The Wind/Tidal Energy Farce.

[rsmith7]

The installed capacity is likely to be 10% by now.
It is possible that they generated a derisory 2.5% over the year.
Do you want to speak about the thermal stations that had to be kept spinned up in case the wind dropped?

[havelock]

Sept 8, 2010 16:17:30 GMT 1 rsmith7 said:

And how much did this cost (bearing in mind it costs on average 30p/unit) and do you find this acceptable?

I'll assume that you have accepted my previous points and move on to cost.

Here's an interesting snippet

"The Statement also outlined new Government figures which show that a combination of increased supply from renewable energy and improved energy efficiency measures will help keep household energy bill rises to 1% at oil prices of $80 per barrel (comparable to today's $77) or even see a 5% cut if prices rise to $150." referring to Chris Huhne's statement to the house on 21st July this year.

www.bwea.com/media/news/articles/pr20100728.html

I haven't looked into the cost issue in detail as it's not strictly speaking science.

Could you point me in the direction of where I can find figures and details?

[havelock]

Sept 8, 2010 16:26:26 GMT 1 rsmith7 said:

The installed capacity is likely to be 10% by now.

Do you have any source for this or is it 'guesswork' like your 0.2%

It is possible that they generated a derisory 2.5% over the year.

I'm pleased you now recognise that you were wrong with your 0.2%

Do you want to speak about the thermal stations that had to be kept spinned up in case the wind dropped?

I know I'm getting very tedious with this but your source for this is...

You have already demonstrated that you are sometimes mistaken

[rsmith7]

Oh for god's sake,
You accept that wind generators get paid about 30p per unit generated?
You accept that thermal stations get around 2.5p per unit generated?

Then how in the name of God will building more of the stupid things reduce the price of electricity?

If you cannot see this, I'm wasting my time debating the issue with you. Sorry.

[rsmith7]

Don't employ diversionary board tactics with me old chap. It's obvious to me and all that read this, so it's you who loses credibility.

[havelock]

Sept 8, 2010 16:30:45 GMT 1 rsmith7 said:

Oh for god's sake,
You accept that wind generators get paid about 30p per unit generated?
You accept that thermal stations get around 2.5p per unit generated?

You see, here's the problem. No I don't accept that. I don't know where you got those numbers from. I've asked you to tell me so that I can figure things out for myself.

I have already said that I know I'm being tedious asking for sources, etc but as this is a science board, I think it's a valid request. If you supplied them when you first post such details then I wouldn't have to ask.

[rsmith7]

havelock,
It's ok, I see your game.
Byeee

[havelock]

Sept 8, 2010 16:32:24 GMT 1 rsmith7 said:

Don't employ diversionary board tactics with me old chap. It's obvious to me and all that read this, so it's you who loses credibility.

I think your own move of this discussion from 'wind farms only produce 0.2% of the UK's energy' to 'the cost of renewables' is a clear example of diversionary tactics.

All I'm asking for is the information so that I can work things out for myself.

I thought you were all for people taking control and checking things for themselves?

[rsmith7]

Google *wind energy feed in tariffs and Renewable Obligation Certificates"

End of conversation.

[havelock]

So

You 'spin' data to illustrate your argument (0.2% cf 2.5%)
You misrepresent reports (10% capacity)
You are unable to provide sources for your 'facts'
When you are challenged on the above you leave the debate yet pop up elsewhere with a personal attack (ocean acidification thread)

You'd make an excellent politician

[helen]

Havelock, you will not gain anything but a passion to punch your keyboard trying to reason with R-Smith as you are finding. I spent much of last winter on the Radio 4 boards slowly realising the futility of it. We had a discussion about cod fishing off the Grand Banks. Presented with all the figures I could source from years and years of records, official, annecdotal he ignored my presentations. Dismissed them as media or government or whatever drivel. When driven into a corner by an argument he would get abusive, rant and rave and then attack straw men of his own invention. I was put into pre mod on the old boards for trying asking R_Smith for the sources of his figures. Remember Paxman and Howard? Smith never reveals the sources of his figures. I could go on and on. The only thing Smith and I agreed upon was that the ocean was a big place. You're banging your head against a brickwall with this one havelock. He only believes what he sees, he also gets a thrill winding folk up the wall.
Do you know, he used to take his weather reports from an Icelandic weather company because he didn't trust the Met Office. Why? (Discarding the fact that their reports are all part of a government conspiracy) Because there is a Met Office recording station near his home and their temperature records are rarely the same as those on his car thermometer. When I enquired as to where the Icelandic company he cited sourced their data they included the station that recorded temps that were different to the one's in his car. h

The man is absolutely anti-science, he can't believe man can have such an influence on the sea and the things that live in it because it is so big and he has seen at first hand how big it is.

He has no science to support his argument and will often make assertions and ask you to disprove them. When you don't he hollars a triumph. How do you disprove a negative?

I've resisted the temptation to join the frey with Smith, it's futility. He lives in his own wierd land of Orcadia. Why does he engage with the real world? He's a bully.

[rsmith7]

Hello helen darling!!
My word, I really got under your skin!
I'm actually saddened that that is the impression I gave when the truth is the polar opposite.
I think a simplified version of what I believe is:
1. It is impossible to seperate the truth from the lies - the many lies - of the so-called environmental lobby, unless you have actual first hand experience or you know and trust your source.
2. The web is stuffed to capacity with propaganda - from both sides of every argument, but the green lobby have carpet bombed the net with it.
3. After having first hand experience of several eco-lies and witnessed their use in politics, I am extremely sceptical of anything reported by environmental groups (I'd include the UN and the IPCC in this).

p.s. I use theyr.net because they're accurate for 72hrs. I don't use the met office because they aren't.

[helen]

You continue to damn yourself R-Smith. I love that song Just by Radiohead. Do you know it? Here it is www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIFLtNYI3Ls&ob=av2e You do it to your self you do....don't get much sympathy.....and then I get to you ....ha ha .....Actually I rather get the feeling you don't like anything much but that's irrelevent to these boards so we'll leave it that.


Cite some science!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rsmith7]

I've been trying to get a scientist to destroy my argument on this SCIENCE board all day. All I've had is a fruitless conversation with a couple of nit-wits.
I'm not trying to hide, am I.
I certainly don't like radiohead. dreamy headed listless drivel!
Try this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8csouABZSA
It's not a pop btw.

[havelock]

Your 'arguments' have been demolished (0.2% cf 2.5% production; 10% capacity; 'facts' presented without evidence)

You now seem to be determined to pick a fight - this is a science board. Scientists fight by weilding (referenced) data. Can you play on those terms?