OT: Making bigger wind-turbines 5.6MW now, 12MW soon.

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:55:37 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 1:25:46 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote...

You've been brainwashed into oblivion. Do you know you need
$3000.00 worth of solar panels installed to power your average
coffee maker! And you say nuclear costs too much?

Hmm, that'd get you six 300-watt panels installed.
Using my own roof measurements, they'd make 2300 kWh
a year. Is that what it takes to run a coffee maker?

LOL- I was going by the quoted cost of home solar at $3/Watt installed and any kind of coffee maker drawing 1000W, but only for a few minutes. That's $3000 worth of panels without some kind of storage which is not cheap either.

Win's got a battery back-up.

Most people rely on over-the-grid averaging to deal with intermittent high loads, but Fred loves his unrealistic extreme examples.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:03:41 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 9:02:21 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:31:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what if Spectrum publishes an article on it, it's for simpletons.
Wind power is out, too wasteful and very expensive to procure, install and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in the world. .

Nuclear is one answer but it's pretty much being ignored.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-problems-you-didn-t-know-nuclear-could-solve

Another answer is massive reduction of the population. Since people have been uncooperative about this, they're going to be reduced the hard way.

You seem to be a bit confused. You stated the limitations of nuclear but use the words "Wind power" with them. Same with the issues of wind power, but you used the name 'Nuclear".

Your link is to one of the lamest rationalizations of using nuclear I've ever seen. They talk about using nuclear for desalinization because nuclear produces energy. Duh! So does every other type of electrical generation. It even talks about producing hydrogen for autos even though we have no hydrogen cars, no hydrogen infrastructure and no proposed plans for putting any of this in place. I believe the hydrogen future is safely in the past.

In the immediate future, it's worth noting that hydrogen fuel cells are poised to be the backup storage energy technology of choice for all the intermittent renewables. This stuff with massive batteries made out of conflict minerals is idiotic. Same goes for all this other junk with hydro reservoirs.

Fuel cells have been "poised" since 1838.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:55:37 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 1:25:46 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote...

You've been brainwashed into oblivion. Do you know you need
$3000.00 worth of solar panels installed to power your average
coffee maker! And you say nuclear costs too much?

Hmm, that'd get you six 300-watt panels installed.
Using my own roof measurements, they'd make 2300 kWh
a year. Is that what it takes to run a coffee maker?


--
Thanks,
- Win

LOL- I was going by the quoted cost of home solar at $3/Watt installed and any kind of coffee maker drawing 1000W, but only for a few minutes. That's $3000 worth of panels without some kind of storage which is not cheap either.

$3/Watt is expensive, even including installations. You can get panels for less than $1/W, micro-inverter for couple hundreds perhaps.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 1:25:18 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:03:41 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 9:02:21 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail..com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:31:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what if Spectrum publishes an article on it, it's for simpletons.
Wind power is out, too wasteful and very expensive to procure, install and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in the world. .

Nuclear is one answer but it's pretty much being ignored.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-problems-you-didn-t-know-nuclear-could-solve

Another answer is massive reduction of the population. Since people have been uncooperative about this, they're going to be reduced the hard way.

You seem to be a bit confused. You stated the limitations of nuclear but use the words "Wind power" with them. Same with the issues of wind power, but you used the name 'Nuclear".

Your link is to one of the lamest rationalizations of using nuclear I've ever seen. They talk about using nuclear for desalinization because nuclear produces energy. Duh! So does every other type of electrical generation. It even talks about producing hydrogen for autos even though we have no hydrogen cars, no hydrogen infrastructure and no proposed plans for putting any of this in place. I believe the hydrogen future is safely in the past.

In the immediate future, it's worth noting that hydrogen fuel cells are poised to be the backup storage energy technology of choice for all the intermittent renewables. This stuff with massive batteries made out of conflict minerals is idiotic. Same goes for all this other junk with hydro reservoirs.

Fuel cells have been "poised" since 1838.

So what.

There's always a point where a new technology isn't quite ready for mass use.

Some technologies are never going to get there - often because something better shows up - but the history of when earlier proponents have been over-optimistic says nothing about the current situation, and John Larkin never seems to know enough about the current situation to have anything useful to say.

I spent half my career hearing people say that ink jet printers weren't quite ready yet, and the other half with an Epson Stylus ink-jet printer sitting next to my home computer.

The fun bit was a job interview close to the cross-over point with the Cambridge crew who had worked up the technology they sold to Epson. I didn't get the job, but I bought the printer the following year.

I'd done a little work on a less practical version of the approach in Brighton, England, a few years earlier (and told my bosses that that particular implementation wasn't going to work) so I had a pretty exact idea of what was going on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 6:08:54 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

There is such fear of radiation that 5G is hard to sell. Neighborhood
nukes are impossible.

5G will radiate all the battery energy from your cellphone extra quick, THAT'S why
it's hard to sell. Neighborhood nukes are possible.

There is a long history of fears we've moved past. Fear of fire, of witches, of falling
off the edge of the world...

For fire, it's STILL scary, but we have fire-safety codes... hard to follow,
but more-or-less comforting.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 31/10/19 18:45, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:12:08 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/10/19 02:46, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales
with the square root of the power?

Wind velocity and constancy improve at higher elevations.

Above a few hundred meters, the wind speed and direction is quite
constant. Look at aviation forecasts for 1000FT and 2000Ft. compare
these with surface forecasts.

Nonsense.

I live in an area with very good wind power potential.

A quick check of available information indicates that
near me the velocity at 950hPa is currently 20kt.
Over the next week it will vary between 0kt and 35kt.
And that's far from extreme here.

The wind direction is from all directions of the compass.

Oh, those points are the same over the sea, except that
the wind speed variation is higher.

While at higher altitudes, the wind speed is quite constant, the
surface roughness will cause turbulence closer to the surface. In a
grassy field he air speed at the grass root level is practically zero.
The air speed varies with altitude.

Being a pilot that has made hundred of "forced" landings
on grass, I am *extremely* well aware of wind shear.

The wind speed at grass root level is *far* from zero.

Above more or less flat sea surface, the air speed starts to drop
below 100-200 m. However, above rough terrain, the turbulent air may
start below 700 m (2000 ft).

I don't think wind constancy improves with height
(above ground), although it does with altitude
(above sea level).

The absolute altitude doesn't matter, only the surface roughness (sea,
grass field, forest, city) will effect how badly turbulence is
experienced at different altitudes.

There is more energy available on the top of a hill
than in a valley. While that's not strictly altitude
AMSL, altitude is still an useful proxy.

Hence (unless you build a small
rotor on a high tower!) I don't think constancy
will be improved by increased windmill diameter.

Why not put a horizontal bar on top of a sufficiently high tower
(300-700 m) and put two rotors at the end of the horizontal bar.
Perhaps even an H-bar with four rotors. Swing the bar against the
wind.

Go out and patent the idea - if you can. Hint: you are new
to the topic and are unaware of what other people have
thought of and rejected!

The key metric is power per unit land area.

This becomes an issue, if you have to put turbines behind each other.
As long as you only use a single row of turbines perpendicular against
prevailed wind, this is not so much an issue.

If you only consider unrealistic conditions,
anything is possible.

Here the wind comes from all directions, with no more
than a bias from the SW.

A key issue is that as wind turbines in a wind farm increase
in diameter, they have to be spaced further apart.
Unfortunately the diameters cancel, so power per unit land
area remains constant as diameter is increased. The estimate
of available onshore wind power for the UK is around 3W/m2.
N.B. that "m2" is *land* area, not rotor area.

However, if there is a stronger winds higher up, this will compensate
for this.

Read the reference I gave.

Provide a practical mechanism for harvesting it.

Then there is the issue of wind shear. As a rule of thumb,
doubling the height (above the surrounding countryside)
increases the windspeed by 10% and the power available
by 30%.

Compare the wind speed forecasts for 1000FT and 2000Ft and check how
much more power is available.


Source, and FFI: the TAoE of energy use and generation,
"Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air" p263-268
http://withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml

The (free) pdf is probably more readable.

Go on, have a look at it.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 01/11/19 01:21, Bill Sloman wrote:

The back-up power plant already exists - even coal-fired power stations
break-down from time to time and big fast-start gas turbines don't cost all
that much to sustain in a ready-to-go state.

The existence of the kind of infrequently used back-up capacity makes a lot
of difference to amount of stored power you need - a recent MIT study went
into that.

The problem then becomes one of accountancy.

If you use a source for 1 day per year, then to an
accountant it looks 365 times more expensive per
unit than if you use it all the time.

It might be cheaper to turn off the power for a
day, and pay any fine.

Yes, that is a perverse stupid calculation.
But (in many different fields) such calculations
have been, are being, and will be made.

Bloody tosspots.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 01/11/19 02:28, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 9:21:33 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 2:18:09 AM UTC+11, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW
shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

Unfortunately, when there is no wind, both variants are 0MW turbines. So
you need a backup power plant to fill the gap. Greta wouldn't enjoy a
sudden blackout, I'm afraid.

Wind turbines and solar power are both intermittent power sources.

The answer to that is battery and pumped storage.

What's wrong with gas turbines as intermittent backup? The main cost of gas
turbines is the fuel.

And the cost of sufficient storage capacity.

The dickweed free-market accountants/economists *choose* to
neglect having sufficient storage here.

I would expect the cost of using them intermittently
would be close to proportional to their use. Reducing the carbon footprint
of gas turbines by not using them 80% of the time would be enormous.

Yes, but to an accountant it becomes economically too expensive.

Stupid attitude? Of course; what's new.

Geographical diversity and and an extended grid can help with wind power -
the UK isn't big enough for this to work, but it has links to France,
Ireland and the Netherlands and there's a new one under construction to
Norway.

https://www.ft.com/content/52e957a6-b64a-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62

The back-up power plant already exists - even coal-fired power stations
break-down from time to time and big fast-start gas turbines don't cost all
that much to sustain in a ready-to-go state.

The existence of the kind of infrequently used back-up capacity makes a lot
of difference to amount of stored power you need - a recent MIT study went
into that.

Ok, so it's not a terrible idea to use the gas as a backup for renewables. I
know it really goes against the grain for a lot of people. Of course they
just don't want to consider that we need to reduce our carbon footprint.

The problem is the accountancy and economics. Especially when you
consider time, and "externalities", and "the tragedy of the commons".
Regrettably they are strong influences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:12:08 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/10/19 02:46, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales
with the square root of the power?

Wind velocity and constancy improve at higher elevations.

I don't think wind constancy improves with height
(above ground), although it does with altitude
(above sea level). Hence (unless you build a small
rotor on a high tower!) I don't think constancy
will be improved by increased windmill diameter.


The key metric is power per unit land area.

A key issue is that as wind turbines in a wind farm increase
in diameter, they have to be spaced further apart.
Unfortunately the diameters cancel, so power per unit land
area remains constant as diameter is increased. The estimate
of available onshore wind power for the UK is around 3W/m2.
N.B. that "m2" is *land* area, not rotor area.

Then there is the issue of wind shear. As a rule of thumb,
doubling the height (above the surrounding countryside)
increases the windspeed by 10% and the power available
by 30%.

Source, and FFI: the TAoE of energy use and generation,
"Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air" p263-268
http://withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml

Page 266 deals with roughness length and roughness classes.
Unfortunately, the diagrams are truncated.

A better diagram is e.g. in
http://ele.aut.ac.ir/~wind/en/tour/wres/shear.htm showing the form of
the curve. The roughness length defines the slope of the curve.
..
>The (free) pdf is probably more readable.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 01/11/19 10:10, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:12:08 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/10/19 02:46, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales
with the square root of the power?

Wind velocity and constancy improve at higher elevations.

I don't think wind constancy improves with height
(above ground), although it does with altitude
(above sea level). Hence (unless you build a small
rotor on a high tower!) I don't think constancy
will be improved by increased windmill diameter.


The key metric is power per unit land area.

A key issue is that as wind turbines in a wind farm increase
in diameter, they have to be spaced further apart.
Unfortunately the diameters cancel, so power per unit land
area remains constant as diameter is increased. The estimate
of available onshore wind power for the UK is around 3W/m2.
N.B. that "m2" is *land* area, not rotor area.

Then there is the issue of wind shear. As a rule of thumb,
doubling the height (above the surrounding countryside)
increases the windspeed by 10% and the power available
by 30%.

Source, and FFI: the TAoE of energy use and generation,
"Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air" p263-268
http://withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml

Page 266 deals with roughness length and roughness classes.
Unfortunately, the diagrams are truncated.

Indeed, and so they are.

They are also truncated in the pdf. Looking at the
position of the curves and the central labels, the
truncation doesn't look too serious.

A better diagram is e.g. in
http://ele.aut.ac.ir/~wind/en/tour/wres/shear.htm showing the form of
the curve. The roughness length defines the slope of the curve.

That's a theoretical calculation for one circumstance.

Unsurprisingly it doesn't match the behaviour we were
taught to counter when landing.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f0037012-7d6d-4b42-b087-c3a2332ec9a4@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:11:18 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 10/30/2019 10:15 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0856ac0b-404f-474a-96ed-a64053263c80@googlegroups.com:

Winfield Hill wrote:

--------------------

Two US windfarms are using GE's 12MW version: Ocean Wind,
off New Jersey’s coast, and Skipjack, off Ma
ryland’s coa
st.



** So how many do we need operating off the coast of NSW to
eliminate coal power ?

Allowing for lots of battery capacity for windless days and
nights.

Currently installed coal generation is about 10,000 MW.

Lets see you get the math even slightly right.



..... Phil



Let's see. Wind is free, coal is not, and wind does not
pollute
and coal does. So 100 100MW turbines would have a better
impact on the planet than hunreds of tons of polutants in the
air.

The wind is here. We should use it.

Oh the 'birds'

So the choices are, let the coal rot, let the wind rot, or let the
birds rot.

Read your bible. "Lay waste, the Earth..."

So... *we* let it all rot as long as *we* do not rot.
We are sinners, after all.

But we are (supposed to be) trying to be better than that.

You know... edify the church and all that *rot*.

 

Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> wrote in
news:qpetv9$1mng$1@gioia.aioe.org:

Bill Sloman wrote:

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit
10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

Unfortunately, when there is no wind, both variants are 0MW
turbines. So you need a backup power plant to fill the gap. Greta
wouldn't enjoy a sudden blackout, I'm afraid.

Best regards, Piotr

Back up can be done with water towers. Kinetic energy does a lot
of work, so using soem cheap or free energy to pump water up into a
tower is just like a battery. Towers take up space too, and when
used, the water has to have a place to get dispensed into.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 11:53:22 PM UTC+11, TTman wrote:

On 30/10/2019 23:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

UK already has 10MW turbines... http://www.mhivestasoffshore.com/

Not quite yet. Your link wants to install cookies, but if you by-pass the top level you can get to

http://www.mhivestasoffshore.com/innovations/

which says the 10MW version will be ready for installation from 2021.

That is, it's going to be available shortly, as I posted.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[TTman]

On 30/10/2019 23:31, Bill Sloman wrote:

IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

UK already has 10MW turbines... http://www.mhivestasoffshore.com/

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 01/11/19 14:49, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 4:44:35 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/11/19 01:21, Bill Sloman wrote:
The back-up power plant already exists - even coal-fired power stations
break-down from time to time and big fast-start gas turbines don't cost all
that much to sustain in a ready-to-go state.

The existence of the kind of infrequently used back-up capacity makes a lot
of difference to amount of stored power you need - a recent MIT study went
into that.

The problem then becomes one of accountancy.

If you use a source for 1 day per year, then to an
accountant it looks 365 times more expensive per
unit than if you use it all the time.

It might be cheaper to turn off the power for a
day, and pay any fine.

Yes, that is a perverse stupid calculation.
But (in many different fields) such calculations
have been, are being, and will be made.

Bloody tosspots.

That problem exists today, regardless of the nature of the power generation. Demand varies and there will always be a peak over the course of the year or 10 years or 100 years. Which of these do you plan to support and which will you adopt plans to curtail usage (rolling blackouts, etc.)?

This is very clear evidence that you aren't really trying to discuss the issue. You have taken a position and will try to defend it through any means of illogic or dissemination.

That's a good example of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 11:03:39 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 01/11/19 14:49, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 4:44:35 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/11/19 01:21, Bill Sloman wrote:
The back-up power plant already exists - even coal-fired power stations
break-down from time to time and big fast-start gas turbines don't cost all
that much to sustain in a ready-to-go state.

The existence of the kind of infrequently used back-up capacity makes a lot
of difference to amount of stored power you need - a recent MIT study went
into that.

The problem then becomes one of accountancy.

If you use a source for 1 day per year, then to an
accountant it looks 365 times more expensive per
unit than if you use it all the time.

It might be cheaper to turn off the power for a
day, and pay any fine.

Yes, that is a perverse stupid calculation.
But (in many different fields) such calculations
have been, are being, and will be made.

Bloody tosspots.

That problem exists today, regardless of the nature of the power generation. Demand varies and there will always be a peak over the course of the year or 10 years or 100 years. Which of these do you plan to support and which will you adopt plans to curtail usage (rolling blackouts, etc.)?

This is very clear evidence that you aren't really trying to discuss the issue. You have taken a position and will try to defend it through any means of illogic or dissemination.

That's a good example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Actually, you are proving my point. You offer no evidence at all. You are just back peddling.

So do you have any evidence about how the intermittent demand issue is different for renewable than for other electricity sources? I know it is different for nuclear since nuclear is not so good at adjusting to varying loads and the capital costs are ginormous so insanely expensive to leave offline..

The cost of providing gas turbines for intermittent energy generation is the same no matter what energy source they are backing up.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 4:44:35 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 01/11/19 01:21, Bill Sloman wrote:
The back-up power plant already exists - even coal-fired power stations
break-down from time to time and big fast-start gas turbines don't cost all
that much to sustain in a ready-to-go state.

The existence of the kind of infrequently used back-up capacity makes a lot
of difference to amount of stored power you need - a recent MIT study went
into that.

The problem then becomes one of accountancy.

If you use a source for 1 day per year, then to an
accountant it looks 365 times more expensive per
unit than if you use it all the time.

It might be cheaper to turn off the power for a
day, and pay any fine.

Yes, that is a perverse stupid calculation.
But (in many different fields) such calculations
have been, are being, and will be made.

Bloody tosspots.

That problem exists today, regardless of the nature of the power generation.. Demand varies and there will always be a peak over the course of the year or 10 years or 100 years. Which of these do you plan to support and which will you adopt plans to curtail usage (rolling blackouts, etc.)?

This is very clear evidence that you aren't really trying to discuss the issue. You have taken a position and will try to defend it through any means of illogic or dissemination.

Lousy prigs.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[amdx]

On 10/31/2019 10:56 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:11:18 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 10/30/2019 10:15 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0856ac0b-404f-474a-96ed-a64053263c80@googlegroups.com:

Winfield Hill wrote:

--------------------

Two US windfarms are using GE's 12MW version: Ocean Wind,
off New Jersey’s coast, and Skipjack, off Maryland’s coa
st.



** So how many do we need operating off the coast of NSW to
eliminate coal power ?

Allowing for lots of battery capacity for windless days and
nights.

Currently installed coal generation is about 10,000 MW.

Lets see you get the math even slightly right.



..... Phil



Let's see. Wind is free, coal is not, and wind does not pollute
and coal does. So 100 100MW turbines would have a better impact on
the planet than hunreds of tons of polutants in the air.

The wind is here. We should use it.

Oh the 'birds'

So the choices are, let the coal rot, let the wind rot, or let the birds rot.

Ya, a little to far, it was a play on the Hindenburg reporter, "Oh the
humanity"
I don't have big concern for the birds, I'm all for sun power on
earth, Let's go nuclear.
Mikek

 

[amdx]

On 10/30/2019 10:39 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

---------------------------

Let's see.


** Let's not - cos you are a bullshitting fuckwit.


Wind is free, coal is not,


** Coal is free here.

Coal is NOT free


** Fraid it is.



We dig it out the ground.


Which has a substantial cost attached to it,


** The stuff itself is free - you fucking moron.



Sunlight stored for us by God, over millions of years.

Yeah... we gonna use the sunlight direct now, thanks.


** But stored sunlight is sooo much better.

Cos it is massively CONCENTRATED !!


Unlike your good self,

which is loose and scattered about like manic chimp's diarrhoea.

That;s a new line for you Phil, good job on hateful out of the box
speech!

Mikek

.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

-----------------------------

Nuclear is one answer but it's pretty much being ignored.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-problems-you-didn-t-know-nuclear-could-solve

Another answer is massive reduction of the population.
Since people have been uncooperative about this, they're
going to be reduced the hard way.

** Don't like the sound of that last one ...



.... Phil