Volvo Community Forum. The Forums of the Volvo Owners Club

Forum Rules Volvo Owners Club About VOC Volvo Gallery Links Volvo History Volvo Press
Go Back   Volvo Owners Club Forum > "General Topics" > General Volvo and Motoring Discussions

Notices

General Volvo and Motoring Discussions This forum is for messages of a general nature about Volvos that are not covered by other forums and other motoring related matters of interest. Users will need to register to post/reply.

Information
  • VOC Members: There is no login facility using your VOC membership number or the details from page 3 of the club magazine. You need to register in the normal way
  • AOL Customers: Make sure you check the 'Remember me' check box otherwise the AOL system may log you out during the session. This is a known issue with AOL.
  • AOL, Yahoo and Plus.net users. Forum owners such as us are finding that AOL, Yahoo and Plus.net are blocking a lot of email generated from forums. This may mean your registration activation and other emails will not get to you, or they may appear in your spam mailbox

Thread Informations

60 MPH Limit on Motorways

Views : 5248

Replies : 121

Users Viewing This Thread :  

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Oct 9th, 2020, 00:33   #121
pinballdave
Member
 

Last Online: Today 22:45
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Brighton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laird Scooby View Post
As for govt reports, data etc - i've lost all faith in those over recent years and this year has literally hammered all the nails into the coffin of any beliefs i had in govt integrity as far as scientific advances go.
So you didn't read as far as the University of Edinburgh study. Shame really, as that was the interesting one for me


You can prove whatever you like with data and statistics, but the studies that take liberties like this will get found out by the time that they're peer reviewed. Unfortunately by this time the mainstream media will have already written their headlines, and the sheep will have their 'facts' to argue with with their mates down the pub (or on internet forums).


The case in point here is the paper "Electricity Costs: The folly of wind-power" by Ruth Lea (Civitas 2012). This paper turns up a lot on 'climate denier' sites, and argues that building wind turbines creates more CO2 emissions than it saves.

In this report she argues that if you have wind turbines, then you must also have an equal generating capacity of conventional (ie coal/gas powered) generation, and this backup power capacity will be operating less efficiently than if you didn't have wind turbines and the coal/gas power stations will be operating at their maximum efficiency.

She then added a 70% price premium onto wind generated power to pay for still having to run these stations at reduced efficiency. This 70% conveniently being enough to validate her argument that wind energy is a waste of money.

It's only when you dig into the report to find out how she came to calculate the 70% premium that you find the errors and assumptions that may have been conveniently inserted to further Civitas' political aims. The gas fuelled power stations are only operating at reduced efficiency while the wind turbines are providing significant amounts of energy. When there's no wind, the gas power stations are running at full efficiency. However the calculations infer that they are always operating at reduced efficiency. Also when the wind turbines are running, the gas power stations have reduced output, and even though they are not running at full efficiency, they are still emitting significantly less CO2 than if the wind turbines did not exist, but not according to the calculations in this report.

Shame really, as the balancing costs of running wind turbines and having to keep alternative generation running on standby is a real issue. Just not as big an issue as she makes out.

Never mind, the damage was done. The newspapers had their headlines for a day, and the climate change deniers have a nice printed scientific study that they can refer to (and conveniently ignore the subsequent papers that pointed out the errors).

And who knows, it may have influenced the opinions of Paul's 'Engineers that build them'.
pinballdave is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pinballdave For This Useful Post:
Old Oct 9th, 2020, 01:18   #122
Laird Scooby
Premier Member
 
Laird Scooby's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 21:57
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Lakenheath
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinballdave View Post
So you didn't read as far as the University of Edinburgh study. Shame really, as that was the interesting one for me


You can prove whatever you like with data and statistics, but the studies that take liberties like this will get found out by the time that they're peer reviewed. Unfortunately by this time the mainstream media will have already written their headlines, and the sheep will have their 'facts' to argue with with their mates down the pub (or on internet forums).


The case in point here is the paper "Electricity Costs: The folly of wind-power" by Ruth Lea (Civitas 2012). This paper turns up a lot on 'climate denier' sites, and argues that building wind turbines creates more CO2 emissions than it saves.

In this report she argues that if you have wind turbines, then you must also have an equal generating capacity of conventional (ie coal/gas powered) generation, and this backup power capacity will be operating less efficiently than if you didn't have wind turbines and the coal/gas power stations will be operating at their maximum efficiency.

She then added a 70% price premium onto wind generated power to pay for still having to run these stations at reduced efficiency. This 70% conveniently being enough to validate her argument that wind energy is a waste of money.

It's only when you dig into the report to find out how she came to calculate the 70% premium that you find the errors and assumptions that may have been conveniently inserted to further Civitas' political aims. The gas fuelled power stations are only operating at reduced efficiency while the wind turbines are providing significant amounts of energy. When there's no wind, the gas power stations are running at full efficiency. However the calculations infer that they are always operating at reduced efficiency. Also when the wind turbines are running, the gas power stations have reduced output, and even though they are not running at full efficiency, they are still emitting significantly less CO2 than if the wind turbines did not exist, but not according to the calculations in this report.

Shame really, as the balancing costs of running wind turbines and having to keep alternative generation running on standby is a real issue. Just not as big an issue as she makes out.

Never mind, the damage was done. The newspapers had their headlines for a day, and the climate change deniers have a nice printed scientific study that they can refer to (and conveniently ignore the subsequent papers that pointed out the errors).

And who knows, it may have influenced the opinions of Paul's 'Engineers that build them'.
Interesting viewpoints there, there's a lot more to balancing generators (regardless of fuel) than simply matching the load. That obviously plays a big part of it but many other things have to also be considered. It's a vast subject in itself and i've forgotten too much of it to be able to present a coherent explanation. That said, i honestly doubt "Pauls engineers that build them" would have been influenced by anything contained in the report you refer to (i've not read it but from what you've said, i'm fairly confident in drawing that conclusion) as their priorities would have been the necessary power output in the most efficient way which is where the compromises begin.

About 20 years ago i worked next door to a place that made parts for gas turbine generators. They were repairing and balancing one turbone wheel, about 18-20' diameter.

I honestly thought we were having an earthquake the first time they started to run it up! Bear in mind the floors were about 4' thick concrete and i was about 1/4 mile from where they were running it. It actually made some of the Daleks walk across the yard - Daleks was my nickname for some 20kVA gensets that were fully enclosed in a 10'x10' enclosure (half the size of the standard lorry container) and i'm not 100% sure on the weight but would guesstimate 2-3T as the 2T forklift struggled and was unsteady and the 3T was only a little better. The 5T had no trouble lifting them though.

That was another 1/4 mile from where this turbine wheel was being run up.

As i'm sure you can see, a certain level of mechanical sympathy needs to be used when load-balancing as well!
__________________
Cheers
Dave

Next Door to Top-Gun with a Honda CR-V & S Type Jag Volvo gone but not forgotten........
Laird Scooby is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Laird Scooby For This Useful Post:
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:52.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.