RKS What's the point of Zed starting a thread and then slinking off when challenged on the technology?

Its called Trolling, 2 posts get 23 replies so feeding her ego, stop feeding and it goes away.

RKS
Because its only purpose, as the the troll pointed out to me, is to have it here to refer back to

... come winter, when some idiot starts talking about 'only providing X% when we needed it most' ...

...and I don't want to get it too dirty before I take it out to air for its special moment.

RKS What's the point of Zed starting a thread and then slinking off when challenged on the technology?

Its called Trolling, 2 posts get 23 replies so feeding her ego, stop feeding and it goes away.
Sep 26, 2011 at 8:46 AM | Unregistered Commenterbreath of fresh

I've observed this behaviour by her a lot on the DM science threads, along with her little clique of 'clones'. It really clogs up the thread sometimes and spoils debate and discussion.

RKS and others,

suggest you go to late August thread---

"Stripping the Land Bare"

and see my comment, (about #19 on the 1st page) which starts;

Quote: "I have already posted this comment on the "Farmers" thread. Just in case anyone might like to read it again, or have missed it...

RB said last night:" unquote

PW

Zed

"I'm tempted to go into your points about baseload backup running etc, but I'll drop it for now."

As we say in our house (usually in chorus, with a mock American accent, after the film it quotes) "that means he doesn't know".

"You wouldn't be able to use a computer without the Theory of Relativity...... - ZedsDeadBed, Truro, UK, 3/10/2011 15:53_______" Zed made the above statement on the DM science comments pages. When repeatedly asked to explain her statement she resorted to her usual tactic of bluster, with deletion of awkward posts, followed by her eventual disappearance into the Ether.

Far be it from me to defend the old goat, but I wonder if his/her scattergun approach to commenting means that he/she simply can't remember what threads he/she has contributed to and, unable to find his/her way back, simply sounds off at the next target from his/her bêtes noires, namely the DM and us?

James P
We have a contributor here and at the DT who calls himself "old goat".
I fear he may be after you either for an apology and/or with a lethal weapon! :-)

Just to refer back to!

180 pensioners died every day as a result of cold conditions during the 2010-11 winter months in England and Wales.

The annual ‘Excess winter mortality’ report found that an estimated 21,800 people over the age of 65 died as a result of adverse conditions, on top of the average mortality rate for the same period of time (4 months from December 2010 to March 2011).

Over-65s accounted for 84% of the overall 25,700 ‘excess’ deaths during the winter months.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cold-kills-180-british-pensioners-a-day-during-winter.html

Mike Jackson,

In answer to the question you posed on Sept 25th ...

Wind makes sense as a generation source when state governments establish renewable percentage mandates and both the state and federal government grant tax incentives, loan guarentees and direct subsidies per kilowatt generated to the grid. Add in neighboring states with their own renewable mandates who can be sold renewable kilowatts in excess to our own percentage mandates at a premium price and it makes sense. At least to the utility companies responsible for providing electricity. Whether it makes sense to the tax payer or consumer is a different question.

What I am finding amusing (and at the same time predictably sad) is that one upshot of all the wind generation built in the PNW the last few years has been the filing of FERC complaints and lawsuits against BPA (Bonneville Power Administration). They operate much of the hydro system in the NW, as well as being responsible for much of the interstate transmission grid here. Spring in the NW is usually peak hydro time, being both wet and the start of the winter snow melt. It is so wet that BPA has to release extra water in the system over the spillways. But they are also under federal EPA restrictions protecting salmon and other fish that limits how they can spill (dissolved N2 isn't good for the fish). The result - they have to run the water through the turbines. Now a reasonable person might wonder what is wrong with that. All that cheap electricity. In fact it is so cheap that BPA gives it away for free.

There is one catch though. At least as far as the wind producers are concerned. One on the limiting conditions to the system is how much the grid can handle. When supply exceeds demand, BPA has to start telling other producers to drop off the grid. They replace the generation for free from their system, so no one loses money, except the wind producers. Because of subsidies and tax breaks being tied to electricity produced, those don't make it into the pocket of the wind generators when BPA tells them to shut down. Because of this, BPA made exceptions and put them at the end of the queue and they were the last to be kicked off the grid - even though there is a potential argument this violated their legal obligation not to discriminate. This happened only a few times and was mostly during the middle of the night when demand was at its lowest. But that wasn't enough for wind. They wanted negative rates, i.e. to be paid by BPA to cover the incentive dollars they were losing. BPA, politely, told them to piss up a rope. Hence the complaint and the lawsuit.

The amusing part of this story? Anyone who has lived in the NW knows that peak wind occurs in the spring, at the same time as peak hydro. It isn't as if this was an unforeseeable situation.

I can say I am rather proud that the utility I work for, though one of the biggest holders of wind generation, did not join in on either the complaint or lawsuit.

I guess there is always solar - assuming we ignore all of the problems to system reliability distributed generation causes. But that's a story for another day.