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.

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 isn’t 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 don’t think it’s “that bad”, and are using confusion to hinder what could very well be oppressive regulation. On the same note, it’s 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.

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).

Bazz and Aidan,

B-O-R-I-N-G

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.

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!