Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The Duke of Edinburgh, the husband of Queen Elizabeth, has spoken out about windmills, and he’s not happy at all. Chris Huhne, the UK Energy Secretary, has said that people who oppose windmills are “curmudgeons and fault-finders”. He finds windmills “elegant” and “beautiful”.
Figure 1. A photo of elegant windmills beautifying the otherwise inelegant, ugly UK countryside. PHOTO SOURCE
The Duke, on the other hand, thinks that windmills are an absolute disgrace. Of course that’s my translation, because being royalty, the Duke would never say something as direct and crude as that. The man who tried to sell His Dukeness the windmills reports on the conversation as follows:
“He said they were absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace,” said Mr Wilmar. “I was surprised by his very frank views.”
Hmmm … well, I guess royalty may not be that much different after all. The article continues:
Mr Wilmar said his attempts to argue that onshore wind farms were one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy received a fierce response from the Duke.
“He said, ‘You don’t believe in fairy tales do you?’” said Mr Wilmar. “He said that they would never work as they need back-up capacity.”
The Duke won’t abide windmills on his estate. I don’t blame him one bit, I commend his understanding of the situation, and I admire his frankness. The Duke’s eldest son, the Artist Currently Known As Prince, has agreed with the Duke’s position. He won’t allow windmills on his estate either, despite The Artist’s well-known alarmism about CO2. Funny how that works, even royalty believes in NIMBY.
Actually, though, none of that was what caught my eye about the Telegraph article. The part that made my hair stand on end was this throwaway line from just before the end:
Two-thirds of the country’s wind turbines are owned by foreign companies, which are estimated to reap £500 million a year in subsidies.
Yikes! I’m too gobsmacked to even comment on that, other than to say I guess we know how they lost their Empire … not that the US is far behind …
w.
Blade says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:48 am
Thanks to everyone who played, Blade. Our champion, Jimmy Haigh, has won a special edition of the brand new Chevy Volt with its own windmill mounted on top! It’s the car of the future! He can drive it whenever the wind is blowing, and when the wind is calm, he can still charge up the car’s batteries merely by driving around the block to create a little headwind!
w.
O H Dahlsveen says:
November 20, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Willis – good article, but just out of interest, can you tell me how the electricity is conducted away from these, or any other, wind-turbines?
Of course, through underground cables.
But wait – in Germany the network companies are starting to complain. They have to connect every and all windmills (by law) to the grid and because the offshore farms are quite far off shore, it is also quite expensive.
And as an added bonus – Germany’s terrestrial grid isn’t in good shape and has not the capacity to transfer the wind power from North, where it’s generated, to South, where it’s used. So they just divert it without warning over Poland or Czech Republic, which have for historical reasons more capacity.
The result is, that the putative overload blackout would happen in Poland or Czechia, not in Germany. And due to EU regulations, none of these countries can shut the access to their electrical grid…
JJThoms says:
November 21, 2011 at 10:10 am
And I would be interested to see a windmill with no subsidies. You have one we could discuss?
In any case, the NREL says the average windpower price in the US in 2006 was about 35¢ per kWh, with a range from about 22¢ to about 50¢ per kWh. So your repayment times are based on hugely overblown electricity sales prices.
And since you can produce and sell gas-powered electricity for about 5¢ per kWh, these windmills lose money, not just over twenty years, but from year one. Sure, with the subsidy they don’t lose money. And at thirty-five or fifty cents per kWh your repayment figures might possibly be correct (even then they seem short).
But only fools and greenies buy subsidized power at seven times the market value and then make your claim that somehow the windmill is not losing money. Why do you think all the wind power folks are up in arms about the possible loss of their subsidy gravy train?
w.
Willis says:
Your claims are as stupid as me saying “I’ve never seen a coal plant that killed golden eagles.” My statement, like yours, is true but not very meaningful. Why? Because I’m measuring different things. Coal plants don’t kill eagles, and wind towers don’t slide downhill and kill people … so?
The real underlying problem is that your lovely oh-so-green bird shredders lose money. They don’t make money. They lose money. Which means that you want the rest of the people to subsidize your green fantasy … no surprise there, a free ride seems to be high on many AGW supporters list.
But your assumed moral superiority, your dreamily reminiscing about your love for the Welsh countryside while at the same time asking others to fund your fantasy green lifestyle, grates badly on my ear.
Garethman says:
Willis, stop acting like a moron who has difficulty understanding things are not always about money. I know you do understand, I know this because when you are cornered you hurl insults. You don’t have to act like this. Hopefully you will also that understand asking you to stop acting like a moron is in the same methodology you use to debate. Lets try and be a bit more polite eh?
What I am trying to say is that I’m aware that Wind turbines are not economic. That is recognised. But trust me on this, I live near hundreds of them and would rather live next door to them than next to coal tips, refineries, and have to deal with to many people gasping their lives away. I grew up in a mining village and I know the effects on the community. Dismissing these issues as a mere fantasising about our countryside is not just wrong it is crass and obnoxious.
A complex idea for you I know, and one that will make you very angry, but tough.
Whining about how much it costs to keep our children safe or maintain community health does not wash in my books. I like the idea of a healthy community, I hate the idea of people suffering because coal is the cheapest option. I like the NHS, I like the fact that the USA is slowly waking up to the idea that everyone has a right to access health care free at the point of delivery. It may be expensive, but it’s a much wider issue than just money. Money may be the final arbiter for you, but many feel differently. Now grow up and live with that and stop throwing your dummy out of the pram every time someone challenges your posting.
I’m not asking anyone to subsidise my beliefs. It is you continually complains about having to spend anything on issues where you do not directly benefit. So read a Christmas carol, learn that it’s not all about money and stop being the miserable red neck skinflint you strive to be and try and think a bit more on the wider issues.
Moderator, I know you may wish to moderate this post and I have no issues with that. But if that is your decision I think you really need to rein in some of Willis’ increasingly ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with him. It seriously undermines this site and makes our job of persuading others about the defects in climate change science that much harder.
For those who are interested in the true cost of wind power, there’s a good analysis of the issues here. It’s not an easy task.
w.
Dave Springer says @ur momisugly November 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm: “eh windmills are better looking than oil wells that’s for sure. Teh windmills don’t smell bad like oil wells either. Developed oil fields are nas-tee.”
I am sure that one can find some ugly developed oil fields, but ones with which I am currently familiar are ones on the prairie. Not ugly at all . . . Unobtrusive . . . with no impact on my life. Meanwhile, I have never seen an oilfield as ugly as the windfarms on Altamont Pass. Although quite not as ugly, the windfarms that surround my home farm do interfere with my life. The whooshing noise I have gotten used to . . . however, we have had an explosion in mosquitoes since the windmills have been installed. Coincidence? Perhaps one wish so, but with the windmill decimation of the bat population, it does stand to reason that mosquitoes would expand in numbers.
Gareth Phillips,
“I hate the idea of people suffering because coal is the cheapest option.”
And you went on to describe how happy you are that coal is no longer mined in Wales. You may be happy about that, but I remember in the early eighties, Welsh mining villages fought a brutal battle against the Thatcher government. You see, they wanted to keep their mines open. I am not sure they would have appreciated someone like you lecturing them on the evils of coal.
Then you write: “I’m not asking anyone to subsidise my beliefs.”
Did that line slip out by mistake? You have spent an entire post talking up your belief in windfarms and then say you’re not asking anyone to subsidise your beliefs. Are you in fact aware that windfarms are heavily subsidised?
Gareth Phillips says:
November 21, 2011 at 11:26 am
If (as it certainly appears) you want other people to pay for your electricity, Gareth, I’ll call you a parasite. I’m sorry, but there’s no polite name for that. Would you prefer being called a leech?
a) Where did I dismiss the known problems with coal mining? I know they are real, been there, seen that.
b) Why on earth would the known problems with coal mining make me angry? You’re off in some weird fantasy about me, my friend. Every technology has problems. Different problems.
c) Upon re-reading, it may be that you think that calling me “crass and obnoxious” will make me very angry. Nice try, I’ve been insulted by experts.
cd
Ooooh, you’re so cute when you’re angry, Gareth. It’s so becoming on you.
Subsidize your beliefs? I didn’t say you were asking people to subsidize your beliefs, Gareth. You are asking others to subsidize your electricity, please try to keep up here.
Nonsense. I pay my taxes just like the next man, and in fact I think that unfortunately we’ll need to raise taxes to get out of the hole we’re in. Most of those taxes don’t go to me, yet I approve of them. You have some bizarre idea of who I am. I’m not that person.
I just don’t like propping up uneconomic feel-good fantasies. So sue me.
Moderate you or me? Hey, we’re just discussing windmills and coal, chill out. As to whether my honesty and forthright manner “seriously undermines this site”, it is obvious the readers don’t think so, they seem to like the fact that I tell the truth as best I know it. Most of them just grab a beer and some popcorn and watch the show.
Finally, the choice is not between wind and coal in any case. Thats a red herring, a totally bogus dilemma that you bring up so you can exaggerate the dire consequences of not having windmills. Wind and coal is not the choice at all.
The choice is between wind and natural gas, which doesn’t have a single one of the disadvantages you listed so passionately … as I said, please do try to keep up here. As someone mentioned, this is the 21st century, natural gas is the fuel of the future.
w.
diogenes says: November 21, 2011 at 10:18 am
JJ Thoms…where do you live? The gearboxes fail after about 5 years on AVERAGE. The turbines in marine environments will never last so long.
Show me the evidence for that please, i am interested.
However you may be interested in these from my post above:
ENERCON WECs produce clean energy without neodymium
29.04. 2011
ENERCON wind energy converters (WECs) generate electricity in an environmentally friendly way without the use of the controversial element, neodymium. The gearless WEC design on which all WEC types – from the E-33/330 kW to the E-126/7.5 MW – are based includes a separately excited annular generator.
http://tinyurl.com/6lkadj7
Neodymium free, gearbox free, and because of electronic invertor will provide “instant” grid frequency lock and will provide a better support to an overloaded grid than most conventional power stations.
Willis, Wind power can never compete with oil and gas. Read my posts, I have never said that it could. I have also never asked for someone to subsidise my electricity or any other power.. You will be glad to hear in fact I am mostly self sufficient in most of our energy production However just about anything is more efficient economically than wind power, I think we all agree on that. I don’t think wind power is the answer by any means, as someone once said here , the answer is all of them, all of the resources. But each power source has it’s advantages and disadvantages. If you rate everything on it’s value for money you can quickly miss the worth of everything. I also love my small nation so will excuse my enjoying it being largely unspoiled and not dismiss it at some odd moral superiority and dreamy reminiscence.
You have the right to measure everything in financial terms. I also have the right to say it’s not always that simple. Thats why as a left wing euro I read and contribute to this site and dislike sites such as John Cooks fiasco even though there is a lot of dodgy right wing characters hanging out here. I think it’s important to read and consider all aspects of the debate. But debate should be allowed, and my argument with you is that you seem to be acting more and more like John Cook in that you attack and insult posters who post aspects of a debate you don’t like. That is not healthy, it may be a good laugh, but it gets us nowhere. Have a look at the responses you have made on this page, and imagine them being aimed by John Cook at Anthony. Would they still be ok? or would John Cook just be acting in a forthright and honest manner? Would he be re-enforcing how great his site is? If not, why is such behaviour ok here?
If you think that your debating style is still ok I suspect we will just end up hurling insults at each other and any informed debate will be lost, much to the joy of the catastrophists and deceivers.
Excuse my lateness… I agree with HRH, but find it amusing that he opposes subsidising windfarms- then I guess the Royal Family (The Firm) isn’t foreign owned, so I guess the subsidies they receive for their lifestyle stay in Britain. Unlike my wife, I’m not a fan of the Royals.
Gareth Phillips says:
November 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I though you were in favor of windmills. Now you’re talking like you’re opposed to windmills. I’m confused. Which one is it?
I don’t do that. I told you that already. Your response is to repeat the canard, while scolding me for my evil ways. Nice.
We got into this because of my response to Dave Springer, Gareth. You thought I was out of line. I pointed out that mine was a measured response to the fact that he goes out of his way to try to damage every thread he posts in. You still haven’t dealt with the concept that I’m not responding to people posting “aspects of a debate I don’t like”. I’m responding to Dave Springer, known mischief-maker, and you were foolish enough of a newbie to leap to his defense.
If either Anthony or I were stupid enough to enter a thread, not continue a discussion but enter a thread by jumping into the middle of a dispute between John Cook and a known troll, and took the side of the troll, it would not only be OK, it would be richly deserved if John Cook said any of that to us. But neither of Anthony nor I is that dumb. READ YOUR FIRST POST, Gareth. You jumped in because I spanked a troll, and wanted to tell me how wrong I was. So I spanked you as well. Don’t like it? Don’t enter a thread like that.
Debating style? This is not about debating the issues. Don’t flatter yourself that your arguments are the reason I have been less than encouraging to you.
It’s the general unpleasantness of the way that you entered the thread that has me on your case. Your arguments to date are too vague to elicit any kind of response.
w.
Gareth, as I said above, I’m not clear at this juncture what your points are. Let me suggest that you might wish to present a précis of them in some ordered fashion, with cites where appropriate. That would help re-focus the discussion.
Also, if you think I’m wrong about something, QUOTE MY WORDS. That helps avoid misunderstanding on both sides. I’ve been wrong before and I will be again. But you have to quote what I said so we can all understand your points.
w.
is this reference sufficienbt, JJThom – should you you not be showing me evidence of reliability in maritime conditions? Damnb…I forgot, you huave no evidence whatsoever
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/print/article/2011/11/wind-turbine-gearbox-study-raises-reliability-hopes
Anthony Watts says:
November 21, 2011 at 10:17 am
Jimmy Haigh says:
November 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm (Edit)
“Chris B says:
November 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm
‘Isn’t that photo dramatically altered with Photoshop?”
They’ve Photoshopped out all the dead birds and replaced them with live sheep.
Sheep don’t fly.. as much as plummet.
No story showing sheep is complete without this:
___________________________________
Thanks, I needed that. And this……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZjTQjIxhuM&feature=fvsr
Willis your NREL report is 5 years old Costs Change!
Here’s a recent FOI
From a FOI request real data for a 1MW machine
http://blog.silverford.com/2011/02/balloo-enercon-wind-turbine-bangor-northern-ireland-stats-figures-and-price/
£889,650 turbine cost
£434,583 planning and consultancy
maintenance cost €0.0055 per kilowatt hour – 12 year guarantee
As reported to Council in December 2009 a pay-back period of approximately 7-8 years has been calculated. This is based on a full capital cost of £890,000 and a basic provision of £30,000 to cover routine expenditure
Additional cost of backup generation
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19507.htm
101. The first cost imposed by intermittency is that more plant has to be held in reserve to cope with short-term fluctuations in output. At present, National Grid, which operates the electricity system,[34] keeps a number of power stations running at less than their full capacity, providing about 1 GW of spinning reserve—that is capacity which can automatically respond to any shortfall in generation within seconds (Q 293).[35] The company also contracts with other stations to start generation quickly and has arrangements with industrial consumers to reduce their demand at short notice, in order to restore the level of spinning reserves as soon as possible after they are used. The company holds about 2.5 GW of this standing reserve (Q 293); 70% of this comes from generation, and 30% from industrial consumers (p 144).
102. As the amount of wind generation rises, the potential short-term change in wind output will also increase, and National Grid will have to hold more reserve to cope with this increase. The company told us that if renewables provided 40% of electricity generation—the share the company believes would be needed to meet the EU’s 2020 energy target—its total short-term reserve requirements would jump to between 7 and 10 GW. Most of this would be standing rather than spinning reserves. This would add £500 million to £1 billion to the annual cost of these reserves—known as balancing costs—which are now around £300 million a year (Q 293). This is equivalent to around 0.3 to 0.7 pence per kWh of renewable output.
103. Estimates of balancing costs vary widely. The government has commissioned research from the consultancy SKM,[36] which estimated that if renewables provided 34% of electricity by 2020, with 27.1% from wind power, the extra cost of short-term balancing would be about 1.4 p/kWh of wind output[37] (Q 481). This equates to a total cost of £1.4 billion, well above that assumed by National Grid. Several pieces of evidence cited a 2006 report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC),[38] which had estimated the balancing costs with up to 20% of intermittent renewable output in Great Britain at 0.2-0.3 pence per kWh. Although the share of renewables in the SKM study was less than double that of UKERC, the balancing costs per unit were more than five times higher. In part, this may reflect higher fuel costs since the studies surveyed by UKERC were performed; but it will also reflect the greater challenges of dealing with larger shares of intermittent renewable generation.
My simple sums:
build £889,650.00 install
planning etc £434,583.00 install
maintenance 0.0055 per kWh
maintenance/year for delivered 280kWh £562.49 per year
routine expenses £30,000.00 per year
rating 1000 kwh
load factor 28%
deliverd power 280 kwh
Balancing Cost £0.014 per kWh
Short term Reserve £0.007 per kWh
total install cost= £1,324,233.00
install cost/delivered kWh £4,729.40
conventional backup costs/year £51,544.08 per 280 kWh/year
running cost/year £82,106.57 per 280 kWh/year
over n years 10
total install over 10 yrs £1,324,233.00
running cost over 10 yrs £821,065.65
total cost over 10 yrs £2,145,298.65
power generated over 10 yrs 24544800 kWh
cost per kwh over 10 yrs £0.09 per kWh
Which is well below end consumer price
life cycle analysis:
http://www.vestas.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fEN%2fSustainability%2fLCA%2fLCA_V112_Study_Report_2011.pdf
I would still be interested in a lik proving modern costs make wind a dead loss.
jjthom says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Nine British pence is about US 15¢ per kWh. Don’t know about where you are, but if that is “below end consumer price” I suspect that the local prices have been hijacked by “renewable energy standards”.
In any case, it’s not below my end consumer price. I’m paying California prices here, which are 12¢ per kWh. In Idaho and Utah and other states where they don’t have the California renewable stupidity distorting the retail price, they pay 6¢ to 8¢ per kilowatt-hour.
You say that you “interested in a link proving modern costs make wind a dead loss”? Your own link proves it quite handily. The power from your mill is about 8¢ per kWh above the price from a modern gas plant. That’s a dead loss.
Why do you think that windmills only exist where there are subsidies, jjthom? It’s not a coincidence.
w.
No Wilis, it’s just that your reading skills are as bad as your temper, and your “science.”
Anyone can make up numbers about “reserves.” USGS just lowered their reserve estimate for NPR- Alaska by 90%.
I Stated: “Most of the Current Mines Operating There” will be played out in 20yrs. That is a fact.
There is more Coal, Much Deeper Underground. It can be, and, probably, will be recovered, but at much greater expense.
jjthom;
I would still be interested in a lik proving modern costs make wind a dead loss.>>>
Willis is the whiz kid with the math, but at the risk of getting between you two, here’s a few thoughtsd you might want to consider:
Statement:
National Grid, which operates the electricity system,[34] keeps a number of power stations running at less than their full capacity, providing about 1 GW of spinning reserve—that is capacity which can automatically respond to any shortfall in generation within seconds>>>
Response:
Seconds is good enough to respond to a brown out situation which evolves slowly. In power grid terms, that’s seconds. Anything that happens faster than the grid can respond (in this case seconds) has the potential to take down the entire grid.
Statement:
As the amount of wind generation rises, the potential short-term change in wind output will also increase, and National Grid will have to hold more reserve to cope with this increase.>>>
Response:
True. In spades. As the potential short term change increases, the amount of “spinning” reserve required increases faster. The larger a swing in output you have to compensate for, the faster you have to respond, and the larger the percentage of the swing you have to have “instantly” available. Thus the costs of spinning reserve rise faster than the total amount of “average” wind power generated. The alternative is to risk taking the whole grid down.
Statement:
Most of this would be standing rather than spinning reserves.>>>
Response:
See above. If most of the reserve is standing rather than spinning, then total outages are almost a certainty. In the case of large grids that are interconnected with other grids, brown outs and complete outages not only take your grid down, they have the potential to take other grids down as well. The defense that connected grids use to prevent themsleves from going down with you is to trip their safety systems and disconnect. Ever try and connect two major power grids together? It isn’t nearly as simple as just flipping a switch.
Further, if you do tap into standing power, keep in mind that the average contract rate has riders on it. Take X amount of power and the bill is Y. But no one ever takes X as a steady state, particularly if it is wind that you are trying to backfill because there IS no steady state. Power contracts have increased rates for peak load. So, if you momentarily need 2X to backfill your wind power, the bill will probably be more like 5Y.
Statement:
cost per kwh over 10 yrs £0.09 per kWh
Which is well below end consumer price>>>
Response:
Here lies the greatest fallacy in al the numbers you present. The question is not in regard to the production cost of wind being higher or lower than the consumer price. The question is in regard to the most economical way to provide the power in the first place. If wind costs 9 cents and coal costs 5 cents, then the price to the consumer could obviously go below 9 cents with coal, but not with wind. In order for an economy to be competitive, it must have competitive infrastructure costs. The lower the better. Comparing to the current consumer price for power tells you nothing. The question is what could it be, and is wind the higher number? Or the lower number?
One doesn’t need detailed (and frequently politically motivated) government studies to prove what is cost effective and what isn’t though. All one needs to do is put out a contract for the supply of electricity. If wind is cost effective, the suppliers will use wind. If something else is more cost effective, they will use something else. The fact of the matter is there are no wind farms that are constructed without government incentives. In other words, if those greedy capitalist pigs can’t figure out how to make money on them without government help, than one can only draw one conclusion.
they are a dead loss.
Kum Dollison says:
November 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Thanks, Kum. Let me review the bidding. This all began with your statement:
OK, big scare there. Your claim is that the Powder River Basin, our major source, is nearly played out of coal, and we should ask “what/where next?”, because the times they are a’changin’.
So I thought, I wonder what the true situation is? Because when someone tries to scare me with “we’re running out of X”, it usually turns out not to be the case. I knew nothing about the Powder River Basin except I vaguely knew there was coal there.
And in fact, I found and previously cited a document containing the following surprising statement (emphasis mine):
To my amazement, I find out you’re not talking about some small deposit that will play out in 20 years. We are discussing the biggest store of “low-cost concentrated energy” on the entire planet! It’s eight times the energy in the Saudi Ghawar oil field. I also find out that at the current rate of extraction there’s 400 years worth of reserves! In short, I find out that your claim is ridiculously far from the truth. The truth is the PRB deposit is huge, and it’s not even remotely near running out, not in twenty years, and not in a hundred years.
So in answer to your question, after 20 years, “what/where next?”, the answer is, the Powder River Basin. And that will be the answer for a long, long time.
In response to my posting the facts in the case, Kum, you have merely restated your claims and further stated without evidence that the reserve figures are made up.
Made up? The IEA is hallucinating the largest energy store on the planet? Not likely. I provided a citation to a careful analysis of the reserves. Yes, the EIA could be wrong, but at present that’s all the evidence we have on the table. A hand-wave claim that the reserve estimates are “made up” is meaningless unless you can establish that, and you made no attempt to do so.
Finally, even if the EIA estimates are twice the reality, the PRB is still the largest fossil energy store in the world.
In response, you have said that your statement “is a fact.” Perhaps so … but generally if a man has evidence to establish something is a fact, he doesn’t waste time saying “It’s a fact!”. He just produces the evidence.
But in any case, great. If it’s a fact, provide the supporting evidence that the PRB mines are about to run out, and that as a result in 20 years we’re going to have to ask “what/where next” is our coal supply going to come from.
w.
Willis, here are my points,
1) No power source is all good or all bad. Each have pros and cons. Your post did not mention that. I tried to contribute to the debate by making this suggestion.
2) I responded initially to your attitude to another poster in a reasonable manner. If we all showed solidarity when someone is cyberbullying such damaging behaviour could be reduced or stopped. Peer pressure works as well, if not better than moderation. You will note I also occasionally support you if I think you are being treated unfairly.
3) You only responded anger and insults in response to my post, not my comment on your posts to someone else. A short review of the thread demonstrates that clearly.
4) You appear to be a person who thrives on high expressed emotion and provoke that response in individuals. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are more interested in heated arguments than the subject of climate change. It may be worth everyone bearing that in mind.
5) You are beginning to cultivate a reputation as a bad tempered old git who shouts down anyone who remotely disagrees with your fixed viewpoint. That in a way is unfair, you are not quite that bad yet, but I suspect you are rapidly heading that way
6) Lastly, if you want people to read your posts and quote you, give the same courtesy to others and don’t jump to conclusions. Try and understand the point they are trying to make before descending on them like a pile of bricks while hurling abuse in every direction.
Now, maybe you would like to respond to the idea that is outlined in point one without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Gareth Phillips says:
November 22, 2011 at 1:04 am
I ask you to restate your points about the subject under discussion. You give me one point about the subject and six points about why I’m a jerk … and you wonder why you don’t get a good reception from me?
Anyhow, you ask for my response to point one, your profound and philosophical statements that “No power source is all good or all bad. Each have pros and cons.” Here’s my response.
That is the most vapid and meaningless thing anyone has said around here for a long time.
Apparently you are under some illusion that I and perhaps others here were unaware that “no power source is all good or all bad”. Let me hasten to assure you that is not the case. We do know that each power source has pros and cons. What you have said is bland, content-less, and un-falsifiable. In other words, useless.
Regarding the rest of your points. You jumped into a post to support a known troll and mischief-maker. That was quite foolish. Now you claim you were just trying to stop me from “cyberbullying” Dave Springer … man, I ’bout fell out of my chair laughing at that one. Cyberbullying? Dave Springer? Not even theoretically possible, you couldn’t cyberbully Dave with a cybersledgehammer and two cyberaccomplices, it’s one of his endearing qualities. I don’t know what kind of politically correct nonsense you’ve been exposed to if you think people are getting “cyberbullied” around here.
But in any case, Gareth, despite your delusions of grandeur you are not the self-appointed cyberpolice, given the authority to arrest cyberbullies in their tracks. You are simply an intrusive cyberjerk inserting your nose into other people’s discussions, and then bitching and complaining when someone punches it.
So you come in, take sides in a dispute about which you know nothing, accuse me of being a cyberbully, and now you want to lecture me on proper behavior? Your effrontery knows no bounds.
Having said that, Gareth, I truly thank you for your concern. I know that as long as you are clutching your pearls and whimpering about the damage I’m doing to my reputation, I must be doing something right. I seem to be driving you to total distraction, at any rate. With any luck, you’ll go cyberbully someone else and leave us all in peace to discuss the science.
w.
PS—Am I a “bad tempered old git”? When confronted by fools like yourself, most assuredly. When people come in and start off by telling me how I’m acting wrong and saying I should cease my cyberbullying, I certainly might be bad tempered. Hey, if I walked into your living room and started the conversation by telling you you’re all wrong and to stop doing what you are doing, you’d be bad tempered too.
It’s called “karma”, Gareth. You come in, and without saying hello or howsyerfather, you start off by trying to bust my differential for my imagined misdeeds, and guess what happens?
When people want to discuss the science, on the other hand, we talk it over from all sides and have a great time. You should give it a shot. So let’s do this one more time.
Put together a précis of your scientific points, with supporting citations, to show where you think I’m wrong, or to lay out your ideas of what’s right. Then we can discuss the scientific ideas like gentlemen.
No, Willis, you are still Misrepresenting what I said. I said, “The Mines Currently Operating, will be played out in 20 years. The fact that there is a lot of coal way down deep below those mines is interesting, and, possibly, important, but is Not a factor in the depletion of the Mines I Referenced.
“Nine British pence is about US 15¢ per kWh. Don’t know about where you are, but if that is “below end consumer price” I suspect that the local prices have been hijacked by “renewable energy standards”
When the US has to start importing natural gas at proper market prices then you will understand why the UK price :
http://www.uswitch.com/ enter some figures for this result for british gas supplied electricity:
Electricity unit rates: 25.104p per kWh 12.419p per kWh above 720 kWh p.a
* These rates include VAT- the rates on your bill may exclude VAT
Check the coal and gas prices compare to elecritricity here and you will see no price hike to cover renewables in the 20 year record. Electicity follows the other prices quite well.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/prices/prices.aspx#domestic
I should also point out that the cost I gave for wind is over a 10 year period. Extend this to the guarantee period for the turbine (15 years) and the price is less and extend it to the full expected life of currently 20 years (will post figures when I can access spread sheet.)
Remember why would Ukraine/canada/etc sell gas to US at a price 50% below what it can sell to europe etc.
The US is living on borrowed time.
Can you please give me details of US coal and Nuclear total costs as I have for wind?
davidmhoffer says: (mainly wrong)
Spinning reserve is held for nuclear scrams 1GW in seconds
Wind requires a max of 100MW for a wipe out of a wind farm.
lack of wind conditions develop slowly and can be predicted so no spinning reserve is required
see here for more details:
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/national%20grid
Longannet and sizewell tripped out near simultaneously blacking out large arteas of UK in may 2008 (the report makes interesting reading)
diogenes says: November 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Enercon turbines have NO i.e. zero gearboxes as I have said above. They have a guarantee of 15 (12?) years. I would imagine that they expect few failures in this time.
“needs backup”
What’s the point of eating breakfast? You’re just going to have to eat again at noon?
R. Gates says:
November 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm
The Brits (and soon the Americans) are far better off not being responsible for controlling a sprawling Empire around the world. But it seems a stage that some countries must go through.
Yes, we are better off. But, looking at current events, I don’t think you can say that about much of the former empire. So far, the only societal model that actually works is capitalism under a western rule of law. Thank you very much Britian and America for your contribution to mankind. And, thank you very much robber barrons for doing more against poverty than has been achieved by the sum total of all socialist progressive activism over the past century.