Clean Coal[?]

[Billy_Bob]

You claim to have some technical knowledge. Don't you think there is a relationship between complexity and reliability? Complexity adds points of vulnerability, points of potential failure. A windmill made to the same level of QA is far less likely to fail than is a steam power plant based simply on the number of failure modes. And that ignores the added risks of high temperature and pressure.

And you claim to be an engineer? LOL

Proven reliable technology vs I'm not sure how long the wind will blow or how fast uncertainty which requires the former to keep the later usable...

The ignorance of leftards is stunning...

 

[Billy_Bob]

You claim to have some technical knowledge. Don't you think there is a relationship between complexity and reliability? Complexity adds points of vulnerability, points of potential failure. A windmill made to the same level of QA is far less likely to fail than is a steam power plant based simply on the number of failure modes. And that ignores the added risks of high temperature and pressure.

Mostly, it is simply because solar and wind are not reliable....solar and wind are the reason for the breakdown...and solar and wind will always be the reason for the breakdown...there is a reason we left wind behind as a source of energy a loooooong time ago....and solar won't be practical or efficient till the solar arrays can be put in space and microwave the energy to receiving stations on the planet. Till then, it is all just a pie in the sky pipe dream dreamt up by glassy eyed chanters...

Steam turbines last 15-25 years... Windmills shake apart at two...

 

[Crick]

The expected lifetime of new wind turbines is in excess of 20 years.

 

[Crick]

You claim to have some technical knowledge. Don't you think there is a relationship between complexity and reliability? Complexity adds points of vulnerability, points of potential failure. A windmill made to the same level of QA is far less likely to fail than is a steam power plant based simply on the number of failure modes. And that ignores the added risks of high temperature and pressure.

Mostly, it is simply because solar and wind are not reliable....solar and wind are the reason for the breakdown...and solar and wind will always be the reason for the breakdown...there is a reason we left wind behind as a source of energy a loooooong time ago....and solar won't be practical or efficient till the solar arrays can be put in space and microwave the energy to receiving stations on the planet. Till then, it is all just a pie in the sky pipe dream dreamt up by glassy eyed chanters...

So you are not actually talking about the wind turbines, you are talking about the wind.

Tell you what, I bet the wind will be blowing a million years after we burn the last drop of petroleum.

 

[SSDD]

The expected lifetime of new wind turbines is in excess of 20 years.

Right...and we all know what greens mean when they say "expected"...what you can expect is the polar opposite from what they project.

 

[SSDD]

Tell you what, I bet the wind will be blowing a million years after we burn the last drop of petroleum.

And it will still be an unreliable source of power.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The expected lifetime of new wind turbines is in excess of 20 years.

2-5 years before major repairs and retrofit are required due to vibration and mechanical wear. 10 years is projection for replacement. They NEVER pay for themselves.

The three sites I do climate prediction for have a down rate of 27%.. that is one quarter of the turbines are down due to mechanical problems which require the unit be tagged out of service as unsafe to operate.

The newest field of 55 turbines has the highest OOS rate. Its just one year old.

Reality just bitch slapped your fantasy..

 

[Crick]

The three sites YOU do climate prediction for?

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAAAHAAAAAaaaa... I bet you count USMB as one of those, don't you.

As for your reliability numbers: BULLSHIT

Report on Wind Turbine Subsystem Reliability ─ A Survey of Various Databases
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/59111.pdf

This shows the most unreliable designs suffer an approximately 3.5% annual failure rate. The better designs are approximately 1%

and this is almost 4 years old. Numbers are undoubtedly better now.

 

[there4eyeM]

No wars for wind, no struggles for solar.

Peace is cheaper than war.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The three sites YOU do climate prediction for?

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAAAHAAAAAaaaa... I bet you count USMB as one of those, don't you.

As for your reliability numbers: BULLSHIT

Report on Wind Turbine Subsystem Reliability ─ A Survey of Various Databases
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/59111.pdf

This shows the most unreliable designs suffer an approximately 3.5% annual failure rate. The better designs are approximately 1%

and this is almost 4 years old. Numbers are undoubtedly better now.

Keep laughing fool..DOE and the Obama camp were caught fudging the numbers... but keep on putting up the crap numbers. the truth will be out soon enough.

 

[Crick]

When and where were they caught "fudging numbers"?

And I plan on continuing to laugh at you. You keep forgetting how thoroughly you yourself have refuted your claims to technical competence. Surely you don't think anyone here still believes you're an atmospheric physicist.