New easy to install DIY solar panels technology

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 22:52:30 -0000 someone who may be "BRG" wrote this:-

The wind does not suddenly stop. How it will blow can be forecast very well in the two timescales which matter in the UK electricity market, a few days ahead and (far more accurately) one hour ahead of real time. The few days ahead allows other plant to be wound up if necessary. The one hour ahead allows participation in the short term market before gate closure.

While the past does not guarantee the future it is the best that we can do. Oxford University looked at weather records going back decades and found that the time the wind is too high or too low to generate electricity is negligible.

When wind resources are low more electricity will be generated by other means. Using water that was not used because the wind was blowing harder the month before, using coal that was not burnt for the same reason and so on.

Electricity companies are adept at using statistics to model how all forms of generation will behave and providing carious forms of backup to cover the likely failures. It is all explained din the UKERC report I have already referred to.

Who said anything about using wind for all electricity generation? Not me.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:01:25 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Excellent, more personal abuse. Do keep it up.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:20:39 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Ah I see. Take a figure and the massage it into another one.

I'll stick with measuring the capacity factor of wind turbines in the same way as the capacity factor of other plant is measured.

An unreferenced figure.

[The Natural Philosopher]

You didn't bother to read te scottish engineers report then?

Oh, I forgot, you don't 'do numbers' so you?

[The Natural Philosopher]

WEll I justs read it. And cannot see any reference to that at all.

Tell me on what page and section it concludes that.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:17:42 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

The document you referred to contains no mention of the name or background of the author.

Excellent, personal abuse.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:25:25 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

The executive summary contains the statement, expressed in academic language.

It is further enlarged on in the text.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It seems you cant read either.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

The Oxford report you mentioned earlier doesn't. In considering the cost of 10% wind power they used 35%.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

Stop insulting my intelligence.

You deliberately took that second sentence out to make your rubbish seem more sensible.

It would have had to be elevated if it put a shower block at risk so was the conveyor an elderly fixture from first build or an ill considered add-on when the local pit closed and coal had to be imported?

That really does take the biscuit using an imaginary extended stoppage as a counter to a real situation.

Any rebuilding would effectively be a new wind turbine.

Hunterston B in Ayrshire and Hinkley Point B are both long in the tooth being commissioned in 1976 only a few years after Longannet started running.

You have a rather large hole in your figures yourself. A 90% hole.

Such failures are unusual but the system coped as it was intended to. And as usual you aren't prepared to compare like with like. Longannet has a number of generating sets and if the coal handling facilities hadn't been so abysmal it would hardly have missed a beat. But I do take your point about usefulness, lose a whole wind farm and it would hardly register.

Fact not fiction like so much of what you post.

More insults from the poison pen of Hansen.

As it happens I have no need of a day job, just a few hobbies to keep me busy.

That was not the point as you well know (or should do if you are even half as clever as you think you are).

No sane person would ever suggest that 8% was a large proportion.

Why don't you read and inwardly digest what I wrote in the first place rather than trying to put words in my mouth.

Your constant stream of personal abuse is starting to piss me off.

So you say but I don't believe a word you say that isn't backed up by verifiable sources.

More insults.

I can't be bothered to wade through the acres of waffle to see whether or not there is a grain of truth lurking in there somewhere but we only have to go back as far as the Hutton report for proof positive that a careful choice of investigator makes a world of difference to the outcome.

There is none so blind as those that will not see.

[Mark]

Hydroelectric power such as this is used in the UK to smooth fluctuations in demand.

M.

[Andy Hall]

Do you have a hot key for that?

[Roger]

The message from Mark contains these words:

The trouble with recycled electricity in the UK is the lack of suitable sites for large scale generation. Dinorwig is 1728 MW but there are few other sites in England or Wales where a drop in the order of 1500 feet below a suitable reservoir could be found so easily or indeed found at all.

[Andy Champ]

"The event also received very little publicity".

So little I never heard about it...

Andy

[Andy Champ]

David,

As someone who races sailing boats I can assure you that the wind forecast 2 days ahead is often completely wrong. This weekend they were quite close; but still Friday evenings forecast for Sunday was about

20% high - which would not be good for a power system.

20% in velocity is of course much more in power - on the convenient graph just posted in the Sinden report that error it the difference between 675 and 985 kW on their turbine!

Andy

[Derek Geldard]

Then they need to de-muddle their thinking.

And by the look of it improve their techniques of measurement and record keeping.

Until it is known whether the technology of domestic Solar Water Heating works or it doesn't, or to what extent it works, (and it's not beyond the wit of man to find out) it's pointless to make a judgement as to whether it's illegal, immoral. or it makes you fat, and I don't want the likes of Hansen confabulating the whole lot together, adding "greenie" points according to his own unpublished agenda and announcing a single overall score, which like caesar's wife, is beyond question.

All the more reason to avoid confusing technical issues with ethical ones.

No difference then to all the other ethical / moral challenges that society has had to face such as smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, indulging in promiscuous or underage sex.

In the end society had to set some arbitrary limits in these instances imposed with the force of law. Nowadays the goverment prefers taxation as it has done with energy useage and road fuels.

I will address the Mary Fisher issue in a seperate post. She seems to regard her solar heated hot water plumbing system in the same light as Hyacinth Bucket regards her "pearl-white slimline push-button telephone with automatic redial" and her "very expensive Royal Doulton with the hand-painted periwinkles".

DG

[Doctor Drivel]

When thee is excess wind energy we just wind down the fossil fuel gennys.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:02:30 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Excellent, more personal abuse.

My quick skim of the document revealed no information on the author and no date. Authoritative documents tend to have such information easily available. I have better things to do than line by line rebuttals of documents with such information either missing or difficult to find.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:22:40 GMT someone who may be Roger wrote this:-

For reasons which are explained in a variety of places.

The measured capacity factor of all UK wind farms looks backwards at all of the ones installed since 1991. The engineering has advanced considerably since then for various reasons and capacity factors of turbines now being installed are higher then the historical average.

35% is the right sort of figure to use for considering the future.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:10:08 GMT someone who may be Roger wrote this:-

I have no idea about your intelligence and wouldn't be arrogant enough to make any assertions about it. However, it remains incorrect to make the claim which you did, no matter how often you claim otherwise. You may have the last word on this matter if you wish.

There was nothing imaginary about the collapse of the conveyor belt. Neither was there anything imaginary about the place being unusual in being able to burn gas. That facility was installed as part of a scheme to reduce emissions.

That depends on the damage. Even if all of the turbine itself is new it would be installed onto the old foundations and use the old cable.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Excellent, more personal abuse.

Diverting attention away from the subject under discussion may fool some, but it doesn't fool everyone.

Yawn. Others can see where the personal abuse comes from. They also know why people in an argument tend to start such personal abuse.

Incorrect. Simply a short statement of the fact that the report concerned is not full of ifs, buts, controversy, etc. not to mention acres of waffle.