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.


Come on, that's only 50 x 50! But they can't be all that
close together, and the wind only blows regular enough to be of
much use on hills and mountain passes.


Better keep the coal mines open, or drill for natural gas.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
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

Peak winds? That is irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing
the average efficiency of rated capacity for a given (wind-driven)
system. That number is generally accepted to be 25-30%.

Inefficiency of the land is also irrelevant to the discussion. The
point I made, which still stands, is the area of land/sea required for
the given output is not insubstantial.

Whata Fool wrote:
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.


Come on, that's only 50 x 50! But they can't be all that
close together, and the wind only blows regular enough to be of
much use on hills and mountain passes.

50 miles out to sea? Must be some shelf...

I'd expect it to be a couple of miles wide. If we suppose 5 mi. wide,
that would be a strip 500 miles long. The UK is ~700 x 300 mi. That is
a pretty big stretch of windmills... Even at 10 mi. wide, that's 250
mi. of pinwheels...

On Dec 17, 3:17*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
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

Peak winds? *That is irrelevant to the discussion. *We are discussing
the average efficiency of rated capacity for a given (wind-driven)
system. *That number is generally accepted to be 25-30%.

Inefficiency of the land is also irrelevant to the discussion. *The
point I made, which still stands, is the area of land/sea required for
the given output is not insubstantial.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wow, so peak production is irrelevant in your opinion, and capital
investments in land are irrelevant in you opinion, so how big of
blinders do you need somebody need to put on for your point to be
valid? (as your point would not stand up to the slightest of breezes
(pun intended))

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Dec 17, 3:17 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
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
Peak winds? That is irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing
the average efficiency of rated capacity for a given (wind-driven)
system. That number is generally accepted to be 25-30%.

Inefficiency of the land is also irrelevant to the discussion. The
point I made, which still stands, is the area of land/sea required for
the given output is not insubstantial.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wow, so peak production is irrelevant in your opinion, and capital
investments in land are irrelevant in you opinion, so how big of
blinders do you need somebody need to put on for your point to be
valid? (as your point would not stand up to the slightest of breezes
(pun intended))

Not what I said.

Have a nice, informed, day.

-pf

Peter Franks wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
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.


Come on, that's only 50 x 50! But they can't be all that
close together, and the wind only blows regular enough to be of
much use on hills and mountain passes.

50 miles out to sea? Must be some shelf...

I'd expect it to be a couple of miles wide. If we suppose 5 mi. wide,
that would be a strip 500 miles long. The UK is ~700 x 300 mi. That is
a pretty big stretch of windmills... Even at 10 mi. wide, that's 250
mi. of pinwheels...


Don't you have any appreciation of science fiction?


Just hope the socialists don't plan on tearing down all the
coal plants before alternate space heating is in full use.

On Dec 17, 6:38*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Dec 17, 3:17 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
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
Peak winds? *That is irrelevant to the discussion. *We are discussing
the average efficiency of rated capacity for a given (wind-driven)
system. *That number is generally accepted to be 25-30%.

Inefficiency of the land is also irrelevant to the discussion. *The
point I made, which still stands, is the area of land/sea required for
the given output is not insubstantial.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wow, so peak production is irrelevant in your opinion, and capital
investments in land are irrelevant in you opinion, so how big of
blinders do you need somebody need to put on for your point to be
valid? (as your point would not stand up to the slightest of breezes
(pun intended))

Not what I said.

Have a nice, informed, day.

-pf- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, you declared peak production is irrelevant in your opinion, and
capital investments in land are irrelevant in you opinion, which are
dicey qualifiers for your argument, in my opinion. Now my point is
that if you have to state peak production & capital investments are
irrelevant in your opinion when discussing the benefits and drawbacks
of energy produced from wind, you are not making any point at all, as
these both are key factors in running any energy producing power plant
regardless of the energy source...

Whata Fool wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
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.

Come on, that's only 50 x 50! But they can't be all that
close together, and the wind only blows regular enough to be of
much use on hills and mountain passes.
50 miles out to sea? Must be some shelf...

I'd expect it to be a couple of miles wide. If we suppose 5 mi. wide,
that would be a strip 500 miles long. The UK is ~700 x 300 mi. That is
a pretty big stretch of windmills... Even at 10 mi. wide, that's 250
mi. of pinwheels...

Don't you have any appreciation of science fiction?

Oh, I got your point, to be sure. What is fiction to us is reality to
someone -- unfortunately, that someone is typically in a position of
power, preying upon the ignorant.

Just hope the socialists don't plan on tearing down all the
coal plants before alternate space heating is in full use.

If history is any indicator, the coal plants will be demolished long
before the first pinwheel is even a figment of someone's imagination.

On Dec 17, 8:47*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:
Peter Franks *wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
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.

* * *Come on, that's only 50 x 50! * *But they can't be all that
close together, and the wind only blows regular enough to be of
much use on hills and mountain passes.
50 miles out to sea? *Must be some shelf...

I'd expect it to be a couple of miles wide. *If we suppose 5 mi. wide,
that would be a strip 500 miles long. *The UK is ~700 x 300 mi. *That is
a pretty big stretch of windmills... *Even at 10 mi. wide, that's 250
mi. of pinwheels...

* * * *Don't you have any appreciation of science fiction?

Oh, I got your point, to be sure. *What is fiction to us is reality to
someone -- unfortunately, that someone is typically in a position of
power, preying upon the ignorant.

* * * *Just hope the socialists don't plan on tearing down all the
coal plants before alternate space heating is in full use.

If history is any indicator, the coal plants will be demolished long
before the first pinwheel is even a figment of someone's imagination.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


oh man, you should not rely on your twisted views of history to lead
yourself out of your self-imposed myopia...

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
in refusing to help to flood the Quaker newsgroup.

"...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_