The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Global warming truth.

Global warming truth.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
If you want to know the truth about the Global Warming theory, check out Tallbloke's Talkshop 16/10 2020. You will find the science in the most lay person friendly effort I have seen.

If you want to continue to believe the unbelievable, or have an interest in promoting the scam, don't go near it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 17 October 2020 1:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I blame Donald Trump.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 17 October 2020 5:29:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phil,

What is it that the scientific community would need to show you that would convince you that large-scale anthropogenic global warming is real and that human activity is responsible for the current greenhouse effect?

If you cannot answer this question in an educated manner then you do not have a clue what you are just full of hot air."
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 17 October 2020 5:46:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My comment was corrupted so I will reload it.

Phil,

What is it that the scientific community would need to show you that would convince you that large-scale anthropogenic global warming is real and that human activity is responsible for the current greenhouse effect?

If you cannot answer this question in an educated manner then you do not have a clue what you are talking about and as they would say in the greenhouse gas game "You are just full of hot air."
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 17 October 2020 5:50:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's only one truth to Global Warming & that is, that no matter what we do now we can't change this point of evolution because we are not inclined to arrest population growth !
Posted by individual, Saturday, 17 October 2020 6:27:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pseudo-individual,

Are you speaking for Phil?

If you are you can tell him from me that he is wrong about that.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 17 October 2020 6:31:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr O only my friends are entitled to address me by my christian name, & you are not one of them. I am Hasbeen to you.

Obviously by your post you have not read the science in the reference I posted.

When you can show evidence of having done so, by refuting it if you don't believe it, I will talk to you again.

Obviously it is you who need to become familiar with the science, to straighten out your university humanities brain washing. Do try to free your self, & prove you actually do have a brain capable of absorbing facts.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 17 October 2020 10:06:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this is the link Hasbeen to the sites articles.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

Interesting comment by Angstrom on the saturation of the CO2 infrared band.

I've heard that the Methane absorption band is wider than the CO2 one and so is a worse Greenhouse Gas. (Refrigeration gases are even worse)
Posted by Canem Malum, Saturday, 17 October 2020 11:17:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

Out of respect I will refrain from calling you Phil.

How about Mr. West? That's respectful. Or even better how about Flight Squadron Leader West?

I am up on the science around anthropogenic global warming. It is you who is turning a blind eye to the reality that humankind is responsible for the increasing warming of the planet over the past 250 years, being coincident with modernity.

The question still stands: What is it that the scientific community would need to show you that would convince you that large-scale anthropogenic global warming is real and that human activity is responsible for the current greenhouse effect?

Not being able to answer that question demonstrates that you anthropogenic global warming denialists do not have any knowledge of the subject.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 18 October 2020 8:52:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual,

You are right. The whole thing is a yawn; but people with limited interests and not much up top need something to keep banging on about long after there is nothing left to say. It's same with the China virus. Everything that can be said has been said - time after time, after time. Boring.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 18 October 2020 9:22:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn,

When it comes to the study of climate change you are the odd one out.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 18 October 2020 9:27:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
gw is now a religion for the self righteous to preach to the masses. I mean look at the underprivileged Hollywood deviants, the pope, Prince Charles, Greta, Flannery, Gore etc etc. Anyone of them flying more kilometres in a year than 99% of the population but still the audacity to preach their garbage. Apologies the Greta whose fellow sailors had to fly back to Europe after her stunts. The Chinese with their hundreds of new coal plants just laughing at the stupidity of the West. No wonder China loves Biden so much. Oh for 10 Trumps.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 18 October 2020 9:34:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

I saw somewhere the other day that China is now putting more carbon into the atmosphere than the rest of the world put together.

Which means that there is now no way of combating the effects of anthropogenic global warming.

The Chinese can now determine the future of humankind and the rest of the world cannot do anything about it.

I hold ignorant people like you responsible for letting it come to this.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 18 October 2020 10:22:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I hold ignorant people like you responsible for letting it come to this.'

Just when you thought arts degrees could not make you so stupid.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 18 October 2020 2:41:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, I could not find the specific article you might have been
referring to but interesting site anyway.
I had not heard of it previously.
Now that everyone knows that we cannot afford just wind and solar the
greens and pollies will have to come into line on power generation.
The misunderstanding of the co2 sensitivity for earths temperature
meant that too much blame was put on CO2.
Seems that the co2 rise in the last century only caused 0.1 c rise.
The rest was caused by the cycles that have been with us for millennia.
A warm peak around 1000 BC, the Roman warming, when wine was cultivated
in Scotland by Roman troops, the Medieval Warming when the Vikings
settled Greenland, the Maunder Minimum when the Thames froze every
year and the present warming which is believed to have peaked about 1995.
So we can now look forward to a cooling which will reach a low about
300 to 500 years time. Because of the multiple cycles the period varies.
It is all about cycles within cycles. Sun, Sunspots, & Milanovitch.
For those who want to look further start with Hendrik Svenmark and
then go further.
So predictable.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 19 October 2020 8:39:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

I don't believe anything you have to say about global warming and climate change simply because you have never studied these things.

It takes a lot of knowledge and expertise to understand and work these things out and you just don't have what it takes.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 19 October 2020 12:02:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz, you outsmart Mr O every time, he feels threatened as evidenced by his last post. He cannot refute the claims, as his experience in Climate science is zero, so tries to demean the messenger.
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 19 October 2020 6:24:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pseudo-Josephus,

I can tell that Bazz has never studied global warming and climate change.

To someone with my background it is obvious.

Maybe he can fool the likes of you but he can't pull the wool over my eyes.

What he preaches is pseudo-science which is all he knows because he has never studied science and therefore does not have the knowledge and experience needed to work out how the world works.

He's a dreamer like Squadron Leader West (aka Hasbeen nee Phil) who is off with the fairies imagining himself as an ace fighter pilot always coming in to land on an imaginary aircraft carrier after completing a series of dog fights with the Red Baron.

What they do exhibit is undeniably a case of dementia, which is pretty much what you seem to suffer from as well.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 19 October 2020 7:07:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr 0,
> I saw somewhere the other day that China is now putting more carbon
> into the atmosphere than the rest of the world put together.
I think you misunderstood what you saw.

If you look at the twenty highest emission countries and the rest of the world, you'll find that the biggest emitter (China) emits more CO2 than the rest of the world, but nowhere near as much as the other nineteen.

And yes, Australia is in the top twenty.

BTW your vapid criticism of Bazz comes across as intellectual snobbery. If you can't point out the actual flaws in his reasoning or assumptions, it's best to keep quiet.
_______________________________________________________________________________

individual,
Population growth is largely a re herring. Stoping population growth would be insufficient to stop global warming. But if we value the environment, we can solve the problem even with a much higher population.

_______________________________________________________________________________

runner,
gw deniaism is now a religion for the deluded to preach to the masses. And why would the Chinese be laughing with uneconomic coal plants they built for political reasons?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Now that wind and solar have become cheaper than fossil fuels, it's disappointing that you're still spreading the lie that we can't afford them.

Meanwhile the temperature keeps getting hotter, completely destroying the credibility of your hypothesis that it's all down to cycles.

The article in question is at http://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/05/25/pick-your-a-team-arrhenius-or-angstrom/ but it is rather incoherent, with overuse of obscure abbreviations and unsupported assertions.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 2:19:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

I said: "I saw somewhere the other day that China is now putting more carbon into the atmosphere than the rest of the world put together." Savvy? "I saw somewhere ......"

If pseudo-scientists like Bazz can't handle criticism then stop spreading bullsh!t about things they have never studied and hence have no knowledge and experience about.

All they do is create false ideas about the seriousness of global warming and climate change and give people false hope that everything will be alright if they fail to act.

What Bazz, Hasbeen, mhaze, and a long list of other pseudo-scientists are selling is a cancer for life on Earth.

And this is because none of them have ever studied science but think they know more that the scientists do.

If there was a University of Bullsh!t these guys would all be Professors of Bullsh!t.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 6:18:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr 0,
Yes you saw somewhere. Now it could be that what you saw was an outright lie, but I think it's more likely you just misunderstood what "rest of the world" meant.

>If pseudo-scientists like Bazz can't handle criticism...
There's more than one kind of criticism. If you'd pointed out (as I did) some examples of why what he said was wrong, there'd be no problem. But instead you resorted to ad hominems. You used your presumptive and rather dubious criticism of him as an excuse for your failure to provide any objective criticism of what he said.

>All they do is create false ideas about the seriousness of global warming and climate
>change and give people false hope that everything will be alright if they fail to act.
True. But when instead of proper criticism you disparage their ability to hold valid opinions, it damages your credibility not theirs.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 7:40:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

I refuse to engage in discourse with people who have nothing to offer to a discussion but lies.

Would I discuss the Holocaust with Holocaust deniers? NO.

So I also refuse to discuss global warming and climate change with the deniers.

God gave me X number of heartbeats and I'm not wasting any of them on people who don't know what they are talking about.

A spade is a spade is a spade is a shovel.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 7:54:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, re affordability of solar and wind.
It is the duplication of turbines and solar panels that makes them unaffordable.
I agree that probably a wind turbine in a wind that enables it to
generate maximum output is producing the cheapest electricity ever.
However figures I have seen suggest that any one turbine will produce
35% of its yearly nameplate KW/Hrs. Some recent designs are said to reach 50%.
That being so it means that you have to install two more turbines in
two other locations.
I have seen argument that that duplication factor is as high as 12.
Seems too high to me but the figures of existing wind farms should
give reasonable estimates. However to find alternative wind systems
far enough away to be active when the first is calm is the trick.
That is the crux of my argument, although it gets worse for other
reasons, but please explain where I have that wrong.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 8:12:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
M 0,
>I refuse to engage in discourse with people who have nothing to offer to a discussion but lies.
Firstly, is such a refusal wise? These are lies they've fallen for rather than lies they've made up!
Secondly, if that's how you feel, you shouldn't've responded to Bazz at all.

> God gave me X number of heartbeats
Humans are not limited in the number of heartbeats they have. Heart failure is never the result of running out of beats!

> and I'm not wasting any of them on people who don't know what they are talking about.
If that's your concern, it's not just this thread you shouldn't waste your time on, but this entire board.

> A spade is a spade is a spade is a shovel.
Their functions overlap, but a spade is primarily a cutting tool, whereas a shovel is primarily a transferring tool.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
The affordability of wind and solar power are based on estimates of what they'll actually generate, not their nameplate capacity. Where storage is needed, that too is taken into account.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 9:55:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "truth" about global warming is that the people who took away our freedoms under the cover of the China virus are going to do the same thing in the name of climate change. Open your eyes. Take notice of the goings on in the ghastly, unelected World Economic Forum, founded by an 82 year old German fascist. Listen to politicians who have publicly said, without the slightest embarrassment, that now they have got people accepting the loss of their freedoms during the China virus, they should be able to get away with the same thing to 'fix' climate change. Listen to HRH Prince Wackjob spruiking the "opportunity" to reset everything without interfering with his privileged existence. Just bloody listen instead of putting out homespun opinions.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 9:57:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr O tells us he was an engineer, but obviously either does not have enough math to understand the Global Warming hypothesis, or knows his whole value system will be destroyed if he actually reads the truth.

Poor old Aidan actually believes all the bill with his acceptance of rubbish like "wind is cheaper than fossil fuels".

Prey tell when the first wind farm is built with out subsidy, & when it supplies it's own back up. Then I'll be all for wind. Meanwhile he is all just hot air.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 9:59:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,
gw deniaism is now a religion for the deluded to preach to the masses. And why would the Chinese be laughing with uneconomic coal plants they built for political reasons?
'

It is obvious Aiden that you are learning from Greta.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 10:11:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

You know who we need on OLO Forum?

A philosopher.

I put my trust in philosophers to steer us in the right direction. They have a knack for doing that sort of stuff.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 10:26:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of royal wackjobs, next in line to the throne, William, has started bleating about climate change. Given Charles, William and Ginger (not a royal anyway) and their dragging of the good name of the Monarchy and our admirable Queen into grubby politics, with two of them cavorting with commoners, the UK might drop them after the Her Majesty's passing before we do.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 12:41:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn,
> The "truth" about global warming is that the people who took away our freedoms under
> the cover of the China virus are going to do the same thing in the name of climate change.r
Conjecture does not equate to truth. And seeing as how governments failed to take effective action on climate change at all, the claim that they'd take away our freedoms to achieve that objective are highly illogical. That you take those claims seriously shows far more about your prejudices than anything anyone else plans to do!

> Take notice of the goings on in the ghastly, unelected World Economic Forum,
This forum is also unelected. Do you regard it as ghastly too?

> founded by an 82 year old German fascist.
Though its founder is now 82, he founded it nearly half a century ago. And on what evidence do you base the claim that he is, or ever was, a fascist?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
As an engineer myself, I can tell you that understanding global warming doesn't require a great deal of mathematical knowledge or ability. You just need to understand the key processes and have a sense of how outputs relate to inputs.

Considering your apparent failure to grasp the above, I'm wondering: do you lack that sense?

And yes, I believe the evidence. But again, you seem to fail to understand that, at least for the existing power generation companies, doing nothing is the most lucrative option as it pushes up electricity prices. Without subsidies, no power stations at all are likely to be built for general supply, though mines would continue to invest in wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.

_________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
Greta hasn't had much TV coverage lately, and I haven't actively sought her, so I doubt I am learning from her. It's far more likely that your bias has made false assumptions seem obvious.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Mr 0

When you refuse to debate what the deniers are saying, i doubt you could gain anything by trying to engage them in a philosophical discussion!
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 1:46:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

I find global warming/climate change deniers as abhorrent as Holocaust deniers.

These sickos depend on having knowledgeable people engage with them in discussions because it affords them an opportunity to spread their web of lies and deceit.

They try to win arguments by trickery.

I think the best thing to do is just ignore them, but without turning a blind eye to them and be ready to name and shame them at every opportunity.

The world will be a much better place when there is no room in it for their kind.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 2:03:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

Windfarms built without subsidy?

