Wind farms degrade rapidly

Solarchaser

I'd have to agree with pile of stone, or at least partially.

I think it's wrong to feed the troll, but right to show he is a troll by responding *once* with the facts to prove he is a troll, and then moving on.

However I fully accept that's easy for me to say when I'm not the one who has been targeted by the troll and his apologist.

pile-o-stone

Solarchaser wrote: »

I think it's wrong to feed the troll, but right to show he is a troll by responding *once* with the facts to prove he is a troll, and then moving on.

Then when he responds with a post to debunk your facts? Around and around it goes.

I'd agree with the pushback if we were in Discussion Time, or the Moneysaving Arms or on other forums were this sort of misinformation needs to be addressed. However, people on this board are here because they have made their minds up about climate change and renewables, to the point where they are willing to invest their own money in their own equipment (solar PV, heat pumps and the like).

No one will come here and read GAs posts and think "Oh, I was about to install solar panels, but now I'm thinking of going down the nuclear central heating route" or think "Well, I was totally fooled by all the Climate Change stuff, but the postings of a random madman on MSE Ethical board have turned me completely around on the issue".

Let's all just get back to posting about Green and Ethical Monesaving, eh?

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

As soon as you do that the posts become personal & the thread degenerates into a slanging match.

Hiya Nick. Please understand there is a purpose behind the creation of these threads, don't let them/him keep playing you.

Perhaps now, when looking at new threads, you could apply Ockham's razor, as there is little to no subtlety being applied here, and your willingness to search for reasonableness is being used against you.

JKenH

Solarchaser wrote: »

I think it's wrong to feed the troll, but right to show he is a troll by responding *once* with the facts to prove he is a troll, and then moving on.

I think that is good advice.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Then when he responds with a post to debunk your facts? Around and around it goes.

Maybe we need a one post rule on any item raised in the “news” thread to be applied (other than the OP who has the right to reply once to each post made). This gives forum members the opportunity to express a view (but make it a good one) and we don’t then get interminable exchanges. The OP then always has the last word.

Also we should respond based on the factual/technical content of the post, not based on who wrote the post or what we perceive their intentions to be.

We could agree to drop labelling (name calling) or comments of a personal nature as it is not constructive.

We could agree to try it as a code of conduct if anyone is up for that.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Let's all just get back to posting about Green and Ethical Monesaving, eh?

I think everyone agrees with that .

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Nick. Please understand there is a purpose behind the creation of these threads, don't let them/him keep playing you.

Perhaps now, when looking at new threads, you could apply Ockham's razor, as there is little to no subtlety being applied here, and your willingness to search for reasonableness is being used against you.

Drats you've uncovered my hidden motive...

I am employed by an oil coal company who pays me to post misinformation on a forum board with five active posters three of whom have me on on ignore. They are so happy with my work that my hourly pay has been increased from 8 peppercorns per hour to 10 peppercorns per hour :beer:

Relax I don't want the £6 billion a year the NHS is saving from reduced UK coal burn to go on treating stress related problems for Mart

JKenH

GreatApe wrote: »

on a forum board with five active posters three of whom have me on on ignore.

GA has a point. There is very little participation on this board. You do have to ask why and I don’t think the problem has arisen since I started my supposed“ campaign”. In fact today we’ve had an exceptional turn out. The “thanks” button isn’t getting overused either so those who do venture on here to have a look can’t be that impressed.

It does all seem a bit pointless. Hopefully a few bored souls will take pity on us and thank us for the wonderful job we are doing.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Nick. Please understand there is a purpose behind the creation of these threads, don't let them/him keep playing you.

So pleading with him to also ignore me?

Perhaps now, when looking at new threads, you could apply Ockham's razor, as there is little to no subtlety being applied here, and your willingness to search for reasonableness is being used against you.

You don't need no razor

I'm a multidimensional creature and I need humanity to build more nuclear power plants because that will induce a wormhole through space time and allow me to enter your dimensions where upon I will systematically go around smashing PV panels wherever I find them only occasionally stopping at a Costa for some biscuits and tea. Resistance is futile you will be de-PVd

---

ed110220

In case anyone feels the need for a quick "sanity check" on that anti-wind energy campaign group's seven year old claims dug up by our baboon-like friend...


Energy Numbers has collated data on capacity factors for off-shore wind farms in the UK up to the end of 2018. There are six wind farms older than 10 years listed, with the oldest at 14.5 years.

If wind turbines "degrade rapidly" we'd expect the latest 12-month rolling capacity factor to be much lower than the lifetime capacity factor.

What is the reality? Capacity factors in the last 12 months are similar to those for the life of the farm for the oldest wind farms, eg 33.3% for the last 12 months of the 14.5 year old North Hoyle farm as against 32.2% for the whole 14.5 years.