On Nov 6, 1:13*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,





*harry wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:27*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

8

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

And its the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen to power vehicles.

No one in their right minds wants to do that.

Could make synthetic diesel though.

You can superheat the water which lowers the energy needed to split it
into its elements.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.- Hide quoted text
-

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But nobody knows what to do with the nuclear waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...ement_of_waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ower_plants#Wa...
sal

It's known what to do all right. It's just harry-style scare mongering
that's the problem, preventing practical solutions being implemented.

Note that most nuclear waste is less radioactive than fly ash from
coal-fired power stations (it's just twerps like harry that don't know
this). The rest can be stored (if its not reprocessed) in salt caverns
that have been geologically stable for millions of years already.


Salt caverns eh. Heh Heh.
They are man made, no-one has any idea how stable they are.

On Nov 6, 4:44*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

Phew, got in just in time! *I am become one of the elite.
* I expect the price of panels will come down.
There won't half be a rush before Christmas.

Harry got in with plenty of time to spare. Those who get in 'just in
time' are those who are still in limbo but will get in by 12th December.

Mind you, £0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the
bank these days.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Not when you have to write down the initial investment to zero, it doesn't

The installation is a wasting asset so, as an investment, the capital
has to be recovered before any profit is made.

The argument against the 43.3 FIT seems to be that a 10% return is far
to high but it is a risky venture and deserves a substantial premium
over and above what can be gained from guaranteed investments. The real
profit is far in the future and there is plenty to go wrong over the 25
uncertain years the scheme will be in operation.

With a system costing £15000 and the FIT at 43.3p the expected income is
approximately equivalent to interest at 10% so for the first year there
is little prospect of any recovery of capital invested.

With a FIT of just 21p and notional interest of 4% there is at least a
£100 surplus to set against capital but the low return means that just
about any major expense will turn a poor return into a dead cert loss
maker. You can get 4% now on a number of 3 year fixed rate ISAs with
banks (including Northern Rock) where the Government has guaranteed that
your savings are safe. Who in their right mind is going to invest in
risky PV panels when there is a gold plated alternative available? *Yes
I know the scheme will still seem attractive to the committed Greeny but
such folk are so thin on the ground that that those with sufficient
funds to indulge their prejudices could probably be counted on the
fingers of one hand.

--
Roger Chapman

I see. And how about inflation and reduction of my (increasing)
electricity bills?
BTW, I have got 8% of my money bac kin the first six months.

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 05/11/2011 12:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's there more for statistical analysis: I want to do a 'what if we had
XYZ wind power, what would it cost and how much fuel; would it waste'
type calcs.

There was at least one period earlier in the year (but probably more)
where the windmills were producing next to nothing. Have you any figures
from this (these) period(s) as to duration (of say minimum plus 100%)
and the actual minimum reached?

Almost certainly, If I understood exactly what you wanted.

Can you specify that EXACTLY.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On Nov 6, 1:13 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

Note that most nuclear waste is less radioactive than fly ash from
coal-fired power stations (it's just twerps like harry that don't know
this). The rest can be stored (if its not reprocessed) in salt caverns
that have been geologically stable for millions of years already.

Salt caverns eh. Heh Heh.
They are man made, no-one has any idea how stable they are.

Oh what an ignorant little toad it is, to be sure.

So what if they're man made. In fact such caverns are already used for
storing natural gas - under pressure. The geologists will tell you that
the salt formations have been there for millions of years. And since
it's *salt*, which dissolves in water, then you can deduce there've been
no earthquakes of any note there for eons. Otherwise water would
probably have got in.

I agree *you* may not know how stable they are.

Well; that fits.
Harry is no-one.

On 06/11/2011 17:36, harry wrote:
On Nov 6, 4:44 pm, Roger wrote:

With a FIT of just 21p and notional interest of 4% there is at least a
£100 surplus to set against capital but the low return means that just
about any major expense will turn a poor return into a dead cert loss
maker. You can get 4% now on a number of 3 year fixed rate ISAs with
banks (including Northern Rock) where the Government has guaranteed that
your savings are safe. Who in their right mind is going to invest in
risky PV panels when there is a gold plated alternative available? Yes
I know the scheme will still seem attractive to the committed Greeny but
such folk are so thin on the ground that that those with sufficient
funds to indulge their prejudices could probably be counted on the
fingers of one hand.


I see. And how about inflation and reduction of my (increasing)
electricity bills?
BTW, I have got 8% of my money bac kin the first six months.

So you might manage 10% total when you add on the next six months.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 31/10/2011 18:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Cash wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-31, Dave Liquorice
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15507750

Down to 21p/kWHr for installations completed after 12th Dec 2011.
Excellent news. Pity they don't make it retrospective.

+1

I hope they now also reduce (or even abolish) the 6% surcharge that's
being added to the energy bills to cover stuff like FIT.


Cash

The way it works is that the distribution companies are forced to pay
over the odds to the FITTers.

And so bills have to rise..I am not sure there is a fixed surcharge -
its just that te companies are having to raise prices becaise
- gas is more expensive
- coal is taxed
- renewables are mandatory and cost 2-10 times more
- the nuclear that we have paid for 40 years ago is now coming off line.
- maintaining the backup plant for the renewables is now expeniove as
well..
- with Germany's nuclear plant now offline we are having to take up the
slack by running more expensive coal as well. Germany's decision added
about 10% to everyone's bill. Its good for our balance of payments as we
are now moving towards net electricity exports, BUT it means higher prices.

If we get a cold winter, lord knows if the EU mainland will be able to
cope.
I wondered why my Drax shares were doing so well since the market
turmoil - healthy dividends too.

On 06/11/2011 18:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 05/11/2011 12:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's there more for statistical analysis: I want to do a 'what if we had
XYZ wind power, what would it cost and how much fuel; would it waste'
type calcs.

There was at least one period earlier in the year (but probably more)
where the windmills were producing next to nothing. Have you any
figures from this (these) period(s) as to duration (of say minimum
plus 100%) and the actual minimum reached?

Almost certainly, If I understood exactly what you wanted.

Can you specify that EXACTLY.

Sorry if that was as clear as mud.

I am interested in the low points we had this year and also how long
they lasted, periods that depend on what is used as the cut-off limits.
With no real idea of the slope of the graph either side of the minimum
double the minimum might be a reasonable compromise so if the minimum
was say 0.1 GW the relevant period would be the time during which the
output was below 0.2 GW. However thinking about it since that might be a
very broad brush if twice the minimum is a relatively respectable output.

So if you could please provide details of the lowest output you have
recorded together with margins you consider reflect the seriousness of
the problem (from the grid's point of view). If you have the load factor
achieved at the minimum that would be a bonus.

I hope this makes more sense than my first attempt. ;-)

--
Roger Chapman

On 05/11/2011 12:23, Jason wrote:
On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
....

Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs everything
sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute and protect ourselves
from this is going to be vital.


Food and available clean water will disappear before oil does.

But with PV, everyone can participate.
Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

On 01/11/2011 09:17, harry wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:49 pm, Bob wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:24:19 -0700, harry wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:18 pm, "Dave
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15507750

Down to 21p/kWHr for installations completed after 12th Dec 2011.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Phew, got in just in time! I am become one of the elite.

The word is 'leech'.

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

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

So how about people who traded in cars under the "scrappage" scheme?
The word for you is envy.

Strange how envious or hostile some people seem to be simply because
they missed the PV bonanza, yet some of them regularly post here how
cheaply they buy stuff and how much markup they add on when fleecing
some poor old lady somewhere .....

On 06/11/2011 17:36, harry wrote:
On Nov 6, 4:44 pm, Roger wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

Phew, got in just in time! I am become one of the elite.
I expect the price of panels will come down.
There won't half be a rush before Christmas.

Harry got in with plenty of time to spare. Those who get in 'just in
time' are those who are still in limbo but will get in by 12th December.

Mind you, £0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the
bank these days.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Not when you have to write down the initial investment to zero, it doesn't

The installation is a wasting asset so, as an investment, the capital
has to be recovered before any profit is made.

The argument against the 43.3 FIT seems to be that a 10% return is far
to high but it is a risky venture and deserves a substantial premium
over and above what can be gained from guaranteed investments. The real
profit is far in the future and there is plenty to go wrong over the 25
uncertain years the scheme will be in operation.

With a system costing £15000 and the FIT at 43.3p the expected income is
approximately equivalent to interest at 10% so for the first year there
is little prospect of any recovery of capital invested.

With a FIT of just 21p and notional interest of 4% there is at least a
£100 surplus to set against capital but the low return means that just
about any major expense will turn a poor return into a dead cert loss
maker. You can get 4% now on a number of 3 year fixed rate ISAs with
banks (including Northern Rock) where the Government has guaranteed that
your savings are safe. Who in their right mind is going to invest in
risky PV panels when there is a gold plated alternative available? Yes
I know the scheme will still seem attractive to the committed Greeny but
such folk are so thin on the ground that that those with sufficient
funds to indulge their prejudices could probably be counted on the
fingers of one hand.

I see. And how about inflation and reduction of my (increasing)
electricity bills?

That is how you are going to make your money. You need both RPI
increases in the FIT and most probably greater than RPI increases in the
cost of electricity. While the first is currently guaranteed and the
second expected if the Government should have a change in heart and
require the electricity companies to freeze their prices much of that
profit is likely to disappear.

BTW, I have got 8% of my money bac kin the first six months.

You can look at it that way if you like but from an investment
perspective you have yet to earn that 10% you are expecting on your
capital investment which would otherwise have been earning you perhaps
4% on an absolutely rock solid basis. PV panels really are in the jam
tomorrow range of investments. But look on the bright side. There is
such a range of possibilities that you could eventually make
significantly more (say 12% pa) if everything pans out OK for you but to
get there you still have to be around in 25 years time to collect on it.
By the same token the eventual outcome may be significantly lower than
the 10% that is bandied around at the moment and in my opinion is a much
more likely outcome than getting more than expected.

--
Roger Chapman

On 01/11/2011 09:40, harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:35 am, The Natural
wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

I don't think Harry has ever seriously pushed "saving the planet". It
is purely a financial investment with a "guaranteed" return

Given they've cut the subsidy much further and earlier than was planned,
here's hoping they cut the duration from 25 years to 10 or less.

I suspect that within 5 years government spending along with government
income will simply evaporate. When a counterparty in a contract goes
tits up, generally the contract is null and void. Or rather you get a
penny in the pound from the receiver, if anything.

So these cast iron contracts will become essentially as much use as a
Zimbabwean dollar note.

Ah another envious old man. Full of bull****. You need to get out
more.
In five years I will have had my money back very likely.

Not only that Harry, but your house is now worth more than one without
PV panels. The income from the panels could make the difference between
getting a mortgage or not. These payments aren't going to disappear
after redundancy, so lenders will accept them as guaranteed income.

In message , Roger Chapman
writes
On 06/11/2011 18:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 05/11/2011 12:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's there more for statistical analysis: I want to do a 'what if we had
XYZ wind power, what would it cost and how much fuel; would it waste'
type calcs.

There was at least one period earlier in the year (but probably more)
where the windmills were producing next to nothing. Have you any
figures from this (these) period(s) as to duration (of say minimum
plus 100%) and the actual minimum reached?

Almost certainly, If I understood exactly what you wanted.

Can you specify that EXACTLY.

Sorry if that was as clear as mud.

I am interested in the low points we had this year and also how long
they lasted, periods that depend on what is used as the cut-off limits.
With no real idea of the slope of the graph either side of the minimum
double the minimum might be a reasonable compromise so if the minimum
was say 0.1 GW the relevant period would be the time during which the
output was below 0.2 GW. However thinking about it since that might be
a very broad brush if twice the minimum is a relatively respectable output.

So if you could please provide details of the lowest output you have
recorded together with margins you consider reflect the seriousness of
the problem (from the grid's point of view). If you have the load
factor achieved at the minimum that would be a bonus.

I hope this makes more sense than my first attempt. ;-)


I thought it was the 15th February, but "britain becalmed " brought up
this

ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8234616/Wind-farms-beca
lmed-just-when-needed-the-most.html

--
geoff

On 01/11/2011 17:06, Roger Chapman wrote:
snip

If you want a legitimate tax free income without the uncertainties of
this scheme take out a cash ISA every year. And if you don't mind a

What a useless piece of investment advice. If you have spare cash even
the 21p FIT is worth having compared to 2% deposit rates. And it is
indexed linked so after a few years of deliberate inflation (to wipe
out the governments debts) you will still be getting a decent return.
Much better to put £10,680 into a share ISA every year and invest in
blue chip firms paying good dividends and reinvest those dividends.
The Alliance Trust in Dundee is way way cheaper than most other DIY
ISA and SIPP providers. If you still have at least 10 years to go to
retirement, putting money on deposit is just helping the banks to make
more profit.

little hassle take in a lodger. Last time I checked (which was several
years ago) you can make up to £4000 gross tax free which is much more
than Harry is getting and he has had to shell out £15000. Taking in
lodgers OTOH can be done at minimal expense. You don't have to feed them.



What happens if the lodger steals your financial details and commits
fraud ?. Will the banks or building societies then compensate you ?.

On 06/11/2011 21:41, geoff wrote:
I thought it was the 15th February, but "britain becalmed " brought up this

ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8234616/Wind-farms-beca
lmed-just-when-needed-the-most.html

I have a terrible memory but I had vague recollections of more than one
'flat spot' in the recent past.

--
Roger Chapman

Tim Streater wrote:

Note that most nuclear waste is less radioactive than fly ash from
coal-fired power stations (it's just twerps like harry that don't know
this). The rest can be stored (if its not reprocessed) in salt caverns
that have been geologically stable for millions of years already.


Are you saying that if I stood beside an unshielded kg of average waste fuel
from a nuclear plant I would receive a lower dose of radiation than if I
stood beside a similar amount of coal station fly ash?

Or do you mean that the radiation dispersed to the environment by coal
station flyash is more than the radiation emitted from a nuclear power
station and its appropriately stored waste per MWhr of electricity
produced?

One statement above is correct.

AJH

On 05/11/2011 20:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


What N Africa needs is 50 nukes doing electricity , desalination and
pumping the fresh water inland.

Could be a garden of eden.

Except noone wants to let the north africans anywhere nuclear material!

Cant do a lot with sealed unit enriched uranium.
Takes a LOT of technology to take a use rod and get plutonium out, and
even more to turn that into a bomb.

But you are right. **** em. Let em die in camel dung and may Allah rot
their souls. Etc. etc.


Last time I checked many of them were on board boats heading for
Lampedusa, which being part of Italy is just a few stops short
of Londonistan, where nine out of ten (who expressed a preference)
said they were heading for.

Much better to have a huge PV array there and then have an HVDC link to
mainland Europe.

Then we can do it instead.

On 06/11/2011 21:47, Andrew wrote:

If you want a legitimate tax free income without the uncertainties of
this scheme take out a cash ISA every year. And if you don't mind a

What a useless piece of investment advice. If you have spare cash even
the 21p FIT is worth having compared to 2% deposit rates. And it is
indexed linked so after a few years of deliberate inflation (to wipe out
the governments debts) you will still be getting a decent return.
Much better to put £10,680 into a share ISA every year and invest in
blue chip firms paying good dividends and reinvest those dividends.
The Alliance Trust in Dundee is way way cheaper than most other DIY
ISA and SIPP providers. If you still have at least 10 years to go to
retirement, putting money on deposit is just helping the banks to make
more profit.

You think what you like but as far as I am concerned the 21p FIT is too
risky for such a limited return. You don't get any capital growth with
the PV scheme either and the money invested declines in value just as if
it had been in a bank account that you can't actually get at. The one
advantage the bank account has is you are guaranteed to get your money
back almost whenever you want it even if it is returned in Wilsonian
'pound in your pocket' pounds.

Unless you are a higher rate tax payer the only persons who are going to
get any real benefit from an all share ISA are the agent who sold you
the scheme and the firm that administers the ISA.

little hassle take in a lodger. Last time I checked (which was several
years ago) you can make up to £4000 gross tax free which is much more
than Harry is getting and he has had to shell out £15000. Taking in
lodgers OTOH can be done at minimal expense. You don't have to feed them.

What happens if the lodger steals your financial details and commits
fraud ?. Will the banks or building societies then compensate you ?.

That is not particularly likely and as things stand at present banks and
building societies might well have to compensate if they are shown to be
negligent. OTOH it is hard to get any compensation from a financial
advisor who has been more concerned with lining his own pocket that
helping you make safe and rewarding investments. Safe and rewarding
don't tend to go together in any event.

--
Roger Chapman

"andrew" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

Note that most nuclear waste is less radioactive than fly ash from
coal-fired power stations (it's just twerps like harry that don't know
this). The rest can be stored (if its not reprocessed) in salt caverns
that have been geologically stable for millions of years already.


Are you saying that if I stood beside an unshielded kg of average waste
fuel
from a nuclear plant I would receive a lower dose of radiation than if I
stood beside a similar amount of coal station fly ash?

No, he said most nuclear waste, there are different classifications all of
which have to be stored as they are "radioactive".
With most of it the human body is more active.

Spent fuel is highly radioactive as it contains many short lived isotopes.
It needs to be stored for a few years for it to decay, or be burnt in a
specialist reactor of which we don't have any.

There are a few tons of that stuff about.

So how old is the waste fuel?


Or do you mean that the radiation dispersed to the environment by coal
station flyash is more than the radiation emitted from a nuclear power
station and its appropriately stored waste per MWhr of electricity
produced?

Over the life of a plant that is probably true.


One statement above is correct.

AJH

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:21:08 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

Strange how envious or hostile some people seem to be simply because
they missed the PV bonanza

There is no envy. Its just that some of us would rather subsidise a
new generation of nukes that will keep the lights on than wind
turbines and roofs of ****ty PV's that do sweet f*ck all except
penalise every consumer for zero benefit.


--

On 06/11/2011 22:19, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 06/11/2011 21:47, Andrew wrote:

If you want a legitimate tax free income without the uncertainties of
this scheme take out a cash ISA every year. And if you don't mind a

What a useless piece of investment advice. If you have spare cash even
the 21p FIT is worth having compared to 2% deposit rates. And it is
indexed linked so after a few years of deliberate inflation (to wipe out
the governments debts) you will still be getting a decent return.
Much better to put £10,680 into a share ISA every year and invest in
blue chip firms paying good dividends and reinvest those dividends.
The Alliance Trust in Dundee is way way cheaper than most other DIY
ISA and SIPP providers. If you still have at least 10 years to go to
retirement, putting money on deposit is just helping the banks to make
more profit.

You think what you like but as far as I am concerned the 21p FIT is too
risky for such a limited return. You don't get any capital growth with
the PV scheme either and the money invested declines in value just as if
it had been in a bank account that you can't actually get at. The one
advantage the bank account has is you are guaranteed to get your money
back almost whenever you want it even if it is returned in Wilsonian
'pound in your pocket' pounds.

Unless you are a higher rate tax payer the only persons who are going to
get any real benefit from an all share ISA are the agent who sold you
the scheme and the firm that administers the ISA.


Not true. My ISA is self invested in whatever I choose, shares, bonds,
etfs, gilt funds, unit trusts, investment trusts etc. No-one sold it to
me, I opened it years ago and it now worth 6 figures. The freedom
from CGT alone has made it worthwhile, despite hiccups with BP shares
in 2010, 75% loss on Barclays bank and theft of railtrack shares by that
money-grabbing lying cheat Byers.

Someone, somewhere has a share ISA that is now worth over £5 million,
but he or she may have some insider knowledge to get it that high.
Quite a few people have £1 million+ share ISA's.

The dividends from the £5million will be about £150K per year, tax free,
so it is worth doing. Just do your own research and use
a low cost execution-only ISA provider like Alliance Trust. They only
charge as little as £6.25 plus 0.5% stamp duty on any sized deal.
When reinvesting dividends they only charge £5 plus stamp duty.
If you buy funds or unit trusts in an Alliance Trust ISA or SIPP they
refund all the up-front commission (generally 5%) plus some of the trail
commission. Other firms have similar arrangements.

At the moment there is no annual charge or low-activity charge on their
self-select ISA - but this may change in 2012 after Retail Disclosure
kicks in.

little hassle take in a lodger. Last time I checked (which was several
years ago) you can make up to £4000 gross tax free which is much more
than Harry is getting and he has had to shell out £15000. Taking in
lodgers OTOH can be done at minimal expense. You don't have to feed
them.

What happens if the lodger steals your financial details and commits
fraud ?. Will the banks or building societies then compensate you ?.

That is not particularly likely and as things stand at present banks and
building societies might well have to compensate if they are shown to be
negligent. OTOH it is hard to get any compensation from a financial
advisor who has been more concerned with lining his own pocket that
helping you make safe and rewarding investments. Safe and rewarding
don't tend to go together in any event.


Only stupid people use 'independent financial advisers'. A fool and his
money are soon parted, and that applies to anyone dealing with a
salesman who is on commission. Anyway, just because an investment has
turned out badly, doesn't mean that you were badly advised.
An IFA should asses what your level of risk is before suggesting
any particular products, but just remember that they are paid
by commission (until 2012).

As MacMillan once said when asked what his worst fears were, he replied
'Events dear boy, events'. You cannot predict what will happen next year
never mind 15 years ahead. No one would have predicted 0.5%
base rates by 2009 when back in 1991 it was 15%. Don't blame
IFA's for the collapse in maturity values of with-profit-funds.

Back in the eighties these and endowments were the flavour of the
month, and plenty of people who took them out before the 70's
inflation peak did well out of them. However once inflation and
interest rates fell in the 90's they did less well - and as usual
in Britain the 'compensation culture' took over. For every
salesman who sold a financial product on commission, there is at
least one member of the public who made
a miss-selling claim when actually they signed on the dotted line
because they were motivated by greed. In fact you could say that
the same people who took out endowment mortgages (who did so to pay
lower mortgage rates and dream about that big bonus cheque) are
the same sort of people who have put PV panels on their roofs,
or submitted exagerated insurance claims. The latter is fraud,
PV panels were a good way to get a good return, as were
with-profit-funds in the past. Offer free money to anyone
and they will take it - witness the B2L jamboree.

Sensible people recognised that a standard mortgage paid off some
capital every year, and increasingly after year 10, so the debt
is going down. I have to query the mental state of anyone who
thought that an endowment mortgage was a good idea.

The only safe investment is to buy Indexed Linked Gilts. But
they are now trading at a premium so you wont make much money.
If you need to keep up with inflation then some degree of risk
is needed. Over a longer time frame (7 years +) then equities
are an acceptable risk. Banks and BP aside you won't go far
wrong investing directly in BT, GSK, Vodaphone, Unilever, Shell,
Rolls Royce, Reckitt Benckiser, National Grid, United Utilities
and many more FTSE100 companies that have a track record of increasing
dividends. Then there plenty of well-run companies in the FTSE250
index. Invest in a low cost tracker if you dont like the idea of
direct investing, but remember that trackers, as their name suggests
can go down as well as up, whereas defensive shares are more stable
(but will go down when interest rates go up).

No CASH ISA will keep up with inflation, and tend to have
lousy rates anyway. £10,000 invested in PV panels is
probably as good as the same amount in Nat Savings indexed bonds
(if they are still available). Failing that NAtional Grid have
issued indexed linked corporate bonds which were all snapped up
(but you can still buy them because they are traded every day).

If you don't like 'risk', leave your money in a deposit account and
after about 20 years it will be worth a fraction due to inflation -
the riskiest decision you could have made.

What ever you, do not invest in a structured guaranteed product that
gives you (for example) 50% of the FTSE rise over a 6 year period or
your money back.
After 6 years you will have not had any income, certainly no
dividends and if the markets tumble just before the maturity date
you will have lost a big chunk to inflation. The BS also gets
8% commission on these nasty products, plus 1% annual trail
commission. As usual these are typically sold to nervous older
people who don't appreciate the risks of the counterparty
going bust (Lemans in 2008). You can lose all your money on these,
and you would need to study the T&C very carefully so see
if the BS would be liable. With a direct investment in shares,
investment trusts or unit trusts, if the markets crash, then just wait
for them to recover - they always have in the past. Meanwhile you are
still getting dividends.

On 05/11/2011 23:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 05/11/2011 20:33, Ghostrecon wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:45:40 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
...
Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these
renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs
everything sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute
and protect ourselves from this is going to be vital.

What a set of fatheads.

1) geothermal. Sod all of that in this country

2) bio-fuel to replace petrol. Requires we plant an area the size of
Wales as a mono-culture.

and so on. Wave, tidal stream, wind - none can each provide more
than a
few % of our needs. Each will require lots more power lines
criss-crossing the nation.

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.

+1

And if they get their act together with some development of large
scale liquid salt thorium reactors, you get less waste disposal
problems, and fuel for the things is laying all over the place just
waiting for someone to find a use for it!



Throium is no golden solution.

Compared to the way we currently use uranium (i.e. we extract less than
1% of the available energy from the fuel, and treat the rest as waste),
it comes pretty close.

It has its own waste products.

Hundreds of times less in volume however simply as a result of the fuel
cycle consuming all of the fuel.

But we are about as far advanced with nuclear chemistry as cavemen were
when they first discovered wood burned..and how to light a fire. In

Agreed. No reason to no do the research though, unless we want to be
buying expertise in that from China along with everything else as well.

principle any element heavier than iron will fission and release energy
and any element lighter than iron will fusion and release energy.

Uranium juts happens to be something that does it spontaneously. So its
a good way to 'start' nuclear 'fires'. But particle accelerators and
lasers make good 'matches' as well. Huge potential there for burning up
all sorts of **** and transmuting it into something more stable, and
getting energy out.

For anyone interested, this vid starts with a quick and effective intro,
followed by a quite detailed look at the history and how we got to he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...id=EHdRJqi__Z8


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andrew wrote:
On 31/10/2011 18:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Cash wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-10-31, Dave Liquorice
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15507750

Down to 21p/kWHr for installations completed after 12th Dec 2011.
Excellent news. Pity they don't make it retrospective.

+1

I hope they now also reduce (or even abolish) the 6% surcharge that's
being added to the energy bills to cover stuff like FIT.


Cash

The way it works is that the distribution companies are forced to pay
over the odds to the FITTers.

And so bills have to rise..I am not sure there is a fixed surcharge -
its just that te companies are having to raise prices becaise
- gas is more expensive
- coal is taxed
- renewables are mandatory and cost 2-10 times more
- the nuclear that we have paid for 40 years ago is now coming off line.
- maintaining the backup plant for the renewables is now expeniove as
well..
- with Germany's nuclear plant now offline we are having to take up the
slack by running more expensive coal as well. Germany's decision added
about 10% to everyone's bill. Its good for our balance of payments as we
are now moving towards net electricity exports, BUT it means higher
prices.

If we get a cold winter, lord knows if the EU mainland will be able to
cope.
I wondered why my Drax shares were doing so well since the market
turmoil - healthy dividends too.

shares in DRAX? surely that was sold to EDF along with the nukes?

What ticker code?

geoff wrote:
In message , Roger Chapman
writes
On 06/11/2011 18:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 05/11/2011 12:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's there more for statistical analysis: I want to do a 'what if
we had
XYZ wind power, what would it cost and how much fuel; would it waste'
type calcs.

There was at least one period earlier in the year (but probably more)
where the windmills were producing next to nothing. Have you any
figures from this (these) period(s) as to duration (of say minimum
plus 100%) and the actual minimum reached?

Almost certainly, If I understood exactly what you wanted.

Can you specify that EXACTLY.

Sorry if that was as clear as mud.

I am interested in the low points we had this year and also how long
they lasted, periods that depend on what is used as the cut-off
limits. With no real idea of the slope of the graph either side of the
minimum double the minimum might be a reasonable compromise so if the
minimum was say 0.1 GW the relevant period would be the time during
which the output was below 0.2 GW. However thinking about it since
that might be a very broad brush if twice the minimum is a relatively
respectable output.

So if you could please provide details of the lowest output you have
recorded together with margins you consider reflect the seriousness of
the problem (from the grid's point of view). If you have the load
factor achieved at the minimum that would be a bonus.

I hope this makes more sense than my first attempt. ;-)


I thought it was the 15th February, but "britain becalmed " brought up this

ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8234616/Wind-farms-beca
lmed-just-when-needed-the-most.html

I dont go back that far.

here's a quick dump of wind less than 30MW - that's less than 1% of
'capacity' which is around 3.5GW on the 'metered' wind..

mysql select timestamp, wind from day where wind 30;
+---------------------+------+
| timestamp | wind |
+---------------------+------+
| 2011-07-02 07:25:02 | 29 |
| 2011-07-02 07:30:02 | 28 |
| 2011-07-02 07:35:07 | 28 |
| 2011-07-02 07:40:02 | 27 |
| 2011-07-02 07:45:02 | 27 |
| 2011-07-02 07:50:02 | 26 |
| 2011-07-02 07:55:02 | 24 |
| 2011-07-02 08:00:02 | 24 |
| 2011-07-02 08:05:13 | 23 |
| 2011-07-02 08:10:02 | 22 |
| 2011-07-02 08:15:02 | 22 |
| 2011-07-02 08:20:02 | 23 |
| 2011-07-02 08:25:02 | 21 |
| 2011-07-02 08:30:01 | 20 |
| 2011-07-02 08:35:02 | 20 |
| 2011-07-02 08:40:02 | 21 |
| 2011-07-02 08:45:01 | 21 |
| 2011-07-02 08:50:01 | 21 |
| 2011-07-02 08:55:01 | 22 |
| 2011-07-02 09:00:01 | 22 |
| 2011-09-15 08:35:02 | 24 |
| 2011-09-15 08:40:01 | 26 |
| 2011-09-15 08:45:01 | 26 |
| 2011-09-15 08:50:14 | 25 |
| 2011-09-15 08:55:01 | 25 |
| 2011-09-15 09:00:02 | 25 |
| 2011-09-15 09:05:02 | 25 |
| 2011-09-15 09:10:01 | 25 |
| 2011-09-15 09:15:04 | 24 |
| 2011-09-15 09:20:05 | 23 |
| 2011-09-15 09:25:02 | 23 |
| 2011-09-15 09:30:03 | 24 |
| 2011-09-15 09:35:06 | 24 |
| 2011-09-15 09:40:01 | 23 |
| 2011-09-15 09:45:02 | 22 |
| 2011-09-15 09:50:04 | 21 |
| 2011-09-15 09:55:06 | 21 |
| 2011-09-15 10:00:02 | 26 |
| 2011-09-15 10:05:04 | 27 |
| 2011-09-15 10:10:02 | 27 |
| 2011-09-15 10:15:02 | 27 |
| 2011-09-15 10:20:02 | 27 |
| 2011-09-15 10:25:10 | 27 |
| 2011-09-15 10:30:01 | 23 |
| 2011-09-15 10:35:03 | 22 |
| 2011-09-15 10:40:01 | 21 |
| 2011-09-15 10:45:18 | 23 |
| 2011-09-15 10:50:01 | 23 |
| 2011-09-15 10:55:03 | 24 |
| 2011-09-15 11:00:01 | 24 |
| 2011-09-15 11:05:05 | 25 |
| 2011-09-15 11:10:02 | 24 |
| 2011-09-15 11:15:02 | 25 |
| 2011-09-15 11:20:05 | 25 |
| 2011-09-15 11:25:02 | 25 |
| 2011-09-15 11:30:01 | 26 |
| 2011-09-15 11:35:01 | 26 |
| 2011-09-15 11:40:09 | 26 |
| 2011-09-15 11:45:03 | 26 |
| 2011-09-15 11:50:02 | 26 |
| 2011-09-15 11:55:02 | 26 |
| 2011-09-15 12:00:04 | 28 |
| 2011-09-15 12:05:04 | 28 |
| 2011-09-15 12:10:04 | 28 |
| 2011-09-15 12:15:06 | 29 |
| 2011-09-15 12:20:02 | 29 |
| 2011-09-15 12:25:05 | 29 |
| 2011-09-15 12:35:02 | 29 |
| 2011-10-20 12:45:05 | 0 |
| 2011-10-20 12:50:02 | 0 |
+---------------------+------+
70 rows in set (0.02 sec)

The last two may be data failures.
the wind was below 300MW for 16% of the tortal time;

Average capacity (skewed by the fact we have had 6 weeks of high wind)
is 997MW.

mysql select avg(wind)from day;
+-----------------+
| avg(wind) |
+-----------------+
| 997.47356204348 |
+-----------------+
1 row in set (0.02 sec)

That's about 27% capacity factor..- up till September it was below 22%.

Slew rate is harder to establish..

Roger Chapman wrote:

Roger: email to you fails...so I cant send you data..

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 06/11/2011 21:41, geoff wrote:
I thought it was the 15th February, but "britain becalmed " brought up
this

ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8234616/Wind-farms-beca
lmed-just-when-needed-the-most.html

I have a terrible memory but I had vague recollections of more than one
'flat spot' in the recent past.

depends on how flat and for how long.

Its not unusual to see days when its below 10%

What is more concerning however, is when its blowing and then it
collapses in a heap.

And the error in forecasting even a few hours ahead..which is the sort
of spinning reserve you have to carry.



I HAVE DUMPED ALL WIND VALUES INTO CSV FILE
DOWNLOAD FROM http://www.shaman.co.uk/downloads/wind.csv

DYOC!

andrew wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Note that most nuclear waste is less radioactive than fly ash from
coal-fired power stations (it's just twerps like harry that don't know
this). The rest can be stored (if its not reprocessed) in salt caverns
that have been geologically stable for millions of years already.


Are you saying that if I stood beside an unshielded kg of average waste fuel
from a nuclear plant I would receive a lower dose of radiation than if I
stood beside a similar amount of coal station fly ash?


No, if you stood beside the average waste from, a terawatt hour of coal
produced electricity you would receive more radiation than from a
terawatt hour of nuclear electricity.

Or do you mean that the radiation dispersed to the environment by coal
station flyash is more than the radiation emitted from a nuclear power
station and its appropriately stored waste per MWhr of electricity
produced?


The latter.

One statement above is correct.

AJH

Andrew wrote:
On 05/11/2011 20:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


What N Africa needs is 50 nukes doing electricity , desalination and
pumping the fresh water inland.

Could be a garden of eden.

Except noone wants to let the north africans anywhere nuclear material!

Cant do a lot with sealed unit enriched uranium.
Takes a LOT of technology to take a use rod and get plutonium out, and
even more to turn that into a bomb.

But you are right. **** em. Let em die in camel dung and may Allah rot
their souls. Etc. etc.


Last time I checked many of them were on board boats heading for
Lampedusa, which being part of Italy is just a few stops short
of Londonistan, where nine out of ten (who expressed a preference)
said they were heading for.

Much better to have a huge PV array there and then have an HVDC link to
mainland Europe.


well teh link alone would only cost ten times what the PVS cost and the
PVS would only cost ten times what a nuke costs, and there still
wouldn't be the square root of sweet fanny adams after dark, or indeed
when they occupied the HVDC station brandishing swords dipped in camel
dug and demanding lifetime pensions,., or simply smashed the bloody
panels in a fit of pique.

So its pretty much the usual green style of fantasy thinking.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
andrew wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

Note that most nuclear waste is less radioactive than fly ash from
coal-fired power stations (it's just twerps like harry that don't know
this). The rest can be stored (if its not reprocessed) in salt caverns
that have been geologically stable for millions of years already.

Are you saying that if I stood beside an unshielded kg of average
waste fuel
from a nuclear plant I would receive a lower dose of radiation than if I
stood beside a similar amount of coal station fly ash?

No, I'm saying that most stuff produced *at* a nuclear power station
that is classified as nuclear waste, is in fact not particularly
radioactive at all. As Menace has said, the remainder (which *is*
dangerous), is far less in quantity than is commonly supposed.


If we were 'all nuclear' your lifetimes energy footprint of high level
waste could be put in a glass ball that you could hold in the palm of
your hand.


Or do you mean that the radiation dispersed to the environment by coal
station flyash is more than the radiation emitted from a nuclear power
station and its appropriately stored waste per MWhr of electricity
produced?

This is certainly the case.

John Rumm wrote:
On 05/11/2011 23:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 05/11/2011 20:33, Ghostrecon wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:45:40 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
...
Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these
renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs
everything sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute
and protect ourselves from this is going to be vital.

What a set of fatheads.

1) geothermal. Sod all of that in this country

2) bio-fuel to replace petrol. Requires we plant an area the size of
Wales as a mono-culture.

and so on. Wave, tidal stream, wind - none can each provide more
than a
few % of our needs. Each will require lots more power lines
criss-crossing the nation.

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of
nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.

+1

And if they get their act together with some development of large
scale liquid salt thorium reactors, you get less waste disposal
problems, and fuel for the things is laying all over the place just
waiting for someone to find a use for it!



Throium is no golden solution.

Compared to the way we currently use uranium (i.e. we extract less than
1% of the available energy from the fuel, and treat the rest as waste),
it comes pretty close.

It has its own waste products.

Hundreds of times less in volume however simply as a result of the fuel
cycle consuming all of the fuel.

But we are about as far advanced with nuclear chemistry as cavemen were
when they first discovered wood burned..and how to light a fire. In

Agreed. No reason to no do the research though, unless we want to be
buying expertise in that from China along with everything else as well.

principle any element heavier than iron will fission and release energy
and any element lighter than iron will fusion and release energy.

Uranium juts happens to be something that does it spontaneously. So its
a good way to 'start' nuclear 'fires'. But particle accelerators and
lasers make good 'matches' as well. Huge potential there for burning up
all sorts of **** and transmuting it into something more stable, and
getting energy out.

For anyone interested, this vid starts with a quick and effective intro,
followed by a quite detailed look at the history and how we got to he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...id=EHdRJqi__Z8



Good vid BUT this is all 20 years off at least. We need uranium reactors
NOW!

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

shares in DRAX? surely that was sold to EDF along with the nukes?
What ticker code?

LSERX

On Nov 6, 6:40*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:13*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
Note that most nuclear waste is less radioactive than fly ash from
coal-fired power stations (it's just twerps like harry that don't know
this). The rest can be stored (if its not reprocessed) in salt caverns
that have been geologically stable for millions of years already.

Salt caverns eh. *Heh Heh.
They are man made, no-one has any idea how stable they are.

Oh what an ignorant little toad it is, to be sure.

So what if they're man made. In fact such caverns are already used for
storing natural gas - under pressure. The geologists will tell you that
the salt formations have been there for millions of years. And since
it's *salt*, which dissolves in water, then you can deduce there've been
no earthquakes of any note there for eons. Otherwise water would
probably have got in.

I agree *you* may not know how stable they are.


Niether do you or anyone else.
The salt may have been there for millions of years. But not the
holes.
Ergo they are not stable.
Only a halfwit would think they might be.
But then only halfwits can't see the dangers appertaining to nuclear
power.

On Nov 6, 9:10*pm, Andrew wrote:
On 05/11/2011 12:23, Jason wrote:

On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
....

Solar PV can be only part of the plan. *We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs everything
sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute and protect ourselves
from this is going to be vital.

Food and available clean water will disappear before oil does.



But with PV, everyone can participate.
Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That may well be true. It already has in parts of Africa.

On Nov 6, 9:21*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 06/11/2011 17:36, harry wrote:





On Nov 6, 4:44 pm, Roger *wrote:
On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

Phew, got in just in time! *I am become one of the elite.
* *I expect the price of panels will come down.
There won't half be a rush before Christmas.

Harry got in with plenty of time to spare. Those who get in 'just in
time' are those who are still in limbo but will get in by 12th December.

On Nov 6, 9:26*pm, Andrew wrote:
On 01/11/2011 09:40, harry wrote:





On Nov 1, 9:35 am, The Natural
wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

I don't think Harry has ever seriously pushed "saving the planet". It
is purely a financial investment with a "guaranteed" return

Given they've cut the subsidy much further and earlier than was planned,
here's hoping they cut the duration from 25 years to 10 or less.

I suspect that within 5 years government spending along with government
income will simply evaporate. When a counterparty in a contract goes
tits up, generally the contract is null and void. Or rather you get a
penny in the pound from the receiver, if anything.

So these cast iron contracts will become essentially as much use as a
Zimbabwean dollar note.

Ah another envious old man. *Full of bull****. *You need to get out
more.
In five years I will have had my money back very likely.

Not only that Harry, but your house is now worth more than one without
PV panels. The income from the panels could make the difference between
getting a mortgage or not. These payments aren't going to disappear
after redundancy, so lenders will accept them as guaranteed income.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The house is better then zero energy. I have no heating fuel bill and
I export electricity. I have no plans to move.
It is an existing house converted. With what I found out, I could
build an even better one from scratch.

On Nov 6, 10:24*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"andrew" wrote in message

...

Tim Streater wrote:

Note that most nuclear waste is less radioactive than fly ash from
coal-fired power stations (it's just twerps like harry that don't know
this). The rest can be stored (if its not reprocessed) in salt caverns
that have been geologically stable for millions of years already.

Are you saying that if I stood beside an unshielded kg of average waste
fuel
from a nuclear plant I would receive a lower dose of radiation than if I
stood beside a similar amount of coal station fly ash?

No, he said most nuclear waste, there are different classifications all of
which have to be stored as they are "radioactive".
With most of it the human body is more active.

Spent fuel is highly radioactive as it contains many short lived isotopes..
It needs to be stored for a few years for it to decay, or be burnt in a
specialist reactor of which we don't have any.

There are a few tons of that stuff about.

So how old is the waste fuel?



Or do you mean that the radiation dispersed to the environment by coal
station flyash is more than the radiation emitted from a nuclear power
station and its appropriately stored waste per MWhr of electricity
produced?

Over the life of a plant that is probably true.


Stored for "only" 30,000 years in some cases.

"harry" wrote in message
...

Stored for "only" 30,000 years in some cases.

You still don't understand the relation between half life and activity do
you?
If it lasts 30,000 years you could store it safely by using it as an
aggregate in concrete floors in houses.

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

But it's easy to get it *right*. I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:44:38 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

But it's easy to get it *right*. I assume it's a another broken copy
of windows live mail to blame.

On a slightly different note I've just found out that my local (state)
school has spent £30,000 installing PV panels. IMHO they should be
spending this money on the kids, not be gambling for the future.

They proudly announced they had made £20 on the first day! (A bright
sunny one at that).

Ah but that would be £30k on their capital budget and £20 onto their revenue
budget.
One they can spend on the kids, the other they can't.

On 07/11/2011 06:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 06/11/2011 21:41, geoff wrote:
I thought it was the 15th February, but "britain becalmed " brought
up this

ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8234616/Wind-farms-beca

lmed-just-when-needed-the-most.html

I have a terrible memory but I had vague recollections of more than
one 'flat spot' in the recent past.

depends on how flat and for how long.

Its not unusual to see days when its below 10%

What is more concerning however, is when its blowing and then it
collapses in a heap.

And the error in forecasting even a few hours ahead..which is the sort
of spinning reserve you have to carry.



I HAVE DUMPED ALL WIND VALUES INTO CSV FILE
DOWNLOAD FROM http://www.shaman.co.uk/downloads/wind.csv

DYOC!


Many thanks TNP
--
Roger Chapman

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 11:06:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:23:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:25:06 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would
be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.
Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..
Sizewell B and Longannet going off line in quick succesion with the
loss of 1,510,000 kW generation gave the grid summat to think about
in May 2008. Load was shed, ie people had power cuts and most of the
country noticed the dip in voltage and then further voltage
reductions.

That's no worse than the wind dying over the whole country. We are
having to cope with that sort of loss on a weekly basis now.

It's a lot worse, the incident mentioned above happened in a two
minute timescale. If the wind suddenly stopped across the UK in the
space of 2 minutes I'd get really worried.


very easy to have a have overspeedinmg turbinesand switch whole wind
farms - 7000MW + off just like that.

P.S. I despise wind power.

The rate of change of generation from wind farms is relatively slow
compared to other sources. 15% in 30 minutes is typical. Or about
600MW with the current level of 4GW directly connected wind
generation.

Rather than look at wind turbines as generation it's more realistic to
class them as random demand reduction schemes as they perform in a
similar manner to consumer demand.

Predictions 6 hours ahead are only accurate to about +/- 25% at lower
total outputs, improving to about 10% on higher total outputs. So
that currently equates to a +/- 400MW error, 6 hours out.

Does anyone know of an energy supplier that sources their generation
only from nukes, hydro and UK coal, with less than 10% from fast
response gas generation, and with no wind, or PV?


--