Goodness me you are shamelessly hypocritical aren't you. Virtually all of the coal fired power stations were built almost exclusively with public funds. Sure some have been sold off increasing electricity prices but you name a single one that was commissioned without subsidies.

As to Global Warming Truth you wouldn't know about truth if it hit you smack in the face. For you to be inviting us to read anything by Roger Tattersall is proof enough. The bloke is a whack job of the highest order and is among the few of diehard deniers who seem to be circling their wagons into smaller and smaller circles. Don't you have anyone the least bit more credible?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 3:35:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see SR has now joined Mr O in demeaning the messenger.

I'm waiting 50 years when we have exhausted all lithium and aluminium and copper, and the third World is still burning wood and dung to cook and keep warm. The only alternative will be coal and gas, of which we have plenty of.

There is a small high speed wind turbine on a vineyard just up the road from us worked for 2o + years now scrap metal. They have since connected to the grid. One of the companies near us had Solar installed ten years ago, now outdated and needing to be replaced. It may be good for 25 years but after that all is scrap.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 4:00:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pseudo-Josephus,

If you like burning coal so much then why don't you migrate to China where they'll even let you eat it for breakfast if you want.

Fellow Climate Change denier Squadron Leader West (aka Hasbeen nee Phil) will even fly you there in his make believe fighter jet.

Don't be late! UP UP AND AWAY.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 4:09:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr 0,
Holocaust deniers are relatively easy to deal with; the Nazis kept meticulous records.
But if, instead of doing so, you ignored their arguments and instead resorted to ad hominems, other readers would conclude that the deniers are smarter and/or better informed than you. Intellectual snobbery isn't naming and shaming your opponents, it's shaming yourself by calling your opponents names!

__________________________________________________________________________________

Josephus,
Resources don't run out in the way you think they do. Aluminium in particular is extremely abundant, and there will always be alternatives.

Why do you expect the third world to still be burning wood and dung to cook and keep warm in 50 years? They're moving away from that now, so that statement looks particularly stupid... though far less so than your next claim:
> The only alternative will be coal and gas,
Have you forgotten the alternative of electricity?

Also, are you unaware that wood and dung can be used to make gas, and that the process is far more environmentally friendly than burning them directly?

Most of the soar panels are likely to last longer than 25 years, though those in high value situations are likely to be cascaded to lower value situations when better ones are available. And it's hardly surprising that a wind turbine from the 20th century has now been put to be recycled!
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 7:47:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, and what is their Gwatt/Hrs output divided by the number of
turbines/NPrating per year ?
Unless you take into account the number of turbines involved and their
rating you are avoiding the cost of maintenance and installation.
Basically what is needed is the amount of energy generated per year
compared to what would be generated if the wind never stopped blowing at top speed !
You are also avoiding the necessary duplication of sites and the more
capable grid with which to interconnect them.

The lifetime of a turbine also seems to be under a cloud as many in
the US seem to be not making 20 years.
Also Germany is scrapping turbines and selling them to Australia amoungst others. Any idea why ?
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 9:16:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SR you are too smart to actually believe the crap you post. What is your angle?

I know most of the other warmists are too dumb to see the truth if it hit them in the face, but you know the facts, so are simply a con man.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 20 October 2020 10:23:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
Understanding the effects of the laws of physics does not make anyone dumb, however much you try to spin it otherwise.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, You appear to be implying that baseload power is what we need. But that s utterly ridiculous! Demand fluctuates and supply has to match it. The capacity factor for wind in SA is 34.7%. I think the figure for fossil fuelled power is much lower, though I haven't checked it recently.

Al the costs of wind turbines are taken into account. The claim that wind turbines get free transmission lines built to wherever they are is false, and will always be false.

Germany is investing very heavily in wind turbines, so I suppose it would make sense for them to replace the smaller ones with bigger ones, and sell the old ones for further use where appropriate.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 2:21:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden said;
The capacity factor for wind in SA is 34.7%.
So from where does the other 65.3% come ?
Not from more wind turbines in Sth Aus.
Has to be from another two wind systems some distance away.
They cost money don't they ?
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 7:54:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

Still waiting for you to tell me about a single coal fired power station which has been built in this country without subsidies.

As to me being a con man you are still riding on the enthusiasm with which the denier crowd greeted the so called hiatus.

That has been blown out of the water during the intervening years and the rest of us look at these figures then look to you lot with growing pity.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 7:58:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
Sorry, I'd thought you understood what capacity factor meant!

Capacity factor is just a ratio. 100% of capacity factor is nothing to do with our requirements; it's merely the maximum output.

Wind generated 70.4% of our requirements last month. Another 4.7% came from utility solar, and 14.8% from rooftop solar.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 11:17:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz and Aidan,

Nothing I enjoy more than hearing a couple of guys talking about engineering stuff like you two do.

It's about as exciting as watching wet paint dry.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 11:30:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, so your 37.4% is the average over a period of time of the rated output ? Y/N ?
That was my understanding and it is not related to the demand at any time.
It is just a integrated measure of output of that equipment.
So if an energy system has to deliver the peak load of that equipment,
then it has to spread the turbines around at least three wind systems.
But what if two wind systems are in calm ? And the sun has set ?
So, in reality is 3 a big enough multiplication ?
You raised the matter of batteries, but they have to be recharged.
Can you use the same three turbines ?
Would the time of low demand needed to recharge be available ?
Is six times a big enough multiplication of turbines enough ?
The argument you put suggests that no multiplication is needed.
That is my argument that the cost of the system is unaffordable.
Then the grid has to be more capable of sending all power everywhere.
How large has the grid got to be to get enough different wind systems ?
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 12:15:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm still waiting for you SR to refute the rock solid science I quoted in my first post.

Try staying on the subject if you want to earn any respect around here old boy, not your airy fairy twaddle.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 2:32:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

When you quote from rather dubious sources you're
in no position to talk about anything "airy-fairy".
You look silly.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 2:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

If you want to put a global warming/climate change denier to the test just ask what evidence he needs to see to demonstrate that it is real.

If he can't answer that convincingly then you know he is full of hot air.

Me thinks Squadron Leader West (aka Hasbeen nee Phil) plays with the joy stick a bit too much when he's in the cockpit of his imaginary fighter plane.

And I bet he's had more than a few rough landings too.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 3:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr O,

Hasbeen and I go a way back on this forum. He's a top
bloke most of the time.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 3:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A balanced debate;
http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-polar-ice-caps-are-melting/
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 5:57:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

Lol.

There were two articles posted on that date by past university web content editor. Which one are you touting is "rock solid science"?

You are still refusing to name a single Australian coal fired power station which was built without any public subsidy. Now we are stumping up billions in a 'gas led recovery' yet not a peep from you.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 7:21:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

"I went into this kind of hoping I would discover that the data was overstated or wrong. That is not my takeaway, although I reserve room to be proved wrong (after-all data showing that the ice-caps are melting isnít the same as proving everything related to the climate change and ice cap melt debate).

My takeaway is that climate skeptics essentially know global warming is a problem to some extent, but many donít think itís ďthat badĒ, and are using confusion to hinder what could very well be oppressive regulation. On the same note, itís likely that those who want more regulation have their own agenda."

So both sides recognising that Global Warming is a problem is pretty one sided in my book. That is not what Hasbeen thinks.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 7:30:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
>So if an energy system has to deliver the peak load of that equipment,
What exactly do you mean here? Are you trying to contrive a staggering coincidence where the demand is equal to the nameplate capacity?
Or are you referring to transmission capacity?

(The latter would seem a more sensible basis for a discussion, but the rest of your post seems to imply the former).
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 9:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz and Aidan,

B-O-R-I-N-G
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 9:40:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, one turbine is is installed with a certain capacity X.
To get that capacity the wind has to blow at 25knots (as I understand it)
However that only happens 37.4% of the time.
Therefore two more turbines have to be installed to get the design output.
However there is no point installing them alongside the first one,
because if the wind drops it drops for all three.
So the other two have to be installed in two other sites.
Hopefully, there will be enough wind on all three sites to get X output.
However that would never happen 100% of the time.
I think that is a reasonable assumption.
X output availability at any particular time is the requirement
said by to be available by renewable advocates.

To obtain the needed real world output at any unspecified time will
need more than three turbines on three sites.
Why ? Because two sites could be in a dead calm and the other light wind.
So what is the multiplication factor if three is not enough ?
So, to get more output you will need more turbines and sites.
There will be a number that will do it but it might need an area
larger than Australia to always find enough wind.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 21 October 2020 9:59:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
> Therefore two more turbines have to be installed to get the design output.

FALSE!

The nameplate capacity is NOT the design output objective.
You are falsely assigning great significance to the nameplate capacity (a rather trivial statistic) and because of that you're obsessing over problems that don't exist!

________________________________________________________________________________

Mr 0,
Now you know how I feel about the waffle that you keep posting!
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 22 October 2020 12:35:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr Opinion,

With respect did you look at the website that Hasbeen referred to?

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

In the first article apparently the famous scientist "Angstrom"- who gives his name to the unit of measurement "The Angstrom" 10^-10 metres- said that the CO2 infrared band is saturated- this would surely imply that no more energy could be absorbed by CO2 than currently- and hence presumably CO2 can do no more damage to the Earth than it has already done. This to me is interesting- perhaps not complete. There are other substances that can absorb EM Energy other than CO2.

I share your mistrust of the energy companies not because they are necessarily untrustworthy but because they have a vested interest.

