http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.

--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.


I promise to generate no electricity if the government pays me a million
quid. If they like I will promise to not generate 30GW or more, whatever is
necessary really.

ARWadsworth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.

This bit tickled me most:

*A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC),
described the incident as "unusual" and said more electrical storage was
needed.*

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' - not in
that context anyway - can it?

Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Brian wrote:

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' -
not in that context anyway - can it?

It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the tour
we went on.)

Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?

Steve Firth wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.


I promise to generate no electricity if the government pays me a
million quid. If they like I will promise to not generate 30GW or
more, whatever is necessary really.

I'm promising not to generate more than you so that make me richer than
you:-)

--
Adam

On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:11:29 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus
energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to
be cut."

That's the real reason. But why pay 'em just because they are
generating when the power isn't needed? That is *their* problem not
ours or National Grids.

We'll be paying 'em when the wind doesn't blow next. Oh we already
do, via the subsidies. B-(

I don't understand this bit either:

"He [Mr Larque] added: "On the evening of the 5th into the 6th of
April, the wind in Scotland was high, it was raining heavily, which
also created more hydro energy than normal."

Surely the amount of hydro generated is down to how much open the
valves, any water that cannot be used to top up the reservoirs just
goes down the spillways.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 17:40:37 +0100, Brian wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Brian wrote:

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' - not
in that context anyway - can it?

It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the tour we
went on.)

Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?

' cos they are behind the scenes things, disguised, and not very sexy
publicity wise. Also cost a lot of money boring out mountains.

Don't forget too, that on that occasion the National Grid had somehow
isolated Scotland and power transfer to Wales would have been impossible
so they say!

I'm also thinking of getting dosh from not generating electricity!



--
Steve

On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:04:29 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:11:29 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus
energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to be
cut."

That's the real reason. But why pay 'em just because they are generating
when the power isn't needed? That is *their* problem not ours or
National Grids.

But who believes that? The whole purpose of the National Grid is like any
other network to prevent failure on one point breaking the system.

We'll be paying 'em when the wind doesn't blow next. Oh we already do,
via the subsidies. B-(

I don't understand this bit either:

"He [Mr Larque] added: "On the evening of the 5th into the 6th of April,
the wind in Scotland was high, it was raining heavily, which also
created more hydro energy than normal."

Surely the amount of hydro generated is down to how much open the
valves, any water that cannot be used to top up the reservoirs just goes
down the spillways.

Quite, this bit doesn't ring true either.



--
Steve

On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:31:53 +0100, "Brian" wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.

This bit tickled me most:

*A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC),
described the incident as "unusual" and said more electrical storage was
needed.*

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' - not in
that context anyway - can it?

Hydro-electric pumped storage. Or sell it to some other benighted
heathens and put the cash on deposit until we need to turn it back
into kW.

Steve Eldridge wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 17:40:37 +0100, Brian wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Brian wrote:

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' -
not in that context anyway - can it?

It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the
tour we went on.)

Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?

' cos they are behind the scenes things, disguised, and not very sexy
publicity wise. Also cost a lot of money boring out mountains.

Don't forget too, that on that occasion the National Grid had somehow
isolated Scotland and power transfer to Wales would have been
impossible so they say!

I'm also thinking of getting dosh from not generating electricity!

Not till Steve Firth and myself have been paid for not generating ours your
not.

--
Adam

On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:23:12 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:


Not till Steve Firth and myself have been paid for not generating ours
your not.

I'm third in the queue then! Anyone else, please form an orderly line
behind!


--
Steve

On Sun, 01 May 2011 17:07:11 +0000, Steve Eldridge wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 17:40:37 +0100, Brian wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Brian wrote:

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' - not
in that context anyway - can it?

It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the tour
we went on.)

Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?

' cos they are behind the scenes things, disguised, and not very sexy
publicity wise. Also cost a lot of money boring out mountains.

Don't forget too, that on that occasion the National Grid had somehow
isolated Scotland and power transfer to Wales would have been impossible
so they say!

They probably use Welsh volts.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus
energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to
be cut."

That's the real reason. But why pay 'em just because they are
generating when the power isn't needed? That is *their* problem not
ours or National Grids.

But the power was needed. A fault outside the control of the wind
generator people meant it couldn't be used. Which is presumably covered by
a contract of some sort.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus
energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to
be cut."

That's the real reason. But why pay 'em just because they are
generating when the power isn't needed? That is *their* problem not
ours or National Grids.

But the power was needed. A fault outside the control of the wind
generator people meant it couldn't be used. Which is presumably
covered by a contract of some sort.

If they built then somewhere a little less windy then they would not have
this sort of problem.
--
Adam

On May 1, 5:38*pm, Huge wrote:

It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the tour we
went on.)

The problem is also that Dinorwig is "upside down" compared to what's
really needed. It has the ability to suddenly _generate_ on demand,
but it's much less suitable for suddenly pumping, so as to store a
wind excess.

Newer systems (the Canary Islands is one, and there are some Greek
island systems) are optimised the other way to Dinorwig, so as to act
as buffers for wind generation.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in news:ipk0oc$h11$1
@dont-email.me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.


Personaly I think they've been ripped off. I'd be happy to not produce
electricty for the national grid at half the price these waindfarm wallahs
charge.

--

All the best,

Chris

On 01/05/2011 18:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In whill.co.uk,
Dave wrote:
"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus
energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to
be cut."

That's the real reason. But why pay 'em just because they are
generating when the power isn't needed? That is *their* problem not
ours or National Grids.

But the power was needed. A fault outside the control of the wind
generator people meant it couldn't be used. Which is presumably covered by
a contract of some sort.

It would be fair enough to compensate for lost "sales", but the article
states that payments of up to 20 times the cost of the energy that might
have otherwise been exported were paid. Why?

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...


It would be fair enough to compensate for lost "sales", but the article
states that payments of up to 20 times the cost of the energy that might
have otherwise been exported were paid. Why?

Corruption springs to mind.
Why are we paying for them to not wear out their machines?
I wouldn't be surprised to find some Scottish MPs behind it somewhere.

Brian wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Brian wrote:

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' -
not in that context anyway - can it?
It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the tour
we went on.)

Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?


geography and cost and water

Andy Dingley wrote:
On May 1, 5:38 pm, Huge wrote:

It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the tour we
went on.)

The problem is also that Dinorwig is "upside down" compared to what's
really needed. It has the ability to suddenly _generate_ on demand,
but it's much less suitable for suddenly pumping, so as to store a
wind excess.

Rubbish. Its fully bi directional at flat out rate.

Newer systems (the Canary Islands is one, and there are some Greek
island systems) are optimised the other way to Dinorwig, so as to act
as buffers for wind generation.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:36:47 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the
surplus
energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had
to
be cut."

That's the real reason. But why pay 'em just because they are
generating when the power isn't needed? That is *their* problem
not
ours or National Grids.

But the power was needed.

I don't remember the lights going out, ergo the power wasn't needed.

Whitelee 322MW
Farr 92MW
Hadyardhill 120MW
Blacklaw 124MW
Millennium 50MW
Beinn Tharsuin 30MW

Total 738MW

Not much compared to the 30,000MW base load that nuclear provides or
the up to another 30,000MW that gas/coal provide.

A fault outside the control of the wind generator people meant it
couldn't be used.

So would a coal or nuclear station be compensated at the same rate
for the power they couldn't sell in similar circumstances?

Level playing field please.

--
Cheers
Dave.

ARWadsworth wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.


I promise to generate no electricity if the government pays me a
million quid. If they like I will promise to not generate 30GW or
more, whatever is necessary really.

I'm promising not to generate more than you so that make me richer than
you:-)

I can feel a Yorkshireman moment coming on...

You won't produce 30GW? By, but you had it easy... we wouldn't produce
250GW and our parents would make us eat gravel.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On May 1, 5:38 pm, Huge wrote:

It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the
tour we went on.)

The problem is also that Dinorwig is "upside down" compared to
what's really needed. It has the ability to suddenly _generate_ on
demand, but it's much less suitable for suddenly pumping, so as to
store a wind excess.

Rubbish. Its fully bi directional at flat out rate.

Quite. They can back up at a few moments notice.

They can make it rain?
--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On May 1, 5:38 pm, Huge wrote:

It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the
tour we went on.)
The problem is also that Dinorwig is "upside down" compared to
what's really needed. It has the ability to suddenly _generate_ on
demand, but it's much less suitable for suddenly pumping, so as to
store a wind excess.

Rubbish. Its fully bi directional at flat out rate.
Quite. They can back up at a few moments notice.

They can make it rain?

It's in Wales. Not only that, it's in the wet bit of Wales.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 1 May 2011 21:25:25 GMT, Huge wrote:


Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?


It's not that we "can" only have two of them, we just do.

Because no more have been built.

I assume not because of geography and cost.

From Wikipedia :

"The stalling of the UK nuclear power programme in the late 1980s and
the coincident dash for gas increased the proportion of dispatchable
plant on the network, making the use of pumped storage for day/night
load balancing less attractive. As a result, a similar facility
planned for Exmoor was never built."

According to Wiki the project was completed in 1974. Simple inspection
would reveal that was the start of the era of the second Wilson Labour
Government which I prefer to call "The years of stagnation" when many
large scale capital projects, such as new nuclear stations and major
new motorway schemes were cancelled leaving part built motorways not
reaching their destinations without regard to the consequences of the
lost facility.

Derek G

"Derek G." wrote in message
...
On 1 May 2011 21:25:25 GMT, Huge wrote:


Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?


It's not that we "can" only have two of them, we just do.

Because no more have been built.

I assume not because of geography and cost.

From Wikipedia :

"The stalling of the UK nuclear power programme in the late 1980s and
the coincident dash for gas increased the proportion of dispatchable
plant on the network, making the use of pumped storage for day/night
load balancing less attractive. As a result, a similar facility
planned for Exmoor was never built."

According to Wiki the project was completed in 1974. Simple inspection
would reveal that was the start of the era of the second Wilson Labour
Government which I prefer to call "The years of stagnation" when many
large scale capital projects, such as new nuclear stations and major
new motorway schemes were cancelled leaving part built motorways not
reaching their destinations without regard to the consequences of the
lost facility.

Due to total mismanagement of the economy and a lack of funds to pay.
Pretty much the same as the last government.

Derek G

Steve Firth wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.


I promise to generate no electricity if the government pays me a
million quid. If they like I will promise to not generate 30GW or
more, whatever is necessary really.

I'm promising not to generate more than you so that make me richer
than you:-)

I can feel a Yorkshireman moment coming on...

No way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nLM0azB0H0

--
Adam

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
Steve Firth wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.


I promise to generate no electricity if the government pays me a
million quid. If they like I will promise to not generate 30GW or
more, whatever is necessary really.

I'm promising not to generate more than you so that make me richer
than you:-)

I can feel a Yorkshireman moment coming on...

No way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nLM0azB0H0

Wor Kate - a proper yorkshireman


--
geoff

On 5/2/2011 4:31 AM, Brian wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Could have used that power to charge an elecric car.

This bit tickled me most:

*A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC),
described the incident as "unusual" and said more electrical storage was
needed.*

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' - not in
that context anyway - can it?



Reducing power output from a hydroelectric system is equivalent to
storing energy in the hydro lakes. There may be issues with the
possible rate of change.

On 5/2/2011 5:49 AM, ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:
In whill.co.uk,
Dave wrote:
"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus
energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to
be cut."

That's the real reason. But why pay 'em just because they are
generating when the power isn't needed? That is *their* problem not
ours or National Grids.

But the power was needed. A fault outside the control of the wind
generator people meant it couldn't be used. Which is presumably
covered by a contract of some sort.

If they built then somewhere a little less windy then they would not have
this sort of problem.

LOL

On May 1, 10:27*pm, Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Rubbish. Its fully bi directional at flat out rate.

Quite. They can back up at a few moments notice.

How many moments though? The design can come on line for generation
in a little over a minute. If it's a pre-planned boost (post
Eastenders kettles) it's about 15 seconds. Coming on line as a power
dump though was never seen as needing this fast response (after all,
they were mostly sinking surplus from Trawsfynydd), so can't react so
fast.

It's not a barrier to Dinorwig's use for wind power, but if it was
designed now, it would be designed differently.

Guy Dawson wrote:
On 01/05/2011 18:19, Steve Eldridge wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:04:29 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:11:29 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus
energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to be
cut."

That's the real reason. But why pay 'em just because they are generating
when the power isn't needed? That is *their* problem not ours or
National Grids.

But who believes that? The whole purpose of the National Grid is like any
other network to prevent failure on one point breaking the system.

Chronic under investment in the national grid means it's not what it
used to be.

On the contrary, its the huge extra demand placed on it by intermittent
renewable energy that is the problem.

You need a grid conceptually oversized by the inverse of the
intermittent power source load average. Wind is about 25% overall. That
means to do the same job as conventional, you need 4 times as many power
lines etc.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:36:47 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the
surplus
energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had
to
be cut."
That's the real reason. But why pay 'em just because they are
generating when the power isn't needed? That is *their* problem
not
ours or National Grids.
But the power was needed.

I don't remember the lights going out, ergo the power wasn't needed.

Whitelee 322MW
Farr 92MW
Hadyardhill 120MW
Blacklaw 124MW
Millennium 50MW
Beinn Tharsuin 30MW

Total 738MW

Not much compared to the 30,000MW base load that nuclear provides or
the up to another 30,000MW that gas/coal provide.

A fault outside the control of the wind generator people meant it
couldn't be used.

So would a coal or nuclear station be compensated at the same rate
for the power they couldn't sell in similar circumstances?


Coal is being paid to remain idle right now.


Level playing field please.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Brian wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Brian wrote:

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' -
not in that context anyway - can it?
It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the tour
we went on.)
Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?


It's not that we "can" only have two of them, we just do.

Because no more have been built.

I assume not because of geography and cost.


You assume wrong.

ARWadsworth wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On May 1, 5:38 pm, Huge wrote:

It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the
tour we went on.)
The problem is also that Dinorwig is "upside down" compared to
what's really needed. It has the ability to suddenly _generate_ on
demand, but it's much less suitable for suddenly pumping, so as to
store a wind excess.

Rubbish. Its fully bi directional at flat out rate.
Quite. They can back up at a few moments notice.

They can make it rain?
No, they can pump water from a lower lake to an upper one.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Brian wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Brian wrote:

As far as I remember from school, electricity can't be 'stored' -
not in that context anyway - can it?
It can, in pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwig in Wales.

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

But we only have two of them (according to the lady who did the tour
we went on.)
Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?

It's not that we "can" only have two of them, we just do.

Because no more have been built.

I assume not because of geography and cost.


You assume wrong.

You misread my comment, which I admit was slightly ambiguous.

I assume that more have not been built because of the lack of suitable
sites and the cost of building them.


Ah. the dreaded omission of a comma!


You meant, I take it:

"I assume not, because of geography and cost".

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Guy Dawson
saying something like:

Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?

Geography. For pumped storage you need storage in the form of lakes.

A pumped storeage system is basically a hydro system where you can also
pump the water back to the high lake when there's surplus electricity.

There's a limit to the number of suitable lakes and amount of water they
can store.

This has been addressed. There's no shortage of potential lakes on the
West Coast of Wales and Scotland. There's also no shortage of whining
NIMBYs.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Guy Dawson
saying something like:

Ah right, didn't know that. Why can we only have two of them then?
Geography. For pumped storage you need storage in the form of lakes.

A pumped storeage system is basically a hydro system where you can also
pump the water back to the high lake when there's surplus electricity.

There's a limit to the number of suitable lakes and amount of water they
can store.

This has been addressed. There's no shortage of potential lakes on the
West Coast of Wales and Scotland.

Bull****.

And look at the cost of storing - say - two weeks of even the existing
windpower we have on tap (or not). A mere GW.

I estimate for the same price we could build an all nuclear grid and
have spare change left over.



There's also no shortage of whining
NIMBYs.

Mostly in the wind lobby.

Who consist almost entirely of urban voters who have already exported
all their waste and power generation to the countryside, as well as
their food generation, and now want to further pollute it with useless
Hoo sticks.


Once London (or any other town/suburbia/whatever) becomes self
sufficient in energy, food production, and waste disposal and water
usage, Londoners can comment about nimby's. Until then they can shut the
**** up.

By contrast my county is self sufficient in balance on all those things.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

This has been addressed. There's no shortage of potential lakes on the
West Coast of Wales and Scotland.

Bull****.

Really?
Do tell.
I'm waiting with unbated breath.

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Tim Streater
saying something like:

What's wrong with whining NIMBYs? In a country the size of ours, with
the population - and hence infrastructure requirements - that we have,
almost any large project is going to upset people. Far better then to
reduce the requirement as much as possible by building more nukes.

I can hear the NIMBYs now, whining about nukes.
Fwiw, I love nukes, especially if we get a thorium programme going, but
I'm not obsessional about them, unlike some.

We could also reduce the population. If we got it down to 30 million
we'd have the same density as France and NIMBY problems would reduce
considerably.

We could feed the NIMBYs to the thorium reactors.


What, a pressurised councillor reactor?

--
geoff