Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Einion Yrth said:
turbobloke said:
Only another half hour to go with all the lights on.
Well I'm only using the power I need; I still have to pay for it, after all.turbobloke said:
Einion Yrth said:
turbobloke said:
Only another half hour to go with all the lights on.
Well I'm only using the power I need; I still have to pay for it, after all.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.
Quoted (with my bold) for use "in a few years" time but for now have a single as there will be more to follow.Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.
I'll take the bet happily.
I'll take your bet though but based on your original claim of "a few years" I'll even give you odds of 2/1 if it happens within 5 years of todays date.
I rest my case
Edited by dickymint on Saturday 25th March 19:59
From another thread earlier this evening: "Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." (Rousseau)
Aphorisms are OK though.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.
Quoted (with my bold) for use "in a few years" time but for now have a single as there will be more to follow.Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.
I'll take the bet happily.
I'll take your bet though but based on your original claim of "a few years" I'll even give you odds of 2/1 if it happens within 5 years of todays date.
I rest my case
Edited by dickymint on Saturday 25th March 19:59
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
So get the same with Wind (forget solar in most of Europe in the winter). you have to accept that you need to build about 7 or 8 times the faceplate rating and hope that the wind blows.
When it doesn't you try to import from elsewhere.
Sorry to bring people to task, but again - wrongWhen it doesn't you try to import from elsewhere.
and factored in with regards to the site, location, previous reading from the LIDAR / Met Masts et Al monitoring a location prior to construction - hell, even the Array configuration is CFD modelled for the effects
it's nearer 42% according to ORE Catupult I recall from recent discussions.
However during those occasions when the wind drops over a wide area (and it does, despite the claims that "it is always blowing somewhere" the effective output can be very low indeed, even including offshore.
If people want close to 100% renewables and a reliable supply they need to take that into account. They may or may not be able to afford the cost.
Given a choice they would probably choose lower cost delivered by a proven means with a generally reliable ability to generate day or night and during any season of the year as and when needed.
Ideally that generation capacity would be connected to the consumer by a well funded and reliable grid system.
By and large that is what we had up and running about 20 years ago, reasonably self sufficient in critical fuel supplies and well prepared, in the main, to take the country into an electronics centric future.
Since around that time our wondrous political system has produced governments that seem intent only on eliminating that level of potential stability that we had then in favour of chasing vanity pipe dreams while assuming that they and their successors will always be able to extract whatever funds are required from the social organisation around them. Thus there is no need for them to make sensible and considered decisions. So they don't.
This problem seems to be afflicting most, perhaps all, of Europe and much of the world beyond.
http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-internet-of...
I really do recommend reading the link above and the comments that follow it.
There was a preceding post that might also be useful preparation.
http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-renewable-e...
Bear in mind that the paper referred to in these posts seems to be considered state of the art thinking at this time in the Renewables world and is projection for how to do something be 2030. So 12 years away. By which time UK needs to deploy 7 times the number of turbines that currently exist or are being installed, a whole load of solar fields and something close to 15 times the interconnector capacity that currently exists to other places.
Then it has to hope that the rest of the participants can do something similar with their parts of the scheme.
Oh, and that some as yet undeveloped technology is developed and working reliably.
Of course, the paper could be complete rubbish but if it is will the politicians discover this in time to avoid disaster?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Offshore Yes, and Yes - as I have alluded - Over a Year. Of a single site, not the country, not the corporate portfolio blah blah.
BUT - despite the humour built in to the will of failure : it is a known, a factor, and guess what ? Considered in the business case.
Your links?
Well - once i read : "Parts of Scotland are already despoiled by the deployment of wind turbines and I do not want to see this environmental vandalism spread." its fair to say the rest is not of a learned, balanced and bipartisan perspective - more likely a Nimby unable to be published by the Daily Mail. Which is something in itself
Feel free to use it as your guidance however. I prefer information, context and performance analysis.
(still no takers)
hopefully one day we will go back to people just generating power and selling it !!! so if they think a windmill is good , or something that makes bio gas out of squirrel st let them sink or swim without the largess of the tax payer....BUT - despite the humour built in to the will of failure : it is a known, a factor, and guess what ? Considered in the business case.
Your links?
