption by Danish power stations in the Wiki article,
nor on their CO2 production, so how can they be gathered in a
different way as you claim. They just aren't there!

If the stats are different, show me the numbers. Present some
calculations, I challenge you. I would have expected a big difference
in the CO2 output per capita between the UK and Denmark, as I said,
but they are almost identical. It actually surprised me. Where is the
error in my analysis? Lets see some detailed figures from you, not
just vague arm-waving and links to irrelevant web sites.

The error is that they are comparing statistics gathered the UK government
with statistics gathered by the Danish government.

All fossil fuel is to be phased out in Denmark by 2050.
They have achieved all their targets so far, so no reason to suppose it
won't happen. (Unlike our incompetent oafs in government). They are prepared
to take the long term view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Denmark

You might read this as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Denmark

Denmark is similar to us geographically and resourcewise.
If they can do it so can we.
They have made the investment while Nu Labour sat on it's hands.
And don't imagine there is any energy source that will magically produce
cheap energy.
Unless you are a socialist and believe in the fabled free socialist money
tree.
Some drivelling idiots here can't get their heads round the technology
needed to make it work.

Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another. It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution can
be found.

On 15/07/2014 06:54, harryagain wrote:
....
Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another.

Do you think that repeating something that is demonstrably wrong will,
somehow, make it come true?

From the Royal Academy of Engineering report on the cost of energy
generation, at the station boundary:

Gas-fired CCGT - 2.2 p/kWh
Nuclear - 2.3 p/kWh
Coal fired pulverised fuel - 2.5 p/kWh
Coal fired fluidized bed - 2.6 p/kWh
Coal fired IGCC - 3.2 p/kWh
Onshore Wind without standby generation - 3.7 p/kWh
Onshore wind with standby generation - 5.4 p/kWh
Offshore wind without standby generation - 5.5 p/kWh
Wave and marine power - 6.6 p/kWh
Poultry litter BFB steam - 6.8 p/kWh
Offshore wind with standby generation - 7.2 p/kWh

It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution can
be found.

It seems that you do think that repeating something that is demonstrably
wrong will, somehow, make it come true.

--
Colin Bignell

On 15/07/14 10:19, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 15/07/2014 06:54, harryagain wrote:
...
Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another.

Do you think that repeating something that is demonstrably wrong will,
somehow, make it come true?

From the Royal Academy of Engineering report on the cost of energy
generation, at the station boundary:

Gas-fired CCGT - 2.2 p/kWh
Nuclear - 2.3 p/kWh
Coal fired pulverised fuel - 2.5 p/kWh
Coal fired fluidized bed - 2.6 p/kWh
Coal fired IGCC - 3.2 p/kWh
Onshore Wind without standby generation - 3.7 p/kWh
Onshore wind with standby generation - 5.4 p/kWh
Offshore wind without standby generation - 5.5 p/kWh
Wave and marine power - 6.6 p/kWh
Poultry litter BFB steam - 6.8 p/kWh
Offshore wind with standby generation - 7.2 p/kWh

It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution can
be found.

It seems that you do think that repeating something that is demonstrably
wrong will, somehow, make it come true.


Those numbers are for ridiculously low costs of capital. And gas.

In reality they are at least an order of 3 too low.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/07/2014 10:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/14 10:19, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 15/07/2014 06:54, harryagain wrote:
...
Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another.

Do you think that repeating something that is demonstrably wrong will,
somehow, make it come true?

From the Royal Academy of Engineering report on the cost of energy
generation, at the station boundary:

Gas-fired CCGT - 2.2 p/kWh
Nuclear - 2.3 p/kWh
Coal fired pulverised fuel - 2.5 p/kWh
Coal fired fluidized bed - 2.6 p/kWh
Coal fired IGCC - 3.2 p/kWh
Onshore Wind without standby generation - 3.7 p/kWh
Onshore wind with standby generation - 5.4 p/kWh
Offshore wind without standby generation - 5.5 p/kWh
Wave and marine power - 6.6 p/kWh
Poultry litter BFB steam - 6.8 p/kWh
Offshore wind with standby generation - 7.2 p/kWh

It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution can
be found.

It seems that you do think that repeating something that is demonstrably
wrong will, somehow, make it come true.


