Please quote the relevant portion instead of link spam - the previous thing was like a high school project based on newspaper clippings and I'm sure you could do far better yourself than that bunch. Also please consider my second paragraph above.
But, you have already proven you ignore facts
Not established as facts from what you've quoted so far, and I very strongly dispute your interpretation of that graph above. There's no continuous band depicting a preference for wind at all - it's even zero in places.
I've been looking at different graphs which must be out of date. I'd better change my line to "it used to look like peak oil was in 2008" when I do my "a bump on the curve is just that not the end of the world" bit.
Interesting opinion from a "think tank" run by economists at best but I don't see where it cites an actual law - although it does cite a few newspaper articles! That's high school homework stuff. I suggest you attempt to find evidence of such a thing and then perhaps you'll understand the issue in greater depth, most likely in greater depth than a "think tank" without a single technically oriented person listed on their page! Even if such a law actually does exist, which I doubt even if rent seekers with windmills are pushing hard for it, wind has a lot of downtime for maintanance so is rarely fully utilised anyway.
This discussion is really about wind blowing or not anyway. Imagined patterns in graphs from a portion of a continental grid which may have a policy promoting the use of wind really do not address the core issue of there always being some wind somewhere in a large enough distributed network. I'm not a big fan of wind power but it does have a place in an energy mix. Monocultures suck in generation. You end up one drought, miners strike or major transport blockage incident away from blackouts.
With respect, your own source does not show what you assert it to say. I have not fallen into anything other than perhaps a game of fools who do not care what the reality is on the topic.
"wind power generation is reduced at peak times to compensate"
WTF? You've really hit the bottom of the barrel when you are putting words in my mouth and pretending they are a quote. You've really let down whoever educated and trained you with such behaviour. What a disgusting little political animal you are.
It's easy to make a term mean anything when personal definitions apply and you've listed a few who do that - but I addressed all that in the post you replied to.
Peak oil WAS in 2008. It's a technical term for the maximum bump on the consumption graph. People like to pretend it's something else or that coal, shale oil, gas, biodiesel, whatever should be included but that's something else. Whether we get another peak with a sharp dropoff or a slow slide down as consumption drops due to replacement with other energy sources is something that's still being guessed at.
Funny how Libya under Ghadaffi got a get out of jail free card but Iran didn't. It seemed a bit backwards, especially since even Reagan did deals with Iran.
You are the one with the ridiculous assertions yet you are calling me drunk - funny isn't it?
You seem to be jumping between topics that are completely unconnected to one another
Yet they are all replies to items you have raised, funny isn't it?
Why don't you display at least some shred of honesty and own up as to why you think it's worth lying about alternative energies other than the one you like. The no wind thing is especially funny but you've topped it with the magic instant autoreversing pump storage that nobody needs.
I didn't realise you were playing a game here. I thought you had some interest in the topic instead of getting me "caught and cornered" by some arbitrary rules. I suggest at a moment when you are not playing games that you take a look at those graphs again and keep what I wrote above in mind. Reply, or not, once you have considered it instead of some knee jerk "I got ya" just because I suggested that you apply some thought to the subject and can see for yourself if you try.
There was one in Rabaul harbour caught on video by sheer luck a few weeks ago. Not a huge eruption but anyone next to it would have had problems. You could say there was a warning in that everyone knew an active volcano was there but they didn't expect it to erupt suddenly and violently.
With respect I'm not the one making the wild counterintuitive claims. Your suggestion of mandatory use of wind makes no sense at all when the majority of the generating capacity is base load that is very difficult to vary. In reality the small wind units are put on or offline as required. As for the graph, look it again and notice when the periods of maximum contribution from wind are. It's almost always at times of peak power consumption. It's not almost continuous as it would be if your assertion above was correct. It's a pity the graph lumps in peaking gas turbines as "conventional" or the base load would be a bit more obvious.
I suggest you look at it again from a credible source before making such wild claims that the graphs you supplied do not support. Periods of zero generation do not fit with your description and it's a pretty stupid idea anyway to try to fill in on the peak sources since the base load generation is very difficult to change other than in very large steps.
Slashdot Mirror
Not established as facts from what you've quoted so far, and I very strongly dispute your interpretation of that graph above. There's no continuous band depicting a preference for wind at all - it's even zero in places.
Well said.
I've been looking at different graphs which must be out of date. I'd better change my line to "it used to look like peak oil was in 2008" when I do my "a bump on the curve is just that not the end of the world" bit.
Interesting opinion from a "think tank" run by economists at best but I don't see where it cites an actual law - although it does cite a few newspaper articles! That's high school homework stuff. I suggest you attempt to find evidence of such a thing and then perhaps you'll understand the issue in greater depth, most likely in greater depth than a "think tank" without a single technically oriented person listed on their page!
Even if such a law actually does exist, which I doubt even if rent seekers with windmills are pushing hard for it, wind has a lot of downtime for maintanance so is rarely fully utilised anyway.
This discussion is really about wind blowing or not anyway. Imagined patterns in graphs from a portion of a continental grid which may have a policy promoting the use of wind really do not address the core issue of there always being some wind somewhere in a large enough distributed network. I'm not a big fan of wind power but it does have a place in an energy mix. Monocultures suck in generation. You end up one drought, miners strike or major transport blockage incident away from blackouts.
Only if you don't count Semtex supply as support for terrorist groups including the IRA.
Hence the earlier peak and hence people reading too much into it. There may be another larger peak, but for the moment peak production was 2008.
That is not a correct statement and waving a few graphs around that do not prove it one way or another does not make it correct.
With respect, your own source does not show what you assert it to say. I have not fallen into anything other than perhaps a game of fools who do not care what the reality is on the topic.
WTF?
You've really hit the bottom of the barrel when you are putting words in my mouth and pretending they are a quote. You've really let down whoever educated and trained you with such behaviour. What a disgusting little political animal you are.
It's easy to make a term mean anything when personal definitions apply and you've listed a few who do that - but I addressed all that in the post you replied to.
Peak oil WAS in 2008. It's a technical term for the maximum bump on the consumption graph. People like to pretend it's something else or that coal, shale oil, gas, biodiesel, whatever should be included but that's something else. Whether we get another peak with a sharp dropoff or a slow slide down as consumption drops due to replacement with other energy sources is something that's still being guessed at.
Funny how Libya under Ghadaffi got a get out of jail free card but Iran didn't. It seemed a bit backwards, especially since even Reagan did deals with Iran.
And because one of them is the second largest shareholder of Fox.
Sammy the squirrel knows that he's perfectly safe during the flute solo, but pricks his ears up in alarm as the double bass kicks in.
Or briefly the gas produced or released by the explosion, although you could use different terms for that.
Today? That's how Pluto was discovered in 1930 :)
How would you know?
You've been spouting the equivalent of calling the beige box under the desk "the hard drive" after all.
Yet they are all replies to items you have raised, funny isn't it?
Why don't you display at least some shred of honesty and own up as to why you think it's worth lying about alternative energies other than the one you like. The no wind thing is especially funny but you've topped it with the magic instant autoreversing pump storage that nobody needs.
Number six your order is ready.
I am not a number, I am a free man!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_Six_%28The_Prisoner%29
Not as such. Please treat this seriously and not as some sort of game where you disparage things that are outside of your field of expertise.
Page 78
I didn't realise you were playing a game here. I thought you had some interest in the topic instead of getting me "caught and cornered" by some arbitrary rules.
I suggest at a moment when you are not playing games that you take a look at those graphs again and keep what I wrote above in mind. Reply, or not, once you have considered it instead of some knee jerk "I got ya" just because I suggested that you apply some thought to the subject and can see for yourself if you try.
There was one in Rabaul harbour caught on video by sheer luck a few weeks ago. Not a huge eruption but anyone next to it would have had problems. You could say there was a warning in that everyone knew an active volcano was there but they didn't expect it to erupt suddenly and violently.
With respect I'm not the one making the wild counterintuitive claims. Your suggestion of mandatory use of wind makes no sense at all when the majority of the generating capacity is base load that is very difficult to vary. In reality the small wind units are put on or offline as required.
As for the graph, look it again and notice when the periods of maximum contribution from wind are. It's almost always at times of peak power consumption. It's not almost continuous as it would be if your assertion above was correct.
It's a pity the graph lumps in peaking gas turbines as "conventional" or the base load would be a bit more obvious.
I suggest you look at it again from a credible source before making such wild claims that the graphs you supplied do not support.
Periods of zero generation do not fit with your description and it's a pretty stupid idea anyway to try to fill in on the peak sources since the base load generation is very difficult to change other than in very large steps.