Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...omising_1.html

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

David wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...omising_1.html

Where's the study???

You want to debate what someone is reporting about what someone else said?

Goodness!

Peter Franks wrote:

David wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...omising_1.html

Where's the study???

You want to debate what someone is reporting about what someone else said?

Goodness!


It's pretty simple, where the wind blows most of the time, it
is viable, many places it would be a waste of money.


There needs to be more comprehensive science, there are plenty
of ways to make heat engines work just with the ordinary existing
differences in temperature.


No one technology can ever provide all the alternate energy needed.
Ocean temperatures may not be of much use because the cold is on the
bottom, but maybe the atmosphere could provide all the energy needed,
I am available to discuss it, but I would have to neglect other income
generating work, so I need paid. :-)

UK Taken In By The Great Wind Power Scam

Christopher Booker

26 Oct 2008



Even in these dark times, it is still possible to be shocked when our Prime
Minister personally endorses a flagrant perversion of the truth. Last year,
for example, many of us felt outraged when Gordon Brown pretended that the
Lisbon Treaty was somehow totally different from the EU Constitution, in
order to wriggle out of his party's manifesto promise of a referendum. Last
week Mr Brown in effect did it again when he endorsed the deception at the
heart of his Government's wildly exaggerated claims about the benefits of
using wind to make electricity.



In a video for the British Wind Energy Association, the industry's chief
lobby group, Mr Brown claimed: "We are now getting 3 gigawatts of our
electricity capacity from wind power, enough to power more than 1.5 million
homes."



This deliberately perpetuates the central confidence trick practised by the
wind industry, by confusing "capacity" with the actual amount of electricity
wind produces. In fact, as the Government's own figures show, wind turbines
generate on average only 27 to 28 per cent, barely a quarter, of their
"capacity".



In other words, far from producing those "3 gigawatts", the 2,000 turbines
already built actually contributed - again on official figures - an average
of only 694 megawatts (MW) last year, less than the output of a single
medium-size conventional power station. Far from producing "enough to power
more than 1.5 million homes", it is enough to power barely a sixth of that
number, representing only 1.3 per cent of all the electricity we use. Yet
for this we have already blighted thousands of square miles of countryside,
at a cost of billions of pounds.



Indeed, at the same BWEA-sponsored event, Mike O'Brien, energy minister,
went on to perpetuate the second confidence trick practised by both
Government and industry, which is to conceal the fact that all this is only
made possible by the huge hidden subsidy given to wind energy through the
Renewables Obligation. This compels electricity companies to pay way over
the odds for the power generated by wind turbines, a burden passed on to us
all in our electricity bills.



Mr O'Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind
turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be
raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even
further into make-believe by saying that he was "assessing plans" to build a
further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, "enough electricity for
every home in the country".



Mr O'Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could
build the 10,000 monster turbines needed to achieve this, at a rate of more
than two a day, when it takes weeks to instal each vast machine. At present,
of the giant barges needed for the work, there is only one in the world.
Even if it were possible, the construction costs alone, on current figures,
would be anything up to £100 billion - the price of 37 nuclear power
stations, capable of producing nearly 10 times as much electricity - while
the subsidies alone would add £6 billiion a year more, or 25 per cent, to
our electricity bills.



Why do our ministers think they can get away with talking such nonsense?



What is humiliating is that they do it largely to appease the EU, which has
set us the wholly impossible target of producing 32 per cent of our
electricity from "renewables" by 2020.



What is dangerous is that even contemplating such a mad waste of resources
is diverting attention from the genuine need to build enough proper,
grown-up power stations to keep our lights on. For that the time is fast
running out, if it hasn't done so already. It is on that Mr Brown should be
concentrating, not on trying to pull the wool over our eyes with such
infantile deceits.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../26/do2611.xml





Warmest Regards



Bonzo

ooznb wrote:
Mr O'Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind
turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be
raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even
further into make-believe by saying that he was "assessing plans" to build a
further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, "enough electricity for
every home in the country".

Do you know if the 25 GW is rated capacity, or expected output? I'll
guess rated capacity. Therefore, is the 6.25 GW (30% of capacity)
expected output sufficient to power "every home in the country"?

Mr O'Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could
build the 10,000 monster turbines needed...

That is going to take up a lot of space... The last time I discussed
this, my calculations indicated that 300-400 square miles (of land area)
are needed for every 1000 MW produced. If the spacing requirements are
the same/similar to land, that means 1,875 - 2,500 sq. mi.

Yoiks.

On Dec 16, 9:24*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
ooznb wrote:
Mr O'Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind
turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be
raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even
further into make-believe by saying that he was "assessing plans" to build a
further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, "enough electricity for
every home in the country".

Do you know if the 25 GW is rated capacity, or expected output? *I'll
guess rated capacity. *Therefore, is the 6.25 GW *(30% of capacity)
expected output sufficient to power "every home in the country"?

Mr O'Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could
build the 10,000 monster turbines needed...

That is going to take up a lot of space... *The last time I discussed
this, my calculations indicated that 300-400 square miles (of land area)
are needed for every 1000 MW produced. *If the spacing requirements are
the same/similar to land, that means 1,875 - 2,500 sq. mi.

Yoiks.

oh you mean 100 sq mile per 1000 MW, and the 300-400 sq miles of land
area, you are referring to could generate 3000 - 4000 MW in peak
winds.....

Which of these things is not like the others?

sci.geo.meteorology
sci.environment
alt.global-warming
soc.religion.quaker

The reason that the quaker group is there is because the poster
who signs his posts "David Christainsen - Meteorologist" is trying
to destroy the Quaker newsgroup by flooding it with off-topic posts
about global warming. Why does he want to hurt the Quakers?
Because he was expelled from a Quaker meeting for being disruptive.

When you reply to the same newsgroups, letting David Christainsen
control where your posts go, you help him in his ongoing quest to
destroy soc.religion.quaker. If you delete s.r.q from the
"Newsgroups:" line, you will be doing the Quakers a huge favor.

....And no, he isn't really a Meteorologist. He belongs to no
meteorology organization, has no degree in meteorology, and
has never held a job in the field of meteorology. It appears
that his definition of "Meteorologist" is "someone who posts
to a meteorology newsgroup".

The Quakers thank thee in advance for thy kindness to them.

"...The unarmed Quakers in Pennsylvania were safe
from attack by Indians for sixty years while in all
the other colonies armed whites suffered massacres.
Then one day a couple of Quakers, a little afraid
and influenced by the example of other white men,
took guns with them to their work some distance from
the cabin. The Indians concluded that the Quakers
must be contemplating an attack on them, decided
that the best defense was an offensive, and promptly
killed the Quakers."

-A. J. Muste, _Non-Violence in an Aggressive World_

On Dec 17, 8:55*am, Engineer wrote:
Which of these things is not like the others?

sci.geo.meteorology
sci.environment
alt.global-warming
soc.religion.quaker

The reason that the quaker group is there is because the poster
who signs his posts "David Christainsen - Meteorologist" is trying
to destroy the Quaker newsgroup by flooding it with off-topic posts
about global warming. *Why does he want to hurt the Quakers? *
Because he was expelled from a Quaker meeting for being disruptive.

When you reply to the same newsgroups, letting David Christainsen
control where your posts go, you help him in his ongoing quest to
destroy soc.religion.quaker. *If you delete s.r.q from the
"Newsgroups:" line, you will be doing the Quakers a huge favor.

...And no, he isn't really a Meteorologist. *He belongs to no
meteorology organization, has no degree in meteorology, and
has never held a job in the field of meteorology. *It appears
that his definition of "Meteorologist" is "someone who posts
to a meteorology newsgroup".

The Quakers thank thee in advance for thy kindness to them. *
...

There is NO FLOOD.

Possibly because Engineer (Guy Macon) is NOT a
Friend, he does not understand that Friends believe
in stewardship of the earth.

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:24 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
ooznb wrote:
Mr O'Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind
turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be
raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even
further into make-believe by saying that he was "assessing plans" to build a
further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, "enough electricity for
every home in the country".
Do you know if the 25 GW is rated capacity, or expected output? I'll
guess rated capacity. Therefore, is the 6.25 GW (30% of capacity)
expected output sufficient to power "every home in the country"?

Mr O'Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could
build the 10,000 monster turbines needed...
That is going to take up a lot of space... The last time I discussed
this, my calculations indicated that 300-400 square miles (of land area)
are needed for every 1000 MW produced. If the spacing requirements are
the same/similar to land, that means 1,875 - 2,500 sq. mi.

Yoiks.

oh you mean 100 sq mile per 1000 MW, and the 300-400 sq miles of land
area, you are referring to could generate 3000 - 4000 MW in peak
winds.....

No, I mean 300-400 sq. mi. per generated 1000 MW.

On Dec 17, 6:37*am, Peter Franks wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:24 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
ooznb wrote:
Mr O'Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind
turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be
raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even
further into make-believe by saying that he was "assessing plans" to build a
further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, "enough electricity for
every home in the country".
Do you know if the 25 GW is rated capacity, or expected output? *I'll
guess rated capacity. *Therefore, is the 6.25 GW *(30% of capacity)
expected output sufficient to power "every home in the country"?

Mr O'Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could
build the 10,000 monster turbines needed...
That is going to take up a lot of space... *The last time I discussed
this, my calculations indicated that 300-400 square miles (of land area)
are needed for every 1000 MW produced. *If the spacing requirements are
the same/similar to land, that means 1,875 - 2,500 sq. mi.

Yoiks.

oh you mean 100 sq mile per 1000 MW, and the 300-400 sq miles of land
area, you are referring to could generate 3000 - 4000 MW in peak
winds.....

No, I mean 300-400 sq. mi. per generated 1000 MW.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

then either you are neglecting the total amount of electricity
produced during peak winds, or you are arguing for inefficient use of
land, take your pick