Hi Georges. Did I read correctly - were your really a Gestapo infiltrator? Please receive my comments in a neutral way - I do not intend to be hurtful as one respects the opinions of elders firstly because of their age.
I find it intriguing how anti-science activists - in their valor and emotional spluttering to show that general concencus is wrong - actually perfectly achieve the direct opposite of their aim, namely to turn undecided opinion away from them. We must beware not to fall in the same trap - to allow science to become a tool to further our own affects with one sided perspectives. We may hurt the real cause by trying to convey the situation in a false light. I've read through your essay, as well as the EON report. To be honest - it was an eye opener in the sense in which it should be (more responsible use of wind energy) - not in the way that you intend (abolishment of wind farms). Yes - I agree that the world needs to seriously rethink chasing blindly after renewable targets and impairing electrical system integrity in the process. Very loud warning alarms need to be sounded. You err on 2 basic premises: a) You constantly confuse cumulative energy production (kWh) with snapshot rate of energy flow (kW) b) You seem to think that there is a separate flow of energy in two different paths into and out of a wind farm measured in some mysterious way separately. To take a few examples from your essay: Assertion: Wind farms shut down under full capacity production due to "heating white" of the HT lines. There is some truth in the statement due to specific cases where there is over-production at the locality of the wind farms and the need for transport over long lines (i.e. Schleswig-Holstein and Saxony in northern Germany). By no means can this be generalized. I accept your unscientific indication of "heating white" is purely illustrative, since lack of capacity of overhead power lines is caused by increase over allowable sagging limits vs design templating, voltages out of acceptable limits and in extreme cases annealing of conductor. Assertion: "In absence of recorded data it is reasonable to assume that wind generators consume more than 50% of their rated capacity" There is a double error involved. Why is it reasonable? - non- sequitur. The consumption (kWh) measured against rated capacity (kW) is a confusion as indicated in item a) above. Data is recorded by the accumulative effect of the single "meter" in which the accumulated energy in and out of the turbine is accumulatively recorded. Did I mention that it is accumulative? This confusion relates to Item b) above. Assertion: "18,000 German turbines produce 1.2% of German electric energy" This is a false statement. Wind generation accounts for appr. 4% of cumulative energy generated (kWh), whilst the snapshot demand varied between 0.2% and 38% of total demand (kW). Assertion: "Wind Energy is an alternative to Nuclear - False.....Wind is a non-alternative to anything." I agree wind is not an alternative to Nuclear. Wind, Nuclear, Fossils, Solar, Tides should be intelligently and optimally designed to co- exist in a power plant. All have their benefits and drawbacks - we should utilise all within their limitations. Assertion: Increase of factor of 9 cost of wind to reserve factor of 14-40 times conventional power cost This misleading statement implies a confusion of the remaining 82% of non-firm wind generation capacity with emergency reserve capacity. As stated in the EON report the weather is forecasted and normal planning includes wind generation falling anywhere in the 0.2 - 38% (MW) band (measured back to total grid generation). Reserve capacity comes in with unforeseen contingencies in the system and the reserve power can be fossil power - not necessarily wind power. Irresponsible inclusion of non-firm wind generation as total firm system capacity will, however, increase system instability. Assertion: The German Wind Energy Association falsely over-presents wind generation contribution (as well as Portugal, Spain and Denmark) Well - we have a lot of dishonest buggers there, don't we? The productive vs installed wind generation ratio is calculated as 17%. Note that the measured parameters are MWh / year. You now assert that this 17% value should actually be 8% as per the EON report. The EON report states that 8% of MW installed can be seen as contributing to the total secure installed capacity (MW). If you would refer to the general points of confusion Item a) above you are again confusing energy (MWh) with demand (MW). Your "EON correction factor" of 0.47 is thus bogus and has no meaning in the real world. Our friends in the German, Poruguese, Spanish and Danish wind associations are thus vindicated on this point. (Though - according to our new insights there may be other points where they stand accused). Assertion: Maybe twice as much energy are consumed by wind generators as that selled. I've learned via trusted colleagues that there are wind-energy agents posted at wind farms, which turn off the cumulative energy meters the moment the power flow turns from export to import. Please do not tell. I hope my opinion served to de-mystify the matter under discussion. Regards Sam --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