To calculate the complete absorption of energy from the Sun by the Earth from my understanding would require obtaining Time Sequence EM Spectral Signatures- Black Body Radiation by satellite and calculating the heat energy of the Earth over time from this. But perhaps at lower temperatures the Black Body curve gives a less precise indication of temperature.
Posted by Canem Malum, Thursday, 22 October 2020 5:09:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden said;
The nameplate capacity is NOT the design output objective.

Then what is the design objective ?
To build a system that provides half the needed load, a quarter ?
Why build a system that cannot supply maximum demand ?
Just what are you trying to do ?
I have always thought the objective was to provide electricity for
the country, have I got that wrong ?
Have I twigged the real objective !
Is it to reduce the amount of energy that we use by just not making it available ?
Rationing ?
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 22 October 2020 6:53:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Canem Malum,

I refuse to debate with global warming / climate change deniers.

They are on the same level as Holocaust deniers.

They are a cancer to life on Earth.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 22 October 2020 7:55:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Canem Malum,

Also with respect both you, Hasbeen and Tallbloke are furiously barking up the wrong tree.

Here is a short video explaining why. It includes a reference to Angstrom's experiment.

http://youtu.be/we8VXwa83FQ

It is couched in fairly basic terms but if you are still confused and would like a fuller discussion I am happy to have it.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 22 October 2020 9:38:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
> I have always thought the objective was to provide electricity for the country, have I got that wrong ?
No, you've got that right. But you're the only one who's conflating the amount of electricity provided with the nameplate capacity.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Canem,
Infrared can be absorbed and reemitted by CO2 multiple times.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 22 October 2020 10:35:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, there is no point in continuing, as you cannot seem to be able
to explain the context of what you believe to be required of an
electricity system while taking into account a variable energy source.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 22 October 2020 10:44:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is anyone else here having trouble understanding what I'm saying? Or is it just Bazz?
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 22 October 2020 12:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr Opinion- Generally my view is that talk is required to reach consensus- the alternative step is war- sometimes war is necessary. But I do empathize with your view.

To Steele Redux- Well I often find a good bark is necessary in discipline of dogs. But I'll view your video evidence. Thanks for your offer of explanation as I'm easily confused.

Aiden said- "Infrared can be absorbed and reemitted by CO2 multiple times."
Answer- Yes I envisaged this argument but I felt that the point was the CO2 intensity at the band was equal to the intensity of the Sun at the Earths orbit- hence saturated. But I may have misunderstood. Maybe I need to re-read the article as to the parameters and conclusions.
Posted by Canem Malum, Thursday, 22 October 2020 1:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come off the raw prawn SR. Do try some straight talking just once.

Government owned power houses were not subsidised, but owned. You do realise there is a difference or don't you?

Retailers forced to take all & any hugely expensive unreliable power from wind or solar is a pretty is a pretty good subsidy from all of us.

Then there is the South Oz interconnector, there only to make it possible for them to have a high dependence on unreliables.

Now they want another projected 2 Billion [sure to be 4 billion in fact], for another interconnector. Sensible power generation doesn't need it, power users don't need it, it is simply wanted to keep their lights on with reliance on crazy unreliable wind & solar.

Next is Snowy 2.0. Absolutely crazy idea, with no chance of paying for even it's running costs, after we have been slugged another projected 2 Billion, [sure to be 4 billion at least], again for infrastructure that is only required to make wind & solar even remotely capable of supplying our needs. We don't need it, coal & gas power don't need it, it's sole purpose is to try the impossible & prop up unreliable wind.

So there's about 8 billion in real life needed to prop up [subsidise], wind & solar

Obviously I have miss judged you, you are as stupid as your posts would suggest.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 22 October 2020 5:51:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
Something that might help you comprehend things:
In some cases it would be possible to install a higher capacity generator on the wind turbine. This would boost nameplate capacity but reduce capacity factor. It wouldn't make the turbine any less useful, but it wouldn't be much more useful either.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Come of the raw prawn, Hasbeen!
Despite how much you want to equate renewables with unreliables, they're not. 'Tis the coal fired power stations that have proven to be unreliable.

SA has two links to the Victorian grid: the Heywood Interconnect is the main link; it's been there since the early '90s, long before there were any renewables connected to SA's grid, or even any plans for them. The real reason it was built was, of course, to trade electricity. Back then, VIC's was cheaper than SA's most of the time.

There's also the DC Murraylink connector to NW Victoria. The main reason for that was to address the supply shortages SA had around the turn of the millennium. Three other things were done to address these shortages: changing market rules, more gas turbines, and more renewables. The latter has been most effective.

There are still huge fluctuations in power prices, and a direct connection to NSW will alleviate that in both states, and is something that should have been done twenty years ago. Snowy 2.0 is another measure that will address this. It's a very sensible idea, though whether it's cost effective is another matter.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 23 October 2020 1:42:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stop press, like everything to do with unreliable power generation Aidan, the Snowy 2.0 cost is now up to $5.7 Billion, just for the scheme. All up with transmission lines & buying out Victoria it is now at a staggering $15 Billion. No wonder we can't get into our hospitals, we blew the budget on fool green rubbish.

Remember this is a project that is only required to try to make wind & solar, the unreliables into something a little more reliable.

Talk about subsidising wind power, or a special hand out to the con men who run it. Which ever you like, it is a totally unnecessary expenditure only required if we are stupid enough to try to make these crazy expensive unreliable wind & solar systems viable.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 23 October 2020 1:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And it gets even funnier.

The poms, even with the catastrophe of the German attempt to do wind power right beside them for an example, have gone mad on wind power, or could it be wanting a pat on the head from the con men running the United Nations for being obedient fools.

Well they started shutting coal, gas & nuclear power stations. Even started using US wood chips for gods sake.

Of course their wind unreliables won't keep their lights on, so they have been buying nuclear power from France.

Now with Brexit they want their own fishing grounds back from the EU, for their own use. The French who have been ripping 600,000,000 pounds worth of fish from the Pomy grounds each year, want to stay. The poms have found the French none too careful about protecting fish stocks, so have a couple of good reasons for wanting the French gone.

Now the French are threatening to close down the supply of their nuclear generated power supply, leaving the poms really dependent on their unreliable wind power.

So do the poms give up their fishing grounds, or go cold & dark this coming winter? They don't seem to be able to get much right these days. Come on Boris, what would Churchill do? It certainly wouldn't be kowtow to the French. The poms invented steam power, & made the world a better, richer, healthier place, & now by turning their backs on it, have stuffed themselves.

Anyone who advocates renewables to replace fossil fuels is either an idiot, or really wants to push us peasants back to the dark ages.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 23 October 2020 2:52:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden;
In some cases it would be possible to install a higher capacity
generator on the wind turbine.

It would increase the possible maximum o/p .
The annual capacity factor would be the same, same wind.
However that 37.4% would be a bigger 37.4% !
Got it ?
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 23 October 2020 8:53:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
Dispachability and reliability are two very different things, and the renewables are reliable no matter how many times you push the lie that they're not. As for the real unreliables, I had not considered the unreliability of NSW's coal fired power stations to be a reason for building Snowy 2.0, but I guess it makes sense - they've been breaking down a lot.

What do you mean about "buying out Victoria"?

Despite their unwise decision to phase out nuclear power, Germany's transition to renewables is far from a catastrophe. Though they had some reliability problems a few years ago, those have all been fixed.

The UK is not trying to phase out nuclear power, though there's a limit to how long the lifespan of their reactors can be extended, and obtaining commercially viable replacements has been problematic. Nor is there a policy of closing gas fired power stations - occasionally old ones close, but new ones open. And though they want to phase them out eventually, new ones open. There's a policy of phasing them out eventually, but it will not be at the expense of reliability.

Britain has been buying nuclear power from France for man decades, due to it being cheap (as the costs of their power stations were inflated away in the 1970s).

Have the French REALLY threatened to stop exporting electricity to the UK? A quick Google search revealed speculation that they could do, but no reports of them actually making that threat.

The cost of global warming, if nothing is done about it, will be in the quadrillions. Fossil fuels have to be replaced, and in most (though not all) cases, renewables can do the job more cheaply than nuclear power.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 23 October 2020 9:19:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
>It would increase the possible maximum o/p .
Correct. However that would only make a difference in VERY windy conditions.
Most of the time, the output would be the same.
Therefore the capacity factor would be lower.
Got it?
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 23 October 2020 9:24:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as the global warming goes, obviously I do not KNOW what the
truth is and I doubt anyone here does.
All we can do is try to understand what the various groups say is the
cause of the rise in temperature.
The "settled" theory is that it is ALL caused by CO2.
"settled" in the sense that a majority have accepted a CO2 cause.
However it so happens that the temperature rise has occurred at the
same time as a rise could be expected due to a long term well known
cycle whose last peak was known as the Medieval Warming Period around
900AD 1300 AD. Midway between then and now, the late 18th century to
early 19th century was known as the Maunder Minimum.
At that time the climate was colder and the sunspot count was lower
than usual.

As the Maunder Minimum climate temperature increased it coincided
with the increase in CO2 due to industrialisation with the burning of coal.
The length of the cycle appears to be between 600 years and 1000 years.
The current warm peak is believed to have occurred around mid 1990s.

Significant Dates:
Roman Warming 100 BC to 300 AD Grapes grown in Scotland by Romans.
Dark Ages 300AD 800AD
Medieval Warming 800AD 1300AD Vikings settle Greenland.
1400 AD Vikings leave Greenland.
1790 to 1840 Maunder Minimum Thames freezes over every year
1814 Last year London's Ice Festival held on Thames.
1950 to ? Global warming
Next cold period 2600 ?

