Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New Wind Farms Cheaper Than Even Existing Coal Plants
129 views
Skip to first unread message
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2019, 9:52:42 PM6/5/19
to
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 11:22:49 AM UTC-4, Lee wrote in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:
> It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm
> than to keep a coal plant running
> June 3
>
> Inflation dictates that the cost of living
> will continue to rise — except, it seems,
> when it comes to renewable energy. The cost
> of building a new utility-scale solar or
> wind farm has now dropped below the cost of
> operating an existing coal plant, according
> to an analysis by the investment bank Lazard.
> Accounting for government tax credits and
> other energy incentives would bring the cost
> even lower.
>
> The LCOE for coal this year is between $27
> and $45 per megawatt. That figure is $29 to
> $56 for a wind farm and $31 to $44 for a
> solar farm, depending on the technology used.
>
> Wind power costs have dropped as utilities
> have turned to bigger and bigger turbines,
> which can produce more energy. The largest
> turbines installed today can produce double
> the power they could've a decade ago,
> according to the Energy Information
> Administration, dramatically increasing the
> amount of power a parcel of land can produce.
> Wind and solar installation has also gotten
> more competitive, driving the development of
> more efficient technology.
>
> Lazard also noted that wind and solar farms
> typically require fewer people to run than
> a coal or nuclear plant, further decreasing
> their cost.
>
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-farm-th
> an-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/?fbclid=IwAR0DlGYi6fm2aDJpi8QanFNfyEQr4b
> F-R_llyRTJL9IW_v80XixQ0LngsAQ&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_con
> tent=link&ICID=ref_fark
New Wind And Solar Now Cheaper Than 74% Of Existing US Coal Plants, Study Says
Electrek-Mar 27, 2019
-- https://electrek.co/2019/03/27/wind-solar-cheaper-coal/
'damn' liberals kickin' your ass all over the place
> It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm
> than to keep a coal plant running
> June 3
>
> Inflation dictates that the cost of living
> will continue to rise — except, it seems,
> when it comes to renewable energy. The cost
> of building a new utility-scale solar or
> wind farm has now dropped below the cost of
> operating an existing coal plant, according
> to an analysis by the investment bank Lazard.
> Accounting for government tax credits and
> other energy incentives would bring the cost
> even lower.
>
> The LCOE for coal this year is between $27
> and $45 per megawatt. That figure is $29 to
> $56 for a wind farm and $31 to $44 for a
> solar farm, depending on the technology used.
>
> Wind power costs have dropped as utilities
> have turned to bigger and bigger turbines,
> which can produce more energy. The largest
> turbines installed today can produce double
> the power they could've a decade ago,
> according to the Energy Information
> Administration, dramatically increasing the
> amount of power a parcel of land can produce.
> Wind and solar installation has also gotten
> more competitive, driving the development of
> more efficient technology.
>
> Lazard also noted that wind and solar farms
> typically require fewer people to run than
> a coal or nuclear plant, further decreasing
> their cost.
>
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-farm-th
> an-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/?fbclid=IwAR0DlGYi6fm2aDJpi8QanFNfyEQr4b
> F-R_llyRTJL9IW_v80XixQ0LngsAQ&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_con
> tent=link&ICID=ref_fark
New Wind And Solar Now Cheaper Than 74% Of Existing US Coal Plants, Study Says
Electrek-Mar 27, 2019
-- https://electrek.co/2019/03/27/wind-solar-cheaper-coal/
'damn' liberals kickin' your ass all over the place
tabb...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2019, 12:56:43 AM6/6/19
to
NT
Fox's Mercantile
Jun 6, 2019, 1:52:50 AM6/6/19
to
On 6/5/19 11:56 PM, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> If any reader thinks a megawatt of intermittent wind power can > replace a megawatt of coal, gas or nuclear, they really don't get it.
First off, learn how to use your editor.
> If any reader thinks a megawatt of intermittent wind power can > replace a megawatt of coal, gas or nuclear, they really don't get it.
There's absolutely NO reason what so ever to include the entire two
previous posts.
Secondly, wind is no more or less stable then the supply chains for
gas and coal.
As a matter fact, several major coal companies have either filed
bankruptcy, or have shut down entirely.
Natural gas ain't exactly fool proof either.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak>
Wind farms are expensive, they tend to do a serious site survey as
to the constant values of wind speed. I.e. 24/7 availability.
Then, of course, you had clowns like Enron shutting down various
facilities just to increase the spot pricing of electricity.
But go ahead, keep finding fault in that which you don't understand.
--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com
tabb...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2019, 3:09:05 AM6/6/19
to
On Thursday, 6 June 2019 06:52:50 UTC+1, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
> Secondly, wind is no more or less stable then the supply chains for
> gas and coal.
Massively wrong. That's the whole problem with wind
> As a matter fact, several major coal companies have either filed
> bankruptcy, or have shut down entirely.
Sure, nothing to do with wind of course
> Natural gas ain't exactly fool proof either.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak>
No method is foolproof, or ever was.
> Wind farms are expensive, they tend to do a serious site survey as
> to the constant values of wind speed. I.e. 24/7 availability.
There is no 24/7 availability. That's the problem.
> Then, of course, you had clowns like Enron shutting down various
> facilities just to increase the spot pricing of electricity.
What has that to do with the viability of windpower.
> But go ahead, keep finding fault in that which you don't understand.
Your points are either irrelevant or wrong.
NT
> On 6/5/19 11:56 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
> > If any reader thinks a megawatt of intermittent wind power can > replace a megawatt of coal, gas or nuclear, they really don't get it.
>
> First off, learn how to use your editor.
> There's absolutely NO reason what so ever to include the entire two
> previous posts.
funny guy
> > If any reader thinks a megawatt of intermittent wind power can > replace a megawatt of coal, gas or nuclear, they really don't get it.
>
> First off, learn how to use your editor.
> There's absolutely NO reason what so ever to include the entire two
> previous posts.
> Secondly, wind is no more or less stable then the supply chains for
> gas and coal.
> As a matter fact, several major coal companies have either filed
> bankruptcy, or have shut down entirely.
> Natural gas ain't exactly fool proof either.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak>
> Wind farms are expensive, they tend to do a serious site survey as
> to the constant values of wind speed. I.e. 24/7 availability.
> Then, of course, you had clowns like Enron shutting down various
> facilities just to increase the spot pricing of electricity.
> But go ahead, keep finding fault in that which you don't understand.
NT
peterw...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2019, 7:14:36 AM6/6/19
to
Jeff:
Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance" as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be confused by mere facts.
The Iberdrola wind farm in Colummbia County, PA has a reliability record that matches Berwick Nuclear nearby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust_Ridge_Wind_Farm
It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed. And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance" as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be confused by mere facts.
The Iberdrola wind farm in Colummbia County, PA has a reliability record that matches Berwick Nuclear nearby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust_Ridge_Wind_Farm
It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed. And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
tabb...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2019, 7:35:33 AM6/6/19
to
On Thursday, 6 June 2019 12:14:36 UTC+1, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> Jeff:
> Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance" as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be confused by mere facts.
from the guy that insists the smpsu dissipates more heat than the LEDs it drives
> Jeff:
> Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance" as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be confused by mere facts.
> The Iberdrola wind farm in Colummbia County, PA has a reliability record that matches Berwick Nuclear nearby.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust_Ridge_Wind_Farm
>
> It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed. And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA
"The wind farm has a combined total nameplate capacity of 26 MW, producing about 68,328 megawatt-hours of electricity annually,
26MW x 8760hrs = 227,760 MWh if it ran at 100% capacity, which of course it can't. 68328/227760 MWh = 30% capacity.
A conventional plant with only 30% capacity is a disaster if you need to rely on its output at times. With a wind installation at 30% the operator is not in control of its uptime, that is left to the vagaries of nature. Hence with such generation, to keep the lights on one must have duplicate controllable generation of the same capacity elsewhere - and that makes the wind farm a pointless spending of money. It is nothing more than a political appeal to ignorant greens. To say the windfarm is comparable to a coal plant shows a fundamental level of ignorance of power generation.
NT
peterw...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2019, 7:53:01 AM6/6/19
to
You need to get out of theory and into actual practice. Again, you seem to accumulate only those facts as fit your ignorance.
Locust ridge is operating with 64 turbines at just under 67% of nameplate capacity. Which is entirely to be inspected as a group of those turbines are typically down for *planned* service & maintenance. The most efficient coal-fired plants on the planet operate at 40% energy-transfer efficiency, and are down, on average, about 30 days per year for maintenance, three times that about every 3-4 years.
That is in actual practice. Not theory.
As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s) is (are). On the driver? On the emitters? And, most of them make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now.
Locust ridge is operating with 64 turbines at just under 67% of nameplate capacity. Which is entirely to be inspected as a group of those turbines are typically down for *planned* service & maintenance. The most efficient coal-fired plants on the planet operate at 40% energy-transfer efficiency, and are down, on average, about 30 days per year for maintenance, three times that about every 3-4 years.
That is in actual practice. Not theory.
As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s) is (are). On the driver? On the emitters? And, most of them make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now.
tabb...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2019, 8:24:05 AM6/6/19
to
On Thursday, 6 June 2019 12:53:01 UTC+1, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> You need to get out of theory and into actual practice. Again, you seem to accumulate only those facts as fit your ignorance.
I see you're keeping up the bs. Let's look at some facts instead...
> You need to get out of theory and into actual practice. Again, you seem to accumulate only those facts as fit your ignorance.
> Locust ridge is operating with 64 turbines at just under 67% of nameplate capacity.
> Which is entirely to be inspected
> as a group of those turbines are typically down for *planned* service & maintenance. The most efficient coal-fired plants on the planet operate at 40% energy-transfer efficiency,
> and are down, on average, about 30 days per year for maintenance, three times that about every 3-4 years.
> That is in actual practice. Not theory.
> As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s) is (are). On the driver? On the emitters?
> And, most of them make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA
NT
Jeff Liebermann
Jun 6, 2019, 1:26:47 PM6/6/19
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 04:52:59 -0700 (PDT), "pf...@aol.com"
<peterw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE
>exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s)
>is (are). On the driver? On the emitters? And, most of them
>make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now.
Specs and tests are so much fun:
<peterw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE
>exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s)
>is (are). On the driver? On the emitters? And, most of them
>make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now.
<https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2010/09/ftc-shines-light-companys-deceptive-claims-its-led-bulbs>
For example, one bulb was promoted as producing 90 lumens
of light output, but Lights of America’s own tests showed
it produced only 43 lumens.
...the firm claimed that one of its LED lantern bulbs could
replace a 40-watt incandescent bulb. However, while the
typical 40-watt incandescent bulb produces about 400 lumens,
the Lights of America LED bulb produced only 74 lumens.
Ok, it's not Cree which is a reputable manufacture.
I'm glad you picked Cree exterior LED lights, which I'll interpret at
being Cree spot lights, because I have the a setup that does a
tolerable job of measuring lumens of any lighting that generates a
fairly uniform "spot" on a wall. I wrote this for bicycle lighting:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.bicycles.tech/UJdJQFTDgl8/NgOZUloVCwAJ>
Unfortunately, I don't have any Cree LED spotlights handy, so that
test will need to wait.
Let's try a few Cree random spot and flood lights:
<https://creebulb.com/products/reflector>
<https://creebulb.com/120-watt-replacement-par38-bright-white-spot>
1200 lumens / 19 watts = 63 lum/watt
<https://creebulb.com/120-watt-replacement-par38-cool-white-flood>
1200 lumens / 19 watts = 63 lum/watt
<https://creebulb.com/100-watt-replacement-br30-daylight-flood>
1400 lumens / 16 watts = 75 lum/watt
Hmmm... 63 and 75 lum/watt does not look much like 130 lum/watt.
Got a link to any high efficacy lights?
I think the problem is that you're using the efficiency of the LED
chip itself, while the lighting manufacturers are using the operating
efficieny, which include losses in the inverter and optics. There are
plenty of LED chips that will deliver greater than 100 lum/watt but no
AC powered lighting products.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
peterw...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2019, 2:24:28 PM6/6/19
to
Jeff:
I am pointing to 'right now' CREE shoebox fixtures for parking lots, as one application. I have installed several thousand in my day- here are specific links:
https://www.rablighting.com/feature/ez-site
https://lighting.cree.com/products/outdoor/area/clite-area
https://lighting.cree.com/products/outdoor/area/noctura-area
We are in the process of re-lamping/refixturing about 1,000,000 gsf of medical office building and medical school, using LEDs. Our average LPM, net, after retrofitting, is a tad over 100 lm/watt. With the screw-in stuff around 80, the replaced 2x2 and 2x4 fixtures being about 120.
Here is one of those, from a 'regular' supplier accessible by you and I any day, any time. Note that purchased in bulk, the priced goes under $50.
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/207639/PLT-11204.html
I am pointing to 'right now' CREE shoebox fixtures for parking lots, as one application. I have installed several thousand in my day- here are specific links:
https://www.rablighting.com/feature/ez-site
https://lighting.cree.com/products/outdoor/area/clite-area
https://lighting.cree.com/products/outdoor/area/noctura-area
We are in the process of re-lamping/refixturing about 1,000,000 gsf of medical office building and medical school, using LEDs. Our average LPM, net, after retrofitting, is a tad over 100 lm/watt. With the screw-in stuff around 80, the replaced 2x2 and 2x4 fixtures being about 120.
Here is one of those, from a 'regular' supplier accessible by you and I any day, any time. Note that purchased in bulk, the priced goes under $50.
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/207639/PLT-11204.html
peterw...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2019, 2:56:26 PM6/6/19
to
And, I may as well rub it in some:
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/201937/LED-8038E40-A.html 142.8 lm/w.
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/201938/LED-8038E57-A.html 157 lm/w
And, in the Dollar-Bin:
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/208043/PLT-11208.html 83 lm/w
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/208044/PLT-11209.html 83 lm/w
Slightly more costly:
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/173772/PLT-10298.html 100 lm/w
Guys and gals - this stuff is off-the-shelf, available to all of us, and without fuss or muss.
Spots and floods for conventional fixtures are something of a special case inasmuch as the emitters may radiate only in one direction in practical application. But, depending on the color, readings in the 70s for lm/w are not uncommon:
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/led-par30l-75w-equal-fl-3500K/
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/201937/LED-8038E40-A.html 142.8 lm/w.
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/201938/LED-8038E57-A.html 157 lm/w
And, in the Dollar-Bin:
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/208043/PLT-11208.html 83 lm/w
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/208044/PLT-11209.html 83 lm/w
Slightly more costly:
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/173772/PLT-10298.html 100 lm/w
Guys and gals - this stuff is off-the-shelf, available to all of us, and without fuss or muss.
Spots and floods for conventional fixtures are something of a special case inasmuch as the emitters may radiate only in one direction in practical application. But, depending on the color, readings in the 70s for lm/w are not uncommon:
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/led-par30l-75w-equal-fl-3500K/
George Cornelius
Jun 7, 2019, 9:13:43 AM6/7/19
to
In article <3b066973-fe97-4922...@googlegroups.com>,
is confident in his own case.
> The Iberdrola wind farm in Colummbia County, PA has a reliability
> record that matches Berwick Nuclear nearby.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust_Ridge_Wind_Farm
>
> It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed.
> And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.
Well that is in interesting remark, so let's examine it.
First of all, let's disregard "nameplate" tricks. If you have a 2 MW
capacity generator and list it on the nameplate as 500KW, you can then
meet some rather impressive performance goals - by mere use of
understatement in your specifications.
But does the "nameplate" claim even make sense?
The physics is that the power - energy flow - per unit cross section
is proportional to wind velocity squared. You state an 8:1 ratio in
velocity over which its nameplate is met. This means over a 64:1
range of input you claim they meet a single fixed output target,
presumably that associated with 7 mph input. So when wind energy
is 64 x the minimum, what do you do with the other 63 x - toss it
out?
George
"pf...@aol.com" <peterw...@gmail.com> writes:
> Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance"
> as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be
> confused by mere facts.
Lead with an ad hominem. This is a sure indication of a debater who
> Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance"
> as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be
> confused by mere facts.
is confident in his own case.
> The Iberdrola wind farm in Colummbia County, PA has a reliability
> record that matches Berwick Nuclear nearby.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust_Ridge_Wind_Farm
>
> It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed.
> And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.
First of all, let's disregard "nameplate" tricks. If you have a 2 MW
capacity generator and list it on the nameplate as 500KW, you can then
meet some rather impressive performance goals - by mere use of
understatement in your specifications.
But does the "nameplate" claim even make sense?
The physics is that the power - energy flow - per unit cross section
is proportional to wind velocity squared. You state an 8:1 ratio in
velocity over which its nameplate is met. This means over a 64:1
range of input you claim they meet a single fixed output target,
presumably that associated with 7 mph input. So when wind energy
is 64 x the minimum, what do you do with the other 63 x - toss it
out?
George
peterw...@gmail.com
Jun 7, 2019, 9:32:54 AM6/7/19
to
Once again, laboring under the burden of theory rather than practice.
Wind turbines have variable vanes. They rotate at their base from very roughly 60 degrees to the wind to 0 degrees to the wind. At 0, they do not turn, and typically this state is when the wind speeds are too high (exceedingly rare), or the unit is being serviced (and the rotor is locked when under service). At 60 degrees, and with the design minimum wind velocity, it will make the design rotational speed.
Wind turbines do not pretend to use all the energy available. They use a very small fraction of it - but it is essentially "free" energy.
Wind turbines have variable vanes. They rotate at their base from very roughly 60 degrees to the wind to 0 degrees to the wind. At 0, they do not turn, and typically this state is when the wind speeds are too high (exceedingly rare), or the unit is being serviced (and the rotor is locked when under service). At 60 degrees, and with the design minimum wind velocity, it will make the design rotational speed.
Wind turbines do not pretend to use all the energy available. They use a very small fraction of it - but it is essentially "free" energy.
Fox's Mercantile
Jun 7, 2019, 9:38:02 AM6/7/19
to
On 6/7/19 8:13 AM, George Cornelius wrote:
> So when wind energy
> is 64 x the minimum, what do you do with the other 63 x - toss it
> out?
How is this even a question?
> So when wind energy
> is 64 x the minimum, what do you do with the other 63 x - toss it
> out?
Generation capacity isn't like water, you're like those people that
think electricity is wasted by leaving a light bulb out of a socket
and it will leak out,
George Cornelius
Jun 7, 2019, 10:03:00 AM6/7/19
to
In article <hYGdnZdINuMu9WfB...@giganews.com>, Fox's Mercantile <jda...@att.net> writes:
> Generation capacity isn't like water, you're like those people that
> think electricity is wasted by leaving a light bulb out of a socket
> and it will leak out,
And you are missing the point. The physics of a generator that
> Generation capacity isn't like water, you're like those people that
> think electricity is wasted by leaving a light bulb out of a socket
> and it will leak out,
can only operate in a low efficiency range is a bizarre one. I
have the capability of designing a generator that can harness all
that energy, but I choose not merely an inefficient one but one
which can only use 1/64 of what an efficient one would use?
I realize that most environmentalists don't have a clue about
physics. But I am asking you to use your head. The numbers
as quoted are so bizarrely out of whack with any reality that
the rest of us inhabit as to clearly indicate that they are
"cooked": deliberately couched in a way to make claims such
as are being made here sound plausible.
We live in the real world, folks. The nubmers don't add up.
peterw...@gmail.com
Jun 7, 2019, 10:19:46 AM6/7/19
to
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:03:00 AM UTC-4, George Cornelius wrote:
> We live in the real world, folks. The nubmers don't add up.
The *numbers* add up perfectly fine, if one takes a fraction of a second to understand the process.
> We live in the real world, folks. The nubmers don't add up.
"Harnessing all that energy"? Really? How does that happen exactly? Please describe the mechanics of your proposed system? Positing actual available materials in this 'real world'.
George Cornelius
Jun 11, 2019, 10:51:41 PM6/11/19
to
know something because they listened to someone else who pretends to know something.
I took quantum mechanics 50 years ago. Then, as now, the physics of turbines and generators was well
established and not really worthy of the efforts of anyone seriously considering research into what was
really important in science. But of course, plenty of physicists and engineers and other technologists
have made important contributions over the years, all incremental gains, with very little of these gains
really earth-shattering in and of themselves.
One thing that has repeated over and over again in 50 years is the overabundance of blowhards and
gasbags.
I'm interested in learning some new physics, though.
If you can produce one of these much-vaunted nameplates, I would love to see it.
If your wind generator is a turbine, I would love to see its spec sheet. Do you have a name
for the manufacturer, and for the model number being used?
And, of course, there must be a primary contractor. Do they have a web site that describes
the project?
Interesting thing about engineering firms: they don't stay in business for long if their
claims are full of hot air. So how about a pointer to the keepers of the truth, where
there are likely to be cold, hard facts and not merely the nonsense endlessly propagated
by the true believers and their enablers, the purveyors of the hype?
George
peterw...@gmail.com
Jun 12, 2019, 7:47:19 AM6/12/19
to
https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/428-gamesa-g114-2.0mw
https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/548-gamesa-g87
You can lead a whore to Vassar, but you can't make her think. (Dorothy Parker)
You would be that whore.
https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/548-gamesa-g87
You can lead a whore to Vassar, but you can't make her think. (Dorothy Parker)
You would be that whore.
Phil Hobbs
Jun 12, 2019, 12:37:42 PM6/12/19
to
think."
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
peterw...@gmail.com
Jun 12, 2019, 2:09:53 PM6/12/19
to
> I believe that's "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her
> think."
Phil Hobbs
Jun 12, 2019, 10:08:34 PM6/12/19
to
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
George Cornelius
Jun 13, 2019, 12:32:02 AM6/13/19
to
In article <d9d2d4dd-cba9-4beb...@googlegroups.com>, "pf...@aol.com" <peterw...@gmail.com> writes:
> https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/428-gamesa-g114-2.0mw
>
> https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/548-gamesa-g87
>
> You can lead a whore to Vassar, but you can't make her think. (Dorothy Parker)
>
> You would be that whore.
If you don't have an argument, resort to ad hominems.
> https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/428-gamesa-g114-2.0mw
>
> https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/548-gamesa-g87
>
> You can lead a whore to Vassar, but you can't make her think. (Dorothy Parker)
>
> You would be that whore.
tabb...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2019, 7:00:07 AM7/10/19
to
NT
tabb...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2019, 7:02:22 AM7/10/19
to
On Thursday, 6 June 2019 19:56:26 UTC+1, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> And, I may as well rub it in some:
>
> https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/201937/LED-8038E40-A.html 142.8 lm/w.
$37.82 per lightbulb lol. A different animal to domestic lights.
> And, I may as well rub it in some:
>
> https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/201937/LED-8038E40-A.html 142.8 lm/w.
Not worth looking at the rest.
tabb...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2019, 7:04:33 AM7/10/19
to
NT
peterw...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2019, 8:32:28 AM7/10/19
to
What do you do? Sit around and stew, the explode into meaningless rambles?
Cost (installed) per watt, commercial scale:
Solar: $2.30
Wind: $1.63
Natural Gas: $0.89
Nuclear: $5.00 - $8.00
Coal: $5.30 ("Clean" technology)
On reliability (Add emphasis is mine):
Reliability of wind turbines has improved with time and has achieved an availability of---> 98%,<--- but wind turbines fail at least once per year, on average, with larger wind turbines failing relatively more frequently. A recent study of US wind turbines found that when all sources of downtime are accounted for, the average wind turbine actively generates power for 1.5 days between downtime events and that the average downtime is 1.6 hours.
Point being that a wind "farm" does not rely on a single turbine, but multiples, often many dozens of turbines. So, a single reactor event may take a nuclear plant down for a month, or a single turbine issue may take a coal or gas plant down for a week. But a single wind turbine event, for even two days, is hardly a blip on the radar.
Cost (installed) per watt, commercial scale:
Solar: $2.30
Wind: $1.63
Natural Gas: $0.89
Nuclear: $5.00 - $8.00
Coal: $5.30 ("Clean" technology)
On reliability (Add emphasis is mine):
Reliability of wind turbines has improved with time and has achieved an availability of---> 98%,<--- but wind turbines fail at least once per year, on average, with larger wind turbines failing relatively more frequently. A recent study of US wind turbines found that when all sources of downtime are accounted for, the average wind turbine actively generates power for 1.5 days between downtime events and that the average downtime is 1.6 hours.
Point being that a wind "farm" does not rely on a single turbine, but multiples, often many dozens of turbines. So, a single reactor event may take a nuclear plant down for a month, or a single turbine issue may take a coal or gas plant down for a week. But a single wind turbine event, for even two days, is hardly a blip on the radar.
tabb...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2019, 9:04:10 AM7/10/19
to
NT
Fox's Mercantile
Jul 10, 2019, 9:21:03 AM7/10/19
to
On 7/10/19 8:04 AM, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Reliability of course is not the key issue in comparing
> intermittent with controlled gen techs. It's been explained
< enough times, you don't get it. End of story.
>
> NT
You remind me of my mother.
> Reliability of course is not the key issue in comparing
> intermittent with controlled gen techs. It's been explained
< enough times, you don't get it. End of story.
>
> NT
I'd ask her a question, and if she didn't know the answer,
she'd make something up. Then defend it to the death.
tabb...@gmail.com
Jul 11, 2019, 3:33:21 PM7/11/19
to
On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 14:21:03 UTC+1, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
> On 7/10/19 8:04 AM, tabbypurr wrote:
> > Reliability of course is not the key issue in comparing
> > intermittent with controlled gen techs. It's been explained
> < enough times, you don't get it. End of story.
> >
> > NT
>
> You remind me of my mother.
> I'd ask her a question, and if she didn't know the answer,
> she'd make something up. Then defend it to the death.
You're an ignorant troll. Short term plonk.
> > Reliability of course is not the key issue in comparing
> > intermittent with controlled gen techs. It's been explained
> < enough times, you don't get it. End of story.
> >
> > NT
>
> You remind me of my mother.
> I'd ask her a question, and if she didn't know the answer,
> she'd make something up. Then defend it to the death.
Fox's Mercantile
Jul 11, 2019, 4:27:58 PM7/11/19
to
Phil Allison
Jul 11, 2019, 6:44:46 PM7/11/19
to
Fox's Mercantile wrote:
>
>
> > NT
>
> You remind me of my mother.
> I'd ask her a question, and if she didn't know the answer,
> she'd make something up. Then defend it to the death.
>
>
** Same goes for a great many folk, men and women.
>
>
> > NT
>
> You remind me of my mother.
> I'd ask her a question, and if she didn't know the answer,
> she'd make something up. Then defend it to the death.
>
>
Their philosophy is that: "if it feels right, it is right" - a denial of the need for good evidence.
Another famous saying pointing to the same fact is: "you cannot reason a person out of a position that reason never got them into in the first place".
.... Phil
0 new messages