Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Actually, that "one a week" claim was first made in the mid 00's, and I've never seen any verifiable back-up to the claim.

 

It's actually closer to one per fortnight by my reckoning. I showed you verifiable back up for this a couple of years ago, unless you don't trust the IEA. Here it is again http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/CNELEC.pdf

 

Taking a capacity factor of 50% and an average of 2.8GW capacity per station I get a rate of approx 0.44 new stations per week over that 10 year period. (edit: the 10 year period from 1999 until 2009)

 

It's also never mentioned that China is closing 7-8 inefficient, Mao-era, power stations a week. (this claim has as much back-up as the previous one.)

 

This of course is a lie. 7-8 per week is around 400 per year that means over the same 10 year period they have closed around 4000 coal fired power stations, more than all the coal power stations in existence on this planet.

 

Why do you insist on repeating this palpable nonsense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, that "one a week" claim was first made in the mid 00's, and I've never seen any verifiable back-up to the claim.

 

It's actually closer to one per fortnight by my reckoning. I showed you verifiable back up for this a couple of years ago, unless you don't trust the IEA. Here it is again http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/CNELEC.pdf

 

Taking a capacity factor of 50% and an average of 2.8GW capacity per station I get a rate of approx 0.44 new stations per week over that 10 year period. (edit: the 10 year period from 1999 until 2009)

 

It's also never mentioned that China is closing 7-8 inefficient, Mao-era, power stations a week. (this claim has as much back-up as the previous one.)

 

This of course is a lie. 7-8 per week is around 400 per year that means over the same 10 year period they have closed around 4000 coal fired power stations, more than all the coal power stations in existence on this planet.

 

Why do you insist on repeating this palpable nonsense?

 

Actually, I don't think I've ever made that claim before on Shetlink (though I could be wrong). I also indicated that I didn't have any back-up for the claim, it's just something I read somewhere.

 

And when I did go looking the only thing I could find was this:

 

A difficulty in tracking Chinese coal data is that new plants frequently displace older ones. In 2007, the National Development and Reform Commission (NRDC) of China announced that the building of all new coal plants must be accompanied by the elimination of older, less efficient generators. For example, a new 300 MW power station will require the decommissioning of 240 MW of capacity of an older station. All coal plants with a capacity under 50 MW, and 100 MW generators older than 20 years, are to be closed by 2010.[61] In February 2009, the Chinese government announced that by 2011 it will replace 31 GW of coal-fired power plants with newer, more energy-efficient models.[62]

 

Which while it doesn't back up the "7-8/week" claim, does indicate that not all of the new Chinese construction is extra capacity but rather it is replacing older, less efficient, plants.

 

So, yes, I was wrong, but not completely wrong. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China has about 13% of the globes coal reserves, putting it behind Russia & the USA for the countries with the largest deposits. Given the rate China's economy has boomed over the last few years, it would only be a matter of time before those reserves would start to run low; so it would make sense that they would have to look to other energy sources. Including renewables - like pretty much everywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, I don't think I've ever made that claim before on Shetlink (though I could be wrong). I also indicated that I didn't have any back-up for the claim, it's just something I read somewhere.

 

And when I did go looking the only thing I could find was this:

 

A difficulty in tracking Chinese coal data is that new plants frequently displace older ones. In 2007, the National Development and Reform Commission (NRDC) of China announced that the building of all new coal plants must be accompanied by the elimination of older, less efficient generators. For example, a new 300 MW power station will require the decommissioning of 240 MW of capacity of an older station. All coal plants with a capacity under 50 MW, and 100 MW generators older than 20 years, are to be closed by 2010.[61] In February 2009, the Chinese government announced that by 2011 it will replace 31 GW of coal-fired power plants with newer, more energy-efficient models.[62]

 

Which while it doesn't back up the "7-8/week" claim, does indicate that not all of the new Chinese construction is extra capacity but rather it is replacing older, less efficient, plants.

 

So, yes, I was wrong, but not completely wrong. :wink:

 

What is not in dispute is that the Chinese have increased their coal generating capacity by around 600 GW between 1999 and 2009, they did not do that by replacing older inefficient power plants.

 

I suggest that you reconsider your posting style. You most certainly have made that claim or a very similar one on shetlink before. Constantly presenting such ludicrous and laughably outlandish myths as the truth, or possible truth, is not helpful to your cause, (whatever that might be?) or the climate change debate in general. Indeed it is you, and others like you, who help to diminish the credibility of genuine and objective climate change experts. Experts who are battling against a sea of well funded opposition to persuade governments to take meaningful action on what is probably the second most important challenge ahead of civilisation. Put your emotion and your prejudice aside, consider both sides of the argument, both the cost and the benefit, with an objective and realistic mindset, and you will stand a far better chance of being taken seriously, and, moreover, you may even arrive at a sensible conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China has about 13% of the globes coal reserves, putting it behind Russia & the USA for the countries with the largest deposits. Given the rate China's economy has boomed over the last few years, it would only be a matter of time before those reserves would start to run low; so it would make sense that they would have to look to other energy sources. Including renewables - like pretty much everywhere else.

 

Nobody knows how much coal is in China, except for perhaps the Chinese, and they are not particularly forthcoming with the information. Last word I read they were claiming around 19% of global reserves which puts them slightly ahead of Russia but still behind the States. The Chinese are not stupid, they are quite aware of how much coal they have in the ground, and how much they need to keep their country running. Rather than finding it sensible to look to other energy sources including renewables to manage the risk of domestic coal depletion, they have become a net importer of coal. They are not only buying their coal overseas, but they are buying the overseas coal mines, transport infrastructure and export terminals and sending their own nationals to mange them. Up until 2009 China was a net exporter of coal, now they are a net importer. They are not stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

What total pish , Peat please do not show how stupid you are and believe this nonsense. Orkney never demands over 15 Mw(yeah right). That just shows how the green brigade throw out lies and the public believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSE are well known for lying, not seen the news about conning the public. Please show me where this huge amount of renewable output is coming from . Don't be so silly Peat, wake up and smell the coffee. Please contact SSE and get them to verify the claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing really to prove, though, you are the one making an accusation, surely then you are the one to prove different.

 

I do find it amazing the whole of Orkney are being deceived as you imply.

 

Dang, they even got the papers believing it, they are good at this lying.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/28/orkney-green-energy-wave-power

 

Orkney seem to be leading the way.

 

Hang on though, why should I just believe you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no you have nothing to prove (other than you have an ounce of sense in your head) look at the graphs logically and tell me they are genuine.

 

How can I? You just deemed me a cabbage, you cannot accuse someone of being a cabbage then expecting them to do non-cabbage things. Logically speaking.

 

Tell me, how are you going to win me over to your side of thinking? Are you going to start throwing sausages at me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...