Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

You are truly an idiot, who apparently can't even read comprehensively. Are you really THAT daft? Or are you wilfully obtuse?

Do you NOT comprehend they are shutting those down because it makes no ECONOMIC sense for those companies, and that the German state is now considering giving subsidies to those gas-fired plants BECAUSE they are needed!? I've EXPLICITLY said so in my last post, exactly to exclude the possibility you would - again - (mis)interpret it for your own sake. apparently, to no avail, because you still didn't comprehend it. READ MY LAST PARAGRAPH, slacker, and you would have known that I read that last paragraph AND then you wouldn't have made an even bigger fool of yourself. Instead, now your claiming I didn't read it, while I repeated it almost verbatim. FAIL. The bigger irony now being, that you just proved you re the brain dead idiot who doesn't even read or can't comprehend what is written and just comes up with the first thing that pops up in his mind and spouting it around.

And once again, I note you didn't provide even one relevant single link to substantiate YOUR claims, once again, while, again, deriding mine. Yes, sure, because no substantiation and just saying it as a know-all proves the argument so much better, no doubt.

You're so stupid it hurts my eyes. You're making an 'argument' that now bites you back in the ass, but worse, you have clearly not understood what they're saying here - at all. You think that because they close those plants because they're not economical viable anymore, that this means they are not needed anymore. So much for your vaunted 'logic'. Delicious irony indeed.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190


I'll take even your own example of a unicorn. IF I had only claimed 'a unicorn exists because I say so, but I can't be bothered to provide proof' - much like you do with your arguments - then one would have a point. However, if I link to a scientific paper stating unicorns do exist and why, then, when you still claim it's not true, it's for you to demonstrate the earlier conclusion is false - with counterarguments that are also verifiable. Saying you can't be bothered to read it, or that it's 'old data' doesn't cut it.

So the matter is not your preconceived idea about whether unicorns do or do not exist - which was what you were implying with the use of such an analogy - but whether it can be demonstrated by falsification whether it exists or not.

In the case of the stochastic nature of the weather, I already gave you the definition of stochastic - so no semantic discussion can arise -, I logically argued why the weather conforms to that definition, and I even gave you a link to a scientific paper which confirmed it.

your only answer basically is, that it isn't because you say so. and you can't link to any proof of what you say, because it isn't. that's a tautology. Since the paper claims differently, one can reasonably assume other papers would contradict it, if it were true, as you so vehemently keep insisting that it isn't. Well, then: I merely ask that you provide a link to sites or papers that show the opposite, and confirm your claim. Idem for the 'no need' for backup of gas/coal/oil plants.

And, here, I'll give you some more links that demonstrate the fact that renewables need backup of classical plants, ALSO in Denmark and Germany:

The 'hidden' coal plants are not hidden at all - if you bother to do some basic research before claiming something, that is. ( ). And of course they also have gas-fired power stations too. For the necessity of Denmark to rely on gasturbines/plants as backup: https://carboncounter.wordpres...
and for Germany: https://www.dissentmagazine.or... and

I'll even give the quote:

"Prices in 2023 may therefore be 10 to 20 percent higher than those in 2013. (See Exhibit 8.) Note that this calculation includes all applicable taxes and levies, including a “security of supply component” (hidden today in grid use fees) used to finance the development of sufficient backup capacity to cover peak demand hours that lack sufficient feed-in from renewables."

Note that, while it deals with prices, it mentions the fact that part of it is due to develop sufficient backup capacity. Ergo - let's use logic here - if there WAS NO NEED for backup, they wouldn't need to develop it, nor augment to prices for it. Hence, backup is needed.

And if you're still not convinced:

I'll give you the relevant quote yet again:

"Essentially, Germany needs to have a dispatchable installed capacity at the level of its peak demand for the year, which is currently around 80 gigawatts and occurs on winter evenings – when the sun does not shine. A large part of that 80 gigawatts therefore needs to be built as dispatchable gas turbines."

Again: it is CLEARLY stated that gasturbines are needed as backup. Once again, the conclusion can only be that renewables ARE de facto, in need of backup. And they will always be, until one has developed storage-capacities that can cover long time-spans (several weeks at least). And I hve also already indicated in my first post, why simply putting more windmills and connecting everything to a smart grid (which does not exist yet) does not work from an economic perspective. (hint: because you'll have a huge over-capacity then for most of the time. Which means you'll have to sell it very cheap, and hence, it can not survive in a free market and thus will need perpetual subsidies of the state to remain afloat.)

In fact, another of the problems already arising now - which are mentioned at the end of the last link/page I gave, is that in Germany they are shutting down the gasplants because they're already non-profitable to run (seen the heavy subsidies of renewables). Yet, since they are needed for backup, now Germany is considering even subsidising gas-fired plants, so they remain profitable. Mind you: the gasturbines are not being shut of because they are not needed anymore, but because they're not profitable anymore, and subsidising those gas-plants IS done because one needs them as backup.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

Yes, and contrary to you, I *did* do the trouble of reading them. Only, they pertain no confirmation of your claim that it's not stochastic, nor does it substantiate your assertion that no backup is needed anymore from classical plants.

And don't complain about my post being insulting if you start being insulting in the first place, even though you then say 'maybe I worded it wrongly'. I'm a fervent proponent of free speech, but also of reciprocity, so don't start complaining you get the same treatment as you give others. "I stop here with debunking your bullshit." is where you started with language which you already should have known it was not going to be conductive of having an amicable discussion. Oh, don't tell me: in your opinion, it was merely stating an obvious fact, no doubt. Well, in reciprocity, I'm only saying an equally obvious fact. And thus:

In all honesty, you're an arrogant twit, and I think you know it. Or maybe not, with your bloated ego, but at least others know it too, seen your response(s) and the reactions you get from others in other threads. The one that is uneducated is you, AND you refuse to learn and don't even try to read anything that contradicts your set views, all in the absolute certainty that you know it best, and all the rest not, that you are an expert determining what is stochastic or not, because you claim to program and are a sailor (while questioning 'why should I be an expert in stochastic systems' when the fallacy of speaking from authority is *exactly* the fact that people that are NOT experts on the subjects act as if they do).

In short, you STILL did not provide any link that substantiates your claim about the weather not being stochastic, NOR that windmills don't need any back up anymore. Not surprising, because those assertions are untrue. I provided you the links to substantiate MY claims on the matter (one of which was to a scientific paper), but then you complain it's 'old data', while YOU didn't even give ANY data, nor provide links to papers that would indicate why the old data would be wrong. How very consistent...

You simply fail to grasp the basics of any rational debate, namely that your claims and arguments need to be substantiated, or they're basically worthless and don't amount to anything (the same is true for assertions based on your own expertise without giving proof of that expertise).

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 446

No, the parent poster is right. He's basically a troll. He ALWAYS asserts claims and conclusions with the utmost certainty, denying all other arguments, refusing to read anything that would contradict his own thoughts on the matter, yet never manages to give even the most basic reference or link to anything that would substantiate his own claims.

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 446

Indeed, he's basically a troll. He ALWAYS asserts claims and conclusions with the utmost certainty, denying all other arguments, refusing to read anything that would contradict his own thoughts on the matter, yet never manages to give even the most basic reference or link to anything that would substantiate his own claims.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

I note you still did not provided a single link or reference to substantiate any of your claims. Be it recent or 'old' data. Ergo, your assertions and claims are derived from self-asserted authority (or not even that, apparently), without anything to back it up... and are thus pretty worthless in any rational debate.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

You forget to mention that, apart from your last two, that didn't were relevant to the topic at hand, you posted NO links at all , let alone 'more recent' ones, that would contradict what is said in those other links.

One of the links was to a scientific paper, btw, clearly indicating the weather is a stochastic phenomenon. Your only response to it is "can't be bothered to read it, since I know it better then every one else". Or "aw, it's 10 years old, it's SO passé". Really? That's your counterargument? You do realise it's not based on refuting anything content-wise that is said in there, nor on arguments, only on your own assertion "it's not true, because I say so". Alas, not to burst your ego-bubble, but that's not a valid argument. If you realise this, then please provide your own links to recent scientific papers which claim it's NOT stochastic, as you keep claiming erroneously. You can't. You know it, and I know it. Give me your links to recent sites where it's said windturbines don't need any backup anymore these days from gas/oil/coal plants anymore. You can't. We both know it. And that's why, basically, you are just trolling, and baiting with all the 'maybe you should grasp the content'. I grasp it very well, and I also grasp you didn't and can not offer ANY proof of what you claim. And that's because you're full of bull.

If anything should be tiring, it's reactions like yours, who are clearly trollish in nature. If you didn't want to debate things based on facts and valid arguments, but just wanted to be an annoying idiot, you should have said so from the start. And if you do, then please substantiate your claims, preferably with more recent links, since you complain about older data.

I'll ask you again: put up or shut up. Show me a paper that explicitly claims the weather is NOT stochastic. Show me a reliable site where it's demonstrated windturbines do NOT need any backup anymore to compensate for load balancing.

"No I did not. As I likely know more about the stuff as you can find links." ---> appeal to authority. Are you a scientist with expertise on stochastic systems? Highly doubtful. And certainly with a self-referencing which can not be checked, it's completely worthless as an argument.

But, ok, I'm broad-minded; if you can actually prove you're such an expert on the domain in question, I'll count it as an argument with some worth. Please provide actual proof that you're such an expert as you self-profess to be. For instance, give a link to your professional career which can be crossed checked that you are in fact, that person.

If you do not want to, please realise, that then, the argument is completely worthless, just as anything said out of 'authority' or any other claims that you did not substantiate. You complain about my sources and claim I'm wrong, because you said so. You can turn it as you want, but that is what your posts boil down to. You provided nothing to back your claims up, nor did you deliver any proof of your expertise. So, what is left? Be honest.

Nothing, indeed.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

"Did you even READ the links I gave you?
No I did not."

"what is written in it, does not interest me"

I think that sums things up quite nicely, indeed. Basically, you don't want to educate yourself - throwing in an appeal to authority at that (always a weak sign), nor are you interested in any arguments that don't stroke with your biased vision.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

I'm sorry, but that's just BS.

Did you even READ the links I gave you?

And the weather CAN NOT be predicted precisely. There is no forecasts that can accurately predict with 100% certainty where and how much and at what time the wind will blow. It's absurd to even suggest otherwise, and hints that you really do not understand what you're talking about. In fact, it demonstrate you didn't even do the trouble of reading the links I gave, which substantiate what I say.

If you want to keep claiming the opposite, please provide me with a link where it is substantiated that one can do such a thing. You can't, period. And that's because it's impossible, BECAUSE it's stochastic in nature. Whether forecasts are ALWAYS approximations; they are the best (in a statistical way) predictions computer-simulations can offer. It's a reliance on statistics, thus (and now look again on the definition of stochastic). Here you have another link:

Please educate yourself. It's embarrassing to look at arguments that miss even the most basic of knowledge on the subject.

Also... about the gas/coal backups for windmill-parks: this was not a suggestion or prediction, it is simply a fact: there ARE gas/coal backups for all those windmills, just *because* they are stochastic and unpredictable. Again: did you even bother to read the pages I linked to? It's explicitly mentioned there. Whether you like it or want it or not, it IS done that way. Here, I'll give you another link: . What, exactly, do you not understand about it? Or are you being wilfully obtuse?

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

"That is a matter of math, or not? Either you fix the wrong name plate, or you fix the place where you place them. I mean: if a wind turbine is rated to yield 8MW power at a wind speed of 30feet/sec but you put it on a place where that speed is rarely reached or exceeded, it can't be the wind mills fault."

Apparently, it happens often enough. One can put the blame on everyone else, the fact remains that the actual energy most windmills deliver are de facto a lot less than promised.

note that the situation won't improve, since the first windmill-parks are obviously going to be build in the best wind-covered places. Additional ones will get *less* good spots, since the best ones are already taken. So, it's not that they can't technically possibly get to their vaunted maximum, it's that they just don't, in practise. This relates to the stochastic nature of wind.

Changing the 'nameplate' to a more realistic output would indeed solve that part...well: why, then, do green sites/blogs/groups never do that? Note that this would also mean that, when they compare 100 windmills of 8MW to a nuclear plant of 800 MW, they're actually NOT using an adequate comparison, since they would need, in fact, *300* windmills for that, thus, with triple the price - and still being stochastic in nature. It's math, yes. So why does the pro-camp not apply it correctly?

"The costs are calculated quite different than you think. A guy pacing a wind farm somewhere surely knows how much energy he can expect over the year and if an investment makes sense."

Wrong. You may not be aware of this, but wind-energy is *heavily* subsidies by the state, in most countries. This, in turn, means the actually efficiency DOES NOT (or at least, far less) matter, since they don't earn directly from the cost/benefit that it delivers, but by being subsidized. As long as you can make profit with the subsidies, it doesn't really matter *how* efficient it is. The taxpayers pays for it anyway. And that's also the reason why, in countries that stop with all those huge subsidies, a lot of those wind-mill companies close doors and can't survive. In short, the whole wind-energy industrial complex is a heavily subsidised one, which only survives thanks to those subsidies (aka, money that was first derived FROM the economy, thus).

"That is wrong. If that was the case you would need for every classical plant a classical back up plant, too."


What ARE you talking about? A gas-powered plant does not need a backup, because it's not stochastic in nature. It has a constant, well-defined amount of energy (gas) that it can use. It can do load-balancing. Thus, it can level out the peaks and valleys of demand and supply (of energy) on short notice.

The fact you say is wrong, simply indicates you are totally unaware of the facts. They do. It's not surprising you don't know, because many like you just don't research things, but repeat what others (greens) say (and of course, they'll always ommit things that speak unfavourable of it). Here, let me give you a link:

Please read up before claiming something is wrong out of hand.

"Obviously, because of the continent wide grids, wind plants can back up each other just as classical plants back up each other."

No, they can't. Because every windfarm is stochastic in nature, not just your own. This means you're basically playing statistical roulette, and *hope* it will *ALWAYS* be enough. And: WHAT 'continent wide grid'? Do you have any idea what trillions that would cost?

"I stop here with debunking your bullshit."

No, please continue, since we were just coming to the good part. As you can see - I've provided links this time - it's YOU who are - wittingly or (as it appears) - unwittingly spouting BS. You haven't debunked anything at all. I've provided clear counter-arguments to any of your own arguments, AND provided links to substantiate them. You didn't refute anything at all. In fact, most of your arguments were outright wrong.

Now, even using 'the smart grid', you didn't even touch on the inherent problems that I pointed out. How, if a broad weather front(s) arrives that makes it wind-poor at half your continent, are you going to provide energy to it? By the half that does get enough wind? but - think about this - this means that that half doesn't only need enough windmills for enough energy of themselves, but need DOUBLE as much windmills, in case the other half needs it. And vice versa. Thus DOUBLING the total price (and even make it tenfold with the smart net). But - as said, but which you ignored - it's even worse: if 80% of the time it DOES blow strong enough in the whole continent, this means half of the windmills are not needed, and are basically running idle. That is economic suicide: half your investment isn't worth anything 80% of the time! This could only work with eternal and massive subsidies from the state and thus taxpayers, which would drive up the price even more to outright craziness.

"Perhaps you should simply read about the stuff instead of leaning back on your couch"

May I suggest you do the same? You seem to be in more need for it than I. Basically every statement - and now you can see for yourself - was right, and you didn't debunk nor refute any of them with valid arguments.

"That are nice alternatives."

They're better, seen from a stable-energy delivery standpoint. But they have their problems too. And most impôrtantly: not all countries can use them, let alone use them in an economic viable way.

"Solar and wind are not stochastic. Or weather reports would be greatly unreliable."


Huh? You *really* don't know what stochastic means, do you? Here:

adjective: stochastic

        randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

You seem to be behind the times: . And that windmills, who rely on the weather are stochastic in nature, isn't even contested anymore:

The fact you do not realise that a weather report is *never* 100% reliable, but is, in stead, a statistical analysis of the weather patterns, with a certain degree of likelihood (which drastically falls down the longer one wants to predict), indicates you have no firm grip on the concept of a stochastic phenomenon.

Again, follow your own adevice and do some research first, and you'll see it IS stochastic in nature. Use the correct definition of the term, for starters, of course.

"So, wou want to tell me someone is so idiotic that he is placing a wind plant (not a single wind mill, if we talk about plants we mean a few hundred) at a place where he can expect no wind for a week or longer?"

You're just not getting it. It's a matter of probability. Large weather fronts can occur, that span vast area's, and give wind-poor conditions for days on end. In my own country, about 20 days a year are wind-still (even more than wind-poor, thus). Since it's due to a weather front, it can take several days in a row. WHAT are you going to do, then? Saying to the factories and companies they're just out of luck. and do note it's always a matter of probability: even if you had storage for 1-2 days, which you could abridge... sooner or later a 3 or 4 day wind-low will pop up. Even if you had a week that you could cover: it's only a matter of likelihood; if once in ten years a 2 weeks wind-low happens, you're AGAIN with the same difficulty. You can *never* assure a stable energy delivery, always, all of the time. And no, as I said numerous times (and you didn't touch): a smart grid doesn't solve this. And even if one would try, it would be hugely expensive an economic disaster if done by private firms (without subsidies).

Green-eyed people sometimes say: "ah, but far-off-shore plants have more wind". Which is true. But the same inherent problem remains: it STILL remains a probabilistic matter. And that's because it's a stochastic system. I'm not understanding why you guys don't get that.

The ONLY way to remedy this, is storage-devices which would capture and hold the energy for weeks on end, and being able to deliver it when asked. But think about this: for providing the world with that sort of energy, it would take millions upon millions of windmills, all located far off-shore, distributed all over the planet, all connected by a electricity low-resistant smart-grids, and all with huge, massive and expensive batteries... It would cost trillions. And you *still* would need to subsidise it to remain economically viable. It's pure madness. I don't get why greens imagine this to be an ideal concept. Some even promote it in their paper. It's nonsensical. And it's certainly economically absurd.

You could get the same amount of energy, far more stable and reliably, with a fraction of the cost, in other ways, like with 3gen nuclear plants and later on with LFTR-plants.

Really, it just makes no sense, if you look at it rationally.

Comment Re:windbags are not the solution (Score 1) 190

If I had mod-points left, I would give some to this post. ;-) Do you mind I I take parts of it in any following post(s) in regard to the same matter? (You can do the same with anything worthwhile you might see in mine, of course). It's just that, I think the few remaining rational voices in here should do more to make the obvious flaws apparent to all. Even if a lot don't get it because of their ideologically coloured glasses, it might reach *some* people whom didn't fall in the nonsense of it completely, yet.

You know, all this is strange. It's not that I'm against alternatives *per sé*, it's just that, merely looking at it from a rational standpoint, one simply can not note the vast and inherent difficulties of trying to provide a stable energy production with systems that are stochastic by nature. I've pointed all the major criticism out there, with clear argument,s and yet, it STILL doesn't get through. It all gets rejected out of hand, and, as you say, the main and principle reason for it, is because I'm NOT going with the political-and-ecological-correct story, and even 'dare' to suggest nuclear is a more viable option. Suddenly I'm a shill, or some undercover agent of the nuclear lobby, or whatever. I'm just pointing out the inherent flaws of the one system compared to the other. IF one wants to go 'alternative', one would be better of with geothermal and other less-stochastic systems. The problem there is that not every country or place can do it (and certainly not economically) - and no, a smart grid spanning the globe will not help there neither, since the same problem with it remains.

But, instead of discussing it, it' just: modding it down, claiming I'm a shill, or other non sequitur arguments. Or, like the other poster, saying: "You're actively doing damage with that shit, so fuck you and the horse that rode in on you." Well, it's either true or not, if it's not, one give counterarguments, and if it is, then, if it 'does damage', than the problem lays with the unrealistic claims being made in the first place. It's ironic, but it's actually the reverse: it's this over-optimistic, PC-correct 'green policy' story of windmills and solarpanels where were basically wasting our money on (if the goal is stable energy deliverance) that is actually damaging. Not only to the acceptance and implementation of other systems, but to modern society as a whole, in the long run. I just don't understand people who'd rather believe in a pipedream than looking at the facts, and then complain their dream is being damaged by it.

Contrary to their anti-nuclear dogmatic reaction, I have nothing against green alternatives on themselves... but you MUST look at it objectively and see what it actually delivers. There is no way anyone with a rational mind looking at this objectively, that will not note such low-energy-yielding stochastic systems can never be a good idea for delivering stable energy.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

I'm actually giving several arguments, none of which you refuted. That it's your opinion it is FUD is all good and well, but that remains your opinion (which clearly was not substantiated by any arguments), and if you can't debate in a sensible way but always feel the need to flamebait and use personal insults, it's rather clear WHO is being disingenuous.

You gave no counterarguments whatsoever - unless saying "we've been installing it en masse" is meant to be a compelling argument - but just assert (from authority?) that you are right and I am wrong. You're a typical example of a person with ideologically coloured glasses of which I spoke: nothing sensible comes out, except being derisive of all arguments against it, coupled with some personal attacks or insults. Way to go.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

I primarily blame the education-system, though. No where in the world are there countries that oblige schools to teach and train critical and rational thought. "Historical criticism" is the closest thing I ever saw, and it was in a university. They should expand and make similar courses compulsory, starting from the lower grades. It would make people more than gullible sheep, willing to believe any politician or nonsensical emotionally driven claim.

There is a great shortage of ratio and logic being promoted in ourr societies, and that's a real shame.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hotels are tired of getting ripped off. I checked into a hotel and they had towels from my house. -- Mark Guido