|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 1, 2012 4:26:08 GMT
You still dont seem to be understanding what i am saying. I know there are plenty of issues with wind. But if you have it then it makes sense to use it as part of the base load, but if you are making a hot nuclear station idle it would not make much sense. No, it doesn't make sense. They don't work! You have, as i found before when talking about ovens and radiation, a difficult conversational style for me. Obviously wind generators do work. The issue is how economical they are to operate. Coal also has many issues. One being the horrible conditions many miners and their families have to cope with in their working lives. What actually is the true cost of coal? Coming back to wind. The fact remains if decisions are made to have wind as part of the future of electricity generation it makes economic and technical sense to have them as part of the base load - providing there is not sufficient online nuclear capacity to cover the base load. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 1, 2012 11:21:08 GMT
Coal also has many issues. One being the horrible conditions many miners and their families have to cope with in their working lives. What actually is the true cost of coal? People are not required to work in mines. Do you think unemployment is better for them? I think you will find the miner's families disagreeing with you very strongly. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 1, 2012 13:14:19 GMT
No, it doesn't make sense. They don't work! You have, as i found before when talking about ovens and radiation, a difficult conversational style for me. Obviously wind generators do work. The issue is how economical they are to operate. Coal also has many issues. One being the horrible conditions many miners and their families have to cope with in their working lives. What actually is the true cost of coal? Coming back to wind. The fact remains if decisions are made to have wind as part of the future of electricity generation it makes economic and technical sense to have them as part of the base load - providing there is not sufficient online nuclear capacity to cover the base load. Why not ask the coal miners if they're happy when Obama says he's going to bankrupt their employers and put them out of a job. No offense, but you saying wind power makes economic/technical sense does not make it so. While you can cite multiple sources of glowing accolades by politicians, wind turbine manufacturers, misguided supporters and the beneficiaries of the government teets supplying the funds, the actual data on the economics/technical aspects do not support your opinions. For instance, name a country that has employed large scale use of wind farms and displaced coal/nuclear/hydro plants. Germany was the poster child for wind/solar, yet it too is finally being hit with reality. Here's an article on the matter. www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.htmlI have several studies at home. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 1, 2012 17:03:34 GMT
You have, as i found before when talking about ovens and radiation, a difficult conversational style for me. Obviously wind generators do work. The issue is how economical they are to operate. Coal also has many issues. One being the horrible conditions many miners and their families have to cope with in their working lives. What actually is the true cost of coal? Coming back to wind. The fact remains if decisions are made to have wind as part of the future of electricity generation it makes economic and technical sense to have them as part of the base load - providing there is not sufficient online nuclear capacity to cover the base load. Why not ask the coal miners if they're happy when Obama says he's going to bankrupt their employers and put them out of a job. No offense, but you saying wind power makes economic/technical sense does not make it so. While you can cite multiple sources of glowing accolades by politicians, wind turbine manufacturers, misguided supporters and the beneficiaries of the government teets supplying the funds, the actual data on the economics/technical aspects do not support your opinions. For instance, name a country that has employed large scale use of wind farms and displaced coal/nuclear/hydro plants. Germany was the poster child for wind/solar, yet it too is finally being hit with reality. Here's an article on the matter. www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.htmlI have several studies at home. I am not saying that wind power is marvellous. But obviously it works. Ie if you get wind to rotate the sails you get electricity. The technical and economic aspect of wind power in power generation is that once you have it, it makes economic and technical sense to use it as part of the base load. Idle coal stations cost money to sit idle and cost money to operate and consume a commodity as fuel. Nuclear consumes fuel but in fuel terms only does so more cheaply than coal, but the power output is not easily varied so it will be normally used for the base load. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 1, 2012 17:04:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 1, 2012 17:16:01 GMT
Why not ask the coal miners if they're happy when Obama says he's going to bankrupt their employers and put them out of a job. No offense, but you saying wind power makes economic/technical sense does not make it so. While you can cite multiple sources of glowing accolades by politicians, wind turbine manufacturers, misguided supporters and the beneficiaries of the government teets supplying the funds, the actual data on the economics/technical aspects do not support your opinions. For instance, name a country that has employed large scale use of wind farms and displaced coal/nuclear/hydro plants. Germany was the poster child for wind/solar, yet it too is finally being hit with reality. Here's an article on the matter. www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.htmlI have several studies at home. I am not saying that wind power is marvellous. But obviously it works. Ie if you get wind to rotate the sails you get electricity. The technical and economic aspect of wind power in power generation is that once you have it, it makes economic and technical sense to use it as part of the base load. Idle coal stations cost money to sit idle and cost money to operate and consume a commodity as fuel and take long periods to get to operating ability. Nuclear consumes fuel but the power output is not easily varied so it will be normally used for the base load. Idle coal stations cost money to sit idle and cost money to operate and consume a commodity as fuel and take long periods to get to operating ability. LOL! Where do you get this information? Wind power can NEVER displace reliable electricity generation via coal/NG/nuclear/hydro. Name one country that has adopted wind power as their base load operation whereby ONE single conventional power plant is shut down. You still don't seem to understand this underlying problem with wind power. Again, read this very slowly so it is well understood: wind farms can NEVER displace conventional power plants. They cannot be switched on and off. They are LESS efficient when running at below peak operation. You still have not provided any data indicating wind power reduces the cost of electricity. Everywhere I look the reports are consistent; electricity rates sky rocket when wind/solar is used. Even Germany is ramping up construction of new coal fired plants despite telling the world how they were going to eliminate them and replace with wind/solar. Spain's green energy program went bust. The list is endless. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 1, 2012 17:31:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 1, 2012 18:30:40 GMT
I am not saying that wind power is marvellous. But obviously it works. Ie if you get wind to rotate the sails you get electricity. The technical and economic aspect of wind power in power generation is that once you have it, it makes economic and technical sense to use it as part of the base load. Idle coal stations cost money to sit idle and cost money to operate and consume a commodity as fuel and take long periods to get to operating ability. Nuclear consumes fuel but the power output is not easily varied so it will be normally used for the base load. Idle coal stations cost money to sit idle and cost money to operate and consume a commodity as fuel and take long periods to get to operating ability. LOL! Where do you get this information? Wind power can NEVER displace reliable electricity generation via coal/NG/nuclear/hydro. Name one country that has adopted wind power as their base load operation whereby ONE single conventional power plant is shut down. You still don't seem to understand this underlying problem with wind power. Again, read this very slowly so it is well understood: wind farms can NEVER displace conventional power plants. They cannot be switched on and off. They are LESS efficient when running at below peak operation. You still have not provided any data indicating wind power reduces the cost of electricity. Everywhere I look the reports are consistent; electricity rates sky rocket when wind/solar is used. Even Germany is ramping up construction of new coal fired plants despite telling the world how they were going to eliminate them and replace with wind/solar. Spain's green energy program went bust. The list is endless. Magellan I never said that wind generation can replace other generation for the base load, I just said if you have it, then it makes sense to use it for the base load. Maybe my point is not clear to you? If the wind is blowing then it makes sense to use the wind generation equipment available for the base load where you do not need to burn so much of the other fuels. But you still need a full generation capacity for when the wind is not blowing. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 1, 2012 23:35:55 GMT
Magellan
I never said that wind generation can replace other generation for the base load, I just said if you have it, then it makes sense to use it for the base load.
Maybe my point is not clear to you?
If the wind is blowing then it makes sense to use the wind generation equipment available for the base load where you do not need to burn so much of the other fuels. But you still need a full generation capacity for when the wind is not blowing.
Probably not!
The problem is this is heavy industrial equipment. It is run forever, the cost of the original equipment is buried in the repair, maintenance and administration budgets.
The last thing that makes sense is having bureaucracy costs on top of that. It might not be worth the distribution infrastructure to hook it up. Head you are looking for is a dead cat bounce. Dead cats generally don't bounce in this type of business.
If the supplier has everything already tied in you might want to pay some reduced rate for the power. Reduced because there are costs to not running the baseline system. There are variable costs related to the power you produce and fixed costs that go forward if the equipment is run or not. Included in that latter category are interest, rents, staff salaries, maintenance, insurance. Fact is Sam, the guy selling you the wind power has to have you pay his costs in those categories too, either that or you aren't going to have somebody operate the wind equipment, no repairs, no maintenance, no insurance, past due interest, past due rent payments and so on.
So the only thing that makes sense is for you to not even get into the business of determining if it makes sense or not. . . . unless you are a bidder. . . .then. . . .uh. . . . step over here . . . . uh . . . .please!
The best thing is to auction the business off and let the high bidder decide what to do. If its new equipment it might have more value selling to some place still considering saving the world from CO2. If its old equipment you might have to pay to get rid of it, meanwhile costs continue to pile up, interest, land rent and so on.
Fact is the problem is power already is virtually nationalized. Rate setting commissions motivate suppliers to inflate costs so they can ask for a markup for it at the commission. Its a mess an incredibly we are looking at making it grow.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 2, 2012 0:20:56 GMT
Radiant, You have yet to demonstrate one economic virtue of wind farms. All you're saying is if we have them we may as well use them. If I have a headache, I don't kick the wall with my foot. My corn stove was mothballed when corn exceeded $5/bushel; it would be stupid to use it at all when it is much cheaper with other heating sources. It's like saying I should drive my SUV that gets 15 mpg 3 days during the week instead of the Prius that gets 50 mpg and calling it a savings because I didn't put gas in the Prius. Seriously, that is the logic you're using. If all the wind farms were to disappear, POOF, as if they never existed, would electricity rates be higher or lower? The entire wind farm insanity should be scrapped. It is completely worthless except possibly in areas where there can be no other source of electricity otherwise. At that point the consumers would need to pray for 30 mph wind 24/7. But you still need a full generation capacity for when the wind is not blowing. Then what good is it? Can low/no wind be predicted and planned ahead to the minute? Here is the full report by Dr. Jonathan A. Lesser, which I just downloaded today, but I have several other sources. www.continentalecon.com/publications/cebp/Lesser_PTC_Report_Final_October-2012.pdfThe greatest amounts of wind generation occur in the Spring and Fall, when the demand for electricity is lowest, and the smallest amounts of wind generation occur in Summer, when the demand for electricity is greatest.
Wind generation data in PJM, the Nation’s largest independent grid operator shows that the “load–wind gap” (i.e. the difference between summer electricity demand and summer wind availability, relative to their respective annual averages) was almost -70% in Summer 2010 and 2011. In Summer 2012, the load–wind gap was -59%. Again, in Germany, electric rates have sky rocketed because of wind/solar causing much misery for consumers, especially those with fixed and low incomes. What is the proposed solution? Subsidize them!! It is a never ending charade of Progressive stupidity. I recall similar arguments for ethanol, yet now even Al Gore knows it is dumb. Oh, and Radiant, this is not about radiation. You have wandered into my world. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 2, 2012 0:51:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 2, 2012 5:52:39 GMT
For reasons of your own you are chosing to totally not interact with the point i raised. The same sort of thing happened with radiation where you were never interacting with my points but were fixated with your own ideas. You said that when demand was low other forms of generation were turned down. That is not a true explanation of what happens in a well managed system. Now it could be that the USA has a very poorly managed system but you have not really focused on that. Instead you have nearly all of the time kept saying that wind is not economic. Nuclear may also not be economic, but for economic and technical reasons nuclear is always running as part of the base load. Electricity demand is always variable but there is even so very likely to be a consistant demand at a lower level. That is called the base load. So when demand is low you only take off line the supply that you are not leaving on line for the base load which is always on line if available. You said a gas turbine cannot be easily turned on and off, which is a pedantic point. Gas turbines are very quick to start and power can be varied very quickly without the issues of other generation like coal, so they are ideally suited for following the most noisy periods of demand. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 2, 2012 12:46:38 GMT
Radiant, have you been drinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 2, 2012 13:03:21 GMT
For reasons of your own you are chosing to totally not interact with the point i raised. The same sort of thing happened with radiation where you were never interacting with my points but were fixated with your own ideas. You said that when demand was low other forms of generation were turned down. That is not a true explanation of what happens in a well managed system. Now it could be that the USA has a very poorly managed system but you have not really focused on that. Instead you have nearly all of the time kept saying that wind is not economic. Nuclear may also not be economic, but for economic and technical reasons nuclear is always running as part of the base load. Electricity demand is always variable but there is even so very likely to be a consistant demand at a lower level. That is called the base load. So when demand is low you only take off line the supply that you are not leaving on line for the base load which is always on line if available. You said a gas turbine cannot be easily turned on and off, which is a pedantic point. Gas turbines are very quick to start and power can be varied very quickly without the issues of other generation like coal, so they are ideally suited for following the most noisy periods of demand. Earlier you inferred wind farms were necessary to avoid the use of oil to generate electricity; a typical erroneous statement. Do you concede that point? You still have not given one single point of reference to support wind farms as being economically viable. That has been your argument from the start. You are very good at redirecting. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 2, 2012 15:53:40 GMT
For reasons of your own you are chosing to totally not interact with the point i raised. The same sort of thing happened with radiation where you were never interacting with my points but were fixated with your own ideas. You said that when demand was low other forms of generation were turned down. That is not a true explanation of what happens in a well managed system. Now it could be that the USA has a very poorly managed system but you have not really focused on that. Instead you have nearly all of the time kept saying that wind is not economic. Nuclear may also not be economic, but for economic and technical reasons nuclear is always running as part of the base load. Electricity demand is always variable but there is even so very likely to be a consistant demand at a lower level. That is called the base load. So when demand is low you only take off line the supply that you are not leaving on line for the base load which is always on line if available. You said a gas turbine cannot be easily turned on and off, which is a pedantic point. Gas turbines are very quick to start and power can be varied very quickly without the issues of other generation like coal, so they are ideally suited for following the most noisy periods of demand. Earlier you inferred wind farms were necessary to avoid the use of oil to generate electricity; a typical erroneous statement. Do you concede that point? You still have not given one single point of reference to support wind farms as being economically viable. That has been your argument from the start. You are very good at redirecting. I did not say anything about oil in the context you are claiming. I said avoid the use of fuel when wind was available, where fuel includes nuclear fuel, but i was mainly referring to oil and coal not being used when wind was available, with the assumption that nuclear would always remain on line with only a limited ability to be 'turned down', where in any case nuclear fuel is not a big deal in terms of the cost of the whole installation cost. You just seem unable or unwilling to engage with me on the point i raised which is how an electric supply industry/government manage electricity generation My argument has been that if a decision is made to use wind as part of the generating capacity it makes sense to use it when available. Normally speaking all other forms of electricity generation are not turned down when demand is low in the way you phrased it, where economics alone has not been the only factor in whether a unit is going to be running when demand is low since at least the time the nuclear generators went on line. Do you think nuclear is economic at current oil gas and coal prices given the extended costs so far into the future? What i said was what you were saying was not really correct meaning it was sort of not really totally correct. However if it is true that nuclear is left idle - despite it still producing megawatts of useable energy that is wasted to the atmosphere and rivers - in preference to wind it does make what you say more or less totally true. However is that really true or is just the nuclear energy industry lobbying for greater use of nuclear at a time when many people really do not like the idea of nuclear - particularly if it is within a few hundred miles of them. Obviously nuclear is in crisis. |
|
