|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 9:23:24 GMT 1
The IPCC 4th report summary for policymakers advocates the use of wind and tidal electricity generators to replace fossil fuel and help ameliorate climate change.
Now, this is a science board so we all know this is utter nonsense.
Why did they include this childish twaddle - especially in its "summary for policymakers"?
|
|
|
|
Post by kiteman on Sept 8, 2010 10:53:13 GMT 1
I don't.
Persuade me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 11:08:47 GMT 1
In simple terms:
Wind generator cost - £800k
Production - £80/day
Payback time - 27 years with no maintainance.
This turbine is sited in the best site in the UK bar none and receives a feed in tarriff of around 10p/unit (four times more than thermally produced electricity)
Reduce the feed in tarriff to thermal levels and payback time (without maintainance costs) would be over 100 years when the machine will last, at best, 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 11:15:14 GMT 1
Tidal Energy
Strangford Loch turbine:
Cost £20 million
Production - £400/day
Payback time - 147 years without maintainance costs
Very good site receiving two ROC's per unit (93p/unit)
Reduce the price paid for electricity to realistic levels and this machine looks even sillier.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 11:17:06 GMT 1
There simply isn't enough energy density in the wind or tide to EVER produce electricity at an affordable level.
Any of you scientists wish to disagree?
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 11:20:28 GMT 1
Could you please give some references or links for the data you've given? Thanks Elsewhere "Huge growth at largest wind farm" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11215774It doesn't specifically state how much subsidy this attracts - anyone know the details? |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 11:31:22 GMT 1
Yep, they will recieve a subsidy to build them if they're a "community" project of (I think) up to 75% and when in place will be paid one ROC (40 - 45p) per unit generated. Would you like to pay 40p+/unit of electricity? Google wind energy tarriffs and payback times for links. ditto tidal. The wind generator I described is owned by a friend and the figures come from him. It only recieves 10p per unit since it was built before the latest hike in feed in tarrifs - by a factor of four. I found a site which states a 1MW turbine will return £53 per day. Don't have time to find it again - busy day. So I was being generous with my example.  |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 11:33:52 GMT 1
Lazarus lazarus, where are you? |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 8, 2010 12:41:31 GMT 1
The IPCC 4th report summary for policymakers advocates the use of wind and tidal electricity generators to replace fossil fuel and help ameliorate climate change. Now, this is a science board so we all know this is utter nonsense. Why did they include this childish twaddle - especially in its "summary for policymakers"? Supporting evidence please. |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 12:47:31 GMT 1
rsmith7 (again) Could you please give some references or links for the data you've given? Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 8, 2010 12:52:16 GMT 1
Lazarus lazarus, where are you? Trying to find were you got your figures from. They don't match that given by the the study commissioned by the Royal Academy of Engineering. But I bet you know what big leftist commies they all really are? |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 14:10:59 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 14:43:51 GMT 1
In simple terms: Wind generator cost - £800k Production - £80/day Payback time - 27 years with no maintainance. This turbine is sited in the best site in the UK bar none and receives a feed in tarriff of around 10p/unit (four times more than thermally produced electricity) Reduce the feed in tarriff to thermal levels and payback time (without maintainance costs) would be over 100 years when the machine will last, at best, 20 years. Could you tell me where to find this information - I'd like to look at the figures myself Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 14:45:12 GMT 1
lazarus,
I have the report and while slightly flattering to wind and "marine", it certainly doesn't contradict my "assertions".
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 14:49:23 GMT 1
"There simply isn't enough energy density in the wind or tide to EVER produce electricity at an affordable level.
Any of you scientists wish to disagree?"
I'm asking scientists on a science board to disagree if I'm wrong, lazarus/havelock.
Does that suggest I have no confidence in my "assertions".
Can either of you disagree or don't you have the knowledge? (That is not a critisism).
I didn't have the knowledge until I consulted scientists and engineers....personally - so no links. Sorry.
|
|
