Turn on thread page Beta

The Commons Bar Mk IV watch

Announcements
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    What I said still stands. They are an expensive way to generate electricity, they are ghastly, they can only be built with large subsidy, they do have a CO2 trail, they will never shut down any existing conventional power plant as you need backup.
    No, what you have said is entirely incorrect. Wind power is really cheap because there are no fuel costs and no carbon taxes. The price per unit from a good location is comparable with coal and cheaper than nuclear, and will be with gas too when gas prices rise.

    Their looks are subjective but many like them, and they are a damn sight more pretty than a coal station belching out smoke.

    They produce no CO2 - explain how the hell they can produce CO2 when there is no bloody fuel to burn. And they can easily shut down existing plant because there's always somewhere producing energy, and it can be stored for times of need anyway.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Not at the time, in the November 32 election Hitler got less than he did before, and contemplated suicide if I remember rightly, the numbers certainly would have meant that he couldnt go on his own, - hence why once Chancellor the first thing he called was another election, to get the votes to try and put through the E.A. which eventually would mean the dictatorship once the ailing Hindenburg died.

    The Putsch was way way before though, he wrote Mein Kampf when in gaol in the early twenties. -

    I wouldnt say it would be the control of the Reichstag that would force Hindenburg to grant Hitler the chancellorship, but the repeated electoral success of the Nazi party in both July and November 32, there's only so many mandates a president, probably forced into relection against his will, can veto.
    Yes, but that was because they were running out of money after 4 elections in a year, and the suicide bit is A-level I believe??
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    Yes, but that was because they were running out of money after 4 elections in a year, and the suicide bit is A-level I believe??
    I meant to say congratulations re Wimbledon!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    No, what you have said is entirely incorrect. Wind power is really cheap because there are no fuel costs and no carbon taxes. The price per unit from a good location is comparable with coal and cheaper than nuclear, and will be with gas too when gas prices rise.
    Can you provide evidence to say it's cheaper than Nuclear? The figures I have from Parsons Brinckerhoff show that nuclear is cheaper [evidence]. The added bonuses to nuclear is that it is also carbon free (in the sense of emissions) and, unlike wind power, will result in the closer of old conventional power stations. The benefits of nuclear pile up even more when we use Thorium as the fuel rather than uranium.

    Their looks are subjective but many like them, and they are a damn sight more pretty than a coal station belching out smoke.
    Anecdotally speaking, I am sure most don't like the look of them if local campaigns are anything to be believed. I agree, coal stations are horrible as well.

    They produce no CO2 - explain how the hell they can produce CO2 when there is no bloody fuel to burn.
    Well Einstein, how the hell do you think they are made and moved to the desired location? Bloody pixie dust?

    And they can easily shut down existing plant because there's always somewhere producing energy, and it can be stored for times of need anyway.
    You cannot guarantee the wind will blow at a constant rate enough to guarantee the power supply thus you cannot realistically close conventional power plants.
    Offline

    17
    Not really, because you cant keep not allowing the election 'winner' to take up the office - even if the main goal isnt for a democracy - Hindenburg would eventually face a riot if he kept blocking Hitler regardless of the circumstances after the election results. - The 'suicide' isnt the bunker one, but one he contemplated after the losses in the November election
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Not really, because you cant keep not allowing the election 'winner' to take up the office - even if the main goal isnt for a democracy - Hindenburg would eventually face a riot if he kept blocking Hitler regardless of the circumstances after the election results. - The 'suicide' isnt the bunker one, but one he contemplated after the losses in the November election
    Welcome back
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Oh God.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Can you provide evidence to say it's cheaper than Nuclear? The figures I have from Parsons Brinckerhoff show that nuclear is cheaper [evidence]. The added bonuses to nuclear is that it is also carbon free (in the sense of emissions) and, unlike wind power, will result in the closer of old conventional power stations. The benefits of nuclear pile up even more when we use Thorium as the fuel rather than uranium.
    Yes:

    http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#cost

    Per unit wind power from a good location is competitive, and will only become more competitive as the technology proves itself and becomes even more appealing to investors, and the price of gas increases.

    Nuclear has massive start up costs which massively puts investors off. It is only a competitive source of energy once the start up costs have been paid. Nuclear runs into even more problems when you look at how much uranium is being produced and how much is currently required by reactors: production is far lower than requirements we're running off of stockpiles from the 60s. And thorium is a long, long way off yet.

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Anecdotally speaking, I am sure most don't like the look of them if local campaigns are anything to be believed. I agree, coal stations are horrible as well.
    Almost everyone I've spoken to are either indifferent about them or actually quite like them. Of course, it doesn't matter if you put them offshore.

    Well Einstein, how the hell do you think they are made and moved to the desired location? Bloody pixie dust?
    But that is not part of their operation. They could actually be produced with zero emissions if it the grid was supplied with a source that does not produce any CO2 emissions. Like, for example, wind. And they could also be transported using electric powered vehicles from the same grid emissions free, too.

    You cannot guarantee the wind will blow at a constant rate enough to guarantee the power supply thus you cannot realistically close conventional power plants.
    This is false. You can say that there is such a high chance that the wind will blow enough that you can actually start shutting down conventional power stations. The chances of the wind not blowing at this rate is so unlikely as to be almost impossible. If it does happen, then users of less importance can be temporarily cut off.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Yes:

    http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#cost

    Per unit wind power from a good location is competitive, and will only become more competitive as the technology proves itself and becomes even more appealing to investors, and the price of gas increases.
    Thanks for the link.
    I do hate conflicting statistics.

    Nuclear has massive start up costs which massively puts investors off.
    The initial capital costs of nuclear power are roughly equal in size to the capital costs of offshore wind turbines. The capital is about 5% higher for offshore windfarms. [evidence]

    Nuclear runs into even more problems when you look at how much uranium is being produced and how much is currently required by reactors: production is far lower than requirements we're running off of stockpiles from the 60s. And thorium is a long, long way off yet.
    Tell that to the Chinese who are making a very rapid dash towards Thorium. Give them a couple of years, I am sure they will impress us.

    Almost everyone I've spoken to are either indifferent about them or actually quite like them. Of course, it doesn't matter if you put them offshore.
    Offshore is a hell of a lot more expensive. Hmm perhaps it's different depending on where you live.
    But that is not part of their operation. They could actually be produced with zero emissions if it the grid was supplied with a source that does not produce any CO2 emissions. Like, for example, wind. And they could also be transported using electric powered vehicles from the same grid emissions free, too.
    Yes but I did say trail, which includes its production. Yes I can picture an electric powered lorry/ heavy goods vehicle transporting turbine components... I can't really.

    This is false. You can say that there is such a high chance that the wind will blow enough that you can actually start shutting down conventional power stations. The chances of the wind not blowing at this rate is so unlikely as to be almost impossible. If it does happen, then users of less importance can be temporarily cut off.
    It is not false you cannot guarantee that the wind will blow at the required rate all of the time. The statistics I posted earlier showed that 60% of the time that wasn't the case and thus we require conventional plants; or alternative energy to be produced when wind turbines aren't generating enough power.

    If I recall correctly, Germany has built thousands of wind turbines and yet haven't been able to close conventional plants because they are required as backup - which, incidently, is more expensive than just running the plant at full capacity.

    Oh so because we don't have a proper energy grid you will just cut people off. Okay, who are we cutting off? How about those orphans, it's not like their parents can complain. Seriously? Who would you cut off?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Thanks for the link.
    I do hate conflicting statistics.



    The initial capital costs of nuclear power are roughly equal in size to the capital costs of offshore wind turbines. The capital is about 5% higher for offshore windfarms. [evidence]
    That graph measures the proportion, not overall size, of the costs. . It costs billions and billions to build a nuclear power station; they are enormously complex and take about a decade to go from the planning to completion stage. It can be several decades before the plant repays itself, hence why nuclear is not attractive to investors.

    Tell that to the Chinese who are making a very rapid dash towards Thorium. Give them a couple of years, I am sure they will impress us.
    Highly unlikely.

    Offshore is a hell of a lot more expensive. Hmm perhaps it's different depending on where you live.
    Offshore is more expensive, but when turbines are offshore they are not ruining the landscape and killing bats. Quite the opposite, in fact, as marine life loves man-made subsea structures, like old jackets and christmas trees that have been left by the oil industry. It's also windier offshore too, I believe, as it is a large open space with no obstructions.

    Yes but I did say trail, which includes its production.
    That's a misnomer because by that definition nothing is carbon free.

    [quote] Yes I can picture an electric powered lorry/ heavy goods vehicle transporting turbine components... I can't really.

    But engineers can.

    It is not false you cannot guarantee that the wind will blow at the required rate all of the time. The statistics I posted earlier showed that 60% of the time that wasn't the case and thus we require conventional plants; or alternative energy to be produced when wind turbines aren't generating enough power.
    I didn't see those statistics. You only linked to the homepage of a horribly biased website. Remember that the more we build, the more power that can be produced even in times of low winds. Enough power can be produced even at trough times to warrant closing down some of the oldest, dirties, ugliest most inefficient plant.

    If I recall correctly, Germany has built thousands of wind turbines and yet haven't been able to close conventional plants because they are required as backup - which, incidently, is more expensive than just running the plant at full capacity.
    Germany has a comparatively high amount of renewable energy but this isn't all in the form of wind. In fact less than half of it is. If you have a large enough volume of wind then you can guarantee to such a high degree that you will be producing a certain amount of power that you can warrant some conventional plant to be shut down.

    Oh so because we don't have a proper energy grid you will just cut people off. Okay, who are we cutting off? How about those orphans, it's not like their parents can complain. Seriously? Who would you cut off?
    The same people that are going to get cut-off in 2016 when some of our current plant goes offline. But we're talking about a situation that is extremely, extremely unlikely to happen. Certainly so much so that it does not warrant keeping old, dirty and expensive plant online.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    That graph measures the proportion, not overall size, of the costs. .
    I didn't notice the percentages :teehee:

    I'll respond to the rest later, tired now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, I put two items on Amazon Marketplace less than 6 hours ago and they've both sold already
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddr...n-Denmark.html

    ^^
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    How weird that such a seemingly liberal country could be such food nazis.
    Offline

    15
    Lyndsay Jensen said. "But if they want to take my Marmite off me they'll have to wrench it from my cold dead hands." :lolwut: it is horrible.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Marmite is grim.

    I jokingly stated here once that I would be submitting a bill banning it actually (I think).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Spaghetti with Marmite is lovely.
    Bovril is much nicer though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13529212

    Both Obama and Cameron are left handed... conspiracy? :holmes:

    I'd like to play them, it would be fun to say you grannied the team of Obama and Cameron at table tennis :lol:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    A working lego gun:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_1...tionContent.12

    The creator's website:

    http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/144689

    Very cool
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, Nicolas. Sometimes the word “boobies” is just plain funny.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.