Please stop calling them apps!

On 31/05/2019 06.17, Eric Stevens wrote:
Not all that GRP/Carbon structure. Not the massive reinforced concrete
base in the ground.

Can be simply reused for the next aerogenerator. Not lost.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 12:56:35 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 31 May 2019 17:17:01 GMT, "John Varela"
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2019 15:30:13 UTC, Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2019-05-31, Eric Stevens wrote:
It was a while ago and if I could have found a link I would already
have given it to you. In anycase, the nett liftime CO2 depends upon
the network in which the wind generators are being used.

The net lifetime of CO2 is irrelevant because CO2 is not a pollutant.

The "global warming/climate change" scam has nothing to do with the
environment. It's about greedy governments and elites grabbing even more
power and money for themselves and making fundamental changes in society
using the manufactured excuse of "saving the planet". For the rank and
file "climate change" useful idiots it is a religion.

The Faithful continue to drink the kool-aid even when those involved
in pushing the scam admit what they are doing. You'll have an easier
time convincing an evangelical Christian of Biblical errancy than
getting a Climate Cultist to recognize that they've being played.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...oy-capitalism/

For myself I will not do a thing to lower my so-called "carbon footprint".

Well there's invincible ignorance for you.

Not in my case. I started off as a believer and I've been following
the science for thirty years. Now I don't know a part of the IPCC and
UN warming theory which will withstand close examination. The test is
in the model outputs which are completely out of touch with reality.

And I started as a skeptic. Now the evidence and science is
incontrovertible. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and is the driver of
anthropogenic climate change.

Then you haven't studied the underlying science properly. Don't just
take an author's word for it: be critical.

Trust me. I am. As a scientist myself being critical is in my job
description. I just don't buy into conspiracy theory bull****.

Fortunately the youth get it and I hope it's not too late for them. Soon we
can ignore the old and ignorant.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2019 12:44:09 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 23:13:08 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Not all that GRP/Carbon structure. Not the massive reinforced concrete
base in the ground.
https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine


You are going to see a massive increase in network costs.

A number of the power companies are publicly traded,
and considered in the investment community to be "blue chip".
When they modify the basket mix of energy sources, the
transition has to be managed within the financial limits
of the company.

"Has to be" is not the same as "can be".

Exceptions could happen in the largest hydro projects, where
the investment is as much as for a nuclear reactor. Some of those
projects have "zoomed out of control".

As far as I can see the problem arises from the fact that with both
wind and solar power is being injected into the system from entirely
new locations. When these fluctuate backup power has to very quickly
sourced from wherever the spinning reserve may be. This means that as
the sun appars and disappears behind clouds, or the wind does or
doesn't blow (or blows too hard) a lot of juggling is required to
maintain stability in the system. In many cases this has required
major redesigns of the network to maintain an acceptable level of
stability.

This is a good thing. The network needs to adapt with changes in supply and
demand. Greater diversity and less dependency on imported gas, as in the
UK, is always going reduce prices in the long term.

On 31/05/2019 00.16, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:19:34 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 30/05/2019 22.57, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:24:57 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 19.14, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 04:15:13 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:50:51 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:



For what it is worth, if I am travelling at a steady 50kph and
suddenly plant my foot on the accelerator, the car will not
accelerate
imediately. Certainly the engine revs increase as the engine
speeds up
to match 2nd gear at 50kph. Only when it gets there does the
car
start
to accelerate.

You must have a really **** car.* My autos were 1988, 1998 and
1999.* Every one of them accelerated instantly I pressed the
pedal.

Rubbish! No engine has instant acceleration.

Of course it does.* As soon as more fuel is available and/or a lower
gear is selected, more power is applied to the wheels.

Lower gear does not apply more power, it applies more torque. The power
output from the engine is basically the same for the same fuel. If
there
is more power, there is more pressure on the accelerator.

Lower gear means higher revs for the same car speed, thus you have more
power from the engine.* Higher revs means more fuel burning cycles, so
more power.* Think about encountering a steep hill in 5th gear, your car
will not go up it.* Select 3rd and it will, because there's more power.

Not really. With my car I have done the experiment, as it has a display
saying the instant amount of fuel it uses per 100 Km. It is traditional
manual shift, as typical here. I change from 5th to 4th while climbing
and the fuel flow is roughly the same.

There is some difference because as the motor turns faster the turbo is
more efficient and the engine should use less fuel at a lower gear...
which is not intuitive.

Surely an engine can burn x amount of fuel per cycle.* If you change
down to 4th, you're revving higher, so it can take more fuel.

Not if the car speed is the same, without attempt to accelerate.

It is a curious, not intuitive effect, which you can notice with a
manual shift car that displays instant fuel flow in the dash board
display, which mine does.

If that
wasn't true, how do you explain a car being able to climb a hill in 4th
that it can't in 5th?

That's different. The torque curve of the engine is not flat, it is
curve, and that gear change seeks to position the revs on a more
favourable portion of the curve, at more rpm. In fact, after the
downshift you may notice that the accelerator needs to be pressed less.
And if you have a flow meter, you may see that you use less fuel at
higher rpm - which is not intuitive.

Not saying that generally higher rpm needs less fuel, no. I'm talking
about a peculiar effect at certain conditions.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2019 01:45:27 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 15:26:53 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:06:52 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 5/31/19 5:53 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

That's because they speak legalese and not English, they live in the
last century. At least.

I remember when I looked at a will and saw the word "decedent"
(DEE-CEE-DENT). It took awhile to notice that the word was NOT
"decadent" (DECK-UH-DUNT).

Indeed, they either make words up or use ones that were taken from
common usage 100s of years ago.

Its better than the limited vocabulary acquired by learning english
only from TV programs.

Depends which TV programs.


Surely you must mean "television programmes". Some people are just so
****ing lazy

On 31/05/2019 18.14, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 5/30/19 3:57 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

Lower gear means higher revs for the same car speed, thus you have
more power from the engine.* Higher revs means more fuel burning
cycles, so more power.* Think about encountering a steep hill in 5th
gear, your car will not go up it.* Select 3rd and it will, because
there's more power.

Engine power depends on engine speed.
Slowing down in high gear means lowering engine speed.
Low speed in low gear keeps high engine speed.
So it is more power at that low speed.

Actually, it is the torque which changes with the gear change. The power
output is the same - except that the power curve is not linear.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:18:07 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 31/05/2019 06.14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 21:15:55 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 12.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 08:03:48 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 03.44, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 22:07:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 5/24/19 5:36 PM, Peter Jason wrote:


anyone buying an electric vehicle would likely upgrade their garage
wiring.

Why bother. A petrol engine is cheaper to buy & run, has proven
technology, and a longer range by far.

Where are they getting the fuel to generate all the electricity for
electric cars. Coal? Nuclear?

They claim that the generating plants are much more efficient than car
engines. I don't know if that's true or not.

Electric cars allow the use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind,
hydro, etc) thereby reducing carbon emissions, plus reduce pollution in
cities.

Yes. Charging your car overnight with the solar power cells on the
roof of your house makes particular sense.

Snark noted. There are other forms of renewable energy that work in the
dark. Also cars are charged at all times of the day. You may have noticed
that cars spend most of the time parked.

Are you aware that wind power requires that a usually fuel burning
power plant remains on line to keep it backed up through wind
fluctuations? That doesn't make it cheaper or reduce carbon emissions.

Of course it does. Uk carbon intensity has dropped 17% since 2016.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/

Its only cheaper if you dont count the cost of maintaining a spinning
reserve.

Even if you do. An iddling engine uses little fuel.

The mix passes on all costs.

It might not be using much fuel but it is still incurring capital
charges, maintenance, depreciation and staff salaries and wages. It
wouldn't cost much more to run even if it was at full power.

They know all that when they bid.

For the sake of clarity, who is 'they' and what are they bidding for?

Electricity generator companies bidding in the electricity provider
auction. It is a free market here. Don't you have it? :-D

All I lacked was context for your sentence. Now that I have it: the
electricity generator companies are fully aware of all the factors I
mentioned - plus a whole lot more. If wind and solar are becoming
increasingly cheap and taking over from coal - why are electricity
prices in the UK as in
https://www.businesselectricityprice...rends-2018.png
Particularly note the rise in wholesale prices in 2017~2018. That does
not bode well for retail.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:30:18 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2019 12:44:09 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 23:13:08 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Not all that GRP/Carbon structure. Not the massive reinforced concrete
base in the ground.
https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine


You are going to see a massive increase in network costs.

A number of the power companies are publicly traded,
and considered in the investment community to be "blue chip".
When they modify the basket mix of energy sources, the
transition has to be managed within the financial limits
of the company.

"Has to be" is not the same as "can be".

Exceptions could happen in the largest hydro projects, where
the investment is as much as for a nuclear reactor. Some of those
projects have "zoomed out of control".

As far as I can see the problem arises from the fact that with both
wind and solar power is being injected into the system from entirely
new locations. When these fluctuate backup power has to very quickly
sourced from wherever the spinning reserve may be. This means that as
the sun appars and disappears behind clouds, or the wind does or
doesn't blow (or blows too hard) a lot of juggling is required to
maintain stability in the system. In many cases this has required
major redesigns of the network to maintain an acceptable level of
stability.

This is a good thing. The network needs to adapt with changes in supply and
demand. Greater diversity and less dependency on imported gas, as in the
UK, is always going reduce prices in the long term.

Hmm. Consider the implications of
https://www.businesselectricityprice...rends-2018.png
There is *NO* indication of reduction of prices. In fact the wholesale
pricing of 2017~2018 suggests a rise is on the way. For all I know, it
may already be here.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:24:18 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 12:56:35 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 31 May 2019 17:17:01 GMT, "John Varela"
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2019 15:30:13 UTC, Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2019-05-31, Eric Stevens wrote:
It was a while ago and if I could have found a link I would already
have given it to you. In anycase, the nett liftime CO2 depends upon
the network in which the wind generators are being used.

The net lifetime of CO2 is irrelevant because CO2 is not a pollutant.

The "global warming/climate change" scam has nothing to do with the
environment. It's about greedy governments and elites grabbing even more
power and money for themselves and making fundamental changes in society
using the manufactured excuse of "saving the planet". For the rank and
file "climate change" useful idiots it is a religion.

The Faithful continue to drink the kool-aid even when those involved
in pushing the scam admit what they are doing. You'll have an easier
time convincing an evangelical Christian of Biblical errancy than
getting a Climate Cultist to recognize that they've being played.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...oy-capitalism/

For myself I will not do a thing to lower my so-called "carbon footprint".

Well there's invincible ignorance for you.

Not in my case. I started off as a believer and I've been following
the science for thirty years. Now I don't know a part of the IPCC and
UN warming theory which will withstand close examination. The test is
in the model outputs which are completely out of touch with reality.

And I started as a skeptic. Now the evidence and science is
incontrovertible. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and is the driver of
anthropogenic climate change.

Then you haven't studied the underlying science properly. Don't just
take an author's word for it: be critical.

Trust me. I am. As a scientist myself being critical is in my job
description. I just don't buy into conspiracy theory bull****.

I don't trust you. I don't trust any particular person. Trust in
statements from authority are the very antithesis of science.

Consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kUAtt2pXlc (He is hard to
listen to). It is easy enough to confirm whether or not he is correct
(for certain values of easy).

Then follow up on
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/...ror-an-update/

Then try and find the PDF "Is the US surface temperature record
reliable". You can find it as a PDF at
https://www.heartland.org/publicatio...ecord-reliable
or http://tinyurl.com/y2ob8wuu
Although several years old NOAA or NASA has more recently confirmed
that the situation is more or less as described.

None of the above are endpoints in any enquiry you might make, but
they are sufficient to point you at relevant questions for the time
being.



Fortunately the youth get it and I hope it's not too late for them. Soon we
can ignore the old and ignorant.


--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2019 01:45:27 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 15:26:53 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:06:52 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 5/31/19 5:53 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

That's because they speak legalese and not English, they live in the
last century. At least.

I remember when I looked at a will and saw the word "decedent"
(DEE-CEE-DENT). It took awhile to notice that the word was NOT
"decadent" (DECK-UH-DUNT).

Indeed, they either make words up or use ones that were taken from
common usage 100s of years ago.

Its better than the limited vocabulary acquired by learning english
only from TV programs.

Depends which TV programs.


Surely you must mean "television programmes". Some people are just so
****ing lazy

Depends which dictionary you use. Besides, I am quite happy saying
'app'.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 03/06/2019 11.55, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:18:07 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 31/05/2019 06.14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 21:15:55 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 12.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 08:03:48 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 03.44, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 22:07:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 5/24/19 5:36 PM, Peter Jason wrote:


anyone buying an electric vehicle would likely upgrade their garage
wiring.

Why bother. A petrol engine is cheaper to buy & run, has proven
technology, and a longer range by far.

Where are they getting the fuel to generate all the electricity for
electric cars. Coal? Nuclear?

They claim that the generating plants are much more efficient than car
engines. I don't know if that's true or not.

Electric cars allow the use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind,
hydro, etc) thereby reducing carbon emissions, plus reduce pollution in
cities.

Yes. Charging your car overnight with the solar power cells on the
roof of your house makes particular sense.

Snark noted. There are other forms of renewable energy that work in the
dark. Also cars are charged at all times of the day. You may have noticed
that cars spend most of the time parked.

Are you aware that wind power requires that a usually fuel burning
power plant remains on line to keep it backed up through wind
fluctuations? That doesn't make it cheaper or reduce carbon emissions.

Of course it does. Uk carbon intensity has dropped 17% since 2016.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/

Its only cheaper if you dont count the cost of maintaining a spinning
reserve.

Even if you do. An iddling engine uses little fuel.

The mix passes on all costs.

It might not be using much fuel but it is still incurring capital
charges, maintenance, depreciation and staff salaries and wages. It
wouldn't cost much more to run even if it was at full power.

They know all that when they bid.

For the sake of clarity, who is 'they' and what are they bidding for?

Electricity generator companies bidding in the electricity provider
auction. It is a free market here. Don't you have it? :-D

All I lacked was context for your sentence. Now that I have it: the
electricity generator companies are fully aware of all the factors I
mentioned - plus a whole lot more. If wind and solar are becoming
increasingly cheap and taking over from coal - why are electricity
prices in the UK as in
https://www.businesselectricityprice...rends-2018.png
Particularly note the rise in wholesale prices in 2017~2018. That does
not bode well for retail.

I don't know in the UK. I know a bit of the situation here (Spain), and
some times it is plain collusion.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 6/2/19 11:14 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

Indeed, they either make words up or use ones that were taken from
common usage 100s of years ago.

Its better than the limited vocabulary acquired by learning english
only from TV programs.

Depends which TV programs.

I just saw a movie where we meet some aliens who had learned English
from TV. Some old movies (not the really good ones), but mostly commercials.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"What's loving about sticking a picture of torture into a childs mind
and telling him that it's his fault the man on the stick has nails in
his hands and feet?"

On 6/3/19 2:36 AM, Chris wrote:

[snip]

Surely you must mean "television programmes". Some people are just so
****ing lazy

Using "TV" instead of "television" doesn't have to mean you want more
time to do nothing. Maybe you want more time to do something more
important, or you like efficiency.

On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 11:22:04 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2019 01:45:27 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 15:26:53 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:06:52 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 5/31/19 5:53 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

That's because they speak legalese and not English, they live in the
last century. At least.

I remember when I looked at a will and saw the word "decedent"
(DEE-CEE-DENT). It took awhile to notice that the word was NOT
"decadent" (DECK-UH-DUNT).

Indeed, they either make words up or use ones that were taken from
common usage 100s of years ago.

Its better than the limited vocabulary acquired by learning english
only from TV programs.

Depends which TV programs.


Surely you must mean "television programmes". Some people are just so
****ing lazy

Depends which dictionary you use. Besides, I am quite happy saying
'app'.

Applicable to what?

On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:36:53 +0100, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2019 01:45:27 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 15:26:53 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:06:52 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 5/31/19 5:53 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

That's because they speak legalese and not English, they live in the
last century. At least.

I remember when I looked at a will and saw the word "decedent"
(DEE-CEE-DENT). It took awhile to notice that the word was NOT
"decadent" (DECK-UH-DUNT).

Indeed, they either make words up or use ones that were taken from
common usage 100s of years ago.

Its better than the limited vocabulary acquired by learning english
only from TV programs.

Depends which TV programs.

Surely you must mean "television programmes". Some people are just so
****ing lazy

Learn the difference between acronyms and abbreviations.