Wind power: for or against the wind?

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
Meszigues3
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 57
Registration: 06/02/17, 19:12
x 8

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Meszigues3 » 06/12/17, 22:00

Good evening everyone,

Well agree with sicetaitsimple.
The production Excel files can be downloaded from the RTE website http://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/eco2mix-telechargement .
This is observed data: a piece of data surprises me, I don't like it? Too bad, happy or not it is like that, since it is noted.
We can verify that the total production is equal to domestic consumption + export (or less import); there are therefore no leaks.
For variations in nuclear production, we can look for the maximum increase over half an hour for the entire fleet: +3575 MW; maximum decrease: -2319 MW.
For January 1, 2016 (I was not far because there are 17568 lines) we have the following nuclear production:
8:00 am 52110 MW
8:30 am 50415 MW
9:00 am 50559 MW
9:30 am 52154 MW

Obviously the exploitation of these Excel files is laborious. We can also make beautiful graphics, which will reflect the truth.
There are files for many networks.
For example Denmark (to avoid saying: Denmark manages to produce 50% green electricity, we have to do it) https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/Market-data1/Power-system-data/Exchange1/DK/Hourly1/?view=table
We see its enormous trade with the Nordic countries and Germany.

I agree with the sense of sicetaitsimple when he says that there is a minimum of knowledge essential to any honest man.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 06/12/17, 22:05

Thank you Didier.

This is the difference between you and "Lilian07" that I quoted above.

In front of facts proven and verifiable by everyone on official sites but which shake up their beliefs, there is one who leaves the debate and I imagine will continue to spread the same beliefs and there is another who in a first time is taken aback because inevitably it disturbs, but who will seek the information at the source and say in large and bold characters, bah yes, what I said was a little wrong ....

How about a vegetable patch? See you soon on the dedicated thread.

Kind regards.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Did67 » 06/12/17, 22:14

Meszigues3 wrote:
I agree with the sense of sicetaitsimple when he says that there is a minimum of knowledge essential to any honest man.


I just corrected myself right now - well, just before reading this post (post above).

If the information was always transparent, if it was always honest, I could agree ... Alas, it's still a little more complicated.

I therefore come to the conclusion that it is not so simple to be an honest man ... including in his field of competence. Nuclear is clearly not mine. The fact remains that I am ethically rather against it. Ethics being a personal question, it would take a long time to explain ... I started by significantly reducing my consumption (roughly 3 kWh per year 800 or 4 years ago, to around 5).
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 06/12/17, 22:17

Meszigues3 wrote:

Well agree with sicetaitsimple.
The production Excel files can be downloaded from the RTE website http://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/eco2mix-telechargement .
This is observed data: a piece of data surprises me, I don't like it? Too bad, happy or not it is like that, since it is noted.

...........................

I agree with the sense of sicetaitsimple when he says that there is a minimum of knowledge essential to any honest man.


Thank you, and particularly agree with your comment "a given surprises me, does not please me? Too bad, happy or not it is like that, since it is noted."

On the other hand, I never said "that there is a minimum of knowledge essential to any honest man.", I don't know where you saw that.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Did67 » 06/12/17, 22:20

sicetaitsimple wrote:
How about a vegetable patch? See you soon on the dedicated thread.

Kind regards.


It is in my book: for 50 years, I also believed that one could not obtain good results without digging, without fertilizing (manure, compost, natural fertilizers ...), without treating (at least with "natural" products) ... And then I had to admit that I was wrong. What could be more "shameful" for an agronomist?

So admitting that I thought that the power stations were not modular over very short time steps does not pose much of a problem for me ...

I regret it, as always when I realize that I was stupid ...

I do not regret being "rather against" nuclear power and first of all for degrowth. Particularly against electric heating. And particularly convectors. We talked about it elsewhere ...
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Did67 » 06/12/17, 22:24

sicetaitsimple wrote:On the other hand, I never said "that there is a minimum of knowledge essential to any honest man.", I don't know where you saw that.


Ah! This is a good thing. Because this sentence confuses a moral value - honesty - and knowledge. And even "indispensable knowledge" quite strongly feels a form of disgusting superiority of certain people who have acquired knowledge. Honesty would be reserved for "rich in knowledge" ... Mwouai ... I have known educated people of great moral poverty and damn disgusting. And illiterate people of great nobility! So the phrase repels me.
0 x
Meszigues3
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 57
Registration: 06/02/17, 19:12
x 8

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Meszigues3 » 06/12/17, 22:27

sicetaitsimple wrote:On the other hand, I never said "that there is a minimum of knowledge essential to any honest man.", I don't know where you saw that.

I wrongly extrapolated on "it would be good if on this forum where people are (usually!) relatively serious you can get rid of these kinds of ideas. "
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Did67 » 06/12/17, 22:34

sicetaitsimple wrote:Thank you, and particularly agree with your comment "a given surprises me, does not please me? Too bad, happy or not it is like that, since it is noted."


On this, in a much more nuanced way, all the same a remark: any man having enough knowledge also knows that the tables, the statistics, the graphs are presented in such a way as to corroborate what the one who precedes them wants to demonstrate. And so you sometimes have to "scratch" to see what's behind it, if you want to be honest man ...

I did not rule out data. I tried to find out if the numbers might not hide an "other" reality. Exactly, I asked this question.

I am still not absolutely 100% convinced that these "reserved productions" by the participation of certain foreign electricians in certain French reactors are counted in the domestic production managed by RTE. I admit that I do not have the courage to "treat" the Excels to know if all this production represents exports [on the understanding that there are other exports, from "French" sources - when electricity from a 100% French capital dam is exported, or a 100% French reactor, I suppose there are some and not all of them are co-financed]. I express a doubt here. And not a statement like that would not be.
0 x
Meszigues3
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 57
Registration: 06/02/17, 19:12
x 8

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Meszigues3 » 06/12/17, 22:40

Did67 wrote:
sicetaitsimple wrote:On the other hand, I never said "that there is a minimum of knowledge essential to any honest man.", I don't know where you saw that.


Ah! This is a good thing. Because this sentence confuses a moral value - honesty - and knowledge. And even "indispensable knowledge" quite strongly feels a form of disgusting superiority of certain people who have acquired knowledge. Honesty would be reserved for "rich in knowledge" ... Mwouai ... I have known educated people of great moral poverty and damn disgusting. And illiterate people of great nobility! So the phrase repels me.


Thousand excuses ; I never meant to say all that. "Honest man" is an outdated expression; of course that an illiterate is not dishonest so far, I never thought that.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 06/12/17, 23:00

Did67 wrote:
I do not regret being "rather against" nuclear power and first of all for degrowth. Particularly against electric heating. And particularly convectors. We talked about it elsewhere ...


It is a whole other debate, on which indeed we would not necessarily agree, ... at least today.

To tease, I am for a necessarily electric heating for everyone, but by 2100, when let's say 90% of the electricity production will be renewable. And same for transport, 90% electric .. And if I am wrong about 20 years or 10% it is not very serious. And if I am more wrong, it is because I have been too optimistic, they will not come looking for me ......

But here we were talking about raw data, purely technical, observed and verifiable. If one is curious and in good faith, there is no reason to disagree and therefore eliminate false arguments from the debate.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Bing [Bot] and 172 guests