Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed


--
geoff

geoff wrote:

Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed


missed it - any good?

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
geoff wrote:

Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed


missed it - any good?

We'll tell you after it's been broadcast...

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:29:46 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
geoff wrote:

Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed


missed it - any good?

We'll tell you after it's been broadcast...

LOL



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

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Feb 9, 12:29 am, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:

geoff wrote:

Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed

missed it - any good?

We'll tell you after it's been broadcast...

what a ****wit ;))))

Jim K

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:56:44 +0000, geoff wrote:


Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed


"Jonathan Maitland looks at whether the Government's commitment to
renewable energy could increase our household bills"

So why is it going to take them a half hour slot? A handful of
seconds should be enough to prove beyond any doubt that greenwash
increases energy prices, reduces energy security, reduces system
stability and ultimately leads to total destruction of the economy.
it's not that I'm against green energy, but the energy sector is in a
mess and has been since Thatcher privatised it.

Its a pity that we haven't got someone in government with the big
enough balls to say no more consent for any gas fired generation, no
more incentives for wind turbines or solar. Someone that will stick
up two fingers at the Large Combustion Directive, and start building,
with public funds, a fleet of nukes in or very near cities such that
waste heat can be utilised, together with a couple of tidal barrages,
and expand use of our coal reserves rather than import.

Then we get base load from nukes, a regular dose of renewables that
are very predictable, fill in the gaps with coal and in the short term
gas, at lower cost than ****ing about with useless, countryside
destroying wind turbines and feed in tariffs for solar panels that
fleece us all (I'd revoke all the existing agreements too)

The **** hasn't hit the fan yet, but it's not far off.

--

Jim K wrote:
On Feb 9, 12:29 am, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:

geoff wrote:
Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed
missed it - any good?
We'll tell you after it's been broadcast...

what a ****wit ;))))

Jim K
I posted it on Thursday.. I don't bother what day of the week it is and
my computer said 'Thursday'

I didnt notice it was 00:10 Thursday morning..

In article , The Other Mike
writes
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:56:44 +0000, geoff wrote:

Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed

"Jonathan Maitland looks at whether the Government's commitment to
renewable energy could increase our household bills"

Oh dear, can't stand him. Sounds like it will be a superficial treatment
but may be worth a record and fast forward through.

Its a pity that we haven't got someone in government with the big
enough balls to say no more consent for any gas fired generation, no
more incentives for wind turbines or solar. Someone that will stick
up two fingers at the Large Combustion Directive, and start building,
with public funds, a fleet of nukes in or very near cities such that
waste heat can be utilised, together with a couple of tidal barrages,
and expand use of our coal reserves rather than import.

Then we get base load from nukes, a regular dose of renewables that
are very predictable, fill in the gaps with coal and in the short term
gas, at lower cost than ****ing about with useless, countryside
destroying wind turbines and feed in tariffs for solar panels that
fleece us all (I'd revoke all the existing agreements too)

Pretty much agree on that.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:56:44 +0000, geoff wrote:

Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed


"Jonathan Maitland looks at whether the Government's commitment to
renewable energy could increase our household bills"

So why is it going to take them a half hour slot? A handful of
seconds should be enough to prove beyond any doubt that greenwash
increases energy prices, reduces energy security, reduces system
stability and ultimately leads to total destruction of the economy.
it's not that I'm against green energy, but the energy sector is in a
mess and has been since Thatcher privatised it.

Its a pity that we haven't got someone in government with the big
enough balls to say no more consent for any gas fired generation, no
more incentives for wind turbines or solar. Someone that will stick
up two fingers at the Large Combustion Directive, and start building,
with public funds, a fleet of nukes in or very near cities such that
waste heat can be utilised, together with a couple of tidal barrages,
and expand use of our coal reserves rather than import.


At least one US reactor - I cant recall which one, was built, ready to
go, and then...the local authority said 'what plans have you for mass
evacuation if it melts down and cases a cloud of radioactivity everywhere'

I think they said, 'none,. because it cant'

It has been sitting there idle ever since. Several decades.



Then we get base load from nukes, a regular dose of renewables that
are very predictable,

well we have those. Tilbury wood burner, scottish and welsh hydro..but
there isn't really the possibility of much more than we have. Methane
digesters maybe and some trash burners..

That's it for *non intermittent* sources.

By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.


fill in the gaps with coal and in the short term
gas, at lower cost than ****ing about with useless, countryside
destroying wind turbines and feed in tariffs for solar panels that
fleece us all (I'd revoke all the existing agreements too)

The **** hasn't hit the fan yet, but it's not far off.


gas in Europe is skyrocketing.

Its going to be Coaled! hahahah.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.

By predictable renewables I was referring to tidal barrages. I
wouldn't rely on solar, even in midsummer, or wind on a windy day. If
the tides stop then we have more serious concerns than keeping the
lights on.


--

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


gas in Europe is skyrocketing.

Its going to be Coaled! hahahah.

LOL! Very good.

The Russians have been clever. First, they sell Europe lots of gas and
we become dependent on it, then they send us freezing weather so we
use vast amounts of it. That's what I call good marketing.

****in Russkies getting too damned smart.

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.

By predictable renewables I was referring to tidal barrages.

I am sure you were. They predictbility however is IRRELEVANT. Its the
variability that means they have to be balanced - and don't tell me 'its
always high tide somewhere' it may be, but tidal flows are pathetic on
the east coast.and you would STILL need a massive extesnion cable to
balance teh things.



I
wouldn't rely on solar, even in midsummer, or wind on a windy day. If
the tides stop then we have more serious concerns than keeping the
lights on.



It is NOT POSSIBLE to rely on ANY renewable that does not present as
stored energy - biofuels or hydroelectric, essentially..

Ergo all other forms are a complete con and should be discarded from any
sane nations portfolio.

With one possible exception. Countries with lots of hydro that don't
have quite enough rain.

New Zealand may find wind useful.

The USA in respect of the boulder dam in te middle of a desert might
find solar useful.

In both cases you can balance with directly available hydro power that
is capable of generating more power than the actual rainfall will allow.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.

By predictable renewables I was referring to tidal barrages. I
wouldn't rely on solar, even in midsummer, or wind on a windy day. If
the tides stop then we have more serious concerns than keeping the
lights on.

Supposedly in Oz they're planning these giant solar jobs (290MW each)
that use the heat to not only drive gennies but melt salt too. The salt
gets up to about 700C and during the night energy from it (down to 300C
or so) drives the gennies.

But then they have:

a) enough waste land (i.e. desert) to do that, relative to population
b) enough reliable sunshine

And a green brained PM.

Its MASSIVELY expensive. Look at the costs vis a vis nuclear - and they
HAVE the uranium, and the coastal strips are where the populations are -
not the flippin deserts! AND they could always stuff the waste back
where the uranium came from in the first place. In the middle of bugger
all where no one goes anyway.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.

By predictable renewables I was referring to tidal barrages.

I'm still waiting to hear where all these barrages are going to be, how
much each will cost and what will be its *average* output.


about three times the price and 1000 times the size and environmental
impact of an equivalent nuclear installation.

Further, Winky-pedia has this to say: "While some generation is
possible for most of the tidal cycle, in practice turbines lose
efficiency at lower operating rates. Since the power available from a
flow is proportional to the cube of the flow speed, the times during
which high power generation is possible are brief."

I wouldn't rely on solar, even in midsummer, or wind on a windy day.
If the tides stop then we have more serious concerns than keeping the
lights on.

That'll happen in a couple of billyun years when the oceans evaporate.


Nah..when the moon finally falls into los angeles.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
geoff wrote:
Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed

missed it - any good?


Err ... on in half an hour

--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
geoff wrote:
Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't noticed

missed it - any good?


Err ... on in half an hour

yerrs. will have to finally get to see it.

I bet its totally anodyne 'but we have to do this to Save The Planet'
etc etc.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:42:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Russians have been clever. First, they sell Europe lots of gas and
we become dependent on it, then they send us freezing weather so we use
vast amounts of it. That's what I call good marketing.

****in Russkies getting too damned smart.

They'll be building revolutionary new toroidal vane engines next...

On Feb 9, 3:42 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

gas in Europe is skyrocketing.

Its going to be Coaled! hahahah.

LOL! Very good.

The Russians have been clever. First, they sell Europe lots of gas and
we become dependent on it, then they send us freezing weather so we
use vast amounts of it. That's what I call good marketing.

****in Russkies getting too damned smart.

and what day do you think is it now?

Jim K

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:48:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.

By predictable renewables I was referring to tidal barrages.

I am sure you were. They predictbility however is IRRELEVANT. Its the
variability that means they have to be balanced - and don't tell me 'its
always high tide somewhere' it may be, but tidal flows are pathetic on
the east coast.and you would STILL need a massive extesnion cable to
balance teh things.

The balancing is done by the conventional generation, just as it
always has been done for decades.

Occasionally the peak of tidal generation will coincide with the
demand peak and if there are a few dozen nukes it may even mean
pumping rather than generating at the pumped storage stations . When
the peak is at other times, then some conventional generation will
drop off the bars, no different to what happens overnight at demand
minimum.

If nearly all the fossil fuelled coal fired stations have to shut down
for a few hours say from mid afternoon till 8pm rather than at 10pm
until 6am, because of the tidal barrrage generation then it matters
not a jot. At one time the big fossil fuelled units 500/600/660MW
were base load and all the others like 60/120/275/300's were up and
down like a whores drawers, but for 20+ years the big coal units have,
with one or two exceptions, not just been base load. They have two
shifted, and load followed. The load min to max recently has been
about 18GW. There is currently 18GW oil/coal/CCGT/OCGT reserve above
peak. 14GW of tidal would be useful regardless of when it was
delivered.

14 GW of predictable peak generation, (Severn and Morecambe Bay) is
far preferable to a remote maybe of 10GW of wind

Of course it may not work. They were talking about doing this 30+
years ago. F*ck all has happened, not because it isn't feasible, but
because no one wants to say just do it. If it doesn't work then we'll
have a nice dam to cross and admire the mudflats.

--

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:48:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.
By predictable renewables I was referring to tidal barrages.
I am sure you were. They predictbility however is IRRELEVANT. Its the
variability that means they have to be balanced - and don't tell me 'its
always high tide somewhere' it may be, but tidal flows are pathetic on
the east coast.and you would STILL need a massive extesnion cable to
balance teh things.

The balancing is done by the conventional generation, just as it
always has been done for decades.


which works ok when you only have a few GW to balance. Bloody
ineffeiceint of course and negates most of the fuel and price gains of
teh variable input elemnt, but yes, you CAN do it.

Until it starts to exceed the undispatchable demand on te grid. Then
you throw it away.


Occasionally the peak of tidal generation will coincide with the
demand peak and if there are a few dozen nukes it may even mean
pumping rather than generating at the pumped storage stations . When
the peak is at other times, then some conventional generation will
drop off the bars, no different to what happens overnight at demand
minimum.

If nearly all the fossil fuelled coal fired stations have to shut down
for a few hours say from mid afternoon till 8pm rather than at 10pm
until 6am, because of the tidal barrrage generation then it matters
not a jot.

well it does


First of all the coalers still have to keep warm by burning caol
Secondly they still have top be there and be maintained.
Thirdly is involves a hiogh power transmission limne that isn't
otherwise utilised.

The net effect is more expensive electricity and zero or very little
carbon reduction.


At one time the big fossil fuelled units 500/600/660MW
were base load and all the others like 60/120/275/300's were up and
down like a whores drawers, but for 20+ years the big coal units have,
with one or two exceptions, not just been base load. They have two
shifted, and load followed. The load min to max recently has been
about 18GW.

Possible is not the same as desirable.

Smoothing demand is teh best way to get the best use of fuel and capital
kit. That's why we built Dinorwig.

Reneable power makes things WORSE not better.

There is currently 18GW oil/coal/CCGT/OCGT reserve above
peak. 14GW of tidal would be useful regardless of when it was
delivered.


No it would be a total disaster in terms of how it affected teh rest of
the grid

14 GW of predictable peak generation, (Severn and Morecambe Bay) is
far preferable to a remote maybe of 10GW of wind


No. its even worse.


Of course it may not work. They were talking about doing this 30+
years ago. F*ck all has happened, not because it isn't feasible, but
because no one wants to say just do it. If it doesn't work then we'll
have a nice dam to cross and admire the mudflats.


Its feasible, but its even more expensive than offshore wind and
infinitely more environmentally destructive.

Its far simpler just to build a nuke

Or better up about 40GW of nukes, and then fill in the corners with gas.

On Feb 9, 2:51*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
Supposedly in Oz they're planning these giant solar jobs (290MW each)
that use the heat to not only drive gennies but melt salt too. The salt
gets up to about 700C and during the night energy from it (down to 300C
or so) drives the gennies.

First generation salt, second generation sodium.
It would work well for Spain & Africa, toss a cable over to Libya for
example.

Cost wise it could be very cheap and provides 24/7 power in southern
climates. However the initial solutions are relatively expensive, it
needs an order of magnitude reduction in the cost of reflectors and so
on. Space wise it is a carbuncle, but on a vast "mass production
scale" it is no different to the Hoover Dam. The only renewable I
agree with (although realise a good sandstorm could interrupt things
and make a bit of a mess), tidal is "the daft one before the even
dafter wind one".

Then again, if there are 8.3 billion barrels of oil off the Falklands,
we just got 830 billion at 100$ per barrel. Wouldn't it be nice if the
money were actually used to create a real low cost rail network +
nuclear infrastructure + true wireless library network? ... Sadly no,
it goes to fund the vast squandered socialist centrally planned
spending of decades past.

js.b1 wrote:
On Feb 9, 2:51 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
Supposedly in Oz they're planning these giant solar jobs (290MW each)
that use the heat to not only drive gennies but melt salt too. The salt
gets up to about 700C and during the night energy from it (down to 300C
or so) drives the gennies.

First generation salt, second generation sodium.
It would work well for Spain & Africa, toss a cable over to Libya for
example.

why not toss it to - say mercury.

Its no less stupid an idea, in fact it would be better, No fecking
ayrabs on Mercury, and its hotter.


Cost wise it could be very cheap

impossibly expensive.

and provides 24/7 power in southern
climates.

Wgere there is no water at all to provide the sink end of the
theormodynamic circuit..


However the initial solutions are relatively expensive, it
needs an order of magnitude reduction in the cost of reflectors and so
on. Space wise it is a carbuncle, but on a vast "mass production
scale" it is no different to the Hoover Dam. The only renewable I
agree with (although realise a good sandstorm could interrupt things
and make a bit of a mess), tidal is "the daft one before the even
dafter wind one".

Then again, if there are 8.3 billion barrels of oil off the Falklands,
we just got 830 billion at 100$ per barrel. Wouldn't it be nice if the
money were actually used to create a real low cost rail network +
nuclear infrastructure + true wireless library network? ... Sadly no,
it goes to fund the vast squandered socialist centrally planned
spending of decades past.

Well yes, that sounds more likely to happen than a secure low cost 50GW
cable to Libya...

On Feb 9, 11:19*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:48:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.
By predictable renewables I was referring to tidal barrages.
I am sure you were. They predictbility however is IRRELEVANT. Its the
variability that means they have to be balanced - and don't tell me 'its
always high tide somewhere' it may be, but tidal flows are pathetic on
the east coast.and you would STILL need a massive extesnion cable to
balance teh things.

The balancing is done by the conventional generation, just as it
always has been done for decades.

which works ok when *you only have a few GW to balance. Bloody
ineffeiceint of course and negates most of the fuel and price gains of
teh variable input elemnt, but yes, you CAN do it.

Until it starts to exceed the undispatchable *demand on te grid. Then
you throw it away.

Occasionally the peak of tidal generation will coincide with the
demand peak and if there are a few dozen nukes it may even mean
pumping rather than generating at the pumped storage stations . When
the peak is at other times, then some conventional generation will
drop off the bars, no different to what happens overnight at demand
minimum.

If nearly all the fossil fuelled coal fired stations have to shut down
for a few hours say from mid afternoon till 8pm rather than at 10pm
until 6am, because of the tidal barrrage generation then it matters
not a jot.

well it does

First of all the coalers still have to keep warm by burning caol
Secondly they still have top be there and be maintained.
Thirdly is involves a hiogh power transmission limne that isn't
otherwise utilised.

The net effect is more expensive electricity and zero or very little
carbon reduction.

* At one time the big fossil fuelled units 500/600/660MW

were base load and all the others like 60/120/275/300's were up and
down like a whores drawers, but for 20+ years the big coal units have,
with one or two exceptions, not just been base load. They have two
shifted, and load followed. *The load min to max recently has been
about 18GW.

Possible is not the same as desirable.

Smoothing demand is teh best way to get the best use of fuel and capital
kit. That's why we built Dinorwig.

Reneable power makes things WORSE not better.

* There is currently 18GW oil/coal/CCGT/OCGT reserve above

peak. *14GW of tidal would be useful regardless of when it was
delivered.

No it would be a total disaster in terms of how it affected teh rest of
the grid

14 GW of predictable peak generation, (Severn and Morecambe Bay) is
far preferable to a remote maybe of 10GW of wind

No. its even worse.

Of course it may not work. They were talking about doing this 30+
years ago. F*ck all has happened, not because it isn't feasible, but
because no one wants to say just do it. If it doesn't work then we'll
have a nice dam to cross and admire the mudflats.

Its feasible, but its even more expensive than offshore wind and
infinitely more environmentally destructive.

Its far simpler just to build a nuke

Or better up about 40GW of nukes, and then fill in the corners with gas.

There is one more factor to this not yet mentioned. Total demand is
influenced by the same factors as some intermittent generation, in
particular wind. In simple terms, more wind means more heat loss means
more demand (of course other factors are bigger). So one can reduce
the amount of variation on demand from traditional generation, thus
making it more economically efficient, by including just enough wind
generation to offset the amount of total demand variation due to wind.
The amount is small, much less than the greenies want.


NT

NT wrote:
On Feb 9, 11:19 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:48:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.
By predictable renewables I was referring to tidal barrages.
I am sure you were. They predictbility however is IRRELEVANT. Its the
variability that means they have to be balanced - and don't tell me 'its
always high tide somewhere' it may be, but tidal flows are pathetic on
the east coast.and you would STILL need a massive extesnion cable to
balance teh things.
The balancing is done by the conventional generation, just as it
always has been done for decades.
which works ok when you only have a few GW to balance. Bloody
ineffeiceint of course and negates most of the fuel and price gains of
teh variable input elemnt, but yes, you CAN do it.

Until it starts to exceed the undispatchable demand on te grid. Then
you throw it away.

Occasionally the peak of tidal generation will coincide with the
demand peak and if there are a few dozen nukes it may even mean
pumping rather than generating at the pumped storage stations . When
the peak is at other times, then some conventional generation will
drop off the bars, no different to what happens overnight at demand
minimum.
If nearly all the fossil fuelled coal fired stations have to shut down
for a few hours say from mid afternoon till 8pm rather than at 10pm
until 6am, because of the tidal barrrage generation then it matters
not a jot.
well it does

First of all the coalers still have to keep warm by burning caol
Secondly they still have top be there and be maintained.
Thirdly is involves a hiogh power transmission limne that isn't
otherwise utilised.

The net effect is more expensive electricity and zero or very little
carbon reduction.

At one time the big fossil fuelled units 500/600/660MW

were base load and all the others like 60/120/275/300's were up and
down like a whores drawers, but for 20+ years the big coal units have,
with one or two exceptions, not just been base load. They have two
shifted, and load followed. The load min to max recently has been
about 18GW.
Possible is not the same as desirable.

Smoothing demand is teh best way to get the best use of fuel and capital
kit. That's why we built Dinorwig.

Reneable power makes things WORSE not better.

There is currently 18GW oil/coal/CCGT/OCGT reserve above

peak. 14GW of tidal would be useful regardless of when it was
delivered.
No it would be a total disaster in terms of how it affected teh rest of
the grid

14 GW of predictable peak generation, (Severn and Morecambe Bay) is
far preferable to a remote maybe of 10GW of wind
No. its even worse.

Of course it may not work. They were talking about doing this 30+
years ago. F*ck all has happened, not because it isn't feasible, but
because no one wants to say just do it. If it doesn't work then we'll
have a nice dam to cross and admire the mudflats.
Its feasible, but its even more expensive than offshore wind and
infinitely more environmentally destructive.

Its far simpler just to build a nuke

Or better up about 40GW of nukes, and then fill in the corners with gas.

There is one more factor to this not yet mentioned. Total demand is
influenced by the same factors as some intermittent generation, in
particular wind. In simple terms, more wind means more heat loss means
more demand (of course other factors are bigger). So one can reduce
the amount of variation on demand from traditional generation, thus
making it more economically efficient, by including just enough wind
generation to offset the amount of total demand variation due to wind.
The amount is small, much less than the greenies want.
er sorry.

In summer more wind means cooler means less aircon needed.

In winter more wind means atlantic air means warmer means less
electricity needed.

So lets build - um - -1000 windmills!

Yeah! take down the ones we have. Greatest idea since sliced bread.


NT

The women said the way to deal with intermittant wind was to build windmills everywhere because "there's always wind somewhere". She didn't say what land area she was considering, so it just came across as vague waffle.

Simon.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:56:32 -0800 (PST), sm_jamieson wrote:

The women said the way to deal with intermittant wind was to build
windmills everywhere because "there's always wind somewhere".

I think I uttered the word "********" when she said that. Look at the
last few days, 3GW or so installed wind in the UK, producing a few
hundred MW. The same has applied over most of Europe recently as
well. Nice large high pressure, an what little wind there is bringing
cold arctic over vast areas. This is not a particularly rare weather
pattern.

--
Cheers
Dave.

sm_jamieson wrote:
The women said the way to deal with intermittant wind was to build windmills everywhere because "there's always wind somewhere". She didn't say what land area she was considering, so it just came across as vague waffle.


That was a wind lobby droid.

The facts of course utterly refute her logic.


Simon.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:56:32 -0800 (PST), sm_jamieson wrote:

The women said the way to deal with intermittant wind was to build
windmills everywhere because "there's always wind somewhere".

I think I uttered the word "********" when she said that. Look at the
last few days, 3GW or so installed wind in the UK, producing a few
hundred MW. The same has applied over most of Europe recently as
well. Nice large high pressure, an what little wind there is bringing
cold arctic over vast areas. This is not a particularly rare weather
pattern.


Nope. But surely glubble worming means we will get tropical downpours
and hurricanes instead?

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:09:47 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:56:32 -0800 (PST), sm_jamieson wrote:

The women said the way to deal with intermittant wind was to build
windmills everywhere because "there's always wind somewhere".

I think I uttered the word "********" when she said that. Look at the
last few days, 3GW or so installed wind in the UK,

I take issue with that 3GW or so. It's 4GW with operational metering
(where we can get real world figures to see how **** they are) and
approximately another 3GW where we can't, but their performance won't
be any different.

producing a few
hundred MW. The same has applied over most of Europe recently as
well. Nice large high pressure, an what little wind there is bringing
cold arctic over vast areas. This is not a particularly rare weather
pattern.

No, it happened last winter too, November 2010 iirc.


--