I got an email... > Hi. > Fantastic site. Just one thing: the wind gauge implies 15GW maximum for wind but various websites state it's now about 24GW (still useless, but there you are). > Cheers, >xxxx
My reply ========
15GW is simply the most metered wind I have ever recorded, rounded up to the nearest 5GW
mysql> select max(wind) from day;
+-----------+ | max(wind) |
+-----------+ | 14031 |
+-----------+
1 row in set (0.93 sec)
I too wondered why wind never actually reaches full output everywhere, ever, and I conjecture that:
(i) The MTBF of the turbine is such that no more than 80% are available at any given time (ii) The difference between 'max output' and 'overspeed', in a gust, is so narrow that turbines that might develop full output are routinely shut down for safety. (iii) Renewable advocates routinely overstate the amount of wind power there is....
What a wonderful thing is a database of facts...
mysql> select avg(wind) from day where timestamp like '2020%';
So, on the big metered stuff where capacity factor is claimed to be 40%, in fact that equates to 15.6GW capacity.
In reality, capacity factor is nowhere near the fictitious claims made by the industry and used to formulate government policy.* In fact BM reports which is presumably stating metered wind capacity (although it might not be)
formatting link
gives as you say, a total figure of installed (metered) capacity of
12937 + 12160 = 25,097 MW or almost exactly 25GW.
That gives us an average capacity factor of not more than 24.8%, across the whole onshore and offshore sets, which is believable.
*Dukes report page 7 declares that offshore wind is 39.6% and onshore is
26%. This is arrant nonsense.
Erm no, read again. It's more akin to asking why the speedo only goes to
100 when the car is supposed to do 150.
Peak scaling in a high voice huh?
I would have though "15GW is simply the most metered wind I have ever recorded, rounded up to the nearest 5GW" was fairly close to that (allowing for the fact that its manually peak scaled and not auto (o alto!))
No, the spirit of *point* was a mismatch between the expectation and the indication, not the actual values or direction (but you would be right if that's what I was actually discussing).
Tim Squeaker, is that you ... ?
Only if he was a right brainer and he obviously isn't (confirmed by all the maths / database crap he included to justify his dissing of a question he didn't fully understand (the spirit of)).
Yes Mr Squeaker. ;-)
So, Turnip didn't say something like 'Yes, you are right, we theoretically have a 24GW capacity but because so far I've only actually seen less than 15GW, that's what I have set the scale to to give better granularity over the real world range to date."
See, the emailer was positive and supportive (even reflecting Turnips attitude towards wind power over nuclear) and had a generic question that I belive deserved a more complete answer than Turnip indicates he gave.
It's like if I report a technical error on a website I *expect*:
1) A reply to acknowledge my input
2) A reply at least saying 'Thanks for your feedback', even if they don't agree with it or use it. [1]
Cheers, T i m
[1] I fed back a POV to one of the big online RAM / SSD suppliers re how their 'spaced used' scale seemed backwards, eg how it went from right to left whereas we (in the UK) read from left to right and so a bar graph of 'fullness' would normally read that way. They thanked me for taking the time to offer my feedback and changed it. ;-)
I did similar with a car forum website where the car icon on the front page suggested the car was LHD yet it was a UK based club and most of the cars would be RHD? Again, I got a nice 'Thanks' and an admittance that the graphic had got flipped somehow and he had immediately flipped it back.
I haven't had a reply from SonOff where I highlighted the line drawing on one of their Zigbee light switches indicated that the live went to the screw body of an ES27 fitting whereas it should go to the cap but apparently they have a reputation of not replying to emails ... ;-(
With something so variable as wind, I do not really see how any realistic numbers can be put on it. If wind can change over seconds from a gentle breeze to a gale force squall from almost any direction how can something as massive as a turbine keep up with it, the answer is it cannot of course. Brian
It's an engineer thing - actual values and direction really do matter.
The answer given was IMHO more than adequate. Now I would agree that answer could have stopped simply after the opening statement - perhaps that would have been more in tune with your desire for a fawning touchy feely answer?
Yes, it's almost as if TNP has a hobby horse, or an thinly disguised agenda that he feels compelled to bring up at the slightest provocation.
Does that irritate you? :-))
Thank you for your insightful and helpful comment T i m, we will pass it onto the relevant team immediately for their consideration.
We do appreciate you taking the time to bring this oversight to our attention.
Don't forget if there is anything further we can do to assist, don't hesitate to contact us.
Of course, I fully understand and appreciate your and Turnips 'technical' replies on it, I was just commenting on the fact he felt need to comment on it and the point of his own comment had whooshed him. ;-)
Of course it would be. ;-)
It's interesting how you would view such in such a way. That any 'human' component of the communication should be viewed sarcastically ('fawning touchy feely').
It's actually called 'fully understanding the question, even the bits not directly asked'.
If you went into a shop and asked if they had something in stock, and they just replied 'no', would you consider that sufficient under all circumstances? Would you consider it an 'appropriate' reply (from a human / customer service POV) under any circumstances?
The only one I really saw was him demonstrating how poorly he understands human communication, give it was the email that 'poo pooed' the wind energy in the first place.
No, because we know the intermittency of many of the renewable's but that can be dealt with using other technologies as we develop them.
It's not like (say) someone thinking the taking the life of an innocent creature when there is no need to is ok. That is irritating because there are victims involved.
Well, if it were I that had provided the feedback / question to Turnip then yes, that would be the sort of format 'most people' would like / expect / appreciate.
And don't forget, anyone who wasn't an arrogant left brainer would want to propagate support and might just put a bit of effort into responding to a user, no-matter what their personal beliefs were?
The leap of faith you are making by saying that depends on the technology being developed.
In real life we already have better sources of power. Nuclear and gas can provide all we need, and result in a grid that does not have to be massively over-engineered to cope with the wild swings of 'renewables'.
The rape of the planet that will result from the minerals and their refining and fabrication for use in batteries to support the grid is never taken into account by those who only see the 'spirit' of the renewables farce.
I use primary D cells for a couple of torches. By the 'renewables' argument, these are 'green', eco-friendly, etc etc, because being made far, far away they cause no pollution at the point of use - such is the barmy logic of the 'green' lobby.
It represents a logical answer. I thought the question was a fair one too, and probably from someone who is using both sides of their brain and answered wit both sides functioning.
Only some half-brained fanatic would see otherwise.
No, most manufacturers liked to have a dream factor on the speedo, others claimed it was down to common components.
Isn't that what NT said in words, "15GW is simply the most metered wind I have ever recorded, rounded up to the nearest 5GW".
It wasn't obvious you understood his technical explanation.
Yes it was, and to most people too. Once again you're the odd one out.
When you start to abuse others who provide a simple logical explanation it was clear you have many issues.
Yes if it was clear what I wanted. If I went to a petshop and asked for a kettle the answer may well be "NO".
Again you're not making yourself very clear and not providing coherent or relevant equivalents.
There was nothing poor about NT's communication. His reply was clear and concise.
It does appear that way from the abuse you levelled at him.
There is every need. All those about you are providing and accepting coherent arguments where the only troll is a fanatic with a presumed B12 deficiency who craves meat but isn't allowed any by his family members.
It is a very sad situation.
The only arrogant person here is the one who abuses people who display logic and reasoned argument they can't can't cope with.
You see I think he got a better handle on the correspondents "between the lines" comments than you have.
The comment "..it's now about 24GW (still useless, but there you are)" suggests that they were already sceptical of whole the green wind agenda anyway. Thus TNP being able to not only answer the direct question, but also back up that answer about the peak readings with real data would be something that the poster would probably quite appreciate[1].
Your suggested "Yes, you are right, we theoretically have a 24GW capacity but because so far I've only actually seen less than 15GW, that's what I have set the scale to to give better granularity over the real world range to date"
Is (I would expect for most readers) not really any different in substance from "15GW is simply the most metered wind I have ever recorded, rounded up to the nearest 5GW". With the possible exception about the comment on resolution. Which supplies more detail in the answer rather than less - something you seemed to object to (when you are not objecting to it that is)
People have different styles of communication - get over it!
It all depends on context... "no" might be perfectly acceptable, and all you need.
You can't really make up your mind what you want can you?
Here you are arguing for a "more complete answer", and yet a moment ago you were complaining that the answer was too complete by the inclusion of "all the maths / database crap".
What is it you actually want?
That would be a woosh then - I thought you top brained folks were supposed to be good at this?
Ah, there we are, recognising that the mote is not always in someone else's eye.
Really? To me it just shouts "insincere fob off reply" written by someone who has little or no understanding of the issue you were trying to draw their attention to.
To my mind (as someone who tends toward the more detailed and nuanced answers), the detailed response with evidence pulled from the database demonstrated significantly more "effort put in" than the typical trite "content free" soothing words you can expect from many customer service reps.
But he didn't though did he. He just explained what the emailer already knew, that Turnips scale didn't reflect the theoretical wind generation capacity of the country?
Only if he gained pleasure from confirming his perception of Turnips perception of green energy and just between him and Turnip (till Turnip shared it here)? Confirmation bias and all that?
Only to the lift brainers readers possibly? You already posted what you knew to be what be considered a more 'pleasant' / appropriate' reply yourself so you already accept the difference between the two.
Quite.
'Detail' in a highly 'un detailed sense (given the spirit of the emailers post) and would actually be seen as a more complete / rounded answer than a detailed one?
Yes, when anything is appropriate it's appropriate. ;-)
Doh!. I was questioning that very point and there is nothing to 'get over'. It's you who might need to 'get over it' as my reply was to Turnip and not you. ;-)
Of course ... and again, already covered in the 'under all circumstances bit'. It was the second half of that point that was key and 'of course' if you were in an obvious hurry and the assistant could see that then 'curt' would be perfectly appropriate.
<panicked person> "Do you have a fire extinguisher!!!!'
However, if I casually asked an assistant 'Do you sell fire extinguishers' I don't think I'd expect or want just a dismissive 'no' as a reply, unless it was quickly followed up with some form of additional explanation or apology.
'No ... but we should get some more in on Monday' ...
or
'No ... sorry, someone's just collapsed on the pavement and I need to go and help ...'
Or maybe you just can't follow fuzzy logic?
No, a better worded answer, in the initial bit anyway ...
Where was that then? Or are you conflating the potentially two completely things? That he also sent all the maths / database crap to the emailer, along with the one liner reply?
Even if it was the case, the 'damage' (if you were keen to reflect the spirit of the question in the reply, as real humans generally do), had already been done.
I don't *want* anything? I was making a valid observation of how left brainers talk to right brainers.
Do you suffer insecurity issues John? I was simply pointing out how a left brainer, thinking they were doing the ideal thing could be easily whooshed by some very basic stuff. It wasn't an overall criticism of Turnip as I'm sure to another left brainer the answer would have been fine and the extra explanation very interesting.
Sorry, what?
OK?
Agreed, but the depth of the latter doesn't necessary balance the impact of the former.
An example of this at it's best is often seen from the trolls. They curse and name call and come up with all sorts of disgusting stuff in one breath then try to be nice / helpful (to the same people) in the next?
They do that because they are left brainers (they wouldn't be trolls in the first place if they weren't) and probably bi-polar.
Must 'humans' (the right brainers ones anyway) wouldn't take the help form such people after being treated like that, it's just how they work. In the same way they wouldn't help the trolls ... 'I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire' etc.
So, had Turnip answered the emailer with something more friendly (it didn't need to be 'trite, content free or soothing', see again with the dismissal of anything that isn't black or white?) if he did also include the technical / database stuff then that would have been fine.
So it would have been:
Thanks for emailed. Yes, I believe we are *supposed* to be able to generate 24W from Wind but as I've never see it any higher than 12 and why I set the scale at 15 (or whatever, before you try to correct my numbers taken from memory and only serve as examples of the point ...). <breathe>
If you are interested in how I do that I'll include it here:
And can I please just restate the 'spirit' of my use of the whole l/r brain (dominance) thing. We need all / both types (it's not black and white of course but a very wide scale), we need the left brainers to quickly and accurately give us all the facts and the detail and we need the right brainers to keep the left brainers from getting beaten up by other right brainers when the left brainers give them (what are taken as) curt replies [1]. ;-)
We also need the right brainers to think it though further ... to test the 'what if's' and consider if it really is the best thing to do all round.
Bean counter (left brainer) says they have to cut the wage bill and decides that the tea lady should go. HR (right brainer) suggests that the impact of on the rest of the staff would be counterproductive (moral) and likely they would waste more time going to the vending machine rather than staying at their desks working and recommends one of the middle management. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
[1] A sort of parallel example of that was a guy was in court for breach of the peace or something and the Magistrate / Judge said 'before I sum up, is there anything you would like to say in your defence'. At which point the defendant said 'Fuck all m'lord'. The judge was about to also do him for contempt of court before the defendants barrister stepped in, apologised on behalf of his client and explained that the comment wasn't meant to be disrespectful to the Judge or the court, it was just a turn of phrase, commonly used by the defendant and he didn't realise it's use was inappropriate in that situation.
He clearly got over three primary messages that did address the question IMHO. e.c:
1) I am aware that it does not match the theoretical output, but this is not an oversight - it's intentional.
2) He explained why this limit was used in place of the "real" one,
3) He provided evidence from the database to demonstrate why the limit chosen was a sensible choice.
No I posted a slightly facetious example of the typical mealy mouthed bollocks you get in response in many similar cases.
It was an example of a response that I don't find particularly satisfying or useful in many cases. (other than perhaps as an automated reply that is only a placeholder for a real one that will come later)
I can't follow your logic sometimes :-)
I am assuming that what he posted here was pretty much a verbatim copy of what he did send in reply.
I am sure TNP can confirm one way or the other.
In some cases (managing people for example) there is a good argument for adapting your communications style to match the personality of the person you are talking to, there is not usually any way to do that reliably when all you have to go on is a very short email. In those cases, go with what fits your personality type.
You see here is where the whole left/right thing falls down for being way too simplistic.
formatting link
So based on your understanding, what brain chirality am I?
Born left handed - so right hemisphere dominant, with strong visuospatial, diagnostic and problem solving capabilities. Dyslexic but with reasonably strong language skills (if you ignore the handwriting and the inability to spell!) Tending to the shy / introverted with an easy going laid back approach, but happy to stand up front and present, lead, train etc.
IMHO the "left vs right" classification is not helpful in most cases since people have blended traits and rarely fit either stereotype well.
Breaking it down further to one of the commonly used four quadrant style personality types[1] goes a bit further, but even then it's a crude categorisation that needs further qualification in many cases.
[1] I find the DISC style descriptions quite easy to get to grips with.
Indeed I was slightly - it's probably a personality flaw :-)
I was also highlighting the irony of T i m's apparent objection to TNPs climbing onto the "wind is pointless" soapbox, while climbing onto soapboxen assorted related to his pet agenda.
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:09:20 +0000, John Rumm snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.null wrote: <snip>
Agreed but only if the emailer read that far down and understood it all (and I believe he did include all the extra stuff to the emailer).
<snip>
Yes, but there are answers in between the two extremes and that's what I was referring to.
No, it generally wouldn't be.
... other than for that.
;-)
(see above).
No, whilst it doesn't flow, no intro or anything, I believe he did send it all.
Quite.
Well, there are often clues.
Or better go with what you understand as the mote likely personality type of the recipient and err on the side of caution by not making it over complicated.
It's only as simplistic as you choose to interpret it to be or understand it as being? Did you realise I assume an infinite number of levels between the most extreme cases ('a spectrum')?
I think you may be a stereotypic male and be slightly left brained?
Do we know that link exists?
Often more a male characteristic.
Depending on the scenario / processes used, could be either or neither (just inelegance / experience etc).
Drifting towards the centre. Left brainers are good with vocabulary whereas right are better with meaning.
More right brained stuff ...
And again ...
More centre / left (those who are *happy* to be 'up front' either often don't have good self awareness and so come across as over confident).
In 8 years IT training to adults, not once could I say it wasn't stressful.
Of course, however, it can come in handy when someone seems, even if mostly around one point / area to lean heavily one way or another.
Of course.
For me the th "Hi. Fantastic site. Just one thing: the wind gauge implies 15GW maximum for wind but various websites state it's now about 24GW (still useless, but there you are). Cheers, xxxx"
'Hi' (lighthearted / informal / friendly)
'Fantastic site.'
Where does Turnip acknowledge the 'Fantastic site' bit (the 'human' content, given that the emailer probably assumes it was created by the person he's emailing)? Would a 'Thanks for the positive feedback' have been too soft / human / polite for him?
'Just one thing:' (suggesting they are happy with everything else and their question is simple / basic).
Re the last bit, hasn't Turnip himself posted instances where Wind (or was it solar) equalled all other non-renewable forms of power generation? I'm not suggesting that endorses that stand-alone (that it becomes a reliable base supply because it obviously doesn't 'as is') but I'm not sure I would go as far as call it 'useless', in the same way that all the wind powered flour mills were far from 'useless' for all those years they were the main motive force.
If there are loads that are happy to make use of such energy as / when it's available ... and say it was cheaper, then they are very happy with something that's not useless by perfect?
Now, what it might mean, as we are seeing with the adoption of EV's is that *we* have to change our habits to better accommodate these constraints. Not assuming / demanding we can jump in our cars and drive 500 miles between fillups when the vast majority only do say 20 miles a day.
Just as in the days pre motorised vehicles, the distance between coach houses was the typical distance you could travel using horses in one day.
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.