On 03/12/2023 16:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Not provided any source at all for your quotes is not better than
providing it late. And what it looks like your quote is saying is
that the worst-case scenario is that we would have to build 30%
more wind turbines by eighty years from now, and even that is
assuming that there are no improvements in technology in the next
eighty years, which seems unlikely.

Wind turbines apparently last about 20 years, so saying we shouldn't
build them now because they might be less useful in the distant future
long after they would have rusted away anyway is utterly nonsensical.

The problem with wind generated electricity isn't the peak output, nor
the average; it's the worst case output.

I worked it out recently, over in uk.d-i-y, and it's not uncommon for
the output to be less than 1% of peak, so we fall back to gas.

Implying we need over 100 times more turbines than we have now to stop
using gas!

But if the change in wind speed means we get 10kts all the time, instead
of sometimes 5 and sometimes 30, that's good for wind generation.

A proper source for the data, not a popular magazine would be helpful.
We might be able to work out what it will mean.

Might.

Andy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-12-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 03/12/2023 16:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Not provided any source at all for your quotes is not better than
providing it late. And what it looks like your quote is saying is
that the worst-case scenario is that we would have to build 30%
more wind turbines by eighty years from now, and even that is
assuming that there are no improvements in technology in the next
eighty years, which seems unlikely.

Wind turbines apparently last about 20 years, so saying we shouldn't
build them now because they might be less useful in the distant future
long after they would have rusted away anyway is utterly nonsensical.

The problem with wind generated electricity isn't the peak output, nor
the average; it's the worst case output.

I worked it out recently, over in uk.d-i-y, and it's not uncommon for
the output to be less than 1% of peak, so we fall back to gas.

Implying we need over 100 times more turbines than we have now to stop
using gas!

Well sure, if the plan was to rely entirely on wind power. But nobody
has ever suggested for a moment that that is the plan. Apparently last
year 42% of all electricity generated was "renewables" so if we can do
that *now* then achieving 100% renewables hardly seems an unrealistic or unachievable goal. Indeed given the demonstrated vulnerability of gas to international instability - let alone climate change - it would seem
negligent in the extreme not to progress to this goal with great urgency.

But if the change in wind speed means we get 10kts all the time, instead
of sometimes 5 and sometimes 30, that's good for wind generation.

A proper source for the data, not a popular magazine would be helpful.
We might be able to work out what it will mean.

I did provide one: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables although frankly the figures seem to bear very little relation to the
claims in The Spectator.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/12/2023 23:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Well sure, if the plan was to rely entirely on wind power. But nobody
has ever suggested for a moment that that is the plan.

Where does the other power come from, if not wind?

Apparently last
year 42% of all electricity generated was "renewables" so if we can do
that *now* then achieving 100% renewables hardly seems an unrealistic or unachievable goal.

We need to include transport, industry, and heating. So maybe a 300% to
500% increase in electrical generation capacity.

Current plans do seem unrealistic. I think Greta has a point.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-12-04, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

On 03/12/2023 23:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Well sure, if the plan was to rely entirely on wind power. But nobody
has ever suggested for a moment that that is the plan.

Where does the other power come from, if not wind?

Solar, biofuels, hydro, geothermal?

Apparently last year 42% of all electricity generated was
"renewables" so if we can do that *now* then achieving 100%
renewables hardly seems an unrealistic or unachievable goal.

We need to include transport, industry, and heating. So maybe a 300% to
500% increase in electrical generation capacity.

Why do we need a 300 - 500% increase in electrical generation capacity?

Current plans do seem unrealistic. I think Greta has a point.

What is her point?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/12/2023 15:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2023-12-04, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

On 03/12/2023 23:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Well sure, if the plan was to rely entirely on wind power. But nobody
has ever suggested for a moment that that is the plan.

Where does the other power come from, if not wind?

Solar, biofuels, hydro, geothermal?

Apparently last year 42% of all electricity generated was
"renewables" so if we can do that *now* then achieving 100%
renewables hardly seems an unrealistic or unachievable goal.

We need to include transport, industry, and heating. So maybe a 300% to
500% increase in electrical generation capacity.

Why do we need a 300 - 500% increase in electrical generation capacity?

Some of the numbers for the charging of cars, vans, lorries and other
HGVs are simply eye-watering. That's without moving to all electric heating.

Why do you think?

Current plans do seem unrealistic. I think Greta has a point.

What is her point?

That not much is being done to address the issues at hand?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/12/2023 15:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2023-12-04, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

On 03/12/2023 23:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Well sure, if the plan was to rely entirely on wind power. But nobody
has ever suggested for a moment that that is the plan.

Where does the other power come from, if not wind?

Solar, biofuels, hydro, geothermal?

Solar is pretty useless in winter, precisely when we need most power.
Hydro is very limited.
Biofuel is a possibility and works well with wind.
I dunno about geothermal, presumably good for heating. I can't see that
it is very promising, given the low level of development to date.

Apparently last year 42% of all electricity generated was
"renewables" so if we can do that *now* then achieving 100%
renewables hardly seems an unrealistic or unachievable goal.

We need to include transport, industry, and heating. So maybe a 300% to
500% increase in electrical generation capacity.

Why do we need a 300 - 500% increase in electrical generation capacity?

To cover energy usage in transport, industry, and heating. Stuff that is currently being powered directly by carbon based fuel. Electrical cars
need electricity, heat pumps need electricity.

There is a good book, called "Sustainable Energy-Without the hot air."
This explains both the need for more electrical generation and the
limits on how much power we can generate from renewables. Onshore wind, biofuels, solar have very strict limits on how much power they can
produce per area of land, energy density. Essentially, we don't have
enough land for these renewable technologies to support anywhere near
our current level of energy consumption.

We do have enough area for offshore wind to produce enough power.
However, we would need a massive amount of new turbines and
infrastructure to support wind variability. I'm not seeing it happen.

Current plans do seem unrealistic. I think Greta has a point.

What is her point?

Her point is the COP talks are Blah Blah Blah, rather than serious
efforts to tackle the problem of green house gas emissions.

Politicians like wind+solar because they appear to be doing something,
and the public like it. However, they don't provide a clear route to
zero carbon. There is just a vague hope that a solution will turn up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/12/2023 17:47, notya...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 15:03:14 UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2023-12-04, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote:

On 03/12/2023 23:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Well sure, if the plan was to rely entirely on wind power. But nobody
has ever suggested for a moment that that is the plan.

Where does the other power come from, if not wind?

Solar, biofuels, hydro, geothermal?

Tidal.

<snip>

After we've built a barrage across Morecambe Bay, completely destroying
all the wildlife habitats, and the Bristol Channel, and the Solway
Firth, where next?

Those schemes are single figure GW production _peak_. They'd help, but
at enormous cost both in money and environmental damage.

And of course they are intermittent. Predictably intermittent, unlike
wind, but still intermittent.

Andy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/12/2023 23:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2023-12-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 03/12/2023 16:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Not provided any source at all for your quotes is not better than
providing it late. And what it looks like your quote is saying is
that the worst-case scenario is that we would have to build 30%
more wind turbines by eighty years from now, and even that is
assuming that there are no improvements in technology in the next
eighty years, which seems unlikely.

Wind turbines apparently last about 20 years, so saying we shouldn't
build them now because they might be less useful in the distant future
long after they would have rusted away anyway is utterly nonsensical.

The problem with wind generated electricity isn't the peak output, nor
the average; it's the worst case output.

I worked it out recently, over in uk.d-i-y, and it's not uncommon for
the output to be less than 1% of peak, so we fall back to gas.

Implying we need over 100 times more turbines than we have now to stop
using gas!

Well sure, if the plan was to rely entirely on wind power. But nobody
has ever suggested for a moment that that is the plan. Apparently last
year 42% of all electricity generated was "renewables" so if we can do
that *now* then achieving 100% renewables hardly seems an unrealistic or unachievable goal. Indeed given the demonstrated vulnerability of gas to international instability - let alone climate change - it would seem negligent in the extreme not to progress to this goal with great urgency.

Government policy is to get to Net Zero.

But if the change in wind speed means we get 10kts all the time, instead
of sometimes 5 and sometimes 30, that's good for wind generation.

A proper source for the data, not a popular magazine would be helpful.
We might be able to work out what it will mean.

I did provide one: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables although frankly the figures seem to bear very little relation to the
claims in The Spectator.

Ah, sorry, I missed that. However... it shows totals.

It shows the installed capacity, and the total generated.

It *doesn't* show worst case.

Hydro is good for this; the limit on production is usually the amount of
water available, rather than the plant capacity, and you can go from off
to full power in minutes.

We can't build much more hydro though - we've used all the good sites,
and filling mountain valleys with water isn't good for their wildlife.

Wind, on the other hand, might produce a lot of power on average. But
quite often it produces <expletive> all. And unless we're willing to
turn everything off when the wind isn't blowing it won't help much.

Right now we have a system where gas generation fills in the times when
the wind doesn't blow. There are two problems with that:

First the obvious: we can't get to net zero that way.

Secondly the less obvious: for maximum efficiency gas plants -
especially combined cycle gas turbines - like to run at a steady load.
There may come a point where more wind makes the gas backup so much less efficient that it doesn't save any gas.

If we had grid scale storage wind would work fine. But we don't, and
never will.

To my mind the best bet is fission. Sure, it's dirty, but it's carbon
neutral and reliable. The least bad option.

Fusion would be better, but that always seems to be 50 years away.

Andy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)