On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:32:44 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ wrote this:-
You are presumably talking about the public forecast, which is rather broad brush. Those who wish to pay get far more accurate forecasts, which are specific to the locations they are interested.
For one turbine.
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:04:32 +0000 someone who may be Derek Geldard wrote this:-
We already know the answer to that. It does.
We already know the answer to that too. Properly sized it will produce nearly all the hot water in summer and a contribution to hot water in the winter.
People don't usually try and argue that it doesn't work, rather they argue that it is not cost effective.
Yeah..plant that takes everal days to 'wind down'
You haven't grasped the issues at all have you?
Yes it does. We have it.
Ours produces ALL the hw we need from about April to October and most of what we need in the other months. There are normally only two of us (three at the moment) though.
Yes - but why? They have nothing to prove, nobody's forcing them to have it.
Mary
Same can be said of any issues relating to scientific research or facts in general.
No one is forcing anyone to believe it, you can believe what you want.
Its just a spirit of neighnorly helpfulness that makes people point out what works, what doesn;t work, and what works at such a high cost as to be be not worth doing.
Hot water is the very lowest priority on my cost savings. It costs next to nothing compared with other things.
Do you have any references for this?
MBQ
In other words, domestic solar power is a fashion statement, just like a new kitchen.
QED
MBQ
You don't stop them you plantpot, they tick over. Cor!
Appalling abuse!
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember David Hansen saying something like:
Feck. Is *everybody* Drivel today?
In other words, domestic solar power is a fashion statement, just like a new kitchen.
If you think that it says a lot about you.
Ours can't be seen ...
Mary
QED
MBQ
The message from David Hansen contains these words:
So you say but it remains the case that editing out that particular sentence served no useful purpose other than to bolster the misleading comment you wanted to make.
No, and there was nothing unusual in you pretending that there was a prolonged outage at Longannet as a result of the collapse when there wasn't.
There you go again. We have under discussion two recent cases where the remains of the turbines had nothing but scrap value and you postulate some minor damage in an imaginary scenario.
No you stupid idiot. As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see. If you had been just a tiny bit more observant you would have noticed I was referring to an error of yours in the paragraph above which you have now edited out.
Can't you get it into your tiny mind that this is not abuse.
Careful, highlighting your modus operandi (of which the "Excellent, more personal abuse" is a typical example) just reminds everyone of your usual approach to those who would disagree with you.
Just because you chose to try and hide your abuse behind a holier than thou hypocritical facade doesn't mean you succeed.
Another insult and I am beginning to think you didn't read the report. The bit I dipped into had several references to controversy and could have been restated in a tenth of the space with no loss of significant detail if brevity had been thought a virtue.
The message from David Hansen contains these words:
Fudgerama.
Pie in the sky approach. See below for dissent and that from a source biased in favour of wind power.
"There is an ongoing debate regarding the capacity factor of wind power in the UK. The reported annual capacity factor for the UK wind power has varied from 24% to
31%, with a long-term average of around 27% (DUKES, 1998, 2005); these reported figures include downtime due to maintenance, and forced outages due to mechanical failure. In contrast to these reported figures, recent studies (cf. Dale et al., 2004) have tended to use a long-term annual average capacity factor of 35%; this decision is likely based on the higher wind speeds, and hence capacity factors, that are expected from offshore wind power developments, and a bias towards future onshore wind power developments in higher wind speed regions such as Scotland. A pessimistic view of UK capacity factors for wind power has also been put forward by a number of authors, suggesting capacity factor figures of 25% and below (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2003; Sharman, 2005). It is considered likely that the reported capacity factor of 27% for wind power in the UK will rise over time as future developments concentrate on higher wind resource regions such as Scotland and offshore. The results of the data validation process (Section 2.2.2) suggest that a 30% capacity factor is generally representative of the current level of wind power development in the UK. However, this may need to be revised upwards once significant wind power developments have occurred in offshore areas and in Scotland."snipped-for-privacy@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
It's what Dynamo dave seems to think.
MBQ
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:36:06 GMT someone who may be Roger wrote this:-
I suspect not. Time will tell whether those who think like me are right or not.
It looks familiar. However, I note that you have not indicated the source.
It reports other work. Nothing wrong with that. However, the flaws in the RAE work were exposed years ago and I wouldn't put much confidence in it.
However, the bottom line is that the source you have quoted but not named indicates that the capacity factor is likely to rise. In other words it agrees with what I typed. Glad to see you quoting that.
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:35:50 GMT someone who may be Roger wrote this:-
What I said was that there was a sudden failure. To be precise what I said was:
"The idea that any source of electricity generation is reliable is mildly amusing. For example a little over a year ago one of the largest coal fired plants in Europe had to be shut down suddenly after a conveyor belt fell down. "
You then went on to claim:
"A temporary hole for a few days"
To which I replied:
"It took much longer than that to fix the coal conveyor. It is a rather large piece of engineering and it is not on the ground.
"However, they did start it burning gas as a temporary fix. Unlike most coal plants Longannet can burn gas "
Nice try, but anyone with an open mind can read the thread and make their mind up. You may have the last word on your assertion.
Did that include the foundations and the cable?
Excellent, more personal abuse. Do keep it up.
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 05:39:55 -0800 (PST) someone who may be "Man at B&Q" wrote this:-
I made no comment on the many reasons why someone might install a new kitchen. I simply pointed out that there is more than one reason for doing something.
messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
It's what Dynamo dave seems to think.
MBQ
A 'new kitchen' wouldn't be a fashion statement to me either. The idea of someone else telling me what I need in my kitchen is laughable but that's what people pay money for.
Our kitchen has developed according to need, it's a tool and has to work well, not look good.
Same with the solar panel.
Mary
They forecast that well, didn't they?
MBQ
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.