Maths?

[Digit]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... nrealistic

I read it, thought, great! Then I read this part....

"We have always been clear about the need for baseload," he said. "Our ambitious and achievable target is to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's electricity needs from renewables by 2020, supported by cleaner fossil fuel baseload electricity, such as the recently consented gas power station at Cockenzie."

... when is 100% not 100%, is this the 'new maths?'

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

Agreed...why not say 'all'?

 

[Jonzjob]

I think the telling paragraph is "Imeche said the most intelligent starting point was to cut demand and increase efficiency, before finding new energy sources."

If the Scoch people want 100% carbon or anything bad free for Skotchland then just import it all from a forigne country like England?

Seems logikal to me?

 

[Digit]

They might as well, after all, the English will be paying for some of it anyway.

Roy.

 

[chipmunk]

Well I reckon it's just another manifestation of the old renewable energy myth.

It's easy to generate loads of power when the wind's blowing or even perhaps when the sun is shining but if you get a high pressure area with cloud trapped under it, there's no wind and no sun and it's flaming cold. In those circumstances there's no way for your renewable power sources to help out.

So they may be "effectively" producing 100% of their electricity needs with renewables but they'll be looking to sell some of that power to the English when the wind's blowing and they can't use it all and come those windless cold days they'll still be looking to suck power in from us south of the border or burn gas in their gas power stations.

So, we end up acting as their "battery" back-up as John and Roy said.
Jon

 

[Digit]

Yep! And the frightening part is that they believe the myth, that link is actually a down right lie!
Or very bad maths!

Roy.

 

[Digit]

Here's another example, bad maths or damned lies?

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... 9g&cad=rja

Roy.

 

[tomatwark]

It is a known fact that Alex Salmond's policies don't add up.

This is why he rants and raves about Scottish Independence but will not let the people have their say as he knows they will vote no.

They only good thing about the green energy policy is the wind farm they are trying to build next to Donald Trumps new golf course.

He is only in charge because the other parties are even worse.

Tom

 

[barkwindjammer]

"Imeche said the most intelligent starting point was to cut demand and increase efficiency, before finding new energy sources."

So, you spend tons of ever diminishing funding doing this ?, you re-educate the British public (something thats been on-going for the last 2 decades-anyone remember those "switch it off" stickers that were surrounding all the light switches in the early eighties?-fail), you spend money striving for efficiency in terms of generation and use, all the while the peak oil reserves are getting farther and farther behind us, Russia, Australia and South America take an increasing stranglehold as far as imported coal and gas pricing, and you make punitive steps toward embracing "tree hugging gobbledegook pseudoscience"

Whats your alternative strategies

you go first Digit

 

[Digit]

you go first Digit

Certainly. I was pointing out the lies being used to promote the product, not the product, so your point is?

Roy.

 

[barkwindjammer]

Not lies as such, vaguaries maybe, to rally support for the progression of this (up to now-pish poor technology), hence the reason I put the reference to the 'Switch it off' campaign, we all remember it-we weren't 'moved' by it-not in the slightest-20 odd years of lost time when you look back.

 

[barkwindjammer]

Tic, , , toc, , , tic, , , toc, , ,

 

[Digit]

BWJ. I stated earlier either bad maths or lies, so let me quantify what the second link states and you can then make up your own mind.
Firstly, the second link I posted assumes for the debate a life of 20 yrs for a turbine then proceeds to state that the said turbine effectively 'repays' the energy consumed in its production in 6.8 months. Okay?
It then states that from then on its account is in the 'black' to the tune of 35 times the energy consumed. Still with me?
Now 35 times 6.8 months is a just under 20 yrs, that's mathematicians maths not saleman's maths BTW.
Thus the statement wishes me to believe that this turbine is operating at its rated capacity 24/7 with no breakdowns, no maintenance time and wind blowing at sufficient velocity all that time.
I have a simle question BWJ, where is this turbine?
Bad maths or lies?

Roy.

 

[Jonzjob]

In a near perfect situation a modern wind turbine will return about 30% efficiency over the course of a year. This takes into account wind conditions which include low wind, high wind, wind sheer and wind gusts because if the wind is much below 15 MPH or above 60 to 65 MPH or sheering too much or gusting too much the turbine has to shut down. Not for the low wind speed, but for the others because it can't handle the conditions of high speed, direction changes or fast changes in speed.

I meg suddenly becomes 300k......

On a wind farm if the turbines are put too close, like within 1/2Km of each other depending on the size, they loose efficiency hand over fist because of the disturbed air between them. So you have a nice line on the top of a hill facing the prevailing wind. Great! Now the wind moves form the prevailing to 30º round and they are not in the nice line facing, but are disturbing everything behind them. Not so great now because they are now producing even less.

Ash trays on motorbikes come to mind. Oh and while on the subject. they are very efficient at killing birds too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=8NAAzBArYdw

How? Because at the nominal turbine speed of around 32 rpm the tip of the blade on big turbines is doing better part of 200mph and the birds just don't realise it.

And they break. In fact this was the result of a brake failure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ

I wonder just how far the debris was thrown? And in ice conditions they can throw very large lumps of ice nearly 1/2 mile.

 

[Digit]

That was my second barrel John. The link's 6.8 months then becomes 20.4 months at 30% output, average here in Wales, this is without factoring any down time. According to the industry each turbine receives one routine maintenance visist per annum, I can find no figures for breakdowns nor how many of the routine maintenance checks results in additional maintenance time.
Then of course the link's writers bend their 'facts' a little further.
The energy they receive in manufacture is not 100% of that which is generated at source. Allowing that turbines are frequently miles from their customers you have to factor in transmission and voltage conversion losses, between 6 and 10%, thus their 6.8 months is now 2 years.
Which leads me another very simple question, would you buy a second hand car from those people?

Roy.

 

[Jonzjob]

As far as buying a second hand car is concerned. I have met one of the English company owners that used to be based in Gloucestershire, possibly still is? And I wouldn't buy a new car off of anyone who had the cocky attitude that he has!

He gave a talk to the RC model glider club I belonged to and when I asked him what the anual output % was he just said that it was good and until I pressed him he wouldn't come up with the 'good' figure of 20%. So his solitary 500meg turbine at the top of Frocester Hill was giving enough to power a few dozen electric kettles. Just as a matter of interest he managed to get the thing errected on an SSSI area.

 

[chipmunk]

I know that it's not a popular solution but if we were prepared to go all out nuclear, we wouldn't need to worry about base-load or CO2 emissions at all in the long term and we wouldn't need to blight the landscape with windmills that only work for a few 10's of percent of the time.

Unfortunately, apart from biomass, almost all of the other renewables perpetuate the use of fossil fuels in power plants because there's no point switching a nuclear power station on and off as the wind blows. And unless we can get carbon capture to work it's not a long-term solution IMHO.

On the subject of carbon capture, I don't really see that captured CO2 is much different from radioactive waste - if either of them starts to leak over the next few hundred/thousand years we're in trouble.

One of the activities that may save our bacon is the new ITER fusion research reactor.

It's being supported by us indirectly through the EU but you won't hear anything from our anti-European leaders or the Murdoch press on this. To them Brussels is full of idiots, and the UK has the monopoly on good thinking... yeah right - Just keep building windmills and pray for wind.

Jon

 

[Digit]

One of the activities that may save our bacon is the new ITER fusion research reactor.

Well to be honest I haven't heard anything about it from any newspaper, pro Euro nor anti.

Roy.

 

[chipmunk]

Well take a look here....

http://www.iter.org/

It's a follow-on from the JET project - Bigger and better (hopefully).

Jon

 

[Digit]

I'm with you now, I didn't recognise the acronym, I know it as the Culham Research Facility, but as regards the EU plug I would point out that the EU is only one of a number os subscribers. As regards the IQ in Brussels i would obesrve that it was Honest Abe who stated that politics was for those who had failed at everything else.

Roy.