|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 13:47:54 GMT 1
I believe that this is what is called a 'distraction technique'
You indicated that you believed that BWEA had deliberately misled when they said that 2.5% of the UKs electricity had been generated by wind power last year.
You were wrong as has been shown by reference to official documents and are now changing the argument to try to conceal your error.
Whether they add 'spin' to other parts of their site is neither here not there. 2.5% of the UKs electricity came from wind power last year - fact
(or do you still dispute this in spite of the evidence?)
|
|
|
|
Post by chloepink on Sept 9, 2010 14:01:54 GMT 1
And re lax use of terminology Havelock: www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html"Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the British countryside Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of electricity supply must come from renewable sources. Wind power is currently the most cost effective renewable energy technology in a position to help do that. Around 3,500 additional modern wind turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore." The above could be more clearly worded; around 3,500 additional modern wind turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's "installed capacity" not "electricity" by 2010. Because of the load factor of wind turbines, this 8% of installed capacity would only produce between 25% to 50% of its installed capacity (depending on the location of the turbines). Oh and here's a pretty picture: www.bwea.com/ukwed/google.aspIf the dots aren't showing, click on the 4 dots in the boxes. |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 14:03:52 GMT 1
Yes, what's going to back up the wind and if it's another renewable, then why bother with the wind in the first place? I don't believe I have stated a position with regards to the suitability of wind power for the UK - I have just pointed out others' innaccurate and misleading statements and have pointed to some reports with alternative positions. I just hate sloppy arguments. I'm not an expert in this field and am reading the reports that have been linked to on both sides. I don't believe I am well enough informed yet to express an opinion. Unlike some, I like to wait until I know something about the subject before expounding a particular perspective. This is proving to be particularly interesting and as its contributors include both industry, academia and government, I assume it does not contain any trade-body bias. The Offshore Valuation is the first full economic valuation of Britain's offshore renewable resource.www.offshorevaluation.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by chloepink on Sept 9, 2010 14:08:26 GMT 1
I believe that this is what is called a 'distraction technique' You indicated that you believed that BWEA had deliberately misled when they said that 2.5% of the UKs electricity had been generated by wind power last year. You were wrong as has been shown by reference to official documents and are now changing the argument to try to conceal your error. Whether they add 'spin' to other parts of their site is neither here not there. 2.5% of the UKs electricity came from wind power last year - fact (or do you still dispute this in spite of the evidence?) Havelock, your use of the "indicated" is a bit of a give away i.e. you made an assumption. As I said earlier, I haven't found firm figures yet for installed capacity and for electricity produced. I prefer not to use the BWEA site as a source of information, my preference, it doesn't have to be yours, hope you understand and don't mind too much. |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 14:10:04 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by chloepink on Sept 9, 2010 14:11:53 GMT 1
Havelock, what led me to my comment re the BWEA was that you were using them as your source of reference but had not, in my opinion, understood the difference between installed capacity and load factor; if this is not the case then my apologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by chloepink on Sept 9, 2010 14:14:09 GMT 1
Havelock, what led me to my comment re the BWEA was that you were using them as your source of reference but had not, in my opinion, understood the difference between installed capacity and load factor; if this is not the case then my apologies. I have but haven't yet found the 2.5% figure... Anyway what about the backup question I put to you a few posts earlier? |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 14:17:01 GMT 1
I don't believe I was discussing this aspect. I was discussing the contribution of wind power to the UKs energy mix last year and also stating that I did not know (couldn't find) any reference to the installed capacity in the UK. I found the government figures by reading BWEA so I got to the truth (as much as one ever can with government) regarding energy production but still can't find anything about installed capacity. No apology necessary as we're all just discussing science and not getting into personal attacks  |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 14:22:46 GMT 1
I have but haven't yet found the 2.5% figure... You need to look at Chapter 5 where there is a breadown that tells you renewables were 6.6% and then Chapter 7 where it breaks down the renewables to work out the wind power overall. I think the supplementary question you've put needs more thought. I'm reading the other report I linked to that talsk about renewables from the sea (wave, wind, tidal, etc) to see if there is any comment about thermal backup, etc. To be honest, I think there should be a lot more work being done looking at energy storage mechanisms so that wind power could be used more efficiently. e.g. hydrogen (as fuel cells?), hydro (the good old fashioned pump water up a hill), heat conversion or goodness knows what. Perhaps its worthy of a discussion of its own in the Technlogy section? |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 9, 2010 19:48:37 GMT 1
"I have also found the detailed government figures that confirm BWEAs figure of wind energy contributed 2.5% to the UKs fuel mix last year" "Fuel mix"?? Surely this indicates potential or capacity rather than production. Why don't BWEA publish accurate production figures and how much this costs per unit? Why the ambiguity? Do we have to tot up the number of "homes" each turbine "powers"  |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 19:59:51 GMT 1
"I have also found the detailed government figures that confirm BWEAs figure of wind energy contributed 2.5% to the UKs fuel mix last year" "Fuel mix"?? Surely this indicates potential or capacity rather than production. Why don't BWEA publish accurate production figures and how much this costs per unit? Why the ambiguity? Do we have to tot up the number of "homes" each turbine "powers" Sorry, the use of the term 'fuel mix' was my sloppy wording. The government report that BWEA quoted refered to the amount of electricity produced by wind farms (2.5% of the UK total) There is no ambiguity as you would see if you read the reports. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 9, 2010 20:10:43 GMT 1
Not good enough old chap.
You assert that there is no ambiguity.
Could you please point me to the figures for actual annual production of electricity and the average cost per unit?
Not installed capacity, peak production or amount of "homes powered" - actual annual production and cost per kWhr.
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 20:16:45 GMT 1
Read the report - it clearly states that wind energy produced 2.5% of the UK's electricity last year.
Your claim of ambiguity is a distraction technique
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 9, 2010 20:20:53 GMT 1
And the average cost?
|
|
|
|
Post by chloepink on Sept 9, 2010 20:21:22 GMT 1
|
|