Well - once i read : "Parts of Scotland are already despoiled by the deployment of wind turbines and I do not want to see this environmental vandalism spread." its fair to say the rest is not of a learned, balanced and bipartisan perspective - more likely a Nimby unable to be published by the Daily Mail. Which is something in itself
Feel free to use it as your guidance however. I prefer information, context and performance analysis.
(still no takers)
Earth Hour yesterday, BBC have some pictures of (mainly) governments turning off lights in large buildings.
Looking at the pictures it seems as if the general public kept their lights on.
It does make me wonder how far their pious attitudes extended, did they turn off any computers, heating, air conditioning, life support or was it only lights.
Looking at the pictures it seems as if the general public kept their lights on.
It does make me wonder how far their pious attitudes extended, did they turn off any computers, heating, air conditioning, life support or was it only lights.
voyds9 said:
Earth Hour yesterday, BBC have some pictures of (mainly) governments turning off lights in large buildings.
My son's cub group had an event. About 20 cars each with a couple of cubs in drove 6 miles to drop them off at a nearby scout camp. They did some cooking over an enormous bonfire and 4 hours later we all went to collect them. 240 miles of cold engine running along with the fire. You couldn't make it up!Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Whilst lengthy and articulate - your opening lines invalidated the majority of your context.
BUT - despite the humour built in to the will of failure : it is a known, a factor, and guess what ? Considered in the business case.
Your links?
Well - once i read : "Parts of Scotland are already despoiled by the deployment of wind turbines and I do not want to see this environmental vandalism spread." its fair to say the rest is not of a learned, balanced and bipartisan perspective - more likely a Nimby unable to be published by the Daily Mail. Which is something in itself
Feel free to use it as your guidance however. I prefer information, context and performance analysis.
(still no takers)
Paddy,LongQ said:
Off shore [SIC] in a good location over a month or so on average (or maybe for a year) maybe.
Offshore Yes, and Yes - as I have alluded - Over a Year. Of a single site, not the country, not the corporate portfolio blah blah.BUT - despite the humour built in to the will of failure : it is a known, a factor, and guess what ? Considered in the business case.
Your links?
Well - once i read : "Parts of Scotland are already despoiled by the deployment of wind turbines and I do not want to see this environmental vandalism spread." its fair to say the rest is not of a learned, balanced and bipartisan perspective - more likely a Nimby unable to be published by the Daily Mail. Which is something in itself
Feel free to use it as your guidance however. I prefer information, context and performance analysis.
(still no takers)
OK, go to the referenced report produced by the Lappeenranta University in Finland and read that instead.
Work out what it seems to be saying and take it from there.
Alternatively go back to the link you rejected, ignore the lines that for some reason do not fit with your sensibilities (and bear in mind that that comment referred to on-shore and therefore lower reliable output installation where the future installations would likely be less efficient than existing installations for the most part since the better available locations are already in use) and consider the analysis for what it is.
Bear in mind that the author of the analysis has been in contact with the academics in Finland as has been noted in the article.
Bear in mind that many, I would think most, of the comments are provided by people who are or have been involved in some way by people in the power industry, claim related engineering experience or are academics researching the options.
There is mention of the original report's authors being likely to provide comments but so far I have not seen any comments that suggest that has happened. However they clearly have, according to the author of the piece, provided input when asked questions before the piece was published.
Waft it away if you will because you cannot be bothered or because you have no answers but not just because the author prefers that his local landscapes (in an area that appeals to many people because of its perceived beauty) are very likely to become less attractive (notably to the tourism market) by being industrialised due to political dogma.
alock said:
voyds9 said:
Earth Hour yesterday, BBC have some pictures of (mainly) governments turning off lights in large buildings.
My son's cub group had an event. About 20 cars each with a couple of cubs in drove 6 miles to drop them off at a nearby scout camp. They did some cooking over an enormous bonfire and 4 hours later we all went to collect them. 240 miles of cold engine running along with the fire. You couldn't make it up!Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Windmills - Grind crops
Whilst far more effective at the funny lounge of the naysayers- it's just another one of those 'things' on this thread that emphasises a lack of knowledge or willing to understand
Let's try Wind Turbine Generators or WTG's . Turbines if the full version is too many words.
Either way calling them Windmills marks oneself out as a troll in my eyes.
Windmills have open blades or sails ,turbines work in a housing ,, giving them a fancy name doesn't Whilst far more effective at the funny lounge of the naysayers- it's just another one of those 'things' on this thread that emphasises a lack of knowledge or willing to understand
Let's try Wind Turbine Generators or WTG's . Turbines if the full version is too many words.
Either way calling them Windmills marks oneself out as a troll in my eyes.
make them better ,they are unreliable ugly and wasteful of the worlds resources ,and green tokenisim
It would be better if we stuck to wind subsidy equpment as a name for them ,
powerstroke said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Windmills - Grind crops
Whilst far more effective at the funny lounge of the naysayers- it's just another one of those 'things' on this thread that emphasises a lack of knowledge or willing to understand
Let's try Wind Turbine Generators or WTG's . Turbines if the full version is too many words.
Either way calling them Windmills marks oneself out as a troll in my eyes.
Windmills have open blades or sails ,turbines work in a housing ,, giving them a fancy name doesn't Whilst far more effective at the funny lounge of the naysayers- it's just another one of those 'things' on this thread that emphasises a lack of knowledge or willing to understand
Let's try Wind Turbine Generators or WTG's . Turbines if the full version is too many words.
Either way calling them Windmills marks oneself out as a troll in my eyes.
make them better ,they are unreliable ugly and wasteful of the worlds resources ,and green tokenisim
It would be better if we stuck to wind subsidy equpment as a name for them ,
They share the same downside - reliability of supply - that led to them being left behind in the age of coal, steam and the industrial revolution.
Make of that what ever philosophy and policy that you will.
LongQ said:
powerstroke said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Windmills - Grind crops
Whilst far more effective at the funny lounge of the naysayers- it's just another one of those 'things' on this thread that emphasises a lack of knowledge or willing to understand
Let's try Wind Turbine Generators or WTG's . Turbines if the full version is too many words.
Either way calling them Windmills marks oneself out as a troll in my eyes.
Windmills have open blades or sails ,turbines work in a housing ,, giving them a fancy name doesn't Whilst far more effective at the funny lounge of the naysayers- it's just another one of those 'things' on this thread that emphasises a lack of knowledge or willing to understand
Let's try Wind Turbine Generators or WTG's . Turbines if the full version is too many words.
Either way calling them Windmills marks oneself out as a troll in my eyes.
make them better ,they are unreliable ugly and wasteful of the worlds resources ,and green tokenisim
It would be better if we stuck to wind subsidy equpment as a name for them ,
They share the same downside - reliability of supply - that led to them being left behind in the age of coal, steam and the industrial revolution.
Make of that what ever philosophy and policy that you will.
s2art said:
They can, but the term is generic. Mill just means to turn, windmill is to turn something by using wind. Think of a machine shop milling machine. You have confused milling with grinding. So windmill is perfectly correct usage.
I think you'll find 'milling' is a process not "turning something".gadgetmac said:
s2art said:
They can, but the term is generic. Mill just means to turn, windmill is to turn something by using wind. Think of a machine shop milling machine. You have confused milling with grinding. So windmill is perfectly correct usage.
I think you'll find 'milling' is a process not "turning something".s2art said:
gadgetmac said:
s2art said:
They can, but the term is generic. Mill just means to turn, windmill is to turn something by using wind. Think of a machine shop milling machine. You have confused milling with grinding. So windmill is perfectly correct usage.
I think you'll find 'milling' is a process not "turning something".OED: A building with sails or vanes that turn in the wind and generate power to grind corn into flour.
Therefore the word Windmill refers to a wind driven mill...the mill being a tool for use in the process of milling, usually involving corn.
Would you like a picture of one?
There are many ways of milling something not just by means of wind driven mills but that particular process utilises a 'windmill'.
The word windmill has absolutely nothing to do with 'wind' and just 'turning something'.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
If you don't know - put you hand up and ask. I'll get back to you with some assistance.
Do you really think that YOU are the font of all knowledge on this topic and nobody else keeps up to speed? Go back a few years worth of this thread when many on here rejoiced over the Tories pledge to scrap subsidies for onshore windymills?Thanks anyway for your offer of "assistance" but I'd rather gather my knowledge from less arrogant and rude sources
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff