Gestapo o.O 2009/6/15 sasam2 <[email protected]>
> > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- Enrique Fynn --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