I understand that all the above will offend the
sensitivities of some people so I can only apologise.
Plenty of info available. Search Turku & Kobe Universities
on the subject Henrik Svenmark for original work regarding Cosmic Rays
and clouds.
The authors have been attacked of course for their suggestion that
CO2 has only caused a rise of 0.1 deg C.
Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi are the Finnish scientists at Turku
University in Helsinki.
Kauppinen was a member of the IPCC.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 23 October 2020 11:09:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden said'
Most of the time, the output would be the same.
Therefore the capacity factor would be lower.
Got it?

No, because for the same windspeed the output would be higher
therefore the Capacity Factor would be unchanged.
Bigger turbines, bigger blades.
OK ?
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 23 October 2020 12:20:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For gods sake Aidan, just try to keep your lights on if connected to nothing but wind & solar power.

The fact that you have to spend tens of billions backing up renewables with coal, gas & some form of incredibly expensive storage system proves they can't do the job. If that is not seen as unreliability in your eyes, you must be totally blind.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 23 October 2020 12:24:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
Your assumption of a bigger turbine was due to poor comprehension on your part. I'm referring to the effects of a bigger generator on the same size turbine.

Now, as regards global warming:
>The "settled" theory is that it is ALL caused by CO2.
Not exactly.

Firstly, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. But its relative abundance makes it the most significant... apart water vapour, which mainly acts as a feedback mechanism because the amount the atmosphere holds depends mainly on temperature.

Secondly, it is know that there are other factors at work. There are changes in solar radiation and changes in albedo. Changes in solar activity affect cloud formation (which is significant both because of albedo and of water vapour concentration). But the effects are relatively small - they are currently being swamped by the effect of increased CO2.

________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
Are you really so stupid that you don't know the difference between what is currently being done and what can be done?
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 23 October 2020 1:30:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, a bigger turbine needs a bigger push, otherwise there is no point to having it.
All energy comes from the blades. You can only get what the blades produce.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 23 October 2020 2:57:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is this: Tradesmen's Corner?

We've got Bazz, Squadron Leader West & Aidan talking nuts & bolts about machines to each other totally oblivious to the fact that not one except them cares about tradies' stuff.

Next thing you they'll be telling each other how to fix fridges and replace an axle.

These engineers .......... don't you just love them though?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 23 October 2020 3:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

Don't be idiotic.

Whether a power station is fully paid for by the taxpaying community and it stays in government hands or it is partially paid for and it is in private hands we still subsidise both out of our pockets.

The distinction you are attempting to draw is in name only.

Anyway half your arguments about the effectiveness of various strategies to reduce emissions seem to be based on the premise we have a warming planet. Yet overtly you haven't accepted this fact instead often claiming it is cooling instead.

Could I ask you give even the smallest regard for consistency on this issue. Or perhaps your position has evolved to a degree or two as the case may be.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 23 October 2020 4:27:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
>Aiden, a bigger turbine needs a bigger push, otherwise there is no point to having it.
And it gets bigger push when it's very windy.

Alternatively you can look at it the other way round: you could use a lower capacity generator with the same size blades; that would give you a higher capacity factor and a lower maximum output.

Do you get it yet? Cost effectiveness is the objective, not meeting some figure for nameplate capacity or capacity factor.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Mr 0,
I'm not a tradesman, I'm a professional engineer.
I don't know, nor do I wish to know, how to fix a fridge or replace an axle.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 23 October 2020 5:57:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

I regard engineers as tradesmen.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 23 October 2020 6:28:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, there is no resolution if you do not understand that there is
an optimum match for turbine and blades. Perhaps you need to ask
Hasbeen about this I am sure he will know more about that subject
due to his wide experience in the marine field.

At least we have now resolved why we cannot agree.
Good Night !
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 23 October 2020 8:52:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr 0,
What you're that ignorant about what engineers do, this really doesn't surprise me.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Again you'e basing you post on mistaken assumptions. There is indeed an optimum match... but it's a contextual economic optimum not a physical optimum.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 24 October 2020 1:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

I have a degree in engineering and have worked in the industry for my entire working life so I think that qualifies me to recognise engineers as tradesmen.

I think the community in general recognises engineers as tradesmen.

"Engineer' is a very broad term and should not be restricted to only those tradesmen who have earned a degree in engineering.

My TV repairman is just as much an electronics engineer as a graduate in TV engineer.

And my mechanic is just as much a mechanical engineer as the guy who designed the car.

'Engineer' is a relative term not an absolute term.

I regard myself as a tradesman albeit I have a degree in engineering.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 24 October 2020 7:53:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy