Denmark just generated 140% of its electricity demand from wind power

Originally posted by humy
Logical deduction doesn't need anything to back it up, moron. It merely needs to be valid.
Its just a matter of LOGIC, something you are too dense to get. The only valid way you can counterague that is by either show a logical flaw in the deduction (inference ) or show one of its premises to be false, neither of which you have done.
You still haven't answered my question, and we all know why.

"Logical deduction doesn't need anything to back it up, moron. It merely needs to be valid."

It isn't valid, that is the point. You need to prove your case. You are asking me to prove a negative again. That is not reasonable, but I have presented links that say it is not cost effective so I have done as much to prove the negative as can be expected. Prove your positive or admit you are wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You may interpret it that way, I don't.

[b]The exaggeration is in turning this one day into a general statement.
Except he didn't did he? I certainly don't see how you justify your statement: "come up with wildly exaggerated statistics" from that. What 'wildly exaggerated statistics' did he come up with? the one day statistic is factual and not ex ...[text shortened]... d people making false accusations of concocting statistics when no such thing was actually done.[/b]

"the one day statistic is factual and not exaggerated in any way, nor is it claimed to be anything other than a one day thing."

Humy failed to see that. He asserted it was proof of 100% renewables being possible in the OP, a false assertion. I think that is what shallow blue is talking about.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
He asserted it was proof of 100% renewables .

Although I didn't explicitly state this, I had meant that, with wind energy meeting more than 100% of the demand some of the time plus taking into account you can combine that wind energy with other renewables and a supergrid and/or off-the-grid energy storage, it is just a matter of reason that 100% renewable energy could definitely be arranged if only there was the general political desire to have that.
The reason why I didn't actually explicitly state all that in my assertion was because:

(a) I was too lazy to edit all of that. So I sacrificed accuracy in literal meaning and made it simplistic just for the sake of keeping it short.

(b) I assumed most people, with you being the obvious exception, would have the intelligence to guess I didn't mean the assertion that literally because most people would guess I implicitly meant the unsaid reasoning similar to or vaguely along the lines to that as stated above. After all, with you being an obvious exception, I presume most people would have the imagination and intelligence to consider possible ways of going 100% renewable and would have had thoughts that are at least vaguely similar to mine above (even if they have never heard of the concept of a supergrid and thus don't consider how a supergrid might help, energy storage is an obvious consideration and you would have to be pretty stupid to not even ever think about energy storage whether you then dismissed it or not ). This is because it doesn't require much imagination and intelligence to actually think of such things, which you do not.

If someone told you it took them an "eternity" to do something, would you be so stupid as to also take that assertion too literally to?

Originally posted by humy
Although I didn't explicitly state this, I had meant that, with wind energy meeting more than 100% of the demand some of the time plus taking into account you can combine that wind energy with other renewables and a supergrid and/or off-the-grid energy storage, it is just a matter of reason that 100% renewable energy could definitely be arranged if only there w ...[text shortened]... to do something, would you be so stupid as to also take that assertion too literally to?

"I had meant that, with wind energy meeting more than 100% of the demand some of the time plus taking into account you can combine that wind energy with other renewables and a supergrid and/or off-the-grid energy storage, it is just a matter of reason that 100% renewable energy could definitely be arranged if only there was the general political desire to have that."

That is not cost effective. It is possible if someone wanted to waste a lot of money to do it, but no sane person would try it. Wind is one thing, but solar is another. Solar is way too expensive and until that changes your proposal would lose money.

You still have not provided any information to back up your claim that a super grid would pay for itself.

Originally posted by humy
http://www.sciencealert.com/denmark-just-generated-140-of-its-electricity-demand-from-wind-power

proof, if only any was needed, that producing 100% of electricity from renewables is feasible.

It is not feasible. One freak windy day is far from the average. Denmark's website says an average of 28% and that is only wind. All other renewables are either too expensive or cannot be expanded like hydroelectric. Solar is really expensive. I hope that changes some day, but as of now it makes no sense in Denmark.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You may interpret it that way, I don't.

Then you're fooling yourself.

Originally posted by humy
Although I didn't explicitly state this, I had meant that, with wind energy meeting more than 100% of the demand some of the time plus taking into account you can combine that wind energy with other renewables and a supergrid and/or off-the-grid energy storage, it is just a matter of reason that 100% renewable energy could definitely be arranged if only there w ...[text shortened]... to do something, would you be so stupid as to also take that assertion too literally to?

Why are you still arguing with this idiot?

All you are doing is flooding thread after thread with moronic arguments because 'metal for brain' is
incapable of rational argument and you know that.

Hell I would say even RJHinds is easier to deal with than him.


I concur with Shallow Blue that getting a single day total like this is not that impressive, as I have mentioned
before when you posted similar stats about German solar generation.
Generating more than the total demand in summer when little lighting and no heating is required on a particularly
windy day is considerably harder than generating an average of more than peak-load on a cold winter night.

Having a peak like this requires much much less installed capacity than actually meeting total demand.

This is not to say that meeting peak demand is not possible or practical, it is.

However this is only weak evidence of significant progress towards that goal, and only something to be excited
about if you are really desperate for something to be excited about.

As I said last time, call me when they consistently achieve 60+% average peak demand before I am going to get excited.


On the subject of flying barrage balloons/kites for generating power at altitude/in the slip stream, ... Yes because we
need more stuff for aeroplanes to fly into, and to fail and fall out of the sky.
Being possible doesn't make these a good idea.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I had meant that, with wind energy meeting more than 100% of the demand some of the time plus taking into account you can combine that wind energy with other renewables and a supergrid and/or off-the-grid energy storage, it is just a matter of reason that 100% renewable energy could definitely be arranged if only there was the general political desire to have that."

That is not cost effective....

And you, the moron with no science credentials, would know this how?

Originally posted by humy
And you, the moron with no science credentials, would know this how?

You still have not provided any information to back up your claim that a super grid would pay for itself.

Originally posted by humy
http://www.sciencealert.com/denmark-just-generated-140-of-its-electricity-demand-from-wind-power

proof, if only any was needed, that producing 100% of electricity from renewables is feasible.

It is not feasible. One freak windy day is far from the average. Denmark's website says an average of 28% and that is only wind. All other renewables are either too expensive or cannot be expanded like hydroelectric. Solar is really expensive. I hope that changes some day, but as of now it makes no sense in Denmark.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b One freak windy day is far from the average. .[/b]

I never said/implied it was, moron.

Originally posted by humy
I never said/implied it was, moron.

You are clearly the moron here. 100% renewables is not feasible in Denmark as you claimed.

Originally posted by humy
Although I didn't explicitly state this, I had meant that, with wind energy meeting more than 100% of the demand some of the time plus taking into account you can combine that wind energy with other renewables and a supergrid and/or off-the-grid energy storage, it is just a matter of reason that 100% renewable energy could definitely be arranged if only there was the general political desire to have that.

Then you're drawing general, wide-ranging conclusions from a single data point, already known to be an outlier. How is that not fooling yourself with bad statistics?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Then you're fooling yourself.

No, you are just reading more into what I said than I actually said, just as your initial ' wildly exaggerated statistics' comment turned out not to be based on what was actually said but rather what you imagined was said.
Try calming down and rereading the thread.

I just came across this article:
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/132476-south-africas-wind-and-solar-power-busts-major-renewable-energy-myth.html
which states that:
"wind and solar power cheaper than new fossil fuel generation here in South Africa, "
The statement was made by the CEO of a renewable energy company so is probably biased, but its interesting nonetheless.