🚀 go-pugleaf

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.