🚀 go-pugleaf

Like I said, do some research and report back wouldja? I don't think you 
understand much <at all> about duty cycle and back up power. It's not about 
night and day and it certainly isn't about building new coal fired power 
plants as a back up power source to wind and solar energy. It's about the 
total emission reduction with the back up power usually already in place, of 
which the largess is coal fired power plants, whose ghg emissions are 
reduced little, if any at all as the load varies due to wind power going on 
an coming off line as the wind blows or doesn't blow. You have to keep that 
18 story boiler fired up and hot, because the load will come up very 
rapidly. Most back up power to solar are power plants that burn fossil 
fuels. You have to look at duty cycle and how much fossil fuel is burned 
during both the 35% of the time the wind is blowing and the 65% of the time 
it is not. With coal fired power plants, there is little, if any reduction 
in green house gases or costs. Some engineers have estimated that with coal 
fired back up, there can be a net increase in ghg emissions when the 
manufacture, installation and maintenance of wind power is entered into the 
"economic" equations. Considering all that, I really doubt the Aussies, 
wonderful people that they are, are generating power cheaper with wind than 
they would be with conventional sources of power. Only a technologically 
illiterate fool would not consider the complete duty cycle in both economic 
calculations and pollution reduction calculations.

Now, if the back up power for the Aussie wind generation is something like 
natural gas powered dual turbine generation they might have something, but 
the whole system has to be considered, not just a small politically correct 
junky science piece of it.

The major problem to economically solve with both wind and solar power is 
back up power for when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow <enough>, 
which is generally estimated as some 65% of the time.

Do some research on it and report back wouldja? It's a big problem that most 
media and politicians are ignoring.

"jg" <jg@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:5NzRs.3405$1k5.965@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
> On 10/02/2013 12:30 AM, Micky Bitsco wrote:
>> Do you know what the average duty cycle is of these Australian wind
>> machines? Also do you know what the source of back up power for both wind
>> and solar energy is in Australia. You have to take the whole power
>> generation costs over a 100% duty cycle and GHG emissions or you might 
>> just
>> fooling you self with half baked almost entirely politically motivated
>> conclusions steeped in both scientific and technological illiteracy.
>>
>> The often quoted duty cycle number for both wind and solar power here in 
>> the
>> States is 35%. That means that you must have back up power for the 
>> remaining
>> 65% of the cycle in the form of some other power generation, which must 
>> come
>> on line very quickly as in something like a dual turbine natural gas
>> generator. The largess of the back up power sources here in the US are
>> something like coal fired power plants, which cannot go on and off line
>> anywhere near quickly enough. Their giant coal fired/fossil fuel boilers
>> must be left running at operating temperatures 24 hours/day and will only
>> have slight, if any reductions in green house gases. Although better, a
>> similiar case can be made for typical natural gas fired power plants. If 
>> the
>> planet is going to be saved by wind and solar power, then the required
>> backup power for the other 65% of the cycle must be researched, designed,
>> paid for and implemented or you aussies will have the same -insane- 
>> energy
>> policys we have here in the States.
>>
>> Do some research on it and report back wouldja?
>>
>>
> You mean the giant coal fired/fossil fuel boilers use just as much fuel at 
> night and can't respond quickly to the massive fluctuation at least twice 
> every day?
>
> If we had to build a new fossil power station for every wind farm it would 
> be more expensive, but they already exist.
>
>
>