Comments on: Should you buy an electric car if you live in a coal state?

By: zebra

zebra — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:58:30 +0000

MikeN,

If the distribution on the test deviates from the standard normal distribution by so much that it allows you to discriminate between men and women subjects, then the test is biased and invalid for one or the other gender. By definition.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:11:13 +0000

“BBD, if it is technically impossible to exceed 100% CF, even for a few minutes, then doesn’t this mean the nameplate is being set too high, for a variable item like wind?”

And for hydro power it’s set to sized for peak design, not sustained maintainable flow.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:08:30 +0000

and how do you get multiple at the same location and all around the world at the same time? Small world…

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:07:24 +0000

“Again, has he considered that this is operating over many locations around the world?”

Yes, it’s part of the impossible bit.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:06:10 +0000

“20.5 square km per plant, so 15,000 locations is impossible. Has he considered multiple plants per location?”

Ah so one tailing the size of the spoil required to service uranium mining operations can contain the tailings of, what, 10 mining operations?

Do you see the dumbassery here?

Water supplied multiple times? How does the cooling work when you then run the water straight into another one?

Got any more dumbass claims?

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:01:51 +0000

No.

Again you ignore the point. what wind speed is a 1.5Mw wind turbine rated at?

Why do you claim steam turbines work at 100% efficiency when generating from nuke power but nor coal?

What is load utilisaton. What is availaviliry factor.

What is proving in all your bollocks thhat wind tubine output does not vary with wind speed cubed?

And as to more lies from the nuke f;uffers, where do I claim 40 fold increase in energy and plants?

By: MikeN

MikeN — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:14:36 +0000

Abbot’s first two points are weak.
20.5 square km per plant, so 15,000 locations is impossible. Has he considered multiple plants per location?
Then he says lifetime of the plant, so with 15,000 plants you have to build one per day, while it takes 6-12 years to build and 20 years to decommission. Again, has he considered that this is operating over many locations around the world?
I’m confused by this:
At the current rate of uranium consumption, the world supply will last 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, supply will last for less than 5 years.

He suggests a 40 fold increase in energy and plants, but the supply only shrinks by a factor of 16? Where did the 2.5x difference come from? Current nuclear production is 2.5% of his target, but that doesn’t explain it.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:00:05 +0000

I think I see the answer to #420.
So if it were windy 100% of the time at a wind farm, it is likely that it would still be well below 100% nameplate, right?

By: MikeN

MikeN — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 04:52:29 +0000

>UK average a CF of about 25% and offshore, 40% as it is windier.

By windier, do you mean the wind is more frequent, or when there is wind the wind is stronger?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 04:21:14 +0000

Hank: Amazing, isn’t it? I get busy with doing the laundry and stuff, come back, and this flood of conversation!