Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

Absolutely not & I think everyone welcomed Mart's 3rd post on the subject & particularly Z's contribution in post #10.

Unfortunately, everything from post #11 is totally unproductive when we could have been discussing WT load factors over time. Instead of that we end up arguing over GA.....Again!!

Hi

I really don't follow the logic behind 'discussIng WT load factors over time' as it's so obviously a diversionary ploy to disrupt RE discussion on a G&E board ... it's simply the latest effort of many that we've all seen recently & represents a continuance of an effort under many guises over quite an extended period which employs the same old arguments, posed in the same old way, using the same old methodology ... the sooner that those that currently don't realise that they're being played as niave pawns in someone's long standing & well rehearsed anti-Re agenda, the better it will be for everyone concerned - unless they're also closely following the same agenda or (tin foil hat on!) simply supportive & confirmatory postings under yet another alter-ego !! .... :whistle:

Time for reflection? ... :think: ?

HTH
Z

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I really don't follow the logic behind 'discussIng WT load factors over time' as it's so obviously a diversionary ploy to disrupt RE discussion on a G&E board ... it's simply the latest effort of many that we've all seen recently & represents a continuance of an effort under many guises over quite an extended period which employs the same old arguments, posed in the same old way, using the same old methodology ... the sooner that those that currently don't realise that they're being played as niave pawns in someone's long standing & well rehearsed anti-Re agenda, the better it will be for everyone concerned - unless they're also closely following the same agenda or (tin foil hat on!) simply supportive & confirmatory postings under yet another alter-ego !! .... :whistle:

Time for reflection? ... :think: ?

HTH
Z

Those that don’t want to be “diverted” or “disrupted” could just ignore the thread & let those that want to discuss it, do so without all the haranguing.

It’s ok to discuss battery degradation but not WT load factors....intriguing!

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Those that don’t want to be “diverted” or “disrupted” could just ignore the thread & let those that want to discuss it, do so without all the haranguing.

It’s ok to discuss battery degradation but not WT load factors....intriguing!

And we are back to the start again - Ken (who is playing you mate, please wake up) took offence to many of us putting GA on ignore over the last year or so.

Please note that whilst he challenges minor issues from others, and openly denies FF industry actions, he does not criticise GA's comments. Does that seem at all normal?

You yourself are challenging many of those now, you know that most of what he says, and especially his figures are nonsense.

So before judging any postings on threads, such as the WT degradation one, perhaps ask yourself - "If we didn't keep getting BS threads, would there be any BS discussions?" - I think you are shooting the messenger, and you'd do better aiming elsewhere.

You might also want to consider how many individuals there are behind the GA, Ken, Great Ache and Hexane accounts. An answer of four is probably very generous.

Also consider how little time has been spent on this thread discussing green energy issues lately, and not since folk started ignoring GA, but since Ken began his ....... campaign?

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

Those that don’t want to be “diverted” or “disrupted” could just ignore the thread & let those that want to discuss it, do so without all the haranguing.

It’s ok to discuss battery degradation but not WT load factors....intriguing!

Hi

In which case you obviously seem to support the provision of misleading information which is open to anyone to believe is true if not openly challenged? ... now that's what I would consider 'intriguing' ...

As for battery storage capacity vs wind turbine load factor degradation over time ... well that's simple, one is directly related to the impact of both time & charge cycles on the chemicals & componentry employed & the other should only happen in situations where an insufficiently robust mechanical maintenance schedule exists - that's about it in a nutshell ..... talk about it all you want if you want to go down that rabbit-hole, but don't hold on too tightly to any expectation that everyone else will nod, smile & unquestioningly follow on a flawed path to enlightenment aimed at any uninformed subset of the general public regarding renewable energy provision within a national or even global strategy ...

I can understand why some that have had long careers related to the FF and/or nuclear sectors would be defensive when they (mistakenly) believe that any & all mention of those industries are an affront to what may have been significant in the list of their life achievements, but in reality, green & ethical boards probably don't represent the kind of playground that anyone truly interested in the development of microgeneration & distributed generation RE sectors should choose to hang around without expectation of a number of pretty relevant questions being raised which could upset their nature! ...

... anyway, to conclude, if you're suggesting or implying that the level of intrigue related to ... 'It’s ok to discuss battery degradation but not WT load factors...' ... has anything to do with vested interests in wind generation (past or present), I can put your mind at rest, for myself it hasn't, which is also the case for any business or employment interest in energy storage (past or present) or anywhere else in the FF, gas, nuclear or any other form of domestic energy supply chain, although that may not be the case for all that post on boards such as these ... maybe some, or even all, others will be quick to claim the same, but the value of doing so in an anonymous space with any level of credibility is what exactly? .. close to zero?, or zero?! ... :whistle:

HTH
Z

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In which case you obviously seem to support the provision of misleading information which is open to anyone to believe is true if not openly challenged? ... now that's what I would consider 'intriguing' ...


HTH
Z

Say GA had posted a link to a report stating that WTs would now last 100 years instead of the anticipated 50* years, would Mart have spent a frantic 45 minutes searching for peer reviews to disprove it? I think not.

(*figure for illustration only.)

What I do support the right of GA to post something that's already in the public domain & also the right of anyone else to openly challenge it. Isn't that what forums do?

Hexane

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And we are back to the start again - Ken (who is playing you mate, please wake up) took offence to many of us putting GA on ignore over the last year or so.

Did he? I certainly haven't noticed dozens of posts from him saying so. I had, though, noticed dozens of posts decrying Ken failing to argue with GreatApe, or criticising Ken for not ignoring GreatApe (not quite sure how he would argue with him and ignore him at the same time, that's an odd one) or calling Ken an FF apologist (funny that, I don't know many FF apologists who have large solar arrays on their houses) or many other things. Almost all coming from one particular direction.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You might also want to consider how many individuals there are behind the GA, Ken, Great Ache and Hexane accounts.

I wondered that too, especially when Great Ache started parodying some of my favourite hilarious anti-RE nonsense memes including "solar panels drain the sun". I was worried there might be some weird Jekyll and Hyde (or Fight Club?) thing going on whereby I was actually posting as Great Ache in my sleep without knowing it. Anyway I reassured myself that wasn't the case by leaving a CCTV camera running for a while

Don't think it was Ken either, Great Ache seemed to be mocking Ken on occasions when he wasn't mocking Great Ape. Which still leaves us rather in the dark, it was clearly someone with a lot of spare time on their hands and who had been reading this forum in detail for quite some time. I'd be fascinated to know who.

zeupater

Hexane wrote: »

Did he? I certainly haven't noticed dozens of posts from him saying so. I had, though, noticed dozens of posts decrying Ken failing to argue with GreatApe, or criticising Ken for not ignoring GreatApe (not quite sure how he would argue with him and ignore him at the same time, that's an odd one) or calling Ken an FF apologist (funny that, I don't know many FF apologists who have large solar arrays on their houses) or many other things. Almost all coming from one particular direction.
I wondered that too, especially when Great Ache started parodying some of my favourite hilarious anti-RE nonsense memes including "solar panels drain the sun". I was worried there might be some weird Jekyll and Hyde (or Fight Club?) thing going on whereby I was actually posting as Great Ache in my sleep without knowing it. Anyway I reassured myself that wasn't the case by leaving a CCTV camera running for a while

Don't think it was Ken either, Great Ache seemed to be mocking Ken on occasions when he wasn't mocking Great Ape. Which still leaves us rather in the dark, it was clearly someone with a lot of spare time on their hands and who had been reading this forum in detail for quite some time. I'd be fascinated to know who.

Hi

Looks very familiar, very much posting in the supportive style of what someone like (let's say) Cardevv (for example) would have written the best part of a decade ago when similar discussions involving other highly argumentative profiles popped up to cause more than just a little mischief amongst regular visitors to this forum ....

... amazing how much faith & effort some invest in memetics & illusory truth! ... :eek: ...

HTH
Z

Hexane

zeupater wrote: »

Looks very familiar, very much posting in the supportive style of what someone like (let's say) Cardevv (for example) would have written the best part of a decade ago when similar discussions involving other highly argumentative profiles popped up to cause more than just a little mischief amongst regular visitors to this forum ....

So you think Great Ache was someone who used to post several years ago and came back? Must have very little to do...

The name Cadevv sounds slightly familiar, are there posts of theirs still around in easily discovered threads in this forum?

ed110220

Hexane wrote: »

So you think Great Ache was someone who used to post several years ago and came back? Must have very little to do...

The name Cadevv sounds slightly familiar, are there posts of theirs still around in easily discovered threads in this forum?

I always presumed our simian friend was Cardevv (speak of the devil and all that, which is the reason for my deliberate misspelling). Not that I'd given it much thought as it hardly warrants it.

ed110220

And now for some Green and Ethical news...

UK Economy-Wide Coalition Urges Government To Support Onshore Wind

An economy-wide coalition of UK companies and organizations has called on the country’s new Energy Minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, to support the development of new onshore wind farms in an effort to extricate the technology from its current persona non grata status so as to further boost the country’s efforts to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

“Decarbonising our economy while increasing generating capacity and keeping bills low is a huge challenge that will require a mix of technologies to achieve,” said Sue Ferns, the Deputy General Secretary of the trade union Prospect. “It is obvious that onshore wind has to be a key part of that mix. A rapid expansion of onshore wind deployment also has the potential to create thousands of good green jobs across the UK, and help secure a Just Transition for workers as high carbon generation is phased out.”

“Clean onshore wind power is popular in every single constituency in the UK, is our cheapest energy source bar none, and is a solution to the pressing climate crisis,” added a representative for the environmental campaign group 10:10 Climate Action. “Local communities can lead, own and benefit from new projects – but only if the de facto ban is lifted and onshore wind is granted fair treatment alongside other energy sources.”