Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Robert Wilson Subscribe

On A Case Study in how Junk Science is Used by Anti-Nuclear Environmentalists

Jarmo


This study talks about the threat of aircraft crashing into nuclear power plants. It is an equally bizarre section. It's just a bunch of made up scenarios, with zero reference to how probable they are. Dreadful stuff.

October 27, 2014    View Comment    

On A Case Study in how Junk Science is Used by Anti-Nuclear Environmentalists

Robert

My article does not speak about wind or solar energy. Can you please stay on topic?

October 27, 2014    View Comment    

On Britain's First Nuclear Power Plant In A Generation Isn't A Great Deal, But Neither Are The Alternatives

Michael


You claim I conveniently neglect to mention that there is no cost escalation for offshore wind. The reason I did this is because there is a cost escalation for offshore wind, and all renewables in the UK. It's exactly the same as it is for nuclear. This is in the terms the UK government has published.

Please check basic facts before coming along and accusing me of ignoring things.

October 19, 2014    View Comment    

On The Future of Energy: Will 'Cheap as Dirt' Batteries Transform the Grid?

Jesse

De-centralization is in many respects a fashion. A century ago electricity grids were highly de-centralized. If I take Britain as an example (I have the data lying on my computer). In 1924 Britain had 491 power stations, but had only 3.7 GW of total capacity. By 1990 Britain had 75 GW of capacity, 20 times more than in 1924. Yet, it had 163 power stations. This is an incredible increase in centralisation.

The long term trend for conventional power plants has been greater and greater centralisation. Why would renewables be any different? Offshore wind, so far, is following the centralisation trend. We are now talking about GW scale plants. Onshore wind seems to be following this trend in America. In more densely populated European countries it is probably more socially challenging to centralise onshore wind. Finding suitable space for wind farms bigger than 100 MW in Britain or Germany is much more difficult than in the US. But where there is space, such as the central plains of America or Western China (though not its eastern provinces) there are now huge numbers of plants greater than 500 MW in size. In fact almost all of the world's >200 MW wind farms are in the US or in China's western provinces.


We are also seeing some trends towards big solar plants in the US. And cheap batteries aren't likely to change this. The economics of grid disconnection are not likely to move beyond the dubious. You just have to ask yourself how you get through Christmas with a solar panel and battery, and no grid access. That option only seems to exist in the minds of some DG advocates. The other issue is why cheap batteries would favour de-centralisation. I find it hard to see how one big centralised battery cannot be far more efficient than a bunch of de-centralised things in people's basements.


The other, more fundamental reason, why DG won't take over is power density. Factories, office blocks and multi-story residential buildings all consume energy at a rate of more than 100 watts per square metre. Rooftop solar simply cannot supply the energy needs of modern cities.

Centralised facilities will not be going away.

October 13, 2014    View Comment    

On Britain's First Nuclear Power Plant In A Generation Isn't A Great Deal, But Neither Are The Alternatives

BNFL, which was a state-owned UK company, sold Westinghouse to Toshiba back in 2006. It was generally thought at the time that it was a politically motivated decision by the Labour Party. Labour is now firmly pro-nuclear, but it actually took Tony Blair a long time to change their position on it. And around 2006 it still wasn't Labour policy to build nuclear power plants to meet emissions targets. Now, we are trying to get Toshiba to build an AP1000, but if Westinghouse had never been sold it would have been British owned kit.

October 12, 2014    View Comment    

On Reality Check: Germany Does Not Get Half of its Energy from Solar Panels

Brian


You complain about me ranting, and then go off on a complete rant yourself. Very strange, but typical behaviour.

I don't know where to begin. But how do I not understand capacity factors? I state the annual output of solar. I state the capacity of new coal power plants in Germany and the expected capacity factors of them, and then estimate what their generation will be. Please point out my misunderstanding!

You don't even seem to have read my piece before attacking me. I do not use IEA or DOE predictions of new solar capacity. Instead I used the capacity windows, which the new Germany government has put in place. This is stated clearly in the piece.


"German coal electricity is nearly all for export." This is simply not true, and can be easily checked by looking at statistics.

"Peak demand is when solar is peak." This is not true, as I state in the piece. Peak occurs in Winter evenings. You can check this yourself using the data I cite at the bottom of the article.


So, please check some basic facts before attacking people.

August 22, 2014    View Comment    

On Reality Check: Germany Does Not Get Half of its Energy from Solar Panels

Craig


This comment is essentially libellous. However, given your previous smearings of me and others I am far from surprised.

I suggest you drop your sense of self delusion. I do not read your website at all. Neither have I read this Fraunhaufer pdf you claim I plagiarised from. The only time I read your website is when you smear me. Perhaps you can write another piece doing so.

If anyone wants to know how I calculated which days had the highest and lowest solar power output in Germany, well I can tell them. I took the data from PF Bach's website, as linked to at the bottom of the post and I used the statistical language R to calculate which day was the maximum and minimum. The code I used for this is below.

Now, can you please stop smearing me?

#### Code to calculate best and worst day for solar in Germany 2013 ####

type = "pv"
if(type == "pv")
pv <- read.csv("2013_de_pv.csv", sep = "\t") else
pv <- read.csv("2013_de_wind.csv", sep = "\t")
pv1 <- aggregate(pv, by = list(pv$Day, pv$Month), FUN = mean)
load <- read.csv("2013_de_load.csv", sep = ",")
load1 <- aggregate(load, by = list(load$Day, load$Month), FUN = mean)

minday <- pv1[pv1[,5] == min(pv1[,5]),][,6]
minmonth <- pv1[pv1[,5] == min(pv1[,5]),][,7]
pvmin <- pv[pv$Day == minday & pv$Month == minmonth,]

maxday <- pv1[pv1[,5] == max(pv1[,5]),][,6]
maxmonth <- pv1[pv1[,5] == max(pv1[,5]),][,7]
pvmax <- pv[pv$Day == maxday & pv$Month == maxmonth,]

maxP <- max(pvmax$PV)/1000
meanP <- mean(pv1$PV)
meanday <- pv1[pv1[,5] <= meanP + 5 &  pv1[,5] >= meanP - 5,][,6]
meanmonth <- pv1[pv1[,5] <= meanP + 5 &  pv1[,5] >= meanP - 5,][,7]
pvmean <- pv[pv$Day == meanday & pv$Month == meanmonth,]

percenthigh <- subset(pv1, Day == maxday & Month == maxmonth)[,5]/subset(load1, Day == maxday & Month == maxmonth)[,5]*100
percentlow <- subset(pv1, Day == minday & Month == minmonth)[,5]/subset(load1, Day == minday & Month == minmonth)[,5]*100

high <- subset(pv1, Day == maxday & Month == maxmonth)[,5]
low <- subset(pv1, Day == minday & Month == minmonth)[,5]

high/low
gg1 <- ggplot(data = pvmin, aes(factor(Hour, levels = Hour), PV/1000))+
  geom_bar(stat = "identity")+
  ylim(c(0, maxP))+
  labs(title = paste0("Worst Day: 18th January \n(" , round_any(percentlow,0.1), "% of daily demand came from solar panels)\n"))+
  theme_economist(base_size = 16)+
  xlab("Hour of the day")+
  ylab("Hourly output of Germany's\nsolar panels (GWh)")

gg2 <- ggplot(data = pvmax, aes(factor(Hour, levels = Hour), PV/1000))+
  geom_bar(stat = "identity")+
  ylim(c(0, maxP))+
  labs(title = paste0("Best Day: 21st July \n(" , round_any(percenthigh,0.1), "% of daily demand came from solar panels)\n"))+
  theme_economist(base_size = 16)+
  ylab("Hourly output of Germany's\nsolar panels (GWh)")+
  xlab("Hour of the day")

August 21, 2014    View Comment    

On Reality Check: Germany Does Not Get Half of its Energy from Solar Panels

And as for this repeated smear of Mr. Morris's that I am not willing to source from the Fraunhofer Institute. Well, anyone can go to my personal website and search for it. They will find that I have sourced them on multiple occasions. I also include the Fraunhofer Institute in the data sources section of my website.

http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/?s=fraunhofer

These conspiracy theories Mr. Morris concocts are not becoming of a supposed journalist.

August 21, 2014    View Comment    

On Biomass: The World's Biggest Provider Of Renewable Energy

This is all explained on the EIA and Eurostat website if you look through them. I'm too busy to go through it.

April 27, 2014    View Comment    

On Biomass: The World's Biggest Provider Of Renewable Energy

Durwood


I provide links at the bottom to all data sources used.

 

Robert

April 27, 2014    View Comment    

On Biomass: The World's Biggest Provider Of Renewable Energy

Thanks Joshua

I quoted power density of biofuels in the context of their physical limitations. Comparing their power densities with other energy sources is a separate issue to that discussed.

Power densities of various renewables have been discussed a few times by me on this site. I would also caution anyone against thinking putting solar panels on urban school roofs will get us very far. Dense cities place limits on rooftop solar as I discussed in the piece below:

http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters

 

April 26, 2014    View Comment    

On Biomass: The World's Biggest Provider Of Renewable Energy

Willem

Can you please make an effort to edit your comments. This stuff is very difficult to read.

And what is this?

"Normal 0 0 1 251 1432 11 2 1758 11.0 0 0 0"

These badly edited lengthy comments really take up far too much space in the discussion. Please tidy up your comments for the benefit of other readers.

April 24, 2014    View Comment