On 11/08/2019 21:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/08/2019 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating
our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power
station to
serve the entire country

Neither did I. Or do you think one wind farm could too? Or one gas fired
station?

But wind can be virtually zero across the whole country at the same time
or shut down due to high winds across large areas.

SteveW
#
I am beginning to wonder if Dave is actually mentally ill.

The point of diversity is no single point of failure. Wind has an
inherent single point of failure and so has solar so you need other stuff.

Nuclear power has no inherent single point of failure, so you dont need
other stuff.


The other reason to have a mix (that excludes renewables) is so that
depending on what rôle it takes in power generation - base load, loåd
following, or STOR - different technologfies represent optimal cost benefit.

Coal, waste burn and nuclear for baseload, CCGT for load following (and
hydro if you have any) and OCGT or diesel for STOR.

Wind and solar are not cost competitive for anything other than off grid
low reliability battery charging


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan