On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:25:07 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Germany's a big country with plenty of free land for building wind
farms. We're a small, overcrowded island about to become even more
crowded with the influx of migrants fleeing uprisings in Arab states.

There are about 70 million people here. How many extra would it take to
make it noticeably more crowded: 10%? 5%? 2%? Are you saying we're really
going to have *millions* of migrants fleeing uprisings in Arab states,
moving to the UK? Or just that the few who do make it here are dark-
skinned, eat different food, speak different languages, have different
imaginary friends in the sky and don't read the Daily ****ing Mail?

We all came out of Africa anyway: maybe we should all migrate off back
there where we came from.

--
John Stumbles

If a tree falls in a forest, can one hand hear it clap?

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:19:34 +0100, "Tim W"
wrote:

It isn't really a question about wind power but about any kind of electrical
generation because electricity is difficult to store, demand is constantly
fluctuating and supply has to be altered the whole time. To repeat what I
have had to say about twenty times in this thread - Wind power needs to be
part of a mix. That means that if you had a wholly renewable energy supply
( and we are a long way off that ) it would need to be a mixture of maybe
Wind, solar, biomass, waves, tidal, greatly improved storage, and improved
efficiency. So when the sun isn't shining it isn't windy, it's high tide and
the sea is calm you need to fire up the elephant grass furnace to take up
the slack. None of these fluctuations is totally unpredictable, the weather
is never the same from one end of the country to the other. Obviously if you
throw in a bit of nuclear then it all gets a bit easier but that is another
issue.

No generatiing method is without it's drawbacks. What happens when Russia
turns off the gas? What if the miners go on strike? What about Al Quaeda
flying into Hinkley Point? A Tsunami ffs? You need a mixture, and wind power
works

Bzzzt wrong.

....and you were doing so well right up to that point.

If wind turbines were any better they would still be totally f*cking
useless.


--

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Not ere they don't. Waste is after all, relatively small. I mean we
don't INCREASE the total radioactivity of the earth do we? just
help natures 'natural uranium 235 decay' along a bit faster.
Decay is not the same as fission.

Mmm, it's exactly the same, in fact.

Physics is different in dennisworld

--
geoff

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:40:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

But realistically, how much fuel do you save if you shut a coal plant
down to idle for a few days while the wind blows... the efficiency is
utter crap when you do that.

Indeed it is. Some years ago, not too long after privatisation, so
keen was one very large coal fired power station to carry on
generating right round the clock and effectively be always on base
load, they routinely bid a very low price into the system - way below
their actual cost. Payment at that time was made to all generators on
the bars on an equal basis being determined by the cost of the last
one required to meet national demand. Things were tweaked (can't
recall how) to allow the nukes to carry on running round the clock to
avoid xenon poisoning problems with step changes of loads on the gas
cooled reactors. So it was only coal, gas and oil that effectively
bid into the system. The underbidding kept efficiency right up, and
their emissions improved a bit. Significant money was being made.
Load factors were high and investors were happy.

Then one balmy night the **** hit the fan, the load dropped a bit more
than normal, as someone got their sums really wrong. I'm not entirely
sure how this situation was handled, but someone, somewhere,
effectively made a few million quid that night (at say GBP20/MWh) on
what had suddenly became a zero cost product across the country.

After that episode this generators always bid somewhere a bit closer
to their actual generating costs.


--

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:23:07 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Not ere they don't. Waste is after all, relatively small. I mean we
don't INCREASE the total radioactivity of the earth do we? just help
natures 'natural uranium 235 decay' along a bit faster.

Decay is not the same as fission.

Yes it is.


Oh no it isn't.

It is in the general sense that an atom of one element is transmuted to
another element. It's true that with decay you get just the one daughter
product whereas with fission you get two or more.

For example.. AFAIK fission leads to isotopes that can decay by beta
emission while decay doesn't.
fission products don't emit alpha radiation so you can't put them in a
cardboard box to stop the radiation like you can with unused fuel rods.

It'll take me a while to see if this looks like being true. I don't see
why a fission product, if it's a radioactive isotope, is forbidden from
undergoing alpha decay.

I dont think its forbidden its just that daughter nuclei have a larger
number of neutrons compared to protons (n/p ratio) than is stable so they
tend to decay by multiple beta emmisions (n-p+e+v) which reduces the ratio
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:43:14 +0100, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:

I agree that the 7% figure for wind is impressive, especially as an
annual
total, i.e. as a long term average. It implies the peak fraction must be
a lot higher, and partly that must be due to the fact that there is a lot
of fossil in use anyway, capable of being backed out at the drop of a hat
when the wind is blowing well enough to take over a decent share of the
load.

Indeed. Coal mostly. some gas.

But realistically, how much fuel do you save if you shut a coal plant
down to idle for a few days while the wind blows... the efficiency is
utter crap when you do that.

I don't think you'd want to shut one right down to idle. You'd simply want
to throttle it (or if necessary several of them) back a bit, until they
generate as much less electric power as the windmills generate more.

Essentially the windmills then give you negative carbon emissions as a
result of the coal which is not burnt.

That works for small amounts of wind generation, add a few GW of the
things and it all goes Pete Tong.

Almost without exception, coal gas and nuclear generation is more
efficient when operated at full output. Where design problems restrict
output or there are plant problems, then efficiency can drop off
significantly. For instance one coal fired power station has always
been more expensive to run than another one just a few miles away
built at about the same time. That it can only run at around 90% of
rated output is the main factor in this, what makes it even worse is
this lower efficiency increases cost, which means it is forced to run
on a flexible basis, meaning costs are even higher as the plant wears
out faster and efficiency drops even lower. Some of that flexible
running and the consequent drop in efficiency and increased emissions
can be directly attributable to the unpredictability of wind turbines.


--

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a
sort of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, you'll be glad to know I have just ordered a 4Kwp PV array for
my roof.
It's very profitable to own one. Maybe not so profitable for everyone
else.

Yerss, you are an antisocial ****.

Come the revolution..

So what's the average power out of that..150 watts?

To get 4Kw average over the year would be around 150 square meters.


Don't forget he's in wales ...

--
geoff

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:44:45 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Not ere they don't. Waste is after all, relatively small. I mean we
don't INCREASE the total radioactivity of the earth do we? just help
natures 'natural uranium 235 decay' along a bit faster.

Decay is not the same as fission.

Yes it is.


Oh no it isn't.

For example.. AFAIK fission leads to isotopes that can decay by beta
emission while decay doesn't.

decay can lead to beta decay e.g naturally occuring thorium series produces
4 beta decays (and 6 alphas) before it reaches lead 208
heres the start ....
thorium(232)-alpha+radium(228)-actinium(228)+beta--

--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

[...]
OK so how much wind power and remember it does need backup unless you
have a unique storage idea?..
[....]

I don't have a unique idea, but....
There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric car
which can charge up all night and run round town all day. i don't know
enough about it to say for sure it will become a reality but if it does it
will have profound implications for this whole problem of delivering power
when you need it, not when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

Tim W

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:57:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, you don't. You need a 10 year stockpile of uranium.

I think the problem is that with current technology there isn't enough
uranium to generate anything like the amounts of power we need in non-
breeder Uranium-cycle reactors[1]. Fast breeders could get close to a
useful sustainable energy output[2] but are still relatively unproven and
expensive. Thorium looks promising (to the Chinese, who are not known for
soft-headedness in economic matters) but is still pretty speculative
technology.

Ironically what both (current technology) nuclear and wind (and many
other renewables such as PV, wave and tide) have in common, when used for
electricity generation, is that they really need some form of storage, or
quick-response (and inevitably fossil-fuelled) fill-in generation
capacity. However as oil gets more expensive we may find ourselves using
electricity for oil-replacement technology such as hydrogen where storage
over a period of weeks is much more feasible, and obviously renewables
such as wind would be a good match for that.

Whilst the ideal major source of non-fossil energy is perhaps something
like Thorium which would seem to avoid the problems of restricted supply,
horrendous long-term (circa million years) radioactive waste management
and proliferation potential, that's going to take realistically at least
a couple of decades to develop and roll out[3]. In the meantime we *can*
with today's technology generate useful amounts of non-fossil energy from
renewables.


[1] According to Prof David Mackay in his 'Sustainable Energy - Without
The Hot Air' we can't sustainably fuel our existing installed base of
once-through Uranium fission reactors with existing land-based sources of
Uranium:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_162.shtml

[2] 33kWh per day per person according to MacKay, which would almost do
for our current space heating and cooling consumption:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_103.shtml

[3] or, longer term, obviously, fusion

--
John Stumbles

Never believe anyone who claims to be a liar

John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:25:07 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Germany's a big country with plenty of free land for building wind
farms. We're a small, overcrowded island about to become even more
crowded with the influx of migrants fleeing uprisings in Arab states.

There are about 70 million people here. How many extra would it take to
make it noticeably more crowded: 10%? 5%? 2%? Are you saying we're really
going to have *millions* of migrants fleeing uprisings in Arab states,
moving to the UK?

we already HAVE a million or so.

Or just that the few who do make it here are dark-
skinned, eat different food, speak different languages, have different
imaginary friends in the sky and don't read the Daily ****ing Mail?

We all came out of Africa anyway: maybe we should all migrate off back
there where we came from.


No problem with people coming

- if we can afford it
- if they don't use it as an excuse to change the place to suit their
way of life, under the guise of them being victims and deserving it.

When in Rome behave like you are in Yemen, and cry discrimination when
the romans get ****ed off, is not my idea of good manners.

Tim W wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

[...]
OK so how much wind power and remember it does need backup unless you
have a unique storage idea?..
[....]

I don't have a unique idea, but....
There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric car
which can charge up all night and run round town all day. i don't know
enough about it to say for sure it will become a reality but if it does it
will have profound implications for this whole problem of delivering power
when you need it, not when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.


its doable at about 30 grand a pop.And an uncertain battery life.
fortunately the tme between midnight and 6 a.m. is one of low
electricity demand, so its a good time to charge.

Wind however, dosen't tie itself to any demand pattern. Windy days are
seldom very cold or very hot days.



Tim W

John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:57:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, you don't. You need a 10 year stockpile of uranium.

I think the problem is that with current technology there isn't enough
uranium to generate anything like the amounts of power we need in non-
breeder Uranium-cycle reactors[1]. Fast breeders could get close to a
useful sustainable energy output[2] but are still relatively unproven and
expensive. Thorium looks promising (to the Chinese, who are not known for
soft-headedness in economic matters) but is still pretty speculative
technology.

I part agree. Therer almost certainly is enough uranium, and we have a
lot of plutonium, not exactly lying about, but 'avaialable'

Ironically what both (current technology) nuclear and wind (and many
other renewables such as PV, wave and tide) have in common, when used for
electricity generation, is that they really need some form of storage, or
quick-response (and inevitably fossil-fuelled) fill-in generation
capacity. However as oil gets more expensive we may find ourselves using
electricity for oil-replacement technology such as hydrogen where storage
over a period of weeks is much more feasible, and obviously renewables
such as wind would be a good match for that.

I really don't see large scale gas storage as being feasible. the energy
density is too low. Liquids are a bit better, but we don't have much
storage capacity for that either. Wheras coal can be piled up and we
dont need so very much uranium. After all each reactor carries a year of
fuel rods inside it anyway.

Whilst the ideal major source of non-fossil energy is perhaps something
like Thorium which would seem to avoid the problems of restricted supply,
horrendous long-term (circa million years) radioactive waste management
and proliferation potential, that's going to take realistically at least
a couple of decades to develop and roll out[3]. In the meantime we *can*
with today's technology generate useful amounts of non-fossil energy from
renewables.

No we cant. Or rather, if we try, it will be less and less effective at
reducing fossil fuel.

renewale can only work in symbiosis with hydro - which we don't have
enough of - or fossil fuel. By themselves they are useless.

For every wind farm, you also need a conventional power station.
Because nuclear can't dispatch properly, that means your a stuck with
fossil fuel if you go with renewables. It weds you completely to fossil.



[1] According to Prof David Mackay in his 'Sustainable Energy - Without
The Hot Air' we can't sustainably fuel our existing installed base of
once-through Uranium fission reactors with existing land-based sources of
Uranium:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_162.shtml


As I read it, that depends entirely on what you consider the reserves to
be. Since uranium is barely worth mining at the moment no one is
actively looking. So nop one actually knows. IIRC he als says 'abou 7450
years supply' in there somewhere.




[2] 33kWh per day per person according to MacKay, which would almost do
for our current space heating and cooling consumption:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_103.shtml


That's total energy, not electrical. at an average of about 30GW we
consume about 500W per head of electricity..so 12Kwh per day.


[3] or, longer term, obviously, fusion

Or something as yet undreamed of.

On Mar 29, 1:39 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction
in so doing.

But carbon reduction is not important, so why should anyone try to
reduce it (which they will not succeed in doing even if they try).

In which case, why do we bother with wind at all?

Only if wind is economic, which it is on some occasions. e.g. we used
a wind generator rather than pay for 10km of powerline to the main
grid.

Here in NZ wind can be a good idea. We have vast hydroelectric power
capability, with not enough rainfall to keep them running all the
time.
The power from wind generators means the power from hydro generators
can be reduced quickly, saving the water in the large dams.
Not an option in the UK I agree, but wind power can be economic in
some places so let's not rubbish it completely.

Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.

Wind generators can be supplied and installed quickly and generating
power, while your large nuclear and other generators take years to
build, with no income until they are finished years later.

Then there are transmission losses. The power from wind generators can
be used locally, while everybody wants nuclear power stations and coal
burning stations to be as far away as possible, hence high power
transmission losses and expensive lines.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Not ere they don't. Waste is after all, relatively small. I mean we
don't INCREASE the total radioactivity of the earth do we? just help
natures 'natural uranium 235 decay' along a bit faster.

Decay is not the same as fission.

Yes it is.


Oh no it isn't.

For example.. AFAIK fission leads to isotopes that can decay by beta
emission while decay doesn't.
fission products don't emit alpha radiation so you can't put them in a
cardboard box to stop the radiation like you can with unused fuel rods.

Fission *is* decay. Decay is fission. Natural decay of naturally
occuring Uranium produces the about the same mix of isotopes as in a
reactor, just more slowly

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mar 28, 7:06*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:27 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and *looks to
stay that way all day.
It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa..
Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.
(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)
It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..
You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.
Not too sure what you are on about.
Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.
So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.
German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction in
so doing.
And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.
Still puzzled.
I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' . Not
sure what that means.
Wind power hasn't delivered carbon emission reduction. Certainly nothing
like 7% of Germany's CO2 attributable to electrical generation. I can't
say clearer than that.

Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.
No, you simply 'misquoted' them. 7% of electricity generation NOT 7% of
'Germanys energy'.

Dont worry, most of the wind lobby has trouble dsistuingusighing between
electrical power and total energy requirements and none have a clue
about exported carbon footprints to e.g. China in terms of energy used
to make stuff there we use here..or a clue about what load average means
or when 'could power X homes' meas 'will on average power 30% of X homes
the home being about one sixth of the power we use altogether, with
transport, industry and so on making up the other 5/6ths), and sometimes
won't power anything at all)

Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.
So they can! Mostly, however, they don't.

Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you will.
Sorry, the facts don't bear that out.

If the *extra* fuel you have to burn to compensate for the wind output
going up and down loses all the advantages the wind seemingly has, you
end up with an net zero change in carbon emissions.

The point being that the more wind you have - as against nuclear or
hydro - the more fossil fuel stations you need to balance it.

Having to bring - say - 20GW of fossil online in a hurry when the wind
drops overnight, and not necessarily very good fossil either, since its
not used fully, so there is little incentive to make it efficient, costs
you a huge amount of fuel JUST TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING.

As near as I can judge over 75% of winds 'zero carbon' gains are lost to
that process.

That's the trouble with simple pictures. The world is not simple.

Germany remains one of the highest CO2 emitters in Europe with respect
to electrical power generation. DESPITE all this so call low carbon wind.

Denmark is similar. The real stars of Europe are France and Switzerland,
both hugely nuclear and in Switzerland's case, with abundant hydro as
well to cover short term demand fluctuations.

If you want to permanently get rid of fossil fuel usage, nuclear for the
base load and hydro for the demand fluctuations is the way. Wind is
completely useless. A grid that had - say - 30% wind and no nuclear or
hydro at all would at times have no fossil in use at all, but on average
would need *70% fossil to balance it*.

Now if we say that without wind, a good CCGT can do say 60% thermal
efficency IF FULLY WARMED UP AND LEFT RUNNING, then your carbon fuel
rate is 1/60% = 1.667 times grid power

If the use of that fossil fuel plant drops to 70% due to adding 30%
wind, you still cant get rid of it. You are just using it on average 70%
of the time.

Let's say its efficiency running like that is is X, so that the fuel
burn is then 0.7/X the grid power. And calculate when it's no better
than the kit running without any wind. its when 1/0.6=0.7/X

which makes the critical value of X = 42%.

SO *if the net result of adding *30% average wind to the grid is to
reduce the CCGT efficiency from 60% to 42%*, there is *no net emissions
gain from wind whatsoever*.

A CCGT set running before the secondary cycle gets going, is simply a
37% OCGT gas turbine..every time you start that CCGT set up, it takes
fuel to warm it up. Energy that you lose when you switch it off and it
cools down.

If you add more than 30% wind to the grid, there will be times when you
have to throw it away as well, because peak output will mean you have
more than you need when the wind DOES blow.

You MIGHT put it in pumped storage, at 75% efficiency losing 25% of the
value..if you HAD any pumped storage capacity..

We don't really have much, neither does Germany...

So at best, 30% windpower on the grid (more is unlikely to actually
achieve much more because you start to throw it away)might reduce carbon
emissions from electricity generation by perhaps 20%. At best. Maybe
5-10% is likely.

20% nuclear on the grid that totally replaces fossil, could net you a
real 20% decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity.At one fifth the
cost.

80% Nuclear - as France has - reduces fossil usage by 80%.

The optimal UK mix would be something like 80% nuclear and 20% fast
start CCGT. If you really want low carbon electricity. If we had a bit
more hydro, we could do a bit better. Sadly geography doesn't favour us
there. Dumping our total coal stations could net us something like
70-80% CO2 reduction.

No amount of wind can ever produce anything like that sort of emissions
reduction.

It is simply a complete waste of time and money. It's only there because
the Greens run Germany, and the Greens hate nuclear power, and Germany
runs the EU.

And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a
sort of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, you'll be glad to know I have just ordered a 4Kwp PV array for
my roof.
It's very profitable to own one. *Maybe not so profitable for everyone
else.

Yerss, you are an antisocial ****.

Come the revolution..

So what's the average power out of that..150 watts?

To get 4Kw average over the year would be around 150 square meters.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It generates 3400 Kwh/year. But more important, the return on capital
is around 12%. the first year and increasing as the payments are RPI
linked and tax free. Also the electricity it generates will be worth
more every year.
The main income is from the £0.43/Kwh paid. Plus more for power
exported,plus more from electricity saved.
The power is generated in the day, it is therefore over the peak
demand time.

However in ten years electricity from fossil fuel will cost this much
very likely especially as the nuclear programme will be put back by
events in Japan.

However, the whole programme is not much to do with carbon, that's
just the propaganda. It's actually about reducing dependancy on
foriegn fuel.

I will be looking too into the Renewable Heat Incentive to see if
there's money to be made there.
****s are useful BTW. Unlike you.

On Mar 28, 7:38*pm, Old Codger wrote:
On 28/03/2011 19:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:





harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:27 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the
metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and
looks to
stay that way all day.
It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to
(insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not
where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.
Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.
(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)
It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..
You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.
Not too sure what you are on about.
Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.
So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.
German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in
Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon
reduction in
so doing.
And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.
Still puzzled.
I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver
electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' .
Not
sure what that means.
Wind power hasn't delivered carbon emission reduction. Certainly nothing
like 7% of Germany's CO2 attributable to electrical generation. I can't
say clearer than that.

Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.
No, you simply 'misquoted' them. 7% of electricity generation NOT 7% of
'Germanys energy'.

Dont worry, most of the wind lobby has trouble dsistuingusighing between
electrical power and total energy requirements and none have a clue
about exported carbon footprints to e.g. China in terms of energy used
to make stuff there we use here..or a clue about what load average means
or when 'could power X homes' meas 'will on average power 30% of X homes
the home being about one sixth of the power we use altogether, with
transport, industry and so on making up the other 5/6ths), and sometimes
won't power anything at all)

Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.
So they can! Mostly, however, they don't.

Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh
produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a
big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you
will.
Sorry, the facts don't bear that out.

If the *extra* fuel you have to burn to compensate for the wind output
going up and down loses all the advantages the wind seemingly has, you
end up with an net zero change in carbon emissions.

The point being that the more wind you have - as against nuclear or
hydro - the more fossil fuel stations you need to balance it.

Having to bring - say - 20GW of fossil online in a hurry when the wind
drops overnight, and not necessarily very good fossil either, since its
not used fully, so there is little incentive to make it efficient, costs
you a huge amount of fuel JUST TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING.

As near as I can judge over 75% of winds 'zero carbon' gains are lost to
that process.

That's the trouble with simple pictures. The world is not simple.

Germany remains one of the highest CO2 emitters in Europe with respect
to electrical power generation. DESPITE all this so call low carbon
wind.

Denmark is similar. The real stars of Europe are France and Switzerland,
both hugely nuclear and in Switzerland's case, with abundant hydro as
well to cover short term demand fluctuations.

If you want to permanently get rid of fossil fuel usage, nuclear for the
base load and hydro for the demand fluctuations is the way. Wind is
completely useless. A grid that had - say - 30% wind and no nuclear or
hydro at all would at times have no fossil in use at all, but on average
would need *70% fossil to balance it*.

Now if we say that without wind, a good CCGT can do say 60% thermal
efficency IF FULLY WARMED UP AND LEFT RUNNING, then your carbon fuel
rate is 1/60% = 1.667 times grid power

If the use of that fossil fuel plant drops to 70% due to adding 30%
wind, you still cant get rid of it. You are just using it on average 70%
of the time.

Let's say its efficiency running like that is is X, so that the fuel
burn is then 0.7/X the grid power. And calculate when it's no better
than the kit running without any wind. its when 1/0.6=0.7/X

which makes the critical value of X = 42%.

SO *if the net result of adding 30% average wind to the grid is to
reduce the CCGT efficiency from 60% to 42%*, there is *no net emissions
gain from wind whatsoever*.

A CCGT set running before the secondary cycle gets going, is simply a
37% OCGT gas turbine..every time you start that CCGT set up, it takes
fuel to warm it up. Energy that you lose when you switch it off and it
cools down.

If you add more than 30% wind to the grid, there will be times when you
have to throw it away as well, because peak output will mean you have
more than you need when the wind DOES blow.

You MIGHT put it in pumped storage, at 75% efficiency losing 25% of the
value..if you HAD any pumped storage capacity..

We don't really have much, neither does Germany...

So at best, 30% windpower on the grid (more is unlikely to actually
achieve much more because you start to throw it away)might reduce carbon
emissions from electricity generation by perhaps 20%. At best. Maybe
5-10% is likely.

20% nuclear on the grid that totally replaces fossil, could net you a
real 20% decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity.At one fifth the
cost.

80% Nuclear - as France has - reduces fossil usage by 80%.

The optimal UK mix would be something like 80% nuclear and 20% fast
start CCGT. If you really want low carbon electricity. If we had a bit
more hydro, we could do a bit better. Sadly geography doesn't favour us
there. Dumping our total coal stations could net us something like
70-80% CO2 reduction.

No amount of wind can ever produce anything like that sort of emissions
reduction.

It is simply a complete waste of time and money. It's only there because
the Greens run Germany, and the Greens hate nuclear power, and Germany
runs the EU.

And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a
sort of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, you'll be glad to know I have just ordered a 4Kwp PV array for
my roof.
It's very profitable to own one. Maybe not so profitable for everyone
else.

Yerss, you are an antisocial ****.

Come the revolution..

So what's the average power out of that..150 watts?

To get 4Kw average over the year would be around 150 square meters.

Ooh! I could just about do that, and on a SSW facing roof. *However,
Dave didn't keep to his "cast iron guarantee" so what is the likelihood
that these enormous feed in tariffs will continue to be paid (by us) for
25 years. *That is why I keep telling those who keep pestering me to
consider PV arrays just where they can put them.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're wrong there. They have guaranteed existing systems, so you need
to get in right now. Only new ones may be reduced.
The review is about 50Kw plus sytems.
If ever they went back on existing price guarantees, they would never
be able to do similar schemes again, no-one would bite.

The whole business arises over foriegners coming in and erecting
massive schemes & the profit going abroad. NL got it completely wrong.
The idea was for small scemes to benifit & the money would be saved
here or spent so kick starting the economy.

If you want some numbers, I can email some charts to you.

On Mar 28, 7:49*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Old Codger wrote:
On 28/03/2011 19:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:27 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the
metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and
looks to
stay that way all day.
It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to
(insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not
where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.
Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.
(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)
It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..
You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.
Not too sure what you are on about.
Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.
So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.
German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in
Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon
reduction in
so doing.
And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.
Still puzzled.
I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver
electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' ..
Not
sure what that means.
Wind power hasn't delivered carbon emission reduction. Certainly
nothing
like 7% of Germany's CO2 attributable to electrical generation. I can't
say clearer than that.

Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption
and
generation are wrong.
No, you simply 'misquoted' them. 7% of electricity generation NOT 7% of
'Germanys energy'.

Dont worry, most of the wind lobby has trouble dsistuingusighing
between
electrical power and total energy requirements and none have a clue
about exported carbon footprints to e.g. China in terms of energy used
to make stuff there we use here..or a clue about what load average
means
or when 'could power X homes' meas 'will on average power 30% of X
homes
the home being about one sixth of the power we use altogether, with
transport, industry and so on making up the other 5/6ths), and
sometimes
won't power anything at all)

Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.
So they can! Mostly, however, they don't.

Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh
produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a
big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you
will.
Sorry, the facts don't bear that out.

If the *extra* fuel you have to burn to compensate for the wind output
going up and down loses all the advantages the wind seemingly has, you
end up with an net zero change in carbon emissions.

The point being that the more wind you have - as against nuclear or
hydro - the more fossil fuel stations you need to balance it.

Having to bring - say - 20GW of fossil online in a hurry when the wind
drops overnight, and not necessarily very good fossil either, since its
not used fully, so there is little incentive to make it efficient,
costs
you a huge amount of fuel JUST TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING.

As near as I can judge over 75% of winds 'zero carbon' gains are
lost to
that process.

That's the trouble with simple pictures. The world is not simple.

Germany remains one of the highest CO2 emitters in Europe with respect
to electrical power generation. DESPITE all this so call low carbon
wind.

Denmark is similar. The real stars of Europe are France and
Switzerland,
both hugely nuclear and in Switzerland's case, with abundant hydro as
well to cover short term demand fluctuations.

If you want to permanently get rid of fossil fuel usage, nuclear for
the
base load and hydro for the demand fluctuations is the way. Wind is
completely useless. A grid that had - say - 30% wind and no nuclear or
hydro at all would at times have no fossil in use at all, but on
average
would need *70% fossil to balance it*.

Now if we say that without wind, a good CCGT can do say 60% thermal
efficency IF FULLY WARMED UP AND LEFT RUNNING, then your carbon fuel
rate is 1/60% = 1.667 times grid power

If the use of that fossil fuel plant drops to 70% due to adding 30%
wind, you still cant get rid of it. You are just using it on average
70%
of the time.

Let's say its efficiency running like that is is X, so that the fuel
burn is then 0.7/X the grid power. And calculate when it's no better
than the kit running without any wind. its when 1/0.6=0.7/X

which makes the critical value of X = 42%.

SO *if the net result of adding 30% average wind to the grid is to
reduce the CCGT efficiency from 60% to 42%*, there is *no net emissions
gain from wind whatsoever*.

A CCGT set running before the secondary cycle gets going, is simply a
37% OCGT gas turbine..every time you start that CCGT set up, it takes
fuel to warm it up. Energy that you lose when you switch it off and it
cools down.

If you add more than 30% wind to the grid, there will be times when you
have to throw it away as well, because peak output will mean you have
more than you need when the wind DOES blow.

You MIGHT put it in pumped storage, at 75% efficiency losing 25% of the
value..if you HAD any pumped storage capacity..

We don't really have much, neither does Germany...

So at best, 30% windpower on the grid (more is unlikely to actually
achieve much more because you start to throw it away)might reduce
carbon
emissions from electricity generation by perhaps 20%. At best. Maybe
5-10% is likely.

20% nuclear on the grid that totally replaces fossil, could net you a
real 20% decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity.At one fifth the
cost.

80% Nuclear - as France has - reduces fossil usage by 80%.

The optimal UK mix would be something like 80% nuclear and 20% fast
start CCGT. If you really want low carbon electricity. If we had a bit
more hydro, we could do a bit better. Sadly geography doesn't favour us
there. Dumping our total coal stations could net us something like
70-80% CO2 reduction.

No amount of wind can ever produce anything like that sort of emissions
reduction.

It is simply a complete waste of time and money. It's only there
because
the Greens run Germany, and the Greens hate nuclear power, and Germany
runs the EU.

And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a
sort of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, you'll be glad to know I have just ordered a 4Kwp PV array for
my roof.
It's very profitable to own one. Maybe not so profitable for everyone
else.

Yerss, you are an antisocial ****.

Come the revolution..

So what's the average power out of that..150 watts?

To get 4Kw average over the year would be around 150 square meters.

Ooh! I could just about do that, and on a SSW facing roof. *However,
Dave didn't keep to his "cast iron guarantee" so what is the likelihood
that these enormous feed in tariffs will continue to be paid (by us) for
25 years. *That is why I keep telling those who keep pestering me to
consider PV arrays just where they can put them.

Indeed. I'd cut all subsidies to the bloody things. Complete waste of
everybody's time and money.

I know that FITS to large installations are being cut.

The Spanish trick is to put dummies on the roof or a small panel and
lots of dummies, drive the grid off a *Diesel genny and make a huge profit.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are a blasted halfwit. There would be no profit to be made using a
diesel generator.

On Mar 28, 10:52*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
Well, you'll be glad to know I have just ordered a 4Kwp PV array for
my roof.
It's very profitable to own one. *Maybe not so profitable for everyone
else.

Exactly. The rest of us are paying for that.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

Yep. But you will be glad they are there in ten years or so. But you
too could be one recieving money rather than one paying money.
Soon every new house will have one I think.
My house will be a net exporter of energy. And a net importer of cash
as I have no gas bill either.
I intend to tackle the water situation next.

The plan is for several possible future situations, not the situation
as at present. More than one horse needs to ne backed.
Thats what The Nutty Pillock can't get his head round.

"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:23:07 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Not ere they don't. Waste is after all, relatively small. I mean we
don't INCREASE the total radioactivity of the earth do we? just help
natures 'natural uranium 235 decay' along a bit faster.

Decay is not the same as fission.

Yes it is.


Oh no it isn't.

It is in the general sense that an atom of one element is transmuted to
another element. It's true that with decay you get just the one daughter
product whereas with fission you get two or more.

For example.. AFAIK fission leads to isotopes that can decay by beta
emission while decay doesn't.
fission products don't emit alpha radiation so you can't put them in a
cardboard box to stop the radiation like you can with unused fuel rods.

It'll take me a while to see if this looks like being true. I don't see
why a fission product, if it's a radioactive isotope, is forbidden from
undergoing alpha decay.

I dont think its forbidden its just that daughter nuclei have a larger
number of neutrons compared to protons (n/p ratio) than is stable so they
tend to decay by multiple beta emmisions (n-p+e+v) which reduces the
ratio

I was looking at some decay chains and didn't spot any fission products that
decayed by alpha.
It must be statistically possible but it could be so rare that it doesn't
happen.

The other thing I noticed was the half life of fission products is either
very short (less than a few decades) or very long (millennia) nothing in
between.

"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:44:45 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Not ere they don't. Waste is after all, relatively small. I mean we
don't INCREASE the total radioactivity of the earth do we? just help
natures 'natural uranium 235 decay' along a bit faster.

Decay is not the same as fission.

Yes it is.


Oh no it isn't.

For example.. AFAIK fission leads to isotopes that can decay by beta
emission while decay doesn't.

decay can lead to beta decay e.g naturally occuring thorium series
produces
4 beta decays (and 6 alphas) before it reaches lead 208
heres the start ....
thorium(232)-alpha+radium(228)-actinium(228)+beta--

OK, I hadn't looked at the thorium series (I forgot it was radioactive, must
be the half lifes getting to me).

Matty F wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:39 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:
German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction
in so doing.
But carbon reduction is not important, so why should anyone try to
reduce it (which they will not succeed in doing even if they try).
In which case, why do we bother with wind at all?

Only if wind is economic, which it is on some occasions. e.g. we used
a wind generator rather than pay for 10km of powerline to the main
grid.

Oh fair enough.

If a wind mill and batteries is actually cheaper.


Here in NZ wind can be a good idea. We have vast hydroelectric power
capability, with not enough rainfall to keep them running all the
time.

Then you need some atomics :-)

The power from wind generators means the power from hydro generators
can be reduced quickly, saving the water in the large dams.
Not an option in the UK I agree, but wind power can be economic in
some places so let's not rubbish it completely.

IF you have massive but not quite enough hydro ALREADY, yes, you can eke
that out through the dry spells.

..
Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.

Wind is near he theoretical max actually, and solar is not far off.

Maybe if you build even bigger ones..you might get 3W/sq meter in a
windy place.


Wind generators can be supplied and installed quickly and generating
power, while your large nuclear and other generators take years to
build, with no income until they are finished years later.

Don't you do forward planning down there?

Then there are transmission losses. The power from wind generators can
be used locally, while everybody wants nuclear power stations and coal
burning stations to be as far away as possible, hence high power
transmission losses and expensive lines.

You can build a nuke right next door to me frankly.
But you wont be so keen once you have wind farm next to you, I am sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-sRf...layer_embedded

Still the New Zealand govt is well known to be weird..over green issues

harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:27 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and looks to
stay that way all day.
It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to (insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.
Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.
(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)
It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..
You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.
Not too sure what you are on about.
Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.
So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.
German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction in
so doing.
And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.
Still puzzled.
I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' . Not
sure what that means.
Wind power hasn't delivered carbon emission reduction. Certainly nothing
like 7% of Germany's CO2 attributable to electrical generation. I can't
say clearer than that.
Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.
No, you simply 'misquoted' them. 7% of electricity generation NOT 7% of
'Germanys energy'.
Dont worry, most of the wind lobby has trouble dsistuingusighing between
electrical power and total energy requirements and none have a clue
about exported carbon footprints to e.g. China in terms of energy used
to make stuff there we use here..or a clue about what load average means
or when 'could power X homes' meas 'will on average power 30% of X homes
the home being about one sixth of the power we use altogether, with
transport, industry and so on making up the other 5/6ths), and sometimes
won't power anything at all)
Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.
So they can! Mostly, however, they don't.
Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you will.
Sorry, the facts don't bear that out.
If the *extra* fuel you have to burn to compensate for the wind output
going up and down loses all the advantages the wind seemingly has, you
end up with an net zero change in carbon emissions.
The point being that the more wind you have - as against nuclear or
hydro - the more fossil fuel stations you need to balance it.
Having to bring - say - 20GW of fossil online in a hurry when the wind
drops overnight, and not necessarily very good fossil either, since its
not used fully, so there is little incentive to make it efficient, costs
you a huge amount of fuel JUST TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING.
As near as I can judge over 75% of winds 'zero carbon' gains are lost to
that process.
That's the trouble with simple pictures. The world is not simple.
Germany remains one of the highest CO2 emitters in Europe with respect
to electrical power generation. DESPITE all this so call low carbon wind.
Denmark is similar. The real stars of Europe are France and Switzerland,
both hugely nuclear and in Switzerland's case, with abundant hydro as
well to cover short term demand fluctuations.
If you want to permanently get rid of fossil fuel usage, nuclear for the
base load and hydro for the demand fluctuations is the way. Wind is
completely useless. A grid that had - say - 30% wind and no nuclear or
hydro at all would at times have no fossil in use at all, but on average
would need *70% fossil to balance it*.
Now if we say that without wind, a good CCGT can do say 60% thermal
efficency IF FULLY WARMED UP AND LEFT RUNNING, then your carbon fuel
rate is 1/60% = 1.667 times grid power
If the use of that fossil fuel plant drops to 70% due to adding 30%
wind, you still cant get rid of it. You are just using it on average 70%
of the time.
Let's say its efficiency running like that is is X, so that the fuel
burn is then 0.7/X the grid power. And calculate when it's no better
than the kit running without any wind. its when 1/0.6=0.7/X
which makes the critical value of X = 42%.
SO *if the net result of adding 30% average wind to the grid is to
reduce the CCGT efficiency from 60% to 42%*, there is *no net emissions
gain from wind whatsoever*.
A CCGT set running before the secondary cycle gets going, is simply a
37% OCGT gas turbine..every time you start that CCGT set up, it takes
fuel to warm it up. Energy that you lose when you switch it off and it
cools down.
If you add more than 30% wind to the grid, there will be times when you
have to throw it away as well, because peak output will mean you have
more than you need when the wind DOES blow.
You MIGHT put it in pumped storage, at 75% efficiency losing 25% of the
value..if you HAD any pumped storage capacity..
We don't really have much, neither does Germany...
So at best, 30% windpower on the grid (more is unlikely to actually
achieve much more because you start to throw it away)might reduce carbon
emissions from electricity generation by perhaps 20%. At best. Maybe
5-10% is likely.
20% nuclear on the grid that totally replaces fossil, could net you a
real 20% decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity.At one fifth the
cost.
80% Nuclear - as France has - reduces fossil usage by 80%.
The optimal UK mix would be something like 80% nuclear and 20% fast
start CCGT. If you really want low carbon electricity. If we had a bit
more hydro, we could do a bit better. Sadly geography doesn't favour us
there. Dumping our total coal stations could net us something like
70-80% CO2 reduction.
No amount of wind can ever produce anything like that sort of emissions
reduction.
It is simply a complete waste of time and money. It's only there because
the Greens run Germany, and the Greens hate nuclear power, and Germany
runs the EU.
And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a
sort of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, you'll be glad to know I have just ordered a 4Kwp PV array for
my roof.
It's very profitable to own one. Maybe not so profitable for everyone
else.
Yerss, you are an antisocial ****.

Come the revolution..

So what's the average power out of that..150 watts?

To get 4Kw average over the year would be around 150 square meters.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It generates 3400 Kwh/year.

so about 3 square mters

But more important, the return on capital
is around 12%. the first year and increasing as the payments are RPI
linked and tax free. Also the electricity it generates will be worth
more every year.
The main income is from the £0.43/Kwh paid. Plus more for power
exported,plus more from electricity saved.
The power is generated in the day, it is therefore over the peak
demand time.

yeah yeah yeh. You are ripping us off basically, legally. Because some
stoopid goverment has given you a license to do it.




However in ten years electricity from fossil fuel will cost this much
very likely especially as the nuclear programme will be put back by
events in Japan.


It will if we use wind power that for sure.

But te Dutch have already dithed in and re-started a nuclear program,


However, the whole programme is not much to do with carbon, that's
just the propaganda. It's actually about reducing dependancy on
foriegn fuel.

I am sure your stupid little panel; is really going to make a difference.


I will be looking too into the Renewable Heat Incentive to see if
there's money to be made there.
****s are useful BTW. Unlike you.

Yes, they are. They can be shot and turned into dogmeat.

harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:49 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Old Codger wrote:
On 28/03/2011 19:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:27 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
You have to love all that diversity ('the wind is always blowing
somewhere'), in the equinoctial windiness of March, today the
metered
wind output (23MW) dipped below 1% of 'metered capacity' and
looks to
stay that way all day.
It's nice to know that that capacity that 'could supply up to
(insert
own bull**** value here) millions of homes' (in themselves not
where the
largest consumption of electricity takes place) is in fact barely
capable of driving 10,000 electric kettles to make a morning cuppa.
Or about 4 electric locomotives of decent power output.
(http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)
It is, in fact, to put it in perspective, about 1/50th of the nice
nuclear energy currently being imported from France..
You can always rely on windmills to ....completely fail to deliver,
randomly.
Not too sure what you are on about.
Wind power doesn't work when it isn't windy? We knew that.
So it needs to be mixed with other sources? We knew that too.
German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in
Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon
reduction in
so doing.
And that figure is not in fact in any case correct.
Still puzzled.
I thought you said something about wind power failing to deliver
electricity
but I am not sure what.
Now you say German Wind power hasn't produced a 'carbon reduction' .
Not
sure what that means.
Wind power hasn't delivered carbon emission reduction. Certainly
nothing
like 7% of Germany's CO2 attributable to electrical generation. I can't
say clearer than that.
Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption
and
generation are wrong.
No, you simply 'misquoted' them. 7% of electricity generation NOT 7% of
'Germanys energy'.
Dont worry, most of the wind lobby has trouble dsistuingusighing
between
electrical power and total energy requirements and none have a clue
about exported carbon footprints to e.g. China in terms of energy used
to make stuff there we use here..or a clue about what load average
means
or when 'could power X homes' meas 'will on average power 30% of X
homes
the home being about one sixth of the power we use altogether, with
transport, industry and so on making up the other 5/6ths), and
sometimes
won't power anything at all)
Actually:
Wind farms can produce substantial amounts of electricity and do so in
Germany.
So they can! Mostly, however, they don't.
Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh
produced so
if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a
big saving
in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how you
will.
Sorry, the facts don't bear that out.
If the *extra* fuel you have to burn to compensate for the wind output
going up and down loses all the advantages the wind seemingly has, you
end up with an net zero change in carbon emissions.
The point being that the more wind you have - as against nuclear or
hydro - the more fossil fuel stations you need to balance it.
Having to bring - say - 20GW of fossil online in a hurry when the wind
drops overnight, and not necessarily very good fossil either, since its
not used fully, so there is little incentive to make it efficient,
costs
you a huge amount of fuel JUST TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING.
As near as I can judge over 75% of winds 'zero carbon' gains are
lost to
that process.
That's the trouble with simple pictures. The world is not simple.
Germany remains one of the highest CO2 emitters in Europe with respect
to electrical power generation. DESPITE all this so call low carbon
wind.
Denmark is similar. The real stars of Europe are France and
Switzerland,
both hugely nuclear and in Switzerland's case, with abundant hydro as
well to cover short term demand fluctuations.
If you want to permanently get rid of fossil fuel usage, nuclear for
the
base load and hydro for the demand fluctuations is the way. Wind is
completely useless. A grid that had - say - 30% wind and no nuclear or
hydro at all would at times have no fossil in use at all, but on
average
would need *70% fossil to balance it*.
Now if we say that without wind, a good CCGT can do say 60% thermal
efficency IF FULLY WARMED UP AND LEFT RUNNING, then your carbon fuel
rate is 1/60% = 1.667 times grid power
If the use of that fossil fuel plant drops to 70% due to adding 30%
wind, you still cant get rid of it. You are just using it on average
70%
of the time.
Let's say its efficiency running like that is is X, so that the fuel
burn is then 0.7/X the grid power. And calculate when it's no better
than the kit running without any wind. its when 1/0.6=0.7/X
which makes the critical value of X = 42%.
SO *if the net result of adding 30% average wind to the grid is to
reduce the CCGT efficiency from 60% to 42%*, there is *no net emissions
gain from wind whatsoever*.
A CCGT set running before the secondary cycle gets going, is simply a
37% OCGT gas turbine..every time you start that CCGT set up, it takes
fuel to warm it up. Energy that you lose when you switch it off and it
cools down.
If you add more than 30% wind to the grid, there will be times when you
have to throw it away as well, because peak output will mean you have
more than you need when the wind DOES blow.
You MIGHT put it in pumped storage, at 75% efficiency losing 25% of the
value..if you HAD any pumped storage capacity..
We don't really have much, neither does Germany...
So at best, 30% windpower on the grid (more is unlikely to actually
achieve much more because you start to throw it away)might reduce
carbon
emissions from electricity generation by perhaps 20%. At best. Maybe
5-10% is likely.
20% nuclear on the grid that totally replaces fossil, could net you a
real 20% decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity.At one fifth the
cost.
80% Nuclear - as France has - reduces fossil usage by 80%.
The optimal UK mix would be something like 80% nuclear and 20% fast
start CCGT. If you really want low carbon electricity. If we had a bit
more hydro, we could do a bit better. Sadly geography doesn't favour us
there. Dumping our total coal stations could net us something like
70-80% CO2 reduction.
No amount of wind can ever produce anything like that sort of emissions
reduction.
It is simply a complete waste of time and money. It's only there
because
the Greens run Germany, and the Greens hate nuclear power, and Germany
runs the EU.
And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a
sort of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, you'll be glad to know I have just ordered a 4Kwp PV array for
my roof.
It's very profitable to own one. Maybe not so profitable for everyone
else.
Yerss, you are an antisocial ****.
Come the revolution..
So what's the average power out of that..150 watts?
To get 4Kw average over the year would be around 150 square meters.
Ooh! I could just about do that, and on a SSW facing roof. However,
Dave didn't keep to his "cast iron guarantee" so what is the likelihood
that these enormous feed in tariffs will continue to be paid (by us) for
25 years. That is why I keep telling those who keep pestering me to
consider PV arrays just where they can put them.
Indeed. I'd cut all subsidies to the bloody things. Complete waste of
everybody's time and money.

I know that FITS to large installations are being cut.

The Spanish trick is to put dummies on the roof or a small panel and
lots of dummies, drive the grid off a Diesel genny and make a huge profit.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are a blasted halfwit. There would be no profit to be made using a
diesel generator.

At 45.1p a unit, I can assure you there would be.

There is 9.7 KWh per liter of diesel. At say 25% efficiency that will
generate 2.425 units of electricity.

That's 109p of income per liter. Agricultural diesel/heating oil is a
lot less than that. About 50p a litre

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:00:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

I was looking at some decay chains and didn't spot any fission products that
decayed by alpha.
It must be statistically possible but it could be so rare that it doesn't
happen.

No, you're simply flat wrong. If there was no alpha decay from natural fission,
then alpha particles would not exist in nature. They do, ergo alpha decay *does*
occur. An example is U238 fission, which occurs naturally in small quantities.


--
http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/28...1425914747.php

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:28:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

At 45.1p a unit, I can assure you there would be.

There is 9.7 KWh per liter of diesel. At say 25% efficiency that will
generate 2.425 units of electricity.

That's 109p of income per liter. Agricultural diesel/heating oil is a
lot less than that. About 50p a litre

50p/l for 28sec heating oil? I wish.

The last lot I bought (4th March) was 56.52p/l ex VAT. Red will be
about 10p/l more than that due to the duty. And of course will
attract VAT at 20% not 5% as for domestic heating oil.

The heating oil price tracking sites have had 28sec oil at 60p/l for
a week or so now. So I reckon red will be 80p+/l which fits with
about 50p/l less than pump diesel.

Its still profitable.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:01:32 +0100, Tim W wrote:

There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric
car which can charge up all night and run round town all day.

And what's with this facination with electricity. You could use
compressed air or liquid air. There is a "technology demonstrator"
for a small city type compressed air driven car somewhere and small
commercial scale liquid air power plants are being devleoped/built.

TBH I'm not quite sure how liquid air works as a fuel, it's down to
the phase change and expansion but I struggle with where the energy
comes from to liquify the air in the first place. I have niggly doubt
it's a bit like hydrogen as a fuel, you need to shove just as much
energy in to split water as you get back out later (less losses).

yes. All these thing are secondary energy sources. In fact there is only
really one primary energy source in the universe. The big bang.

Taking it locally, the prime energy sources in the Earth, are the big
fusion reactor in the sky, and the heat and energy still left in the
earth. We have dug up or pumped most of the low hanging chemical fruit
- carbon fuels - already. All that is left is nuclear fuel, but there's
a lot of that still left..although the low hanging fruit of Uranium 235
may not be in such abundance.


With a secondary energy source, what counts is cycle efficiency. How
much you get out later for how much you put in earlier. Batteries are
really very good. Plus energy density: How much your storage devices
weighs per unit energy stored. Batteries are not so good there.

We tend to use electricity as a transmission energy form, because its
very very cheap and easy to *transport*.

Its a bitch to store though.


We use heat in heat engines, to turn heat to mechanical or electrical
power because heat engines are simple and well understood.

WE tend to want to store energy in chemical ways because its a pragmatic
way to run transport and its easy to stockpile.

What we don't have are efficient ways to go from one sort of form to
another.


Ideally a back box that you shovel uranium,. CO2 and water in at one
end, and get diesel and oxygen out at the other, would be everyone's
dream come true.


Or a black box you sit in the middle of a desert by the sea, that takes
water, CO2 and sunlight and makes diesel..


PS I note that as of ten minutes ago, the total power output of all the
UKs metered wind was just 20MW . Its up to a whoping 24 now.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:01:32 +0100, Tim W wrote:

There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric
car which can charge up all night and run round town all day.

And what's with this facination with electricity. You could use
compressed air or liquid air. There is a "technology demonstrator"
for a small city type compressed air driven car somewhere and small
commercial scale liquid air power plants are being devleoped/built.

TBH I'm not quite sure how liquid air works as a fuel, it's down to
the phase change and expansion but I struggle with where the energy
comes from to liquify the air in the first place. I have niggly doubt
it's a bit like hydrogen as a fuel, you need to shove just as much
energy in to split water as you get back out later (less losses).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:25:41 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

My house will be a net exporter of energy.

I very much doubt that with only a 4kW peak PV array. What are you
going to use for space heating in the middle of winter?

The electric base load of this house is about 1kW. To break even one
would need to have a 4kWp PV array producing 50% of it's capacity for
12hrs day. That just ain't going to happen in winter... And that 1kW
base load is just electric, no space heating.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I really don't see large scale gas storage as being feasible. the energy
density is too low. Liquids are a bit better, but we don't have much
storage capacity for that either. Wheras coal can be piled up and we
dont need so very much uranium. After all each reactor carries a year of
fuel rods inside it anyway.

You may not see large scale gas storage as being feasible but that
doesn't mean it can't and won't happen: there's a lot of work on it in
connection with hydrogen fuelled-vehicles, or on a larger scale we could
even liquefy it. Or use other electrical-to-chemical-energy
transformations -- the point being that we can only use so much
electrical energy directly and if we want to get away from fossils
(either to avert/alleviate AGW or as oil becomes more expensive) then
we'll have plenty of uses for leccy which will more happily accommodate
the sort of variable supplies one gets from renewables.


renewale can only work in symbiosis with hydro - which we don't have
enough of - or fossil fuel. By themselves they are useless.

For every wind farm, you also need a conventional power station.
Because nuclear can't dispatch properly, that means your a stuck with
fossil fuel if you go with renewables. It weds you completely to fossil.

Isn't there much the same problem with nuclear? AIUI you can't turn nukes
up and down at will so you need either a lot of storage or fossil-fuelled
fill-in. Or an energy economy based on large amounts of electricity
production with the excess over direct consumption used for conversion
into chemical and other forms of energy.


--
John Stumbles

The rain, it rains upon the Just, and on the Unjust fella
But more upon the Just because the Unjust's got the Just's umbrella

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:28:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

At 45.1p a unit, I can assure you there would be.

There is 9.7 KWh per liter of diesel. At say 25% efficiency that will
generate 2.425 units of electricity.

That's 109p of income per liter. Agricultural diesel/heating oil is a
lot less than that. About 50p a litre

50p/l for 28sec heating oil? I wish.

The last lot I bought (4th March) was 56.52p/l ex VAT. Red will be
about 10p/l more than that due to the duty. And of course will
attract VAT at 20% not 5% as for domestic heating oil.

The heating oil price tracking sites have had 28sec oil at 60p/l for
a week or so now. So I reckon red will be 80p+/l which fits with
about 50p/l less than pump diesel.

--
Cheers
Dave.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[snip]

Taking it locally, the prime energy sources in the Earth, are the big
fusion reactor in the sky, and the heat and energy still left in the
earth. We have dug up or pumped most of the low hanging chemical fruit -
carbon fuels - already.

No, thats ******** the major part of carbon fuel stocks remain in the
ground. Even if we had reached "peak oil" - and there's no evidence that we
have - the shape of the curve is skewed to the right so there would still
be more oil below than above. For coal, we haven't even scratched the
stocks remaining despite two centuries of use.

All that is left is nuclear fuel,

********.

but there's a lot of that still left..although the low hanging fruit of
Uranium 235 may not be in such abundance.

There's about a century of nuclear fuel in the UK. The only barrier to
using it is the weakness of the knees of politicians.

In article
s.com, Matty F scribeth thus
On Mar 29, 1:39 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim W wrote:

German Wind farms produced about 7% of the energy consumed in Germany in
2009. That is a heck of a significant delivery.
I bet you will find that they produced no significant carbon reduction
in so doing.

But carbon reduction is not important, so why should anyone try to
reduce it (which they will not succeed in doing even if they try).

In which case, why do we bother with wind at all?

Only if wind is economic, which it is on some occasions. e.g. we used
a wind generator rather than pay for 10km of powerline to the main
grid.

Here in NZ wind can be a good idea. We have vast hydroelectric power
capability, with not enough rainfall to keep them running all the
time.
The power from wind generators means the power from hydro generators
can be reduced quickly, saving the water in the large dams.
Not an option in the UK I agree, but wind power can be economic in
some places so let's not rubbish it completely.

Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.

Wind generators can be supplied and installed quickly and generating
power, while your large nuclear and other generators take years to
build, with no income until they are finished years later.

Then there are transmission losses. The power from wind generators can
be used locally, while everybody wants nuclear power stations and coal
burning stations to be as far away as possible, hence high power
transmission losses and expensive lines.

And when the wind don't blow what yer gonna do then?..

hang on don't you have the odd earthquake there?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim W
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

[...]
OK so how much wind power and remember it does need backup unless you
have a unique storage idea?..
[....]

I don't have a unique idea, but....
There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric car
which can charge up all night and run round town all day. i don't know
enough about it to say for sure it will become a reality but if it does it
will have profound implications for this whole problem of delivering power
when you need it, not when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

Tim W



Jeezz Tim, thats a lorra wind you'll need far far more than even what
the house of commons could deliver in a 1000 years;!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:01:32 +0100, Tim W wrote:

There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric
car which can charge up all night and run round town all day.

And what's with this facination with electricity. You could use
compressed air or liquid air. There is a "technology demonstrator"
for a small city type compressed air driven car somewhere and small
commercial scale liquid air power plants are being devleoped/built.


Sounds like what Brunel could have come up with that;!...

TBH I'm not quite sure how liquid air works as a fuel, it's down to
the phase change and expansion but I struggle with where the energy
comes from to liquify the air in the first place. I have niggly doubt
it's a bit like hydrogen as a fuel, you need to shove just as much
energy in to split water as you get back out later (less losses).


--
Tony Sayer

PS I note that as of ten minutes ago, the total power output of all the
UKs metered wind was just 20MW . Its up to a whoping 24 now.


'Come NP, your far far too practical for this world!, don't you ever
blow some suspicious substances out there;?..
--
Tony Sayer

On Mar 29, 7:16 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:

Here in NZ wind can be a good idea. We have vast hydroelectric power
capability, with not enough rainfall to keep them running all the
time.

Then you need some atomics :-)

No, we have coal burning power stations, and enough coal for at least
600 years. They can be used when the water in the hydro dams is low.
Also we have huge tide power potential. Iassume that hydro power is
still needed at change of tide.

Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.

Wind is near he theoretical max actually, and solar is not far off.

New technology solar panels are getting cheaper all the time.

Wind generators can be supplied and installed quickly and generating
power, while your large nuclear and other generators take years to
build, with no income until they are finished years later.

Don't you do forward planning down there?

The important point I am making is that a great deal of money has to
be borrowed to build nuclear and other large generators. Interest has
to be paid for maybe 10 years or more during construction, while there
is no income at all during that time.
Contrast that with small generators that come virtually of fthe shelf,
are made on an efficient production line, and can be installed in
months and generate income immediately.


Still the New Zealand govt is well known to be weird..over green issues

Yes unfortunately the major parties, National Labour and Greens, are
obsessed with trying to reduce CO2 when as we now know man-made global
warming is the greatest scientific fraud of the last century.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:56:26 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Ghostrecon wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:23:07 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Not ere they don't. Waste is after all, relatively small. I mean we
don't INCREASE the total radioactivity of the earth do we? just help
natures 'natural uranium 235 decay' along a bit faster.

Decay is not the same as fission.

Yes it is.


Oh no it isn't.

It is in the general sense that an atom of one element is transmuted to
another element. It's true that with decay you get just the one daughter
product whereas with fission you get two or more.

For example.. AFAIK fission leads to isotopes that can decay by beta
emission while decay doesn't.
fission products don't emit alpha radiation so you can't put them in a
cardboard box to stop the radiation like you can with unused fuel rods.

It'll take me a while to see if this looks like being true. I don't see
why a fission product, if it's a radioactive isotope, is forbidden from
undergoing alpha decay.

I dont think its forbidden its just that daughter nuclei have a larger
number of neutrons compared to protons (n/p ratio) than is stable so they
tend to decay by multiple beta emmisions (n-p+e+v) which reduces the ratio

Yes, now I've looked into it I see that makes sense.

there are some products of fission which decay with alpha IIRC some of the
lighter Isotopes of antimony e.g. 109 (not the high n/p isotopes e.g. 134)
and tellurium 107 and 105 an alternative to alpha decay for those isotopes
with lower (lighter) n/p ratios would be proton emmision.
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

John Stumbles wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I really don't see large scale gas storage as being feasible. the energy
density is too low. Liquids are a bit better, but we don't have much
storage capacity for that either. Wheras coal can be piled up and we
dont need so very much uranium. After all each reactor carries a year of
fuel rods inside it anyway.

You may not see large scale gas storage as being feasible but that
doesn't mean it can't and won't happen: there's a lot of work on it in
connection with hydrogen fuelled-vehicles, or on a larger scale we could
even liquefy it. Or use other electrical-to-chemical-energy
transformations -- the point being that we can only use so much
electrical energy directly and if we want to get away from fossils
(either to avert/alleviate AGW or as oil becomes more expensive) then
we'll have plenty of uses for leccy which will more happily accommodate
the sort of variable supplies one gets from renewables.


renewale can only work in symbiosis with hydro - which we don't have
enough of - or fossil fuel. By themselves they are useless.

For every wind farm, you also need a conventional power station.
Because nuclear can't dispatch properly, that means your a stuck with
fossil fuel if you go with renewables. It weds you completely to fossil.

Isn't there much the same problem with nuclear? AIUI you can't turn nukes
up and down at will so you need either a lot of storage or fossil-fuelled
fill-in. Or an energy economy based on large amounts of electricity
production with the excess over direct consumption used for conversion
into chemical and other forms of energy.



well the latter is not a bad solution.

Actually you CAN to an extent turn nukes up and down. Classic MOX fuel
tends to get IIRC Xenon poisoning if you do it too much, but the French
do in fact do it. Boron is used to control the poisoning.

http://www.cessa.eu.com/sd_papers/wp...et_Nuttall.pdf

Is an interesting technical study.

Also, since fuel is relatively cheap, you can also to an extent throw
the power away.

It is not intrinsic to a reactor that it cant be turned down either..it
wont happen fast (the paper I cite says 0.3% a minute with lowest level
being 30%, so it can go from 30% to 100% in say a bit under 4 hours..)
but it can happen and newer designs might well be more readily
dispatchable. The reason we don't dispatch nuclear (much) is that the
plant was never designed to do it. And it is probably the cheapest on
the grid anyway, so it makes sense to use it as pure base load.

But yes, you probably want to keep all the pumped storage and hydro to
cope with short term demand peaks. And a bit of CCGT, but coping with
demand variations - typically 20 GW from evening peak to midnight low -
is a fairly predictable thing..unlike say trying to put 30% wind on the
grid, which gives a totally unpredictable up to 50GW swing on the grid.

Perhaps an ideal mix is as much hydro as is cost effective, about 30GW
of undispatchable nuclear, and 20GW of CCGT And no wind. Because the
moment demand drops to the base capacity of the nuclear, you don't want
or need any CCGT or wind on the grid at all.

Replacing coal with nuclear, and stopping all wind development and
keeping the approximately 20GW of CCGT as it is or upgrading it, plus
the interconnects and as much hydro is is viable, would seem to be the
most cost effective mix. Or with dispatchable nuclear, up to 40GW, maybe
50GW of nuclear, and a reserve of maybe 20GW of CCGT. Mostly not used.
The nukes can broadly follow load then, with the hydro kicking in to
cover the extra 1-2GW needed in short term emergencies, and the CCGT
becomes pure reserve..there to cover a major unscheduled power station
outage for example.

Looking at the demand graphs, the slew rate from nightime low to daytime
highs, is easily coped with if you have dispatchable nuclear. The little
evening peak around 7pm, is where you need the hydro or the CCGT.

(see www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk)


Nuclear and wind don't sit well together, because the wind can vary a
lot faster than load can, with any large amount on the grid. You HAVE to
have fast start CCGT to cover that, or hydro.

I suspect that is broadly the way the French run their system. 80%
moderately dispatchable nuclear, nuclear, the rest CCGT. I think they
have a few old coal plants running as well.

I am very mixed about coal, especially Drax, It does represent a huge
investment in plant that shouldn't be switched off willy nilly. It also
burns a lot of bio waste. But I would hope to see gradual replacement of
older coal with newer nuclear.

I am very sceptical about carbon capture. I'd like to see a moratorium
on new coal until a bit more is known about carbon capture, and until
the climate scientists have stopped arguing about whether or not CO2 is
really doing anything at all to the climate. With polar bears on the
increase, glaciers and ice sheets growing back, and talk of a new little
ice age, maybe we shouldn't be sacred to death about all this.

If the answer turns out to be that the whole thing is overblown, and the
Chinese anyway are unstoppable coal burners, there seems little point in
getting excited about it. We do have plenty left, albeit not very easy
or cheap to mine, and it is easy to stockpile.

Given the times scales, and the politics, I suspect that what will
actually happen is that short term wind wont happen a great deal more.
Its too expensive, and its perverse. We will throw CCGT sets together in
a hurry, to cover the shortfall as the older nukes come out of service.
We may or may not build a new coal plant. But the main drive in the next
decade will be to reform, modernise and properly get a full scale
nuclear program in place. That is as much a political as a technical
problem though.

Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[snip]
Taking it locally, the prime energy sources in the Earth, are the big
fusion reactor in the sky, and the heat and energy still left in the
earth. We have dug up or pumped most of the low hanging chemical fruit -
carbon fuels - already.

No, thats ******** the major part of carbon fuel stocks remain in the
ground. Even if we had reached "peak oil" - and there's no evidence that we
have - the shape of the curve is skewed to the right so there would still
be more oil below than above. For coal, we haven't even scratched the
stocks remaining despite two centuries of use.


What about 'low hanging fruit' did you fail to understand?

I never claimed there was none left, just that its getting increasingly
expensive and complicated to get it out



All that is left is nuclear fuel,

********.


No, not in terms of actual final cost of the power generated. Nuclear is
THE cheap fuel today,. It would still be cheap a 100 times its current
price. That's a long way into exploration and finding new reserves, or
even reprocessing old coal heaps to get the uranium out..

but there's a lot of that still left..although the low hanging fruit of
Uranium 235 may not be in such abundance.

There's about a century of nuclear fuel in the UK. The only barrier to
using it is the weakness of the knees of politicians.


Well that I agree with.