Those numbers are for ridiculously low costs of capital. And gas.

Not part of the remit of the report, nor was the future cost of fuel.
However, they serve to show the relative costs of different technologies
quite well, which is the point I was making. Please feel free to provide
more comprehensive figures to prove Harry wrong.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 15/07/2014 06:54, harryagain wrote:
...
Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another.

Do you think that repeating something that is demonstrably wrong will,
somehow, make it come true?

From the Royal Academy of Engineering report on the cost of energy
generation, at the station boundary:

Gas-fired CCGT - 2.2 p/kWh
Nuclear - 2.3 p/kWh
Coal fired pulverised fuel - 2.5 p/kWh
Coal fired fluidized bed - 2.6 p/kWh
Coal fired IGCC - 3.2 p/kWh
Onshore Wind without standby generation - 3.7 p/kWh
Onshore wind with standby generation - 5.4 p/kWh
Offshore wind without standby generation - 5.5 p/kWh
Wave and marine power - 6.6 p/kWh
Poultry litter BFB steam - 6.8 p/kWh
Offshore wind with standby generation - 7.2 p/kWh

It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution can
be found.

It seems that you do think that repeating something that is demonstrably
wrong will, somehow, make it come true.

--
Colin Bignell

More statistics,
Eg do they take into account the health costs of burning coal?
Do they take into acount the cost of clearing up the mines/mine tips/land
subsidence/water pollution when burning coal?
Do they take into account the cost of waste storage for nuclear power? (No
they don't because no-one knows what this cost might be.)
There are no commercial wave generators as yet so that is bollix.

In fact, it is all bollix.
Dreamt up by someone with an axe to grind.
Statistics can be made to "prove" anything.

On 16/07/2014 16:29, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 15/07/2014 06:54, harryagain wrote:
...
Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another.

Do you think that repeating something that is demonstrably wrong will,
somehow, make it come true?

From the Royal Academy of Engineering report on the cost of energy
generation, at the station boundary:

Gas-fired CCGT - 2.2 p/kWh
Nuclear - 2.3 p/kWh
Coal fired pulverised fuel - 2.5 p/kWh
Coal fired fluidized bed - 2.6 p/kWh
Coal fired IGCC - 3.2 p/kWh
Onshore Wind without standby generation - 3.7 p/kWh
Onshore wind with standby generation - 5.4 p/kWh
Offshore wind without standby generation - 5.5 p/kWh
Wave and marine power - 6.6 p/kWh
Poultry litter BFB steam - 6.8 p/kWh
Offshore wind with standby generation - 7.2 p/kWh

It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution can
be found.

It seems that you do think that repeating something that is demonstrably
wrong will, somehow, make it come true.


More statistics,
Eg do they take into account the health costs of burning coal?
Do they take into acount the cost of clearing up the mines/mine tips/land
subsidence/water pollution when burning coal?
Do they take into account the cost of waste storage for nuclear power? (No
they don't because no-one knows what this cost might be.)

The parameters for those figures have been given. However, even cradle
to grave figures show that nuclear cheaper than any renewable source.
The government's latest figures are that the levelised costs (i.e.
including everything from breaking the ground to dismantling the plant
and, if necessary, storing waste) a

Nuclear Nth of a kind £73/MWh
Gas CCGT £80/MWh
Nuclear first of a kind £81/MWh
Co-firing conventional £92/MWh
Onshore wind 5MW all UK £93/MWh
Coal - ASC with FGD £102/MWh
Onshore wind 5MW E&W £104/MWh
Biomass conversion £110/MWh
Dedicated biomass 50MW £117/MWh
Offshore wind Round 2 £118/MWh
Coal IGCC £122/MWh
Dedicated biomass 50MW £122/MWh
Offshore wind Round 3 £134/MWh
Solar 250-5000kW £169/MWk

There are no commercial wave generators as yet so that is bollix.

'Wave and marine' includes tidal flow and tidal barrage, which do exist.

In fact, it is all bollix.
Dreamt up by someone with an axe to grind.
Statistics can be made to "prove" anything.

They obviously can't be made to prove what you want them to, or you
wouldn't be so dismissive of them.

Whatever you do, you won't convince me that spending as much as you did
on solar power was a good investment. Had you put the money into the
HSBC World Selection Portfolio C Share Class, which I choose as an
example of a medium risk investment that I use and therefore have data
for, then, in the five years to 30th April 2014, it would have given a
return of 51.91%

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:54:44 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

====snip====


Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another. It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution can
be found.


Oh, harry, what a stupid **** you are!

It's no wonder "The Other Mike" holds such an extreme 'counterview'
to you and your ilk.
--
J B Good

On 15/07/14 23:01, Johny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:54:44 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

====snip====


Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another. It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution can
be found.


Oh, harry, what a stupid **** you are!

It's no wonder "The Other Mike" holds such an extreme 'counterview'
to you and your ilk.

Nuclear COULD be cheapest of all if it weren't for bureaucrats.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/07/14 23:01, Johny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:54:44 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

====snip====


Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another. It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution
can
be found.


Oh, harry, what a stupid **** you are!

It's no wonder "The Other Mike" holds such an extreme 'counterview'
to you and your ilk.

Nuclear COULD be cheapest of all if it weren't for bureaucrats.

Nuclear power could kill us all if we relied on ****s like you.

"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:54:44 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

====snip====


Nuclear is the most expensive and will have to be paid for one way or
another. It might be infinitely expensive. if no nuclear waste solution
can
be found.


Oh, harry, what a stupid **** you are!

Oh and if there Is no solution to nuclear waste, how do you calculate the
cost of nuclear energy?


It's no wonder "The Other Mike" holds such an extreme 'counterview'
to you and your ilk.
--
J B Good

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
news
Just to add a little more information (I know I said I wouldn't, but I
can't resist it!)

In the Wiki link that Harry posted on Energy in Denmark
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Denmark) there's a table
giving the CO2 emissions for various years, and I quoted the figure of
46.8M tonnes for 2009. There is a similar Wiki entry for Energy in the
UK ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...United_Kingdom) which
gives an equivalent figure of 466M tonnes (roughly ten times the
Danish figure). These figures, for Denmark and the UK, are not just
for electricity production, but also include fuel for transport,
domestic heating etc. which is why the Danish figure of 46.8M tonnes
is three times higher than the CARMA figure, which only considers
electricity production.

Both sets of data in the Wiki tables come from the International
Energy Agency web site on Key World Statistics for energy production
and consumption. The latest document they've produced is he
http://www.iea.org/publications/free...-31287-en.html

Download the pdf file and scroll down to the table of Selected Energy
Indicators (these are for 2011, not the 2009 data I referred to
earlier), where one finds a column of data for CO2/pop., i.e. CO2
emissions in tonnes per head of population. The data for Denmark, UK
and France are as follows:

Denmark 7.48 t CO2/capita
UK 7.06 "
France 5.04 "

(CO2 emissions from fuel combustion only. Emissions are calculated
using the IEA's energy balances and the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines).

So the UK is actually emitting *less* CO2 per capita than Denmark *in
total*, despite all their wind power! France, as expected, is well
down. This ties in with the earlier 2009 data I put up from CARMA that
dealt only with electricity generation.

Harry, where are you? (And don't give me that crap about the stats
being gathered in a different way. If you actually believe that they
are, then show the evidence, and put up the 'real' data!)

As you yourself have pointed out, all these statistics are bollix.
I can't think why you set such store by them.
Eg do they take into account the losses incurred in using the various fuels?
Eg you might need 10Kw of electricity to heat your house but 30Kw of coal.
If you had a heat pump you might only need 3Kw of electricity.
Or like me, 0Kw.

Another factor is the amount of fuel intensive industry in each country. (Eg
metal refining)
I don't think Denmark is known for iron/steel production etc.
Is this, or is it not, taken into account?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:45:16 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:27:19 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark


Figures for 2009 (CARMA haven't published anything more recent):

Denmark produced 15,395,000 tonnes CO2*, for a population of 5.5
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita. Renewables were 30.4% of
total power output*.


UK produced 174,630,000 tonnes CO2**, for a population of 61.8
million***, giving 2.8 tonnes CO2 per capita, the same as Denmark.
Renewables were 4.8% of total power output**.

Strange that; with all that wind power you'd have thought Denmark
would be way down on the CO2 emission per capita compared with the UK.
Just goes to show that having a lot of wind power doesn't reduce your
CO2 output. Something to do with hot spinning, I dare say.

Never mind, Harry, I'm sure you mean well.

* http://carma.org/region/detail/2623032

** http://carma.org/region/detail/2635167

*** http://tinyurl.com/pnc3blb and scroll down

You never read the text did you?
Statistics are gathered in a different way.
A limp and inadequate response Harry. Nowhere in the article does it
mention that Denmark is still burning fossil fuels for electricity
generation, even though it is. The top five Danish CO2 producers
listed by CARMA are still functioning. There are no statistics on
fossil fuel consumption by Danish power stations in the Wiki article,
nor on their CO2 production, so how can they be gathered in a
different way as you claim. They just aren't there!

If the stats are different, show me the numbers. Present some
calculations, I challenge you. I would have expected a big difference
in the CO2 output per capita between the UK and Denmark, as I said,
but they are almost identical. It actually surprised me. Where is the
error in my analysis? Lets see some detailed figures from you, not
just vague arm-waving and links to irrelevant web sites.

IOW, harry, stop talking ****ing cock. Find your two remaining brain
cells and rub them together.

The important thing is where they're going, not where they are now (see
previous posts)
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
No-one can believe statistics unless they have compiled them themselves.
It's especially foolish to compare statistics from different sources.

On 15/07/2014 07:02, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
IOW, harry, stop talking ****ing cock. Find your two remaining brain
cells and rub them together.

The important thing is where they're going, not where they are now (see
previous posts)
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
No-one can believe statistics unless they have compiled them themselves.
It's especially foolish to compare statistics from different sources.


Which means that you can't find any that can be fiddled to give the
answer you want.

Since the Danes started their windpower programme, their CO2 emmissions
per kilowatts hour used have increased. They also increased when they
stopped buying nuclear generated electricity from Germany to make up
their shortfalls.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 15/07/2014 07:02, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
IOW, harry, stop talking ****ing cock. Find your two remaining brain
cells and rub them together.

The important thing is where they're going, not where they are now (see
previous posts)
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
No-one can believe statistics unless they have compiled them themselves.
It's especially foolish to compare statistics from different sources.


Which means that you can't find any that can be fiddled to give the answer
you want.


It means none of them ar elikely to be meaningful.


Since the Danes started their windpower programme, their CO2 emmissions
per kilowatts hour used have increased. They also increased when they
stopped buying nuclear generated electricity from Germany to make up their
shortfalls.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 16/07/2014 16:21, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 15/07/2014 07:02, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
IOW, harry, stop talking ****ing cock. Find your two remaining brain
cells and rub them together.

The important thing is where they're going, not where they are now (see
previous posts)
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
No-one can believe statistics unless they have compiled them themselves.
It's especially foolish to compare statistics from different sources.


Which means that you can't find any that can be fiddled to give the answer
you want.


It means none of them ar elikely to be meaningful.

By *your* interpretation. If you could massage them to fit your message,
you would consider them valid. If they can't then *you* just throw the
data out.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 17/07/2014 08:54, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:00:30 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Since the Danes started their windpower programme, their CO2 emmissions
per kilowatts hour used have increased.

Do you have a link to the data, just to give Harry the opportunity of
calling it 'bollix' again, you understand ;-) ?

It has been mentioned in here a few times, but my laptop flattery is
rapidly weakening today, as I'm away from my usual charging source.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 13/07/2014 22:26, Tim Streater wrote:
harry can't do sums, that's the trouble.

He can do sums alright. He knows to the penny how much he's made from
his FIT over the years, he knows exactly what percentage return that is
on his investment.

Where he falls down with the arithmetic is when it comes to real world
figures about energy costs and the pollution generating useful energy
causes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 13/07/2014 23:06, John Williamson wrote:
On 13/07/2014 22:26, Tim Streater wrote:
harry can't do sums, that's the trouble.

He can do sums alright. He knows to the penny how much he's made from
his FIT over the years, he knows exactly what percentage return that is
on his investment.

Where he falls down with the arithmetic is when it comes to real world
figures about energy costs and the pollution generating useful energy
causes.


He has to keep trying to convince himself that he hasn't made a ghastly
mistake, so he can't afford to deal with the real world.

--
Colin Bignell