I'll answer first Sam and then pass to Jud.
============
Sam:
WIND ENERGY
Interesting point, Georges, but wind turbines will
produce vastly more energy than is needed for their
construction and maintenance, provided of course that
they are positioned at locations where there is
sufficient wind.
============
G:
Nice to hear from you, Sam, but what you write is
entirely off topic. That is, if it is supposed to comment
my essay. You may, of course, write free poetry on wind
energy promoting flamenco dancing among the deserving
poor, but then open a thread and leave my essay alone.
Let me precise.
I have presented, among others, 2 documented facts:
1.EON report based upon the vastest experience with
wind energy in the world. It states that its productive
capacity is 8% of the installed, a point, that's all.
In strong wind areas, because German turbines are only
build in such and because there are several clearly
indicated reasons to stop or bridle them in strong wind.
2.Conclusions of several American investigations into
the issue of the internal energy consumption. There is
there no question of "construction and maintenance", but
of operating functions which must be alimented by grid
electricity, such as yawning, or keeping the rotor
perpendicular to the wind, or magnetizing generator's
stator. Technical details are mentioned rigorously,
however only with intuitive estimation of amounts
drawn (stolen) from the grid, due to absence of meters
and to the muteness of the manufacturers.
However, Between 1 and 2 it's clear that turbines'
positive contribution to the grid is negligible, if
they don't draw more than inject.
If you want to behave reasonably in face of documented
facts, you can either recognize them, or challenge the
documentation with a rigorous justification. So; do
you find EON's report false? On which base? It's a
report of the greatest European electricity provider,
for the government and legislature, so you would have to
get some better documented and justified data to call
him in question. Unless you wish to make an ass of
yourself.
Or, do you contest the American investigations? But
they only describe technically turbines' functions
necessarily consuming grid electricity, intuitively
appreciating the energy consumed by the yaw function
or by magnetizing the stator. Do you think that turning
a 160 tons tower face to wind may be done with a pocket
lamp battery?
By pure fancy I'll answer one or two off topic statements.
===================
Sam:
Sure, wind energy isn't the only alternative, there's also
solar, geothermal, wave, tide, biomass, hydro, etc. My
motto is global commitment and local implementation, i.e.
areas should each decide what technologies to choose,
provided they do reach greenhouse gas reduction targets.
In conclusion, we should urge local areas to each
implement appropriate policies, and in my view a framework
of feebates is the most effective way to achieve the shift
that needs to take place.
===================
G:
1.Wind is a non-alternative.
2.Other alternatives are choked by wind fraud draining
all subventions.
3.Not "greenhouse gas", but pollution, which has more
noxious components than CO2, harmless for man and beast
and good for plants. You confuse pollution with global
warming, but I said in its first words that my essay
cannot be considered without previous acceptance or
justified refutal of the disambiguation of Global Warming.
As you don't mention it, you tacitly accept it, in which
case the references to "greenhouse gas" are off topic.
===============
Sam:
The fact that the wind doesn't blow constantly and that sunshine
doesn't reach us constantly 24 hours a day is often brought up in
regard to wind and solar power. However, electric grids, when
interconnected, can draw power from where it is available, while
surplus power can be stored or used by industrial applications that
aren't time-critical. Such storage adds little extra cost and can
ensure energy to be available on demand.
============
G:
That's amateurish daydreaming. Reserves management is the
most complex issue of grid control. I may have tolerable
passive knowledge, but, in spite of my solid technical
background, would have to pass two years apprenticeship
before being admitted to the reserve control room in
a junior capacity. But Sam knows better than EON.
Yet, with all my respect, I'll rather take EON, who
says:
***wind power construction must be accompanied by almost
equal construction of new conventional power plants, which
will be used very nearly as much as if the wind turbines
were not there.***
Let' now pass to Jud.
============
Jud:
Thanks for the information on wind energy (or should I say *the energetic wind*
;-)
You have certainly opened my eyes. I have often seen the privately-owned wind
generators on isolated ranches in cowboy films and wondered if they provide
enough current for a homestead far away from the nearest town. Is it to the
huge commercial *wind farms* that you refer?
Over here the government claims that the large *wind farms* on the hills of our
Lake District and elsewhere are sufficient to provide energy for a small town -
is it just another government scam?
I would not be surprised - particularly with the bunch of crooks we have in the
racketeers' den known as: *The Houses of Parliament.*
==============
G:
"Privately owned" my foot. A tower turbine costs today
about a million bucks which, after installation costs
("SUBSOIL" in my essay), brings it closer to 2 millions.
So, it would take a few thousand years to get the break-
even point with the "homestead" usage. But, anyway it
cannot work for any ruddy "homestead", as it must be
connected to the grid from which it draws electricity
necessary for its operation. ("Internal energy
consumption" in my essay). I refer to industrial turbines
and farms described to the best of my capacity in my
essay.
True, a nearby farmer has a private wind generator. It
looks like an old dutch wind mill and instead of a 2 ton
generator has a dynamo recovered from a scrapped car.
It's of course not connected to the grid, nor does it
supply energy directly, but charges batteries, which
level out wind intermittency. That sort of thing is
jolly good and has nothing to do with the corrupted,
noxious and useless industrial fraud.
"To provide energy for a small town" is the standard lie
strangely going down well with the bandwagon ignoring
the difference between power and energy. An installed
MW is usually confused with MWH's consumed per month
by so many households.
But an installed MW does not supply anything before it
starts turning and when it turns, it supplies 8%
of the needs of the "small town", mainly through
its fossil understudies which don't appear on the
poster.
==============
Now, a word for Richard.
While designing genetic bases and processes, I heard
about Bush advocating to balance evolution and
creationism in an open-minded view of life.
Yet - call me unbalanced - I ignored the suggestion and preferred to stick to
unbalanced science.
Now, after having gathered some knowledge of wind energy
for having studied it ten years, I'm advised to balance
it against Wikipedia's kitchen almanac. If the suggestion
came from Bush or some such, I would have thrown it to
trash before reading it to the end. But it came from
Richard, so I opened the almanac, to find what I
expected, viz. a village idiot talking through his hat
about what he ignores.
After the revolutionary discovery that Power is Conversion
of Energy we pass to 19% of stationary electricity production in Denmark, which
so impressed Richard.
Having no data I cannot say exactly what is rotten in
the state of Denmark, but can reasonably estimate it
by analogy with Germany. Now, for Germany our poet
claims 7% which probably his cat brought home after
a ramble through garbage cans.
Now, EON's 8% of IPR (Installed/Productive ratio)
results in 2.6% wind contribution to German electricity
consumption. EON does not account for the internal energy
consumption, which American studies estimate as about 50%
of produced energy. Thus, finally the wind contributes
about 1.3% of the German consumption. That, via 18000
turbines devastating German environment like the 30 years
war at the cost of 50 billion Euros embezzled from the
tax payers.
The most biased German Wind Energy Association (BWE)
announces 5% corresponding to IPR of 15% and does not
dare to twist the reality beyond that.
Thus, applying the German real/Wiki ratio (1.3/7=0.18)
to the Danish Wiki 19% we get the real Danish wind
contribution as 3.4%. The difference, 19-3.4=15.6% of
pretended wind contribution is provided by undisclosed
fossil reserves.
Skipping the sad remaining balderdash, I'll finish
in relaxing mode with a limerick to the glory of the
almanac and its author.
a village idiot called Bruno
said there is one thing I do know
my fallacies are fine
my ignorance is divine
but my idiocy's numero uno
have fun
Georges.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
