|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2011 20:51:52 GMT 1
Sorry, haven't had time to read in detail but here's some on the ground facts:
1. The total potential energy contained in the pentland firth is about 11 GWhrs/day - about half the output of Hunterston B nuclear station.
2. The pelamis and Oyster wave generators are an abject failure unable to withstand more than minor, moderate, pitiful wave conditions. I have seen the wreckage...
3. Wind, over the last few mild, very windy days has produced - at best - 7% of our electricity consumption during a period of low demand - 40GWhrs. The peak during the windless freeze last winter was over 60GWhrs.
Renewables are simply a torpedo in the guts of the economy.
The objective of the left.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 14, 2011 17:59:46 GMT 1
Biofuels nonsense, expect subsidies to continueSep 14, 2011 The New York Times is reporting that the European Agency has been double-counting the potential reductions in carbon emissions from shifting to biofuels. “The potential consequences of this bioenergy accounting error are immense since it assumes that all burning of biomass does not add carbon to the air,” the committee wrote. I don't suppose that this will make the slightest bit of difference to government policy in the UK though. Expect subsidies to continue to flow to biofuel projects. (In related news, 13 windfarms had to shut down during the recent windy weather here in the UK - it was too windy. H/T Jiminy Cricket in the comments) bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/14/biofuels-nonsense-expect-subsidies-to-continue.html#comments
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 19, 2011 19:01:12 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2011 17:18:53 GMT 1
From David on Bishop Hill - Just consider this for a moment.
Suppose we were to build (for the sake of argument) a new coal-fired power station. The management then runs it like this:
'No coal today.
Coal for the next four days - but only being delivered at night.
Three days no coal - then so much for four days that we can't store it - and have to turn it away.
Some coal for the next fortnight - but deliveries erratic so we shan't know when we have enough to run the station.'
THIS is government policy - except for coal read wind...!
You couldn't make it up, could you..?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2011 17:21:49 GMT 1
bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/10/4/averting-catastrophe.html?currentPage=2#comments...an article in "The Chemical Engineer" by Stephen Bush and David MacDonald on the subject of the UK's looming energy catastrophe. It's not online, but here are some excerpts: In the UK, the Climate Change Act 2008 has set the country the challenging target of reducing emissions of CO2 and CO2 equivalents by 34% from 1990 levels by 2020, 50% by 2027, and 80% by 2050, though the 2027 target is subject to review in 2014. Coupled with rising demand and the already painful impact of higher energy prices, meeting this target will be challenging indeed, leaving some engineers to wonder what it will take to square this cirde.
The number of installations required to generate the electricity to replace fossil fuels depends on their capacity and availability. A 1,600 MW Areva-type nuclear reactor working at 80% availability generates 11 TWh/yr, so around 13 would need to be built to meet the 2020 target; an impossible task. A 3 MW wind turbine with 75 m blades on an 80 m mast onshore has achieved average availability of around 24%, while for offshore 30% future availability is claimed yielding 6.3 GWh/yr and 7.9 GWh/yr respectively. To meet the 2020 target would require 20,000 and 16,000 turbines respectively, an equally impossible task over nine years (six to be built every day). The 2027 target is even further out of reach.
Averting catastrophe
Readers will draw their own conclusions from the inexorable figures above. but for these authors only a system with its baseload provided by nuclear power supplemented by gas for peak demand, and retaining the existing wind investment can possibley supply the UK long term with the huge amounts of secure and reliable, predominantly electrical energy it needs. To actually achieve a changeover to a largely non-fossil fuel economy without wreaking catastrophe on our industries the targets set by The Climate Change Act 2008 will have to be pushed back no matter whatever combination of electricity generating technologies is built.\
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 4, 2011 23:39:34 GMT 1
I've just had to endure Newsnight Lite (Scotland) where three luminaries (including that prick, Brian Wilson) extolled the virtues of renewables. Some quotes: "No-one says we shouldn't be developing a renewables industry" "We are the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy" "Tidal and wave..yadda yadda..." Goodbye Scottish economy... Mr Brian Wilson in bed with his comrades: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-12204109You couldn't make it up! |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 5, 2011 2:35:45 GMT 1
When Scotland becomes independent, Mr Smith, and loses the UK subsidy, it will rapidly rethink its expensive infatuation with wind and tidal power. Roll on Independence!
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 5, 2011 8:29:36 GMT 1
Can I come and stay with you?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 5, 2011 9:46:30 GMT 1
It would be a pleasure, Mr Smith. You can fish in the canal!
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 5, 2011 19:28:56 GMT 1
It would be a pleasure, Mr Smith. You can fish in the canal! Free accomodation and a canal full of signal crayfish! I'll be rich!! |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 27, 2011 10:42:21 GMT 1
From Faustino on Judith Curry's blog, here judithcurry.com/2011/10/26/best-pr/#comment-128267My comment on yesterday’s Australian editorial: “Three years ago, Bjorn Lomborg used the UK government’s own data to show that its $250 bn windpower scheme, which would need to be replaced every 20-25 years, would reduce global temperatures in 2100 by 0.0004C (The TImes article, 30/9/08). The Australian continues to stress its support for emissions-reduction policies in Australia (“Cost of living pressures hamper carbon tax task,” 26/10). Given Lomborg’s calculations, could you tell your readers exactly what reduction in temperature you think Australia’s measures would achieve, what they would cost, and the outcome of your cost-benefit analysis? “Until you can demonstrate a plausible and worthwhile net benefit, you should cease your support for emissions reductions.” |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 28, 2011 9:29:32 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 28, 2011 15:45:18 GMT 1
I've just had a message from Radio Orkney; they've been in touch with Rolls Royce and apparently the machine produced their 100MWhrs between September 2010 and last week. That's just special!  |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 29, 2011 14:46:32 GMT 1
That's even less pro-rata than the Rossi E-cat fusion system produced over 5 hours yesterday! And everyone says that is a scam.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 29, 2011 20:09:05 GMT 1
Very suspect indeed, Marchessa but at least fusion has a hope of producing economic energy where the tide does not.
|
|
