Unthreaded
Sorry @EM you made a mistake, you got around in a twist and then told me my first answer was right.
Humans make mistakes, it's no big deal here, unlike when we are playing with taxpayers money/freedoms.
I said "whilst the oil barrel 6 bn Joules is 1.67MWh"
You said "6 billion Joules is 1.6 thousnd kWhr not 1.6 million kWhr."
Well I never said "1.6 million kWhr" ... I said 1.67MWh" which is almost the same as 1.6 thousand kWhr
You said "I used a load actor of 0.5."
Well that's ridiculous It's dark half the time ..and not full brightness most of the rest
Why would anyone assume a load factor 5 times greater than is normal in UK conditions ?
Then you conclude
"With correct arithmetic your estimate is 10 panels per barrel."
which is exactly what I said in the first place
2 panels generate 340KWh in 1 year
So 1 panel generate 170KWh in 1 year...so 10 panels generate1,700KWh or 1.7MWh
ie the same as that one barrel of oil : 1.67MWh
stewgreen
@GC Jun 2, 2017 at 11:22 AM
Yes I spotted that on the BBC news
Basically "The UK which is no longer in the EU didn't make a statement with the EU nations at a PR stunt
.. Instead our leader phoned Trump directly"
..And somehow that is supposed to be wrong and newsworthy !
..They wouldn't report other topics in the same manner.
stewgreen
gc Doh! I should have guessed that. :-D
I do think that BA's problems are a good warning for those relying on batteries and generators to keep the country running. It's not enough to buy kit and forget about the problem. The stuff needs maintaining, testing, renewing and trained staff, even if it's up to the job in the first place. Severe failures are often the confluence of things people assumed wouldn't happen. Fukishima, Piper Alpha, with hindsight they were always possible. Collapse of our energy system with a reliance on renewables isn't even that unlikely. I wonder if they've ever done a costing of such an event?
TinyCO2
@RR It's high level physics
In the GREEN DIMENSION : Different laws of mathematics & physics apply.
stewgreen
BBC One o’clock news leads with “shock, horror… a politician does what he promised to do!” Trump is taking the US out of the Paris deal. Roger Harrabin is wheeled out (see what I did. there?), to start with an outright lie, then to continue into an odd dichotomy: “…as the price of renewables becomes competitive with fossil fuels, yet provides three times the number of jobs…” What? So, how are these jobs being paid for? Slave labour? Minimum wage, perhaps? Or can, with the help of generous subsidy, the “green” industry pay proper wages, irrespective of delivery of product? It would appear ALL the basic rules of economics can be thrown out of the window if the industry is “green.”
Radical Rodent
Not even running obsolete equipment nor sacking the staff who were keeping it alive. It's all somebody else who is responsible. Got it?
Jun 2, 2017 at 12:33 PM | TinyCO2
That is Politically Correctly WRONG. ! You are not thinking like a Progressive. It will be Brexit, Global Warming AND Trump. Simple.
golf charlie
Hi all, there are a few remaining spaces at this if you are interested:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/climate-change-does-the-15-degree-target-make-sense-registration-34656184581
Live feed available too. Questions welcome in advance.
ExeterClimate
Jun 2, 2017 at 12:05 PM | It doesn't add up...
When it comes to sorting out the cash burden, China may decide that having done very well out of the EU and US exporting all their jobs to China, they do not see why they should change their meaningless commitments to Paris, and actually repay any of their Climate Science windfalls.
The famous "Peace Dividend" that was going to manifest itself with the fall of the Berlin Wall, has been wasted on Climate Science, and pumped into China. I congratulate China for learning Capitalism so quickly, and knowing how to exploit the weaknesses of stupid competitors.
See also Sun Tzu
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War
golf charlie
Jun 2, 2017 at 12:05 PM by It doesn't add up...
I thought that .... but not as eloquently.
Robert Christopher
Collapse of our energy system with a reliance on renewables isn't even that unlikely. I wonder if they've ever done a costing of such an event?
Jun 2, 2017 at 2:20 PM | TinyCO2
Of course they have done costings. But as it was an event that could not possibly happen, they asked Green Energy Experts for advice, and they just agreed that their original conclusion was correct.
Outsourcing and sub-contracting have the advantage of always having someone else to blame. So British Airways decided to blame someone else, and it turns out that British Airways do not make good decisions.
How many householders assume that they can hire a standby generator to get themselves through a temporary power failure, without realising that hire shops do not have unlimited stocks, to cover temporary power failures to cover a single housing estate? That is why STOR was funded, to provide DIESEL Generated electricity to the offices deemed to be of Naional Security and Interest, NOT to homes and businesses.