On 17/01/2020 14:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/01/2020 11:19, Pancho wrote:
On 16/01/2020 20:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we
build more nukes.


How do you know wind cannot be used to make hydrogen. Serious
question, not making a point.

Ar you being deliberate;ly stupid?

I don't have to be deliberate, after a lifetime's practice it comes
naturally.

It's *impractical* to have a car with square wheels But you can
certainly make one.


I vaguely remember someone claiming that the required number of
windmills would take up too much area in the UK, but I think I have
also seen claims we could produce ten times our requirements from wind.


eco****s are always claing te impossible

Does anyone have a reliable source for a discussion of potential UK
wind capacity, + economics.

David Mackays 'without the hot air'

and
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


This was interesting, but it comes across as evangelical, promotional,
rather that a more balanced scientific report. I'm not saying the
science is wrong, just that the style makes me suspect it.

It was interesting and educational, though.

I was hoping for something promoting the eco**** side, as you would say.

A point you made to me a while back has played on my mind. The point
being about a mix for a zero carbon national system. i.e. nuclear and
hydro, or nuclear and some balancing generator that can turn on and off
quickly, rapid dispatch, I think was the term.

AIUI Your point being that wind and solar contributions where virtually
useless if the goal was zero emissions. They could reduce gas emissions
in a system with a high component of gas generation but that once it was
decided to have a large nuclear component there was no point in them. In
effect they were a dead end. That sounded quite convincing to me.

I had considered massive overcapacity for wind and solar, backuped up by
hydrogen generation and storage, but MacKay's point about land area
required (generation density) convinces me that this isn't really
practical, in the UK.

My conclusion being that we really should make up our minds which way we
want to go. I tend to think it should be nuclear.

So rather than reinforce my own bias of how something can't be achieved
I was hoping that an eco advocate would give me a worked example of how
a non nuclear solution could be done.