Correct.
Well done wind
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sigh... I'll try to explain in nice simple words. Let me know if you can't understand, I'll draw some pictures. Here goes...
1. The gas power stations we have are beyond their lifespan so need replacing.
2. We must build more gas power stations with or without wind as we need enough capacity for when the wind doesn't blow.
3. Wind turbines are currently being justified and subsidised based on their comparison against the BUILD + RUNNING costs of the gas power stations.
4. As we need to build the gas power stations anyway, this is invalid. But it's how the govt are making the sums add up in favour of wind.
5. The correct comparison would be comparing the cost of wind against only the RUNNING costs of the gas power stations - basically just the gas itself, plus a bit for wear and tear. The thing needs building anyway, and it will age whether used or not.
6. The government are deliberately skewing the argument in favour of wind, they're making bills higher than they need to be.
7. Electricity generated from gas could cost less than wind.
8. The fact that the govt won't publish the correct comparison suggests that they know it doesn't make sense and are just finding excuses to build more wind.
1. The gas power stations we have are beyond their lifespan so need replacing.
2. We must build more gas power stations with or without wind as we need enough capacity for when the wind doesn't blow.
3. Wind turbines are currently being justified and subsidised based on their comparison against the BUILD + RUNNING costs of the gas power stations.
4. As we need to build the gas power stations anyway, this is invalid. But it's how the govt are making the sums add up in favour of wind.
5. The correct comparison would be comparing the cost of wind against only the RUNNING costs of the gas power stations - basically just the gas itself, plus a bit for wear and tear. The thing needs building anyway, and it will age whether used or not.
6. The government are deliberately skewing the argument in favour of wind, they're making bills higher than they need to be.
7. Electricity generated from gas could cost less than wind.
8. The fact that the govt won't publish the correct comparison suggests that they know it doesn't make sense and are just finding excuses to build more wind.
There will be staged repairs/replacements/maintenance. They are called 'surveys' and have been undertaken on power generators during off peak or shut-down periods since they invented power generators.
Nonsense. What's wrong with the ones already being used to pick up an ever decreasing slack?
God you're hard work. I'll try again. They have a lifespan, most are beyond it so need replacing.
However, it's irrelevant. Because, as I've already attempted to explain in Janet and John language, they need to be built anyway. So their build cost should not be included in the comparisons against the cost of wind energy.
Still nonsense.
The infrastructure is there i.e. the gas supply, the plant, the road. Then they replace on site. It's not difficult to do when the infrastructure is already in place.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
I suspect you know you've lost the argument so are just muddling things up to avoid admitting it.
I suspect you know you've lost the argument so are just muddling things up to avoid admitting it.
That we don't need more, because others need repairs or replacements. Existing gas turbines have built-in maintenance and replacemnt objectives as does all important large scale plant.
I suspect you are feeling foolish, especially about this nonsense......
Utter bollix.
I've stated my logic in pretty clear terms. Your argument consists of "foolish", "nonsense" and "bollix".
There's no point in trying to discuss anything with you.
There's no point in trying to discuss anything with you.
I've stated my logic in pretty clear terms. Your argument consists of "foolish", "nonsense" and "bollix".
There's no point in trying to discuss anything with you.
There's no point in trying to discuss anything with you.
Your "logic" does not show that renewables have no benefits.
"Electricity generated from gas could cost less than wind."
Is that supposed to be logic?
Yes.
Your logic appears to be that wind energy is free. It isn't.
A wind turbine costs whatever amount to build, and it generates a number of units during its expected lifespan. So its cost per unit is the first number divided by the second.
You need to compare this against the RUNNING cost only of a gas power station. NOT the BUILD+RUNNING cost as the govt is doing, which gives an artificially skewed result in favour of wind energy. Because the gas power stations need building anyway.
It may well be that wind power still makes sense, but the govt aren't publishing numbers to state this. Which suggests that it may not do, so they need to cook the books to make it appear to be logical.
I hope you're able to comprehend this, it's really not complicated! Is it a debating tactic to just pretend you can't understand an opposing view?
Yes it is.
The machine is not.
Unlike a gas turbine where you pay for the machine, and for its fuel.
Is it a debating tactic for you to post things that aren't true?
Don't be silly. If you compare the RUNNING cost only, wind wins.
Much of our public infrastructure is in service but beyond it’s anticipated working life. We just carry on repairing it. Have a look at those thousand year old churches around you. Your argument is a thinly veiled political attack on wind power
