Register to Comment
Page 430 of 1043 FirstFirst ... 330 380 420428429430431432 440 480 530 930 ... LastLast
Results 4,291 to 4,300 of 10423
Like Tree861Likes
  1. #4291
    valamhic valamhic is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,861

    Quote Originally Posted by valamhic View Post
    I see there on another chat site a reference to Maples & Colder - a firm of solicitors - in Dublin. What's the position with them? Are they involved with them SOI
    Read through the article. The first thing they are looking for is a change in "transmission charges" . Running to the state again,

    The battle for application of the Law is underway in Scotland CATs are looking at the Aarhus convention.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #4292
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,797

    Good post by Skeptical Science attacking some of the myths circulated about wind power.

    Adding wind power saves CO2

    Some supporting academic papers:

    http://www.nieuw.tudelft.nl/fileadmi...0090226_1_.pdf

    https://learnonline.uvm.edu/~gundiee..._wind_EROI.pdf
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #4293
    riven riven is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,416

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    You are talking a lot of rubbish, Val. But you seemingly like to be convinced by rubbish.

    Wind: More Reliable, Less “Lumpy”, than Nuclear

    Ah Sir Charles; destroys his own argument.

    What your reference proposes
    While wind is a "variable" resource, that is, the wind doesn't always blow and when it does it doesn't always blow at the same strength, wind is far more reliable than the critics charge. In fact, wind is fairly predictable on long time horizons, especially from one year to the next. In contrast, nuclear power is "reliable" until it isn't as the units at the Fukushima nuclear power plant so dramatically demonstrate.
    The article does show that the power in the nuclear plant is variable and the major dip is due to a safety shutdown on reactor one and maintenance stop on 5 and 6. Interestingly the article does not show the variability in wind but shows the output generated by growth. In context the current German fleet of turbines costs at least 27 billion. Despite a relatively calm build of wind between 2010 and 2011, the variability between output over the two years is around 50% for Germany (IEA electrical statistics).

    In fact what the article says is (argument A) that many turbines will produce a stable output. What we see with fukashima is that before the tsunami, 6 reactors produced stable output. So argument A good for wind, argument A ignored for nuclear.
    Last edited by riven; 21st June 2012 at 01:12 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4294
    Fabo02 Fabo02 is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    850

    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Gill View Post
    Yesterday was Global Wind Day.




    Just thought I'd mention it.
    what spin did the wind PR people put on Global Wind Day in 2010 when the average wind generation output for the day was 42 MW.

    just out of interest....thanks.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #4295
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,292

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Good post by Skeptical Science attacking some of the myths circulated about wind power.

    Adding wind power saves CO2

    Some supporting academic papers:

    http://www.nieuw.tudelft.nl/fileadmi...0090226_1_.pdf

    https://learnonline.uvm.edu/~gundiee..._wind_EROI.pdf
    One of the few posters in this thread who deliver traceable facts and not myths and fairy tales. Thanks for that.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #4296
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,292

    Quote Originally Posted by riven View Post
    Ah Sir Charles; destroys his own argument.

    What your reference proposes


    The article does show that the power in the nuclear plant is variable and the major dip is due to a safety shutdown on reactor one and maintenance stop on 5 and 6. Interestingly the article does not show the variability in wind but shows the output generated by growth. In context the current German fleet of turbines costs at least 27 billion. Despite a relatively calm build of wind between 2010 and 2011, the variability between output over the two years is around 50% for Germany (IEA electrical statistics).

    In fact what the article says is (argument A) that many turbines will produce a stable output. What we see with fukashima is that before the tsunami, 6 reactors produced stable output. So argument A good for wind, argument A ignored for nuclear.
    A lot of rant. Maybe you take a look at the graph again. Speaks for itself.



    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #4297
    Volatire Volatire is online now
    Volatire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4,000

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Good post by Skeptical Science attacking some of the myths circulated about wind power.

    Adding wind power saves CO2

    Some supporting academic papers:

    http://www.nieuw.tudelft.nl/fileadmi...0090226_1_.pdf

    https://learnonline.uvm.edu/~gundiee..._wind_EROI.pdf

    Too late for your wind industry propaganda. They told lies and were found out.

    The wind industry told policy-makers and planners that wind power would save 1tCO2/MWh.

    In Ireland, for example, an upper bound on the actual savings is less than 0.34tCO2/MWh. (In fact the real number is substantially less.)

    We also know that savings fall rapidly as more wind power is added.

    The wind industry has harvested huge amounts of public money by claiming fuel savings which have proven to be illusory. We have paid for something have not received. We have been scammed.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #4298
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,797

    Quote Originally Posted by Volatire View Post
    Too late for your wind industry propaganda. They told lies and were found out.

    The wind industry told policy-makers and planners that wind power would save 1tCO2/MWh.

    In Ireland, for example, an upper bound on the actual savings is less than 0.34tCO2/MWh. (In fact the real number is substantially less.)

    We also know that savings fall rapidly as more wind power is added.

    The wind industry has harvested huge amounts of public money by claiming fuel savings which have proven to be illusory. We have paid for something have not received. We have been scammed.
    I will pass the information to the University of Delft that their doctroral candidates, thesis advisers and (presumably) external examiners are just publishing "wind industry propaganda".

    You opinion will no doubt be instantly accepted by them as fact, like all you ex cathredra pronouncements.

    That referenced papers make a simple and obvious point - if penetration of wind energy is small, the savings of CO2 is small, but is greater if the penetration into the market is larger.

    If Illinois got 10% of its electricity from wind, the savings in CO2 would be about 11%. The savings are bigger than 10% because about a quarter of Illinios' power is low carbon nuclear and this wouldn't be turned off.

    As more wind turbines are added, they still make savings but if Illinois got 40% of its electricity from wind, its CO2 emissions would drop only 33% as nuclear reactors scale back slightly
    .
    So having backup power reduces CO2 savings ... but the savings are still big and worthwhile.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/wind-carbon.html
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #4299
    kahono kahono is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    67

    Quote Originally Posted by valamhic View Post
    Read through the article. The first thing they are looking for is a change in "transmission charges" . Running to the state again,

    The battle for application of the Law is underway in Scotland CATs are looking at the Aarhus convention.
    Maples and calder are natural hydro energy ltd solicators, nhe try to distance themselves from spirit of ireland .
    Nhe ltd directors are brian count, dominic price , graham o donnell, igor shvets, jenifer caldwell, laurence howard , mark wheeler source solo company news.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #4300
    rash mulligan rash mulligan is offline
    rash mulligan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,216

    nhe try to distance themselves from spirit of ireland .
    And so they should.

    That Banshee of Eire crowd are as cracked as the crows.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment