Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55

Thread: Status of the Green Party?

  1. #31

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seán Ryan View Post
    I think I've repeated myself enough. Folks would get to thinking that I'm slapping you around because it's easy. I just dislike your dishonesty. At first I thought it was illiteracy. But it's not. It's dishonesty.

    So feel free to puff your chest and make your self-aggrandizing pronouncements of dubious fact. You'll soon learn that you're probably the only person here who doesn't read.

    I'm making it sound like I'm bitter. That's not the case. Indeed you're entertaining, to a point. For example, this latest pronouncement of comic gold:

    Easily your best so far.

    But as I said, you're only funny to a point. And the point is that you've passed it.
    Look, if you want to provide a counterargument, cite some actual facts - quote the fact you're presenting, explain how it counters what I've said, and link to the source.

    I've backed my main points in such a manner, you haven't - the only 'dishonesty' here, is you trying to railroad through your 'facts', when they've already been debunked with countering claims (that I have cited sources to back up), and without providing any of your own quoted facts and cited sources, to back that up.

    You've substituted fulfilling your burden of proof, with just repeating the same debunked claims.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,980

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteDigress View Post
    Aren't they going to export what they can't balance locally? Effectively spreading out the problem of balancing the load, across Ireland the north, and the UK.

    I view any use of wind energy - even if exported - as beneficial in increasing energy efficiency, and buffering use against long-term increases in fossil fuels.

    You're right in general, that not just the Greens, but also environmentalists in general - and arguably the entire Left overall - do not get much further beyond the first look.

    I think Green-type policies, combined with monetary reform, would give any in-government Green party unprecedented enormous power for reshaping our countries infrastructure, to prepare for the long-term increased costs of fossil fuels; so even if their policies are a bit odd/ad-hoc right now, I think if they saw the range of what is possible through monetary reform, that they may be an excellent party to use for building monetary reform as a platform.
    If Ireland was to lose its tourism industry, and be covered with massive high voltage pylons, is that a cost that should be counted in, or not ?

    If there was no public economic benefit, but profit going only to private landowners and private energy companies, inside and outside Ireland, should that be taken into consideration ?

    If the technology so far has not come up with any precedents, so far as I know, for balancing out, so that equivalent fossil fuel capacity has to be developed along side all this infrastructure, should that be taken into consideration ?

    As it happens, the UK has decided that it has other sources of energy to go for, including nuclear and fracking, perhaps in the Ukraine and Eastern Europe, that mean it does not want to go ahead with the Intergovernmental agreement, so that the debate to some extent is abstract.
    “ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
    — Jean-Paul Sartre

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Omnipresent
    Posts
    2,136

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteDigress View Post
    Look, if you want to provide a counterargument, cite some actual facts - quote the fact you're presenting, explain how it counters what I've said, and link to the source.

    I've backed my main points in such a manner, you haven't - the only 'dishonesty' here, is you trying to railroad through your 'facts', when they've already been debunked with countering claims (that I have cited sources to back up), and without providing any of your own quoted facts and cited sources, to back that up.

    You've substituted fulfilling your burden of proof, with just repeating the same debunked claims.
    I have been clear and concise. I've provided you with a link to a pdf, that provides all the data required to understand what I've been saying to you. It contains loads of pictures too. So it'll definitely suit you. Most important of all. It's a recent study by Eirgrid, into windpower, in Ireland. You won't be able to find or cite a more relevant study, you tool.

    You're posting pictures of EROI (not EROIE) data sets, and you don't even begin to understand how they work. Indeed, from your feeble uptake on it and your regurgitation of same, one only has to ask you why it is that hydropower plants aren't spread all over Ireland, afterall, they return one's investment 97 fold. Lmao!

    Main points?

    What main points?

    You have said and I quote:

    I've provided the evidence to debunk your claim, that the British network can't handle the windmill power - you're going on to make the same implication/claim again; well prove it, as this is pretty much the only thing your entire argument is based upon - the rest of it being fluff, largely based off of this unbacked claim.
    Where did I claim that the British network can't handle the windmill [Irish I presume] power? Quote me.

    You even went as far as saying:

    Your arguments about the 'complexity' of it all are ********, frankly - you're deliberately making up irrelevant arguments, to try and obfuscate to make the issue seem more complicated than it is, and to try and claim a monopoly on knowledge of the subject; it's epitomized with nonsense like this:
    "That's a major environmental issue and I'll bet you don't even begin to get why."
    Presented purely for rhetorical effect, since it's yet another made-up issue, that you only have the intention of withholding an explanation of, in order to try and pretend you have an authority/monopoly on knowledge.
    See that sentence you highlighted? There were two more sentences after it that your fuktardism obviously blocked:
    Think of Gormley's incandescent lightbulb bollocksology. But think of it in a scenario where it actually matters.
    Remember why lightbulbs were banned? Well, same issue here, but as I said, unlike the lightbulb problem, this actually matters. On top of this, it makes for wear and tear which increases maintenance costs and the frequency of the need to do it. But of course all this is well over your poor head. Should I spell it out for you? No, of course not. You don't even understand, or indeed, try to understand, the stuff I dumbed down for you already. You don't inspire me to give a toss as to helping you understand anything. The world is full of stupid people. I accept that.

    So, politely, take your whiny mewling and offer it to another.

  4. #34

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Flower View Post
    If Ireland was to lose its tourism industry, and be covered with massive high voltage pylons, is that a cost that should be counted in, or not ?

    If there was no public economic benefit, but profit going only to private landowners and private energy companies, inside and outside Ireland, should that be taken into consideration ?

    If the technology so far has not come up with any precedents, so far as I know, for balancing out, so that equivalent fossil fuel capacity has to be developed along side all this infrastructure, should that be taken into consideration ?

    As it happens, the UK has decided that it has other sources of energy to go for, including nuclear and fracking, perhaps in the Ukraine and Eastern Europe, that mean it does not want to go ahead with the Intergovernmental agreement, so that the debate to some extent is abstract.
    The tourism argument is a good one, but it has to be done eventually - the wind power is there to be tapped, and as fossil fuel costs increase over time, it will eventually become an unavoidable investment.

    So, to protect the tourism industry, the higher costs of underground cables is justified I would say.

    I'd also personally say, I'd like it more to be done as a public project rather than a private-subsidized one; I'm pretty against the excessive privatization that has become the norm now.

    Hmm? From what I've read, the technology does exist for balancing out, it just requires spreading the load over to the UK as well.


    It looks like it's not going to happen in any case, but it's something we (and the UK) are going to be forced into doing eventually anyway; it seems perfectly possible to implement, but I certainly don't advocate implementing it in a bad way, and there are a lot of bad ways it can be implemented.

  5. #35

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seán Ryan View Post
    I have been clear and concise. I've provided you with a link to a pdf, that provides all the data required to understand what I've been saying to you. It contains loads of pictures too. So it'll definitely suit you. Most important of all. It's a recent study by Eirgrid, into windpower, in Ireland. You won't be able to find or cite a more relevant study, you tool.

    You're posting pictures of EROI (not EROIE) data sets, and you don't even begin to understand how they work. Indeed, from your feeble uptake on it and your regurgitation of same, one only has to ask you why it is that hydropower plants aren't spread all over Ireland, afterall, they return one's investment 97 fold. Lmao!

    Main points?

    What main points?

    You have said and I quote:



    Where did I claim that the British network can't handle the windmill [Irish I presume] power? Quote me.

    You even went as far as saying:



    See that sentence you highlighted? There were two more sentences after it that your fuktardism obviously blocked:


    Remember why lightbulbs were banned? Well, same issue here, but as I said, unlike the lightbulb problem, this actually matters. On top of this, it makes for wear and tear which increases maintenance costs and the frequency of the need to do it. But of course all this is well over your poor head. Should I spell it out for you? No, of course not. You don't even understand, or indeed, try to understand, the stuff I dumbed down for you already. You don't inspire me to give a toss as to helping you understand anything. The world is full of stupid people. I accept that.

    So, politely, take your whiny mewling and offer it to another.
    You've provided me with a link to a PDF, when what you quote from it does nothing to counter my arguments - and it's up to you to cite facts from the PDF, not say "there you go - read!".

    It's up to you to make your own argument, and cite the relevant facts to back it - and citing an entire PDF isn't citing any 'facts', you need to quote them yourself, with the PDF as a source.

    Uhm, EROI and EROEI (not EROIE) are both the same thing.


    You were implying right here, that balancing across the UK is infeasible:
    Quote Originally Posted by Seán Ryan View Post
    Even using the best technology available, which has moved on from the beginnings of the industrial revolution, it would not be feasible to bear a cost beyond the cost of sating our needs, on the off chance that some of our spending might at some random time produce "balance" in an electrical system designed to serve 50 million plus customers. Pure unadulterated stupidity.
    Your personalization of the debate, doesn't do much to inspire confidence in your arguments - this is a pretty insignificant debate on the large scale of things (particularly seeing as the planned wind farms aren't going to get the go ahead now), so it's not hard to avoid personalization - it's not like we're debating Israel vs Palestine, Capitalists vs Communists or anything like that.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,980

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteDigress View Post
    The tourism argument is a good one, but it has to be done eventually - the wind power is there to be tapped, and as fossil fuel costs increase over time, it will eventually become an unavoidable investment.

    So, to protect the tourism industry, the higher costs of underground cables is justified I would say.

    I'd also personally say, I'd like it more to be done as a public project rather than a private-subsidized one; I'm pretty against the excessive privatization that has become the norm now.

    Hmm? From what I've read, the technology does exist for balancing out, it just requires spreading the load over to the UK as well.


    It looks like it's not going to happen in any case, but it's something we (and the UK) are going to be forced into doing eventually anyway; it seems perfectly possible to implement, but I certainly don't advocate implementing it in a bad way, and there are a lot of bad ways it can be implemented.
    No small task, to both change the economic system to one of "common good" basis, and to have the UK do the same thing. By the time this happens, it is possible the technology will have improved.

    However, I think that far more attention and investment should be made into minimisation of energy use.
    “ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
    — Jean-Paul Sartre

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Omnipresent
    Posts
    2,136

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Jesus wept...

    Saying that it's not feasible to generate power to supply the British market, is massively different than saying that the British grid couldn't accept it, if we did generate it. Indeed, I even pointed out that this particular grid would absorb most of what we generated, before it ever reached its customers.

    Now, not only did you say that I had said such a thing, you also said that everything else I said, related to it, and that you debunked it. So, you spent your time arguing against something that hadn't been said.

    You don't even have the decency to acknowledge it. You plough straight ahead, no shame and you continue to shriek your nonsense, and instead complain about my attitude towards you. What attitude do you think I should hold towards you? You being a person who slurs a whole group of people with no evidence whatsoever and immediately, just after admitting to your ignorance, slur them a second time using more vague innuendo. I can tell you, that the only two political groups I know of who were associated with Shell to Sea, and who have discredited themselves, are your wannabe friends, the Greens, and the Labour Party. So, what attitude should I have towards you, you who has allegedly become competent to argue a hugely complex subject, having spent a few minutes (from your anecdote) on wikipedia?

    Anyhow, for the very very last time, here is why it's not feasible to feed into the British Grid. And I won't be cutting and pasting any material. I know what it is I want to say and I know that I'm explaining it enough, in very standard terms, that I don't need to quote an authority. On the other hand, you have no clue about this subject matter. You've plenty of opinions. And you've plenty of facts. But you've no clue as to how the facts fit together, the EROI diagram for example. If you knew anything about the subject you'd realise, possibly, that depending on who produces the EROI report, one can get vastly different reports. There's nothing sinister in it. It's just that different needs can influence the outcome. So, EROI data is very useful. But nobody forwards it, on its own as a proof of anything. Anyhow, I've given a link to a relevant pdf file, that's 13 pages in length, with more than half of that space being taken up with pictures and graphs. The only bit I needed to quote from it I did. To show that I was very much on track with the extra and informative material, I had written for you. If you don't want to read it don't. But don't say I haven't provided reliable and respected source material, to further and explain the matter to you.

    So, on with showing why it's not feasible to generate extra power for the British market.

    i. You cannot have a windmills-only system. There has to be a backup method to generate power when the wind isn't blowing, or isn't blowing sufficienty. Read the pdf rather than question or berate me on this.

    ii. Systems are designed to provide power at peak load, eventhough they operate at less than this most of the time. Generators operate at different rates of efficiency. With windmills, this is determined, by how much wind there is. Your EROI diagram imagines generators operating at optimal levels. However and especially, in Ireland, windmills are incredibly inefficient, and their average operating efficiency is about 20%. So as you should be able to see, the EROI material you provided, is not at all suitable for making an argument on this particular subject. Anyway, Systems, peak load, etc. There is an argument to be made, and indeed the pdf touches on this, that it would be more efficient to have the windmills cover average load and use the gas powered, or whatever, to bring the power up during peak times. The outcome of that particular debate is something that Eirgrid will have to devote time to. Amongst other things, this shows the way the Irish system is designed, and hopefully, you'll see why it's not feasible to generate too far beyond peak demand, as you stress and risk your system in doing so. If the power in Ireland goes out, in a blue-alert type of way, it might be months before it could be powered up again.

    iii. Britain has a system that caters for more than 60 million, their system is set up to cater to a peak load for this massive population. Ireland is set up to deliver a peak load for close to 4 million.

    iv. The only feasible power we might have, to add to the British Grid, is the difference between our peak load and our average load. If we push it further than that we stress and endanger the system, as I've already said. As I've also said, the feasibility of supplying the British market at this point might end there, depending upon whether this power is being generated by fossil fuel generators.

    v. What little we can supply Britain, if we can supply Britain, must be supplied at a cheaper rate (including penalties for carbon etc.) than the British spend when they're changing from average load to peak load. Again, whether they're using fossil fuels (and they do) to bring the system to peak, is relevant. In other words, there is a market there (you might be onto something, yay!)

    vi. However, as I've said, the very transmission of that power, is an incredibly important consideration. In Ireland, for example, about half (if my memory's correct) of what's generated is lost in the transmission.

    vii. Now, when I said that windmills in Ireland, on average, operate at about 20% of optimal efficiency. What I didn't say, was that that applies to new windmills. Depreciation of value and quality is a constant. The rate of that depreciation isn't. The rate is associated with the amount of usage. So the more you use it, the the higher the rate. There's obviously a bit of back-stepping here. There'd be no point in repair or in replacing parts if that wasn't the case. Nonetheless, at some point, it becomes feasible to replace the generator rather than repair it.

    viii. Keeping vii in mind, let's examine transmission losses. I'm not sure what the transmission losses are in Britain, but I'm going to say they're on par with what I've said about Ireland. If you feel you must have the exact figures, go hunt em, it's my contention that they'll not change the point being made. I say, that firstly, the power we intend to sell (the difference between peak load and average load) is approximately 4/60 (approximation, adding a straight line rather than a curve) which equals about 0.07 of what's required.

    ix. It is not feasible, for the British to want to buy 0.07 of their needs to help bring their system up to peak. Maintenance frequencies increased, will take care of this.

    x. And this is why I give myself great license with my estimations and guesses. This 0.07 of the British market, that we might someday possess. Well, it's only 0.07 of the anticipated market at the point of generation. Transmission losses. 50% here leaves us 0.035 of our potential market. Then 50% in Britain, this has us telling the Brits that we have a great idea, we'll balance their system by stressing ours, and by giving them 0.0175 of what they might actually require.

    xi. It is not feasible to stress a system to supply such an insignificant market, especially so when a temperature drop, a pretty insignificant one, and this is just one example, would make the British network more efficient, enough so to make our contribution needless. Fair weather trading at best. But you'd have to attempt to supply the market the whole time, so that you might catch it at suitable intervals. Such a system would be ridiculous. Such a plan would never get past a feasibility study.

    Hope that helps.

    EDIT: I've made a mistake in the above. It doesn't alter the outcome. I said the the average operating efficiency of a windmill was 20%. I was wrongly referring to smaller, domestic type windmills. The bigger windmills operate at an average efficiency of 35%.
    Last edited by Seán Ryan; 10-03-2014 at 05:14 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Omnipresent
    Posts
    2,136

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Oh and there's a couple of other points, that I forgot to make (as I said it's a complex subject).

    i. Our peak times roughly coincide with British peak times. So, when the market actually opens, we're not in a position to sell to it, until they don't need it again.

    ii. Transmitting causes heat. This is an environmental issue. Heat, in a distribution network increases the resistance, and thus, lowers the efficiency. As well as supplying their market, we'd be heating their infrastructure, and making their own generation efforts slightly more inefficient. More maintenance required, subtract that from our "profit." And of course, and much more importantly, we heat our own transmission network, meaning that we need to generate more to feed our own needs and up our maintenance and costs for same. Costs including carbon and other pollution problems.

    It is not feasible to generate power for the British grid. Of course it's but my opinion. But I see the evidence as overwhelmingly supportive of it. And I don't see any to convince me otherwise.

  9. #39

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Flower View Post
    No small task, to both change the economic system to one of "common good" basis, and to have the UK do the same thing. By the time this happens, it is possible the technology will have improved.

    However, I think that far more attention and investment should be made into minimisation of energy use.
    Well, as the fossil fuel prices increase, I think it will become an increasingly good option, without the need for a 'common good' basis - getting the interconnect in place will at least allow it in the future, so that's a plus point.

    As the technology improves, I think one of the first areas of improvement will be battery tech - already, batteries like in electric cars, are able to be paired with windmills, to reduce the variability and ease integration into the grid - it doesn't solve the problem, but it's a start to alleviating it.

    The overall point is: Technology will not save us in time, because we have to be preparing for the fossil fuel crunch now, as we are already past the point were we can avoid it, we're already just in the 'damage control' phase - this means not just building windmills, not just doing the interconnect, but doing everything we can, including the energy saving measures you mention.

    We can't really afford to rule out any area of development, we really should be mobilizing all of our idle labour to meet this goal.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,980

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteDigress View Post
    Well, as the fossil fuel prices increase, I think it will become an increasingly good option, without the need for a 'common good' basis - getting the interconnect in place will at least allow it in the future, so that's a plus point.

    As the technology improves, I think one of the first areas of improvement will be battery tech - already, batteries like in electric cars, are able to be paired with windmills, to reduce the variability and ease integration into the grid - it doesn't solve the problem, but it's a start to alleviating it.

    The overall point is: Technology will not save us in time, because we have to be preparing for the fossil fuel crunch now, as we are already past the point were we can avoid it, we're already just in the 'damage control' phase - this means not just building windmills, not just doing the interconnect, but doing everything we can, including the energy saving measures you mention.

    We can't really afford to rule out any area of development, we really should be mobilizing all of our idle labour to meet this goal.
    Energy conservation / reduction in use imo has far more potential in the short and medium term future than any technological magic bullet, and is very obviously the least damaging.
    However it is not in the least bit attractive to governments as it means less taxation, and fewer shiny bells and whistles, than any high "sustainable energy" solution.

    Take a look at how much oil is used to heat houses in Ireland, when it is possible to design passive houses that require no heating other than what comes from fridges and cookers).
    Same goes for savings potentially to be made on personal transport fuel.

    But all the emphasis is on this magical 40% sustainability. 40% of what ?
    “ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
    — Jean-Paul Sartre

  11. #41

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seán Ryan View Post
    Jesus wept...

    Saying that it's not feasible to generate power to supply the British market, is massively different than saying that the British grid couldn't accept it, if we did generate it. Indeed, I even pointed out that this particular grid would absorb most of what we generated, before it ever reached its customers.
    Except that's not what you said, what you said was:
    Quote Originally Posted by Seán Ryan
    Even using the best technology available, which has moved on from the beginnings of the industrial revolution, it would not be feasible to bear a cost beyond the cost of sating our needs, on the off chance that some of our spending might at some random time produce "balance" in an electrical system designed to serve 50 million plus customers. Pure unadulterated stupidity.
    You were pooh-poohing the idea that the UK system can help balance the load, i.e. the feasibility of balancing.

    You're just trying to shift-goal posts now to backpedal.


    As to attitudes: You're the only one here insulting people and shrieking - not my fault if you can't keep a lid on your temper, in an Internet debate.

    You're now resorting to attacking my character once again, in order to make a big distraction to avoid providing evidence backing your claims.

    So what about what I said about Shell to Sea? I full out admitted my view was only an impression, and that I could be mistaken - and I have since discarded my original views on that; so since you're bleating on about a view I don't hold anymore, you just display you have an axe to grind and want to distract from your lack of backed-up facts.


    Again, you don't know what an anecdote is:
    Anecdote
    1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
    2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdote

    Scientific evidence, based on existing windmill projects, is evidence not anecdote. Evidence is not opinion - only charlatans try to pretend evidence is 'just your opinion'.

    If you claim there is a problem with the EROI document, prove it, and provide your own EROI values - cited from a reputable source (and reputable sources doesn't include what amounts "because I say so, this is a complex topic and I'm an authority on it").

    Your whole argument now is reducing to "this is a complex topic, only I have the relevant authority to talk about it".


    i: Windmills-only is a straw-man, nobody advocated that, that situation is your invention.

    ii: At optimal levels, latest generation windmills can operate up to 35 EROI - 18-20 is average. You are engaging in special pleading, prove your claim that EROI will be much lower. You are engaging in the false presumption in your argument, that excess windmill power would not be exported - you tend to silently presume this whenever it is opportune for your argument.

    iii: Irrelevant - does nothing to make integration of wind power less feasible

    iv: As long as excess power is being exported, and our grid is upgraded enough to handle that, there is no problem here. We can export as much as the UK can efficiently handle - they can adjust the rate of baseload power they generate, to accommodate the wind power, while having plenty of scope to stay within efficient operating levels in their baseload plants.

    v: Right - and I think that this market will expand a lot in the future, as fossil fuel costs increase.

    vi: Sure, it's not going to be as efficient as if we could use it locally, but there is still plenty of scope for net benefit

    vii: As long as the EROI is well within the positive ranges before replacement, this is fine - when you replace the generator, the EROI on that will be even higher again, since there is so much less work to do, and it will be a more efficient design. Win-win.

    viii/ix/x: The idea that we can only supply peak demand is unbacked, we're not 'balancing' their system - there is nothing special about buying the wind power. The proportion of power sold, compared to their overall system, does not matter - if it is cheaper than other energy sources available, or if the UK are prioritizing renewable energy targets, the market is there.

    xi: The idea that it would stress our system is an unbacked claim - we would be upgrading our infrastructure. Temperature drops changing the efficiency of a network, does not 'undo' the usefulness of energy sources. There is no 'window' at which we would have to try and opportunistically supply their market - that is an unbacked claim - there is nothing to stop their market integrating the energy, same way as we integrate wind energy - up to a certain capacity.

  12. #42

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Flower View Post
    Energy conservation / reduction in use imo has far more potential in the short and medium term future than any technological magic bullet, and is very obviously the least damaging.
    However it is not in the least bit attractive to governments as it means less taxation, and fewer shiny bells and whistles, than any high "sustainable energy" solution.

    Take a look at how much oil is used to heat houses in Ireland, when it is possible to design passive houses that require no heating other than what comes from fridges and cookers).
    Same goes for savings potentially to be made on personal transport fuel.

    But all the emphasis is on this magical 40% sustainability. 40% of what ?
    Absolutely, I agree with you on energy conservation - the thing is, we still have to replace our fossil fuel energy production regardless of that; need to do both.

    I think personally, that there should be a widescale project (subsidized by government) to properly insulate houses all across the country - that would go a long way to helping there.

    I think also, that large public transport infrastructure projects, would greatly lesson the fuel costs of transport - get people off the road and using public transport.

    Ah, what is this 40% sustainability thing? If it's to do with replacing fossil fuel power generation, then that makes sense - increases in efficiency, still need to be backed with changes in power generation, in my view - and it needs to be a lot more widescale than just wind, in my view.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Omnipresent
    Posts
    2,136

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    WPG provides a limited capacity credit for two principal reasons. Firstly, the annual energy provided by
    WPG is limited by actual wind conditions to approximately 35% of that which might be expected under
    perfect wind conditions. In addition wind conditions provide a link between all WPG in the country.
    Therefore wind farms which are geographically and electrically separate from each other may still tend to
    act in unison when common wind conditions exist across the country. Analysis of historical total power
    output from WPG over a number of years, would suggest that there will be hours and even days over the
    course of a year when the output from all WPG will be simultaneously very low due to either very high or
    low wind speeds. This characteristic of simultaneously low output causes the capacity credit to saturate.
    Therefore at high levels of WPG penetration the incremental generation adequacy benefit of additional
    wind capacity approaches zero.
    Read the fcuking pdf. You have no idea of what you're talking about with regard to that EROI.

  14. #44

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seán Ryan View Post
    Read the fcuking pdf. You have no idea of what you're talking about with regard to that EROI.
    No windmills on the planet operate at 'perfect' wind conditions; Ireland is one of the best suited countries in Europe, for wind power, and it is better than the UK - and this study shows some UK windmills operating at an EROI of 23:
    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863

    So yet more stats backing my claims, versus largely irrelevant text taken from your PDF - you don't actually provide stats on anything, you just pick out random statements from the PDF, that you can make 'vaguely' look, as if they back what you're saying - when they don't

  15. #45

    Default Re: Status of the Green Party?

    P34 provides stats on Irish wind capacity factor, putting it on average, at 31.7%:
    http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Isl..._2013-2022.pdf

    P4 puts UK capacity factor for wind, at 27%:
    http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications...windreport.pdf

    So, combined with the high EROI of the UK wind farm I cited, and that I have now shown that Ireland has greater wind CF than the UK, that backs my claim of high EROI values.


    If you want to counter my claims, start providing some stats, rather than limp statements from your PDF, that actually say nothing to back your claims.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Share us
Follow Us