--- On Tue, 6/16/09, sasam2 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Georges.
>
> Did I read correctly - were your really a Gestapo
> infiltrator?
================
G:
My father was German of Jewish origin, hiding in Poland from Nazis. But they
caught up with us. At age 11-12 I
was and escaped from Warsaw Ghetto. Due to my German
proficiency and looks I've been recruited by Cpt Danuta,
commander of the Gestapo penetration service of the
Polish Resistance AK, as liaison agent, (13-16 years old). I volunteered for
additional task of liaison between AK
and ZOB (Jewish Fighting Organization) and in that
capacity took part in the Ghetto Uprising.
===============
Sam:
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.
=================
G:
If you chose to respect me personally, I'll be gratified.
But, if you chose to respect my assertins because of my
age, it will be an insult.
==============
G:
> 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.
=============
G:
Your sense is arbitrary, and, unless you justify it, the
only responsible dealing with wind energy seems to be to
scrap it.
As I endeavored to carry out a rigorous inquiry, I did
not intend anything, but concluded. Now, as any rigorous
study, mine is subject to factual falsification.
Not much of it in your post, which, like the prior,
stays wishful thinking, defending at any price the wind
energy.
============
Sam:
> You err on 2 basic premises:
>
> a) You constantly confuse cumulative energy production
> (kWh) with
> snapshot rate of energy flow (kW)
=================
G:
Talking about confusion, the ball is entirely in your
field:
1.In your previous post you talked about "installed
production" instead of "installed capacity" confusing
what's installed with what is produced.
2.Here you hopelessly confuse units, KWH and KW. Now,
they measure Energy (KWH) and Power (KW).
KW does not measure any snapshot rate of energy flow,
whatever it may mean, but power, a point that's all.
It may be planned, installed or committed to Kyoto power,
but it's power, that's all
On the other hand, KWH measure energy, whether planned,
demanded, or produced and not just a particular case of
"cumulative energy production".
Show me any case of confusion in the body of my essay and
I shall gratefully correct it.
However, I think that confusions are limited to appendix,
which consists of indeed frequently confused quotations,
but I have no authority to correct quotations. I called
the appendix "stub" and asked for assistance in refining
it. Yet, I believe that unit confusions, like trees,
don't hide the forest of the internal energy consumption.
===================
Sam:
> 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.
=============
G:
I don't think anything, but discover worrying issues in
several quoted American studies. The fact is that I never
found in any manufacturer's specs the slightest mention
of counters principles and technology. I can easily
imagine, without factual avail, a two way counter between
generator and grid. But such a counter would not measure
energy consumed by yaw mechanism, heating of nacelle,
etc.
If you have some technical specs, I would be grateful to
get them. If not, we have to take appendix as it is,
including the suspicion of theft going in billions.
==============
Sam:
> 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.
===========
G:
You write lines and lines about it. All it means is that
HT lines were not designed for wind picks and either
have to be reconstructed with billions cost, or turbines
will have to be shut for optimal wind.
===============
Sam:
> Assertion: "In absence of recorded data it is reasonable to
> assume
> that wind generators consume more than 50% of their rated
> capacity"
=============
G:
No assertion, but quote, with such confusions as it may
contain. "Rated" was doubtless meant as "produced".
Do you have a more reasonable estimate? Please post it,
on condition to be technically justified.
================
Sam:
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).
================
G:
1.2% is conclusion of EON's 8% corrected with the
internal consumption, open to factual falsification.
Present a FACTUAL one if you can, but your arbitrary
4% is of no avail.
"snapshot demand (KW)" is off topic balderdash.
===============
Sam:
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.
==============
G:
Off topic. We talk here about wind. Energy in general
could make an exciting thread. Open it, if you wish.
============
Sam:
> 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.
===============
G:
No assertion, but quote from the German Ligue of
Envoronment Protecion based upon 10 years of German
statistics.
You don't seem to know the first thing about reserve
management. When a source shuts down (transfo break down,
wind weakening, etc.) reserves are bought on free market
for prices established by offer and demand ranging 14-40
times the normal cost and reaching occasionally 500.
===============
Sam:
> 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.
================
G:
Before accusing me of confusion, you would do better
learning the used terminology and its meaning.
"guaranteed capacity" or "secure production capacity"
means installed power of X MW capable to satisfy the
yearly demand of 8760 H/Y * X MW = 8760 * X MWH/Y.
EON means that in order to secure the demand of 1 MWH/Y
of wind energy, we have to install 1/0.08 = 12.5 MW
of guaranteed power capacity.
That corresponds to 0.08 productivity factor, which does
not account for the internal consumption, which I
estimated at 0.5, which results in the productivity
factor of 0.04 and German wind participation of 1.2%.
A few lines further EON confirms my estimated
productivity factor of 0.04:
***in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over
48,000 MW, 2,000 MW of traditional power production can
be replaced by these wind farms.***
Indeed, 2000 / 48000 equals 0.04.
Why this religious veneration of the God Eol?
-On the one hand it produces close to nothing (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 (EON).
-On the other hand you have environment devastation
comparable with that of the 30 years war and effects
used by the Nazis as tortures inflicted on neighboring
populations.
Don't you grasp that your venerated Eol chokes all other
alternatives, which you seem to favor, like a cuckoo
destroying all eggs in the nest, to keep all subventions
and resources for itself, by way of corrupted politicians
bribed by the mafia.
And, Sam, from man to man:
1.Do you live close to a large wind farm?
If not, you have no right to neglect, let alone to
glorify the suffering of the neighboring population.
It really sounds to me like this Nazi "forced labor
has some inconveniences, but is good for economy".
2.Do you eat meat?
If yes, you contribute to the most noxious global
problem and have right to digest in felicity, but
not to prattle about pollution, energy, deforestation,
or any environmental perils.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
