tony sayer wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim W wrote:

Actually worse than that. You build the barrage right the way
across, then you realise that above the barrage it is filling with
mud, so you are never going to get any payback and you have to pay
to demolish the thing as well.
Who is gong to pay to decommission all these wind turbines?

Can you just not wait until the wind knocks them over?


Depends on the price of Ally .. if thats right then they'll self
decommission like power substations and railway signalling does;!..

Towers are steel Tony.

What's at the top is worth a bit but it will take more than a chainsaw
to fell em. I think you can unscrew some bolts though. Or a shaped charge..

What's under the ground is totally worthles. rebar and concrete.

Sails are rubbish too. foam or balsa covered in carbon fibre. Burn well
mind you.

ARWadsworth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim W wrote:

Actually worse than that. You build the barrage right the way
across, then you realise that above the barrage it is filling with
mud, so you are never going to get any payback and you have to pay
to demolish the thing as well.
Who is gong to pay to decommission all these wind turbines?

Can you just not wait until the wind knocks them over?

that wont get the 1000 tonne foundations out of the ground.


Do you need to get them out of the ground?


Depends on whether you want to return the land to agriculture..and Make
It Safe For ChillDrunnA

On 28/03/2011 19:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


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.


Says someone who knows nothing about the way the system works in UK.

Why am I not surprised?

On 29/03/2011 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim W wrote:

Actually worse than that. You build the barrage right the way
across, then you realise that above the barrage it is filling with
mud, so you are never going to get any payback and you have to pay
to demolish the thing as well.
Who is gong to pay to decommission all these wind turbines?


Can you just not wait until the wind knocks them over?

that wont get the 1000 tonne foundations out of the ground.


's alright, you won't need to.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...wind-tturbines

AKA

http://tinyurl.com/6eeqdkv

Andy

On 29/03/2011 07:11, harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:38 pm, Old wrote:
On 28/03/2011 19:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:





harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:27 pm, The Natural
wrote:
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural 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.

You're wrong there.

Possibly, or perhaps possibly not, we won't know, unless I am right,
for 25 years.

--
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]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Tim W wrote:
Anyone who tells you they know what the effect of a barrage will be is a
liar or a fool.
Didn't you just tell me what the effect of a barrage would be?

No, Steve, he told you what the effect of one barrage WAS.

He used it to tell me what the effect of the Severn barrage would be.

I know you have trouble with English, but do try and keep up.

I know you have your head up your arse. But from time to time pull it out
and smell the coffee.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:22:16 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

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;!...

B-) The atmospheric railway in Devon, it worked and could shift along
at over 60mph. Keeping the vacum was the problem with the leather
seal, either getting too stiff or being eaten by rats...

The demonstaror I've seen piccies of just had ordinary compressed air
cylinders feeding a piston engine of some sort. Think steam engine
without the steam.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:12:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

Aren't they working on using bacteria to do just that? We are already
shift vast quantities of "diesel" about.

Similary you could have an air liquification plant where there is a
suitable renewable energy source be that hydro or sunlight. We are
already shift vast quantities of liquified natural gas about.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:12:36 +0100, Tim W wrote:

Anyone who tells you they know what the effect of a barrage will be is a
liar or a fool.

A complete barrage probably is a Bad Idea but tidal lagoons or sets
on the seabed in the flow aren't so daft. Lagoons still run the risk
of silting up but careful design of flow patterns should make them
largely self cleaning.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Jim Newman wrote:
On 28/03/2011 19:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


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.


Says someone who knows nothing about the way the system works in UK.


I was talking about te way it works in spain, pillock.

Why am I not surprised?

Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Tim W wrote:
Anyone who tells you they know what the effect of a barrage will be is a
liar or a fool.
Didn't you just tell me what the effect of a barrage would be?
No, Steve, he told you what the effect of one barrage WAS.

He used it to tell me what the effect of the Severn barrage would be.


No he didn't.

He used to to show that there is great uncertainty in waht a barrage's
effect will be.


I know you have trouble with English, but do try and keep up.

I know you have your head up your arse. But from time to time pull it out
and smell the coffee.

I'll take that as an admission that I am right, then.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:12:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

Aren't they working on using bacteria to do just that? We are already
shift vast quantities of "diesel" about.

I think its algae, but yes, its a promising avebune of research at least.

But you catnt break the laws of physics. You still need massive acreages
of tanks or whatever



Similary you could have an air liquification plant where there is a
suitable renewable energy source be that hydro or sunlight. We are
already shift vast quantities of liquified natural gas about.


The problem is, that you need a substantial area of Britain to e
collecting sunlight at 100% efficiency to run the country.

If its at 10%, its nearly all the country. At the sort of traditional
biofuel levels of 1%,. or less its rather more than ALL the country.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:22:16 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

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;!...

B-) The atmospheric railway in Devon, it worked and could shift along
at over 60mph. Keeping the vacum was the problem with the leather
seal, either getting too stiff or being eaten by rats...

The demonstaror I've seen piccies of just had ordinary compressed air
cylinders feeding a piston engine of some sort. Think steam engine
without the steam.

google gasparin CO2 motor.. teeny little model aircraft engine powered
from sparklets cartridges..

I saw one fly once. Hilarious. Does about 45 seconds before the tank
runs 'dry'

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:12:36 +0100, Tim W wrote:

Anyone who tells you they know what the effect of a barrage will be is a
liar or a fool.

A complete barrage probably is a Bad Idea but tidal lagoons or sets
on the seabed in the flow aren't so daft. Lagoons still run the risk
of silting up but careful design of flow patterns should make them
largely self cleaning.

without a full barrage the power output is negligie.

Even by converting the whole severn to a power station, its still less
than a couple of modern nukes.

and with a head measured in feet, not thousands of feet, the efficiency
will be rubbish too.

In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article 1850602750323093312.274743%steve%-
, says...
I understood it, but you are, as ever, talking ********.

Waving your arms around while talking ******** is calle Testiculating.

Just thought I'd add that 'cos I couldn't be arsed to follow what is
becoming an incresingly silly thread.


I just thought that "low hanging fruit" meant more or less the same
thing

--
geoff

In message
,
Steve Firth writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Tim W wrote:
Anyone who tells you they know what the effect of a barrage will be is a
liar or a fool.
Didn't you just tell me what the effect of a barrage would be?

No, Steve, he told you what the effect of one barrage WAS.

He used it to tell me what the effect of the Severn barrage would be.

I know you have trouble with English, but do try and keep up.

I know you have your head up your arse. But from time to time pull it out
and smell the coffee.


What is he, a civet ?

Come on girls, lets stop wasting hot air


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article 1850602750323093312.274743%steve%-
, says...
I understood it, but you are, as ever, talking ********.

Waving your arms around while talking ******** is calle Testiculating.

Just thought I'd add that 'cos I couldn't be arsed to follow what is
becoming an incresingly silly thread.


I just thought that "low hanging fruit" meant more or less the same thing

Steveie Froth is one of those trolls who always shift the context to win
arguments by setting up straw men and then resorting to ad hominems when
called out.

He should lay off the Charlie.

In message
,
Jethro writes

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.

Until I saw Brian Cox "Wonders of the solar system" I wasn't aware
that the expansion/contraction of a planet as it orbits a body could
produce so much energy. ISTR one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn
having a molten core, simply due to the effect of gravity.

Presumably the same mechanics apply to the Earth. So not only is there
residual energy in the core from the creation of the Earth, it's also
being topped up by the daily and annual motion of the Earth through
space.

In fact, I wonder if energy input due to this process exceeds output ?
In which case the Earth will heat up anyway ....

Err ...

did you miss what's been going on in Japan of late ?


--
geoff

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article 1850602750323093312.274743%steve%-
, says...
I understood it, but you are, as ever, talking ********.

Waving your arms around while talking ******** is calle Testiculating.

Just thought I'd add that 'cos I couldn't be arsed to follow what is
becoming an incresingly silly thread.

I just thought that "low hanging fruit" meant more or less the same
thing

Steveie Froth is one of those trolls who always shift the context to
win arguments by setting up straw men and then resorting to ad hominems
when called out.

He should lay off the Charlie.

He was doing quite well for a while too ...


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article 1850602750323093312.274743%steve%-
, says...
I understood it, but you are, as ever, talking ********.

Waving your arms around while talking ******** is calle Testiculating.

Just thought I'd add that 'cos I couldn't be arsed to follow what is
becoming an incresingly silly thread.

I just thought that "low hanging fruit" meant more or less the same
thing

Steveie Froth is one of those trolls who always shift the context to
win arguments by setting up straw men and then resorting to ad
hominems when called out.

He should lay off the Charlie.

He was doing quite well for a while too ...


Well possibly.

Poor dear isn't getting enough.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

geoff wrote:
In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article 1850602750323093312.274743%steve%-
, says...
I understood it, but you are, as ever, talking ********.

Waving your arms around while talking ******** is calle Testiculating.

Just thought I'd add that 'cos I couldn't be arsed to follow what is
becoming an incresingly silly thread.


I just thought that "low hanging fruit" meant more or less the same thing

Steveie Froth is one of those trolls who always shift the context to win
arguments by setting up straw men and then resorting to ad hominems when
called out.

TNP is a moron who thinks he knows something about Science and
Engineering but who lays his ignorance bare with each post he makes to
Usenet. When called on his stupidities, which are many, he pouts, sulks
and indulges in petty personal attacks.

He should lay off the Charlie.

That isn't just a personal attack, that's libel. Perhaps you should
learn the difference between insult and libel?

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:12:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Or a black box you sit in the middle of a desert by the sea, that
takes water, CO2 and sunlight and makes diesel..
Aren't they working on using bacteria to do just that? We are
already
shift vast quantities of "diesel" about.

I think its algae, but yes, its a promising avebune of research at
least.

But you catnt break the laws of physics. You still need massive
acreages of tanks or whatever


Yes Algae, we were at the Big Bang Fair a few weeks ago. One of the
stands there had a team researching on just this area. It did sound
promising, but practical real life application some way off. And of
course as ever, the devil is in the details.


--
Chris French

On Mar 29, 10:19 pm, tony sayer wrote:
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?..

Use water from the hydro lakes. Hydroelectric power accounts for 57%
of the total electricity generation in New Zealand. But there's not
enough rain in a year to run the hydro generators at maximum for a
year. The power output from hydro can be quickly altered if the wind
stops or blows, although that's unlikely over a country the size of
the UK.

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

Not near the power generators.

Matty F wrote:


Use water from the hydro lakes. Hydroelectric power accounts for 57%
of the total electricity generation in New Zealand. But there's not
enough rain in a year to run the hydro generators at maximum for a
year. The power output from hydro can be quickly altered if the wind
stops or blows,

Correct

although that's unlikely over a country the size of
the UK.


Incorrect.

In the last few weeks I have seen windpower touch nearly 2GW and fall to
as little as 20MW. That's 100:1 change OVER THE WHOLE COUNTRY. In just
the two weeks since I have been recording it.

Scale that up to 30% average of the grid and it would be like having 90%
of the countries power stations coming online and going offline over a
period of less than a day.

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

Not near the power generators.

Just near the dams :-)

wind may actually work in NZ because of the hydro. It will still be
environmentally destructive and wasteful of materials, but its just
about possible to top up 75% of water with 25% of wind and make it work,
albeit at a cost several times that of nuclear.

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer...ioxide_reu se

(Can't compete economically with digging it out of the ground yet.)

In article , says...
I just thought that "low hanging fruit" meant more or less the same
thing



Oooh, my plums.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer...ioxide_reu se

(Can't compete economically with digging it out of the ground yet.)

well if diesel gets to £5 a liter, and it will, those sorts of processes
mean that we will still have some..at £4.99 a litre.

Need a lot of nuclear power to drive the plants though. And don't tell
me that we can drive them from windmills. You want a plant like that to
be viable, and that means driving it flat out 24x7x365. Not just when
there is a full gale blowing in Scotland.

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?..

Use water from the hydro lakes. Hydroelectric power accounts for 57%
of the total electricity generation in New Zealand. But there's not
enough rain in a year to run the hydro generators at maximum for a
year. The power output from hydro can be quickly altered if the wind
stops or blows, although that's unlikely over a country the size of
the UK.


OK so the capacity that the windpower sets have is fully backed by
Hydro?. Else you must have something else to meet the full load?..

Or is it consistently windier in NZ than here?..

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

Not near the power generators.

--
Tony Sayer

On Mar 30, 1:39*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer...ocess#Carbon_d...

(Can't compete economically with digging it out of the ground yet.)

well if diesel gets to £5 a liter, and it will, those sorts of processes
mean that we will still have some..at £4.99 a litre.

Need a lot of nuclear power to drive the plants though. And don't tell
me that we can drive them from windmills. You want a plant like that to
be viable, and that means driving it flat out 24x7x365. Not just when
there is a full gale blowing in Scotland.

What we need is to replicate tree technolgy in some more efficient
way.
ie,take water,CO2 and sunlight & convert it to a liquid fuel.

tony sayer wrote:
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?..
Use water from the hydro lakes. Hydroelectric power accounts for 57%
of the total electricity generation in New Zealand. But there's not
enough rain in a year to run the hydro generators at maximum for a
year. The power output from hydro can be quickly altered if the wind
stops or blows, although that's unlikely over a country the size of
the UK.


OK so the capacity that the windpower sets have is fully backed by
Hydro?. Else you must have something else to meet the full load?..


yes, in NZ it is actually. The sets can do the full capacity, just not
for 12 months.

So you turn em down when the wind blows.

And pray its not a dry year with no wind..which sadly often go together..

harry wrote:
On Mar 30, 1:39 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer...ocess#Carbon_d...
(Can't compete economically with digging it out of the ground yet.)
well if diesel gets to £5 a liter, and it will, those sorts of processes
mean that we will still have some..at £4.99 a litre.

Need a lot of nuclear power to drive the plants though. And don't tell
me that we can drive them from windmills. You want a plant like that to
be viable, and that means driving it flat out 24x7x365. Not just when
there is a full gale blowing in Scotland.

What we need is to replicate tree technolgy in some more efficient
way.
ie,take water,CO2 and sunlight & convert it to a liquid fuel.

Maple syrup?

At 100% efficiency. YUM.

On Mar 31, 5:17 am, tony sayer wrote:
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?..

Use water from the hydro lakes. Hydroelectric power accounts for 57%
of the total electricity generation in New Zealand. But there's not
enough rain in a year to run the hydro generators at maximum for a
year. The power output from hydro can be quickly altered if the wind
stops or blows, although that's unlikely over a country the size of
the UK.

OK so the capacity that the windpower sets have is fully backed by
Hydro?. Else you must have something else to meet the full load?..

Or is it consistently windier in NZ than here?..

57% hydroelectricity, 18% natural gas, 10% coal, 7% geothermal, 5%
wind, 2% oil.
There is a new tidal scheme about to be built. That could generate a
huge amount of energy if stupid people don't stop it. There's more
geothermal and hydro potential.

Matty F wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:17 am, tony sayer wrote:
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?..
Use water from the hydro lakes. Hydroelectric power accounts for 57%
of the total electricity generation in New Zealand. But there's not
enough rain in a year to run the hydro generators at maximum for a
year. The power output from hydro can be quickly altered if the wind
stops or blows, although that's unlikely over a country the size of
the UK.
OK so the capacity that the windpower sets have is fully backed by
Hydro?. Else you must have something else to meet the full load?..

Or is it consistently windier in NZ than here?..

57% hydroelectricity, 18% natural gas, 10% coal, 7% geothermal, 5%
wind, 2% oil.
There is a new tidal scheme about to be built. That could generate a
huge amount of energy if stupid people don't stop it. There's more
geothermal and hydro potential.

Whereas 2 or three good nukes could be tucked almost anywhere, and
remove all the coal and oil gas and wind meeds..sigh.

Still NZ is a weird place.

On Mar 31, 8:53 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:

57% hydroelectricity, 18% natural gas, 10% coal, 7% geothermal, 5%
wind, 2% oil.
There is a new tidal scheme about to be built. That could generate a
huge amount of energy if stupid people don't stop it. There's more
geothermal and hydro potential.

Whereas 2 or three good nukes could be tucked almost anywhere, and
remove all the coal and oil gas and wind meeds..sigh.

Still NZ is a weird place.

NZ doesn't have as much plutonium on the beaches.
From Sellafield (formerly known as Windscale) "1983 was the year of
the "Beach Discharge Incident" in which high radioactive discharges
containing ruthenium and rhodium 106, both beta-emitting isotopes,
resulted in the closure of beaches along a 10-mile stretch of coast
between St. Bees and Eskmeals, along with warnings against swimming in
the sea."

On Mar 31, 12:47 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/03/2011 06:03, 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.
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.

In fact using wind to pump water uphill for use in pumped storage
systems sounds like it could be quite handy. All the flexibility of
pumped storage, while mitigating the nett energy cost of using it a
little when there is wind available.

If the water could be pumped directly by the wind instead of
converting to electricity feeding a pump, surely that would be more
efficient. Unfortunately the pumps would have to be almost at the
level of the lower reservoir.

If anyone is making one of these, please put in a spillway! Unlike at
Taum Sauk where the level monitoring device failed and the dam
collapsed.

On 31/03/2011 02:17, Matty F wrote:

If anyone is making one of these, please put in a spillway! Unlike at
Taum Sauk where the level monitoring device failed and the dam
collapsed.

Ok, not pumped storage, but not as bad as this one :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

In article
s.com, Matty F scribeth thus
On Mar 31, 8:53 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:

57% hydroelectricity, 18% natural gas, 10% coal, 7% geothermal, 5%
wind, 2% oil.
There is a new tidal scheme about to be built. That could generate a
huge amount of energy if stupid people don't stop it. There's more
geothermal and hydro potential.

Whereas 2 or three good nukes could be tucked almost anywhere, and
remove all the coal and oil gas and wind meeds..sigh.

Still NZ is a weird place.

NZ doesn't have as much plutonium on the beaches.
From Sellafield (formerly known as Windscale) "1983 was the year of
the "Beach Discharge Incident" in which high radioactive discharges
containing ruthenium and rhodium 106, both beta-emitting isotopes,
resulted in the closure of beaches along a 10-mile stretch of coast
between St. Bees and Eskmeals, along with warnings against swimming in
the sea."

Well of course it doesn't they were running around in grass skirts when
we had that learning curve;!..

Still didn't you have more fallout from the shenanigans from the Pacific
Yankee fireworks experiments in the 50's?..

An 'err, how many dead or life expectancy shortened from Windscale ..
--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

An 'err, how many dead or life expectancy shortened from Windscale ..

Essentially, zero as its too small to measure.
Almost certainly less than those caused by the MMR vaccine rumpus.

On 31/03/2011 10:03, dennis@home wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

An 'err, how many dead or life expectancy shortened from Windscale ..

Essentially, zero as its too small to measure.
Almost certainly less than those caused by the MMR vaccine rumpus.

Windscale was in any case not a power generation incident, but a weapons
manufacturing one.

Might as well blame this

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ory-kills-78/1

AKA

http://tinyurl.com/4babznf

on the oil industry, as that was undoubtedly where they got the feedstock.

Andy

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

An 'err, how many dead or life expectancy shortened from Windscale ..

Essentially, zero as its too small to measure.
Almost certainly less than those caused by the MMR vaccine rumpus.
Well I'm still alive 50 years on, living NE of Windscale at the time.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha