In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 20/01/2020 11:18, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran
the entire grid once.

You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler

And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate
dispatch requirements.




We were discussing high capacity , do keep up.

You really dont understand the subject do you?

Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of
the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping

Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers.
hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down.
Or having some gas.
Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and
hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute
for pumped storage

Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover
extended periods of excess demand.

SSigh. Thats why you have dispatcahable nukes

Hydrogen offers the potential to
provide months of storage.

And I have pointed out the unbelieveable risks and costs assocaited
with that incredibly stupid iudea

Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as well
do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump water up.

We do actually. Just.

In the end its all cost benefit analysis driven. How much do you value
CO2 emission at? The higher the cost of then the more nukes and the
less gas power. *Renewables are never the cost effective option*, ever.

And political. The most likely sites are in Wales/Scotland. There was a
huge upset (early '60's) with the Clywedog *flood control* scheme when
the Welsh Nationalists claimed the stored water was going to be pumped
out of the R. Severn and over the hill to supply London.

A second similar scheme was dropped because the chosen valley was
inhabited.



--
Tim Lamb