http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ars-early.html
"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because six
of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under European
rules. However, it now appears that half of these stations, representing 8pc
of Britain's capacity, are likely to shut early because they will have been
burning fuel for too many hours - more than 20,000 in total since 2008.

New Government estimates show Cockenzie, owned by Scottish Power, is likely
to have to close completely by April. Kingsnorth, owned by E.ON, is on track
to have to shut by March 2013. Meanwhile, Tilbury, which is being converted
into a biomass station by RWE, may have to go by July 2013 unless it can
convince the European Union (EU) its new fuel is cleaner.

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of power
from coal. On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's electricity came
from wind for the first time this quarter. However, Simon Cowdroy, of WSP
Future Energy, said: "Although the figures show a rise in renewable
generation, this may not be enough to prevent a shortfall in UK capacity."

Biomass could replace coal in some power stations. However, a Government
announcement on whether biomass will get higher subsidies has been delayed
this summer.

In recent weeks, a new warning has come from the EU's European Environment
Agency that bioenergy may be no more green than fossil fuels. "

I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations came
from.
http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/en...ion/coal.shtml
suggests around 50% comes from abroad.

Now I am a bit doubtful about the above statement that 10% of UK energy came
from wind, as Gridwatch isn't showing anywhere near that.
If wind peaks at arounf 1GW then at 10% that would be a maximum demand of
10GW.
Current (!) demand is between 50 and 60GW.
The yearly graphs show that demand hasn't been below 30GW since June.
Perhaps there were a few seconds on windy summer night when the wind output
just touched the 10%?
Even that seems very unlikely.

All of which leaves me with the depressing thought that if they are closing
coal fired power stations, not building new Carbon Capture ones, not
building nukes, and most of our gas will be coming from other countries we
are going to be in deep **** relatively soon.

Oh, and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-dash-for-gas
says
"The UK's "dash for gas" will be halted by the government because if
unchecked it would break legally binding targets for carbon dioxide
emissions, Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, said on Monday
evening.

"We will not consent so much gas plant so as to endanger our carbon dioxide
goals," he told a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats party conference
in Birmingham.

The number of gas-fuelled power plants is increasing rapidly because they
are fast and cheap to build compared with alternatives. They also create
about half the carbon emissions of coal-powered plants and have been seen as
a "transition fuel", helping smooth the path to zero-carbon electricity.

Barry Neville, director of public affairs at Centrica, which owns British
Gas, said: "Gas is a critical part of the fuel mix, it's a transition fuel.
At this moment in time it is crucial to the UK, as is nuclear and as are
renewables.

But climate change campaigners have warned that too much gas capacity is
being built, meaning either the carbon budgets intended to help tackle
global warming would be broken, or the gas plants would be left as stranded
assets.

"The secretary of state's statement is a welcome recognition by the
government that there are constraints on the deployment of gas as a
climate-effective solution to our future energy needs," said David Nussbaum,
chief executive of WWF UK. "The government should be looking at the
deployment of renewables, that already must be at 30% by 2020, at increasing
rates during the 2020s.""

Oh, and what are renewables?
One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil fuels.
That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind.
The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from hydro,
solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still winter nights.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

Cheers


Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

David WE Roberts wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ars-early.html

"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because
six of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under
European rules. However, it now appears that half of these stations,
representing 8pc of Britain's capacity, are likely to shut early because
they will have been burning fuel for too many hours - more than 20,000
in total since 2008.

New Government estimates show Cockenzie, owned by Scottish Power, is
likely to have to close completely by April. Kingsnorth, owned by E.ON,
is on track to have to shut by March 2013. Meanwhile, Tilbury, which is
being converted into a biomass station by RWE, may have to go by July
2013 unless it can convince the European Union (EU) its new fuel is
cleaner.

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of
power from coal. On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's
electricity came from wind for the first time this quarter. However,
Simon Cowdroy, of WSP Future Energy, said: "Although the figures show a
rise in renewable generation, this may not be enough to prevent a
shortfall in UK capacity."

Biomass could replace coal in some power stations. However, a Government
announcement on whether biomass will get higher subsidies has been
delayed this summer.

In recent weeks, a new warning has come from the EU's European
Environment Agency that bioenergy may be no more green than fossil fuels. "

I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations
came from.
http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/en...ion/coal.shtml

suggests around 50% comes from abroad.

Now I am a bit doubtful about the above statement that 10% of UK energy
came from wind, as Gridwatch isn't showing anywhere near that.
If wind peaks at arounf 1GW then at 10% that would be a maximum demand
of 10GW.
Current (!) demand is between 50 and 60GW.


select avg(wind/demand) from day;
+--------------------+
| avg(wind/demand) |
+--------------------+
| 0.0359833250896992 |
+--------------------+
1 row in set (0.20 sec)

mysql

So winds average contribution has been a proper average...

select avg(wind)/avg(demand) from day;
+-----------------------+
| avg(wind)/avg(demand) |
+-----------------------+
| 0.0351552456519308 |
+-----------------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)

make that 3.5%!!



The yearly graphs show that demand hasn't been below 30GW since June.
Perhaps there were a few seconds on windy summer night when the wind
output just touched the 10%?
Even that seems very unlikely.

Too long to post, but there are not a few samples in the database where
wind power exceeded 10% of demand for an hour or two. A warm wet windy
night is the best time to see this.




All of which leaves me with the depressing thought that if they are
closing coal fired power stations, not building new Carbon Capture ones,
not building nukes, and most of our gas will be coming from other
countries we are going to be in deep **** relatively soon.


Yup.

Oh, and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-dash-for-gas
says
"The UK's "dash for gas" will be halted by the government because if
unchecked it would break legally binding targets for carbon dioxide
emissions, Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, said on
Monday evening.


Chris Huhne is not teh energy and climate change secretary any more.


"We will not consent so much gas plant so as to endanger our carbon
dioxide goals," he told a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats party
conference in Birmingham.

Utter ********. we HAVE to add gas to complement wind power. The two are
inseparable.


The number of gas-fuelled power plants is increasing rapidly because
they are fast and cheap to build compared with alternatives. They also
create about half the carbon emissions of coal-powered plants and have
been seen as a "transition fuel", helping smooth the path to zero-carbon
electricity.


The number of gas plants being CLOSED is increasing, because wind is
more profitable and gas is very expensive, and the more wind you have
the less hours the gas plant runs to recoup its capital investment.

Barry Neville, director of public affairs at Centrica, which owns
British Gas, said: "Gas is a critical part of the fuel mix, it's a
transition fuel. At this moment in time it is crucial to the UK, as is
nuclear and as are renewables.

Actually renewables are not crucial for anything..


But climate change campaigners have warned that too much gas capacity is
being built, meaning either the carbon budgets intended to help tackle
global warming would be broken, or the gas plants would be left as
stranded assets.

"The secretary of state's statement is a welcome recognition by the
government that there are constraints on the deployment of gas as a
climate-effective solution to our future energy needs," said David
Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF UK. "The government should be looking
at the deployment of renewables, that already must be at 30% by 2020, at
increasing rates during the 2020s.""

Oh, and what are renewables?
One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil fuels.

Yep teh greens want to close down the wopodburner thats just got going
at Tilbury and is contributing half a a gigawatt.

That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind.
The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from
hydro, solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still
winter nights.


Despite massive investment, Germany has utterly failed to generate any
solar power after dark. But we are reliably informed that better
technology and more investment will solve this minor problem.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?


There are none at all.

We are not self sufficient in energy and we cannot ever be.

However a program of fast breeder reactors making more nuclear fuel out
of anything remotely fissile might make us so. As can fracking in the
short term - or even opening new coal mines..open cast scraping of poor
grade coal is relatively cheap, and we can burn brown coal as well as
any German.

Electricity is a sideshow though. The bigger problem is how to run the
transport system without petrol and diesel.

David WE Roberts wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...97523/UK-coal-
power-stations-set-to-close-up-to-four-years-early.html
"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because six
of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under European
rules. However, it now appears that half of these stations, representing
8pc of Britain's capacity, are likely to shut early because they will have
been burning fuel for too many hours - more than 20,000 in total since
2008.

New Government estimates show Cockenzie, owned by Scottish Power, is
likely to have to close completely by April. Kingsnorth, owned by E.ON, is
on track to have to shut by March 2013. Meanwhile, Tilbury, which is being
converted into a biomass station by RWE, may have to go by July 2013
unless it can convince the European Union (EU) its new fuel is cleaner.

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of
power from coal. On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's electricity
came from wind for the first time this quarter. However, Simon Cowdroy, of
WSP Future Energy, said: "Although the figures show a rise in renewable
generation, this may not be enough to prevent a shortfall in UK capacity."

Biomass could replace coal in some power stations. However, a Government
announcement on whether biomass will get higher subsidies has been delayed
this summer.

In recent weeks, a new warning has come from the EU's European Environment
Agency that bioenergy may be no more green than fossil fuels. "

I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations came
from.
http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/en...thermal-power-
generation/coal.shtml
suggests around 50% comes from abroad.

Now I am a bit doubtful about the above statement that 10% of UK energy
came from wind, as Gridwatch isn't showing anywhere near that.
If wind peaks at arounf 1GW then at 10% that would be a maximum demand of
10GW.
Current (!) demand is between 50 and 60GW.
The yearly graphs show that demand hasn't been below 30GW since June.
Perhaps there were a few seconds on windy summer night when the wind
output just touched the 10%?
Even that seems very unlikely.

It's ********, obvious to anyone who looks at the instananeosu figures a few
times - but TNP had hard data in his post anyway.

Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours here and
there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion programme will get
doubled and completed in half the time then...

--
Tim Watts

It's ********, obvious to anyone who looks at the instananeosu figures a few
times - but TNP had hard data in his post anyway.

Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours here and
there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion programme will get
doubled and completed in half the time then...


Lets hope this happens and show these bloody "experts" up for what they
are deluded bull ****ters;!...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
It's ********, obvious to anyone who looks at the instananeosu figures a few
times - but TNP had hard data in his post anyway.

Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours here and
there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion programme will get
doubled and completed in half the time then...


Lets hope this happens and show these bloody "experts" up for what they
are deluded bull ****ters;!...

Apparently London consumes as much as 10GW all by itself. Up to 20% of
the entire national demand.. greedy *******s. And not a single power
station left, hardly..

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:30:14 -0000, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ars-early.html
"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because six
of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under European
rules. However, it now appears that half of these stations, representing 8pc
of Britain's capacity, are likely to shut early because they will have been
burning fuel for too many hours - more than 20,000 in total since 2008.

Oh dear, the Large Combustion Plant Directive kicks us in the nuts.
What a surprise. Time we told Europe to **** off.

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of power
from coal.

If that is the case, let those that wish to be supplied from wind, be
supplied by wind and nothing else. Give them smart meters and when the
wind doesn't blow, their light go out, their freezer defrosts and they
won't be able to watch the telly.

On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's electricity came
from wind for the first time this quarter.

In their dreams

However, Simon Cowdroy, of WSP
Future Energy, said: "Although the figures show a rise in renewable
generation, this may not be enough to prevent a shortfall in UK capacity."

The shortfall has come because no one wants to invest long term in any
sustainable, reliable generation like nukes. Wind and solar make lots
of money fast but they do **** all except divert money from where it
is really needed. 10,000 wind turbines.... or a dozen nukes that will
reliably produce power for three or four decades, every day whatever
the weather?

Biomass could replace coal in some power stations. However, a Government
announcement on whether biomass will get higher subsidies has been delayed
this summer.

It's no good ****ing about with this. We don't have the land to grow
the crop. Shipping biomass in from the USA like they are doing at
Tilbury isn't very green is it?

In recent weeks, a new warning has come from the EU's European Environment
Agency that bioenergy may be no more green than fossil fuels. "

No **** sherlock.

I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations came
from.
http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/en...ion/coal.shtml
suggests around 50% comes from abroad.

Quite easily. You only need to see how much is produced in the UK.
"1.7 million tonnes of coal a year in 2009" claimed by UK coal, the
UK's largest producer. Drax burns around 8 million tonnes a year, 4GW
max output, load factor is in the mid 80%

So , finger in the air guess, that 1.7 million tonnes is roughly
equivalent to around 1GW of coal generation, given there are around
26GW of coal plant, that is less than 4% coming from local sources.
Thatcher's legacy. She must be so proud of that. Bitch.

All of which leaves me with the depressing thought that if they are closing
coal fired power stations, not building new Carbon Capture ones, not
building nukes, and most of our gas will be coming from other countries we
are going to be in deep **** relatively soon.

We are. We should have been building new nukes at least three years
ago. Building. Not thinking about it, I mean pouring concrete,
erecting steelwork, fabricating the reactor vessel. Securing our
energy supply within our own borders. Bugger the public enquiries. If
anyone complains shoot them. Or drop them, without a parachute, out
the back of Hercules over the Atlantic. No ifs, no buts. Complain
and you die. If you go to a lawyer, they also get the same treatment.

The number of gas-fuelled power plants is increasing rapidly because they
are fast and cheap to build compared with alternatives. They also create
about half the carbon emissions of coal-powered plants and have been seen as
a "transition fuel", helping smooth the path to zero-carbon electricity.

They were saying that in the early 90's All that has happened since
is gas, more gas and even more gas because they are dirt cheap to
build and return on capital is rapid. The 'benefits' of gas
generation has meant that no one is prepared to invest an anything but
gas ...until wind and solar came along with their cushy handouts.

The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.

Barry Neville, director of public affairs at Centrica, which owns British
Gas, said: "Gas is a critical part of the fuel mix, it's a transition fuel.
At this moment in time it is crucial to the UK

You bet it is crucial now. But we managed before 1990 without gas for
power generation.

But climate change campaigners have warned that too much gas capacity is
being built

Have they? I can't recall anything being said, and if it did it would
only be so they could promote solar or wind.

David Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF UK. "The government should be
looking at the deployment of renewables, that already must be at 30%
by 2020, at increasing rates during the 2020s.""

WWF?

What the **** has it got to do with them. Lets start burning Pandas,
WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of The Earth Supporters.


Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

1) Massively improving energy efficiency of UK housing stock and
industry, what little is left of it would be a start.

2) Immediately removing all incentives for solar and wind. No more
fit payments. If they try and take it to court then get the army to
use the solar panels for firing practice and use shaped charges on the
wind turbines so we can improve the view of the countryside.

3) No more new gas generation

4) Gas generation of existing plant to be capped

5) Stick two fingers up at Europe regarding emissions and keep burning
coal

6) Coal mining

7) Underground coal gasification

8) Multiple nukes in every major city providing electricity and heat
for homes and industry

But it ain't going to happen. The lights will go out for two reasons:

People will eventually say no more and we will have hundreds of
thousands bypassing meters.

Those 'investing' in generation plant will not want to invest for the
long term when they can get much bigger returns elsewhere in the world

Yes we are in the ****. But don't forget who started all this off.
Thatcher and her hatred of coal, leading to electricity privatisation,
the dash for gas and this mess. Thatcher's legacy will haunt this
country for decades.


--

The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.

I agree with much that you say, but with respect it is *not* caused by
the free market, but by IDIOTS MUCKING ABOUT WITH IT.

If a simple carbon tax had been introduced twenty years ago, plus some
sort of committment to stability, we would have been building nuclear
power stations for years.

On 10/02/12 10:30, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ars-early.html

"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because
six of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under
European rules. However, it now appears that half of these stations,
representing 8pc of Britain's capacity, are likely to shut early because
they will have been burning fuel for too many hours - more than 20,000
in total since 2008.

New Government estimates show Cockenzie, owned by Scottish Power, is
likely to have to close completely by April. Kingsnorth, owned by E.ON,
is on track to have to shut by March 2013. Meanwhile, Tilbury, which is
being converted into a biomass station by RWE, may have to go by July
2013 unless it can convince the European Union (EU) its new fuel is
cleaner.

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of
power from coal. On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's
electricity came from wind for the first time this quarter. However,
Simon Cowdroy, of WSP Future Energy, said: "Although the figures show a
rise in renewable generation, this may not be enough to prevent a
shortfall in UK capacity."

Biomass could replace coal in some power stations. However, a Government
announcement on whether biomass will get higher subsidies has been
delayed this summer.

In recent weeks, a new warning has come from the EU's European
Environment Agency that bioenergy may be no more green than fossil fuels. "

I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations
came from.
http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/en...ion/coal.shtml

suggests around 50% comes from abroad.

Now I am a bit doubtful about the above statement that 10% of UK energy
came from wind, as Gridwatch isn't showing anywhere near that.
If wind peaks at arounf 1GW then at 10% that would be a maximum demand
of 10GW.
Current (!) demand is between 50 and 60GW.
The yearly graphs show that demand hasn't been below 30GW since June.
Perhaps there were a few seconds on windy summer night when the wind
output just touched the 10%?
Even that seems very unlikely.

All of which leaves me with the depressing thought that if they are
closing coal fired power stations, not building new Carbon Capture ones,
not building nukes, and most of our gas will be coming from other
countries we are going to be in deep **** relatively soon.

Oh, and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-dash-for-gas
says
"The UK's "dash for gas" will be halted by the government because if
unchecked it would break legally binding targets for carbon dioxide
emissions, Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, said on
Monday evening.

"We will not consent so much gas plant so as to endanger our carbon
dioxide goals," he told a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats party
conference in Birmingham.

The number of gas-fuelled power plants is increasing rapidly because
they are fast and cheap to build compared with alternatives. They also
create about half the carbon emissions of coal-powered plants and have
been seen as a "transition fuel", helping smooth the path to zero-carbon
electricity.

Barry Neville, director of public affairs at Centrica, which owns
British Gas, said: "Gas is a critical part of the fuel mix, it's a
transition fuel. At this moment in time it is crucial to the UK, as is
nuclear and as are renewables.

But climate change campaigners have warned that too much gas capacity is
being built, meaning either the carbon budgets intended to help tackle
global warming would be broken, or the gas plants would be left as
stranded assets.

"The secretary of state's statement is a welcome recognition by the
government that there are constraints on the deployment of gas as a
climate-effective solution to our future energy needs," said David
Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF UK. "The government should be looking
at the deployment of renewables, that already must be at 30% by 2020, at
increasing rates during the 2020s.""

Oh, and what are renewables?
One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil fuels.
That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind.
The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from
hydro, solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still
winter nights.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

Cheers


Dave R

The real problem is rapid population growth, which is conveniently
ignored. Add to that, the natural demand of the Third World to access
the latest technology and perhaps war is now the only answer.
Immigration and financing people to have an unlimited number of children
is fuelling both the power and the housing problem but politicians
haven't the balls to grasp the nettle on either front.

Andy C

On 10/02/2012 10:30, David WE Roberts wrote:
....
Oh, and what are renewables?
One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil fuels.
That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind.

The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from
hydro, solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still
winter nights.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

Like most people, you seem to forget about tidal flow generation (not
tidal barrier), which I think might actually be a viable technology,
unlike solar and wind power. Hydro is good, if you have the places to
build it, which Britain is fairly short of. I think nuclear is our best
bet, but it should include some fast consumer reactors, which would
reduce nuclear waste from around 95%, much of it high level waste, to
around 1%, mostly low level, but I'll bet it won't.

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:06:06 +0000, Newshound wrote:

The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she
would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas
man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.

I agree with much that you say, but with respect it is *not* caused by
the free market, but by IDIOTS MUCKING ABOUT WITH IT.

A bit of a rant but basically sound. And yes a level palying field
free market wouldn't have millions if not billions spent of wind
mills and useless PV as they would not be economic to build.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:30:14 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because
six of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under
European rules.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:30:14 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of
power from coal.

Weasel words "will help". Riding a bicycle with a dynamo attached
"will help".

For the best part of a couple of weeks wind has struggled to get
above 1GW. Coal on the other hand hasn't fallen below 20GW and for
the last few days is running at nearly 25GW 24/7.

On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's electricity came from wind
for the first time this quarter.

Nov Dec Jan where quite windy, there might be an average of 2GW from
wind. Demand was somewhere between 30 and 40GW. TNP would need to
number crunch. I also suspect that it's not 10% of demand but 10% of
total energy over the period.

One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil
fuels.

I don't quite follow this. The carbon released from biomass isn't
fossil carbon (like coal, oil and gas) but was taken from the
atmosphere within the last 100 years or so. It will be absorbed by
the growning of more biomass to fuel the power station over the next
years. It's a carbon cycle it's not releaseing previously stored
carbon to the atmosphere. Yes, there will be fossil fuels used in
processing and transport but nothing like that released by the
burning of the biomass.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:24:52 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours here
and there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion programme will
get doubled and completed in half the time then...

Aye, lets see a nice bit of load shedding about the time Deadenders
or the Street are on should do it.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:06:06 +0000, Newshound
wrote:



The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.

I agree with much that you say, but with respect it is *not* caused by
the free market, but by IDIOTS MUCKING ABOUT WITH IT.

Give them the legislative freedom and they will exploit it for their
own ends, not those of the country.

If a simple carbon tax had been introduced twenty years ago, plus some
sort of committment to stability, we would have been building nuclear
power stations for years.

A carbon tax, in a relatively flat country, only leads to one solution
and 100% nukes won't work (or at least with AGR's or PWR's) as they
can't change output rapidly.

We need diversified generation, not too far away from we had from the
1960's to the late 80's. Coal, Oil, Nuclear, Pumped Storage, a bit
of Hydro. Tweak the mix a bit, reduce the coal and oil increase the
nukes to replace those coming to the end of their life, increase them
more to cater for time expired coal and oil plant, maybe even add some
gas but ONLY where waste heat can be used for industrial processes. A
wholesale shift from coal to gas with zero nuke new build is a
disaster waiting to happen. Just as well the economy is going tits up
because if it were booming we'd be even more ****ed.


--

On Feb 10, 10:30*am, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8797523/UK-coa...
"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because six
of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under European
rules. However, it now appears that half of these stations, representing 8pc
of Britain's capacity, are likely to shut early because they will have been
burning fuel for too many hours - more than 20,000 in total since 2008.

New Government estimates show Cockenzie, owned by Scottish Power, is likely
to have to close completely by April. Kingsnorth, owned by E.ON, is on track
to have to shut by March 2013. Meanwhile, Tilbury, which is being converted
into a biomass station by RWE, may have to go by July 2013 unless it can
convince the European Union (EU) its new fuel is cleaner.

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of power
from coal. On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's electricity came
from wind for the first time this quarter. However, Simon Cowdroy, of WSP
Future Energy, said: "Although the figures show a rise in renewable
generation, this may not be enough to prevent a shortfall in UK capacity."

Biomass could replace coal in some power stations. However, a Government
announcement on whether biomass will get higher subsidies has been delayed
this summer.

In recent weeks, a new warning has come from the EU's European Environment
Agency that bioenergy may be no more green than fossil fuels. "

I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations came
from.http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/en...rmal-power-gen...
suggests around 50% *comes from abroad.

Now I am a bit doubtful about the above statement that 10% of UK energy came
from wind, as Gridwatch isn't showing anywhere near that.
If wind peaks at arounf 1GW then at 10% that would be a maximum demand of
10GW.
Current (!) demand is between 50 and 60GW.
The yearly graphs show that demand hasn't been below 30GW since June.
Perhaps there were a few seconds on windy summer night when the wind output
just touched the 10%?
Even that seems very unlikely.

All of which leaves me with the depressing thought that if they are closing
coal fired power stations, not building new Carbon Capture ones, not
building nukes, and most of our gas will be coming from other countries we
are going to be in deep **** relatively soon.

Oh, andhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/20/chris-huhne-dash-fo...
says
"The UK's "dash for gas" will be halted by the government because if
unchecked it would break legally binding targets for carbon dioxide
emissions, Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, said on Monday
evening.

"We will not consent so much gas plant so as to endanger our carbon dioxide
goals," he told a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats party conference
in Birmingham.

The number of gas-fuelled power plants is increasing rapidly because they
are fast and cheap to build compared with alternatives. They also create
about half the carbon emissions of coal-powered plants and have been seen as
a "transition fuel", helping smooth the path to zero-carbon electricity.

Barry Neville, director of public affairs at Centrica, which owns British
Gas, said: "Gas is a critical part of the fuel mix, it's a transition fuel.
At this moment in time it is crucial to the UK, as is nuclear and as are
renewables.

But climate change campaigners have warned that too much gas capacity is
being built, meaning either the carbon budgets intended to help tackle
global warming would be broken, or the gas plants would be left as stranded
assets.

"The secretary of state's statement is a welcome recognition by the
government that there are constraints on the deployment of gas as a
climate-effective solution to our future energy needs," said David Nussbaum,
chief executive of WWF UK. "The government should be looking at the
deployment of renewables, that already must be at 30% by 2020, at increasing
rates during the 2020s.""

Oh, and what are renewables?
One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil fuels.
That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind.
The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from hydro,
solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still winter nights..

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

Somewhere between the mid 1970's we seem to have lost the plot with
the common market. It was supposed to be about reducing taxes not
telling us how we should live.

I doubt anyone would have voted us in had we not been such sheep.

Government of the people for the people only works if the people are
given bullets by the politicians for the politicians.
I can't see that happening either.

What we really need is a jolly good dose of rebellion and a few
politicals stretching from lamp posts by their ankles until dead.

Make that more than a few and start with EuroMPs.
The scum.

On Feb 10, 10:56*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

short term - or even opening new coal mines..open cast scraping of poor
grade coal is relatively cheap, and we can burn brown coal as well as
any German.

Since when was open cast mining cheap?
You can't put the overburden back. You can just rearrange the spoil.
Burying nuclear waste is less toxic than that.

An ex opencast wasteland is an eyesore for centuries.

On Feb 10, 11:24*am, Tim Watts wrote:

Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours here and
there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion programme will get
doubled and completed in half the time then...

I have a feeling that protesters to that will be a lot more violent
and a lot better organised than they were in the good old days.

They may have banned guns in this country but they haven't banned the
people willing to use them.

On Feb 10, 12:54*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:30:14 -0000, "David WE Roberts"

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8797523/UK-coa...
"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because six
of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under European
rules. However, it now appears that half of these stations, representing 8pc
of Britain's capacity, are likely to shut early because they will have been
burning fuel for too many hours - more than 20,000 in total since 2008.

Oh dear, the Large Combustion Plant Directive kicks us in the nuts.
What a surprise. Time we told Europe to **** off.

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of power
from coal.

If that is the case, let those that wish to be supplied from wind, be
supplied by wind and nothing else. Give them smart meters and when the
wind doesn't blow, their light go out, their freezer defrosts and they
won't be able to watch the telly.

On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's electricity came
from wind for the first time this quarter.

In their dreams

However, Simon Cowdroy, of WSP
Future Energy, said: "Although the figures show a rise in renewable
generation, this may not be enough to prevent a shortfall in UK capacity.."

The shortfall has come because no one wants to invest long term in any
sustainable, reliable generation like nukes. *Wind and solar make lots
of money fast but they do **** all except divert money from where it
is really needed. *10,000 wind turbines.... or a dozen nukes that will
reliably produce power for three or four decades, every day whatever
the weather?

Biomass could replace coal in some power stations. However, a Government
announcement on whether biomass will get higher subsidies has been delayed
this summer.

It's no good ****ing about with this. *We don't have the land to grow
the crop. *Shipping biomass in from the USA like they are doing at
Tilbury isn't very green is it?

In recent weeks, a new warning has come from the EU's European Environment
Agency that bioenergy may be no more green than fossil fuels. "

No **** sherlock.

I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations came
from.
http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/en...rmal-power-gen...
suggests around 50% *comes from abroad.

Quite easily. You only need to see how much is produced in the UK.
"1.7 million tonnes of coal a year in 2009" claimed by UK coal, the
UK's largest producer. *Drax burns around 8 million tonnes a year, 4GW
max output, load factor is in the mid 80%

So , finger in the air guess, that 1.7 million tonnes is roughly
equivalent to around 1GW of coal generation, given there are around
26GW of coal plant, that is less than 4% coming from local sources.
Thatcher's legacy. *She must be so proud of that. Bitch.

All of which leaves me with the depressing thought that if they are closing
coal fired power stations, not building new Carbon Capture ones, not
building nukes, and most of our gas will be coming from other countries we
are going to be in deep **** relatively soon.

We are. We should have been building new nukes at least three years
ago. *Building. Not thinking about it, I mean pouring concrete,
erecting steelwork, fabricating the reactor vessel. *Securing our
energy supply within our own borders. Bugger the public enquiries. If
anyone complains shoot them. Or drop them, without a parachute, out
the back of *Hercules over the Atlantic. *No ifs, no buts. *Complain
and you die. *If you go to a lawyer, they also get the same treatment.

The number of gas-fuelled power plants is increasing rapidly because they
are fast and cheap to build compared with alternatives. They also create
about half the carbon emissions of coal-powered plants and have been seen as
a "transition fuel", helping smooth the path to zero-carbon electricity.

They were saying that in the early 90's *All that has happened since
is gas, more gas and even more gas because they are dirt cheap to
build and return on capital is rapid. *The 'benefits' of gas
generation has meant that no one is prepared to invest an anything but
gas ...until wind and solar came along with their cushy handouts.

The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.

Barry Neville, director of public affairs at Centrica, which owns British
Gas, said: "Gas is a critical part of the fuel mix, it's a transition fuel.
At this moment in time it is crucial to the UK

You bet it is crucial now. *But we managed before 1990 without gas for
power generation.

But climate change campaigners have warned that too much gas capacity is
being built

Have they? *I can't recall anything being said, and if it did it would
only be so they could promote solar or wind.

David Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF UK. "The government should be
looking at the deployment of renewables, that already must be at 30%
by 2020, at increasing rates during the 2020s.""

WWF?

What the **** has it got to do with them. Lets start burning Pandas,
WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of The Earth Supporters.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

1) Massively improving energy efficiency of UK housing stock and
industry, what little is left of it would be a start.

2) Immediately removing all incentives for solar and wind. *No more
fit payments. *If they try and take it to court then get the army to
use the solar panels for firing practice and use shaped charges on the
wind turbines so we can improve the view of the countryside.

3) No more new gas generation

4) Gas generation of existing plant to be capped

5) Stick two fingers up at Europe regarding emissions and keep burning
coal

6) Coal mining

7) Underground coal gasification

8) *Multiple nukes in every major city providing electricity and heat
for homes and industry

But it ain't going to happen. *The lights will go out for two reasons:

People will eventually say no more and we will have hundreds of
thousands bypassing meters.

Those 'investing' in generation plant will not want to invest for the
long term when they can get much bigger returns elsewhere in the world

Yes we are in the ****. *But don't forget who started all this off.
Thatcher and her hatred of coal, leading to electricity privatisation,
the dash for gas and this mess. *Thatcher's legacy will haunt this
country for decades.

Much as I still detest the inane smiling bitch, I can't blame her for
not wanting to subsidise pneumoconiosis indefinitely.

It was all that ******* Arthur Scargill's fault for getting the miners
compensation. If it hadn't been for him she would have let them all
die. Yea unto the tenth generation.

On Feb 10, 12:54*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:30:14 -0000, "David WE Roberts"

snip
I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations came
from.
http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/en...rmal-power-gen...
suggests around 50% *comes from abroad.

Quite easily. You only need to see how much is produced in the UK.
"1.7 million tonnes of coal a year in 2009" claimed by UK coal, the
UK's largest producer. *Drax burns around 8 million tonnes a year, 4GW
max output, load factor is in the mid 80%

That's surface mining. The 2011 report claims total production FY 2010
was 7.2 million tonnes, first half FY2011 was 4.1million.
Still only just about enough for Drax, though...

--
Mike

The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:30:14 -0000, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ars-early.html
"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because six
of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under European
rules. However, it now appears that half of these stations, representing 8pc
of Britain's capacity, are likely to shut early because they will have been
burning fuel for too many hours - more than 20,000 in total since 2008.

Oh dear, the Large Combustion Plant Directive kicks us in the nuts.
What a surprise. Time we told Europe to **** off.

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of power
from coal.

If that is the case, let those that wish to be supplied from wind, be
supplied by wind and nothing else. Give them smart meters and when the
wind doesn't blow, their light go out, their freezer defrosts and they
won't be able to watch the telly.

On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's electricity came
from wind for the first time this quarter.

In their dreams

However, Simon Cowdroy, of WSP
Future Energy, said: "Although the figures show a rise in renewable
generation, this may not be enough to prevent a shortfall in UK capacity."

The shortfall has come because no one wants to invest long term in any
sustainable, reliable generation like nukes. Wind and solar make lots
of money fast but they do **** all except divert money from where it
is really needed. 10,000 wind turbines.... or a dozen nukes that will
reliably produce power for three or four decades, every day whatever
the weather?

Biomass could replace coal in some power stations. However, a Government
announcement on whether biomass will get higher subsidies has been delayed
this summer.

It's no good ****ing about with this. We don't have the land to grow
the crop. Shipping biomass in from the USA like they are doing at
Tilbury isn't very green is it?

In recent weeks, a new warning has come from the EU's European Environment
Agency that bioenergy may be no more green than fossil fuels. "

No **** sherlock.

I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations came
from.
http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/en...ion/coal.shtml
suggests around 50% comes from abroad.

Quite easily. You only need to see how much is produced in the UK.
"1.7 million tonnes of coal a year in 2009" claimed by UK coal, the
UK's largest producer. Drax burns around 8 million tonnes a year, 4GW
max output, load factor is in the mid 80%

So , finger in the air guess, that 1.7 million tonnes is roughly
equivalent to around 1GW of coal generation, given there are around
26GW of coal plant, that is less than 4% coming from local sources.
Thatcher's legacy. She must be so proud of that. Bitch.

All of which leaves me with the depressing thought that if they are closing
coal fired power stations, not building new Carbon Capture ones, not
building nukes, and most of our gas will be coming from other countries we
are going to be in deep **** relatively soon.

We are. We should have been building new nukes at least three years
ago. Building. Not thinking about it, I mean pouring concrete,
erecting steelwork, fabricating the reactor vessel. Securing our
energy supply within our own borders. Bugger the public enquiries. If
anyone complains shoot them. Or drop them, without a parachute, out
the back of Hercules over the Atlantic. No ifs, no buts. Complain
and you die. If you go to a lawyer, they also get the same treatment.

The number of gas-fuelled power plants is increasing rapidly because they
are fast and cheap to build compared with alternatives. They also create
about half the carbon emissions of coal-powered plants and have been seen as
a "transition fuel", helping smooth the path to zero-carbon electricity.

They were saying that in the early 90's All that has happened since
is gas, more gas and even more gas because they are dirt cheap to
build and return on capital is rapid. The 'benefits' of gas
generation has meant that no one is prepared to invest an anything but
gas ...until wind and solar came along with their cushy handouts.

The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market.

Er no. Caused by government interference in a free market, especially
with respect to renewable energy and nuclear power.



Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.


Not really at all. Coal was uneconomic from (most) UK mines.


Barry Neville, director of public affairs at Centrica, which owns British
Gas, said: "Gas is a critical part of the fuel mix, it's a transition fuel.
At this moment in time it is crucial to the UK

You bet it is crucial now. But we managed before 1990 without gas for
power generation.

But climate change campaigners have warned that too much gas capacity is
being built

Have they? I can't recall anything being said, and if it did it would
only be so they could promote solar or wind.

David Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF UK. "The government should be
looking at the deployment of renewables, that already must be at 30%
by 2020, at increasing rates during the 2020s.""

WWF?

What the **** has it got to do with them. Lets start burning Pandas,
WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of The Earth Supporters.



Sounds like a plan to me. However there isn't much energy in em. I did
the calculations.


Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

1) Massively improving energy efficiency of UK housing stock and
industry, what little is left of it would be a start.


Cant massively improve much of it - its as good as it gets already. And
domestic energy - heat - is actually quite a low part of the overall
energy footprint. Probably less than 10%.

2) Immediately removing all incentives for solar and wind. No more
fit payments. If they try and take it to court then get the army to
use the solar panels for firing practice and use shaped charges on the
wind turbines so we can improve the view of the countryside.

Well you cant renege on legal contracts - unless you are Ms Merkel of
course.

3) No more new gas generation


Always need some, but there probably is enough already..

4) Gas generation of existing plant to be capped


Eseentially it is, as gas is more expensive.

5) Stick two fingers up at Europe regarding emissions and keep burning
coal

Agreed, at least till all teh old pnat is BER.


6) Coal mining


Open cast only.

7) Underground coal gasification


Wxepensive and dangerous IMHO.

8) Multiple nukes in every major city providing electricity and heat
for homes and industry

Dont bneed multiple in every - we can cope with just about 30-40 nukes
countrywide. Mind you there are some mini-nukes that could do municipal
demand..

But it ain't going to happen. The lights will go out for two reasons:

People will eventually say no more and we will have hundreds of
thousands bypassing meters.

Those 'investing' in generation plant will not want to invest for the
long term when they can get much bigger returns elsewhere in the world

The biggest problem is that no one has grasped the nuclear nettle at
government level. There is no guarantee of operating license lengths, or
the conditions that will be attached, there is no guarantee on what
insurance levy they will be forced to pay, or what tax will be on them
to pay for nuclear fuel reprocessing and waste disposal. There is no
decision on Sellafield and the huge amounts of potential fuel stockpiled
there.

Yes we are in the ****. But don't forget who started all this off.
Thatcher and her hatred of coal, leading to electricity privatisation,
the dash for gas and this mess. Thatcher's legacy will haunt this
country for decades.



No, it didnt start there. It stared with the CND and greenpeace..

Nightjar wrote:
On 10/02/2012 10:30, David WE Roberts wrote:
...
Oh, and what are renewables?
One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil
fuels.
That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind.

The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from
hydro, solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still
winter nights.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

Like most people, you seem to forget about tidal flow generation (not
tidal barrier), which I think might actually be a viable technology,
unlike solar and wind power. Hydro is good, if you have the places to
build it, which Britain is fairly short of. I think nuclear is our best
bet, but it should include some fast consumer reactors, which would
reduce nuclear waste from around 95%, much of it high level waste, to
around 1%, mostly low level, but I'll bet it won't.

Colin Bignell
Agree with all of that except tidal flow, which is just another frigging
wind turbine, only this time buried where its
(a) bound to go wrong and
(b) guaranteed to be fearfully expensive to fix.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:06:06 +0000, Newshound wrote:

The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she
would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas
man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.
I agree with much that you say, but with respect it is *not* caused by
the free market, but by IDIOTS MUCKING ABOUT WITH IT.

A bit of a rant but basically sound. And yes a level palying field
free market wouldn't have millions if not billions spent of wind
mills and useless PV as they would not be economic to build.

Exactly so. IF there is a deep social issue then you use the taxes and
regulation to either discourage or ban the offending element.

Taxing all carbon fuels is a simple way to encourage the development of
non carbon fuels.

Subsidising wind is a way to make people build wind whether it reduces
carbon or not.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

On 10/02/2012 10:30, David WE Roberts wrote:
...
Oh, and what are renewables?
One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil
fuels.
That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind.

The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from
hydro, solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still
winter nights.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

Like most people, you seem to forget about tidal flow generation (not
tidal barrier), which I think might actually be a viable technology,
unlike solar and wind power.

It is my favourite (to the extent that I have one) but my niece in the
renewables business says that, like all these solutions, you may get to
supply 5 to 10% of requirement if you're lucky.

I think TNP is right that just because its reliably intermittent, and
just because the tides' timetable varies round the coast, that doesn't
really help. You're having to over-provision again.

At least ONE person understands that reliability is not the issue: the
issue is energy density and capacity factor.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
snip

..but politicians haven't the balls to grasp the nettle on either front.

Well, I would pay money to see a politician grasp the nettle with his balls
on any front whatsoever :-)

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:06:06 +0000, Newshound
wrote:

The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.

I agree with much that you say, but with respect it is *not* caused by
the free market, but by IDIOTS MUCKING ABOUT WITH IT.

Give them the legislative freedom and they will exploit it for their
own ends, not those of the country.

If a simple carbon tax had been introduced twenty years ago, plus some
sort of committment to stability, we would have been building nuclear
power stations for years.

A carbon tax, in a relatively flat country, only leads to one solution
and 100% nukes won't work (or at least with AGR's or PWR's) as they
can't change output rapidly.


They can actually - enough to cope with demand fluctuations in the hour
plus range - dinorwig copes with the sub hour fluctuations.

HOWEVER they are less economically viable operated that way - a nuke at
50% capacity has to somehow charge twice as much to pay the interest and
operating costs.
..
Ideally we would replace coal with nuclear, and have gas and hydro to do
the fine balancing.

More or less how the French and the Swiss do it.

There is also a possibility that off peak surpluses could be vectored
into synthetic fuels and charging electric cars overnight..and of course
if you do storage heat PROPERLY with a **** off heatbank of a sensible
size, there is that way to use it, as well.

What nuclear cant do is balance intermittent renewables - and there is
no reason to do it either. Offsetting uranium burning with wind achieves
no carbon reduction.

The lowest cost lowest carbon scenario is about 45-50GW of nuclear,
(about 30 - 35 stations) the existing couple of gigs of biomass and
hydro, and about 15GW of gas oil or coal most of which would be on cold
standby most of the time.

Plus the couple of gigs of interconnector we have already.

The lowest COST scenario is actually repalce 'nuclear' with 'coal' and
proceed as above.

Renewable is neither the lowest cost nor the lowest carbon. That is of
course why its the green party choice.

"If its green, its expensive, and its almost useless"



We need diversified generation,

No, we don't. There is no reason to diversify just for the sake of it.
Its another green buzz word that is absolutely meaningless.


We need cheap base load. Base load is either coal or nuclear, because
they are the cheapest options really - gas is going sky high.

We might as well use what biofuel we have that's cheap, and what hydro
is cheaply built. So far this is not diversifications for its own sake,
its just using up useful stuff that's cheap to capture and does a
functional job.

On top of that we need low capital cost plant to 'cover the gaps' - and
that's gas.

We don't need a single renewable of the intermittent sort on the grid
whatsoever.


Any more than we nee horse drawn cabs or sail powered underground
trains, or coaches pushed along by elephants.




not too far away from we had from the
1960's to the late 80's. Coal, Oil, Nuclear, Pumped Storage, a bit
of Hydro. Tweak the mix a bit, reduce the coal and oil increase the
nukes to replace those coming to the end of their life, increase them
more to cater for time expired coal and oil plant, maybe even add some
gas but ONLY where waste heat can be used for industrial processes. A
wholesale shift from coal to gas with zero nuke new build is a
disaster waiting to happen. Just as well the economy is going tits up
because if it were booming we'd be even more ****ed.


That's not diversified, that's just the lowest cost mix that will do teh
job...the same way you run diesel trains on lines not worth electrifying..


HOWEVER we SHOULD have gas in that mix - not oil really - unless you
regard oil - fuel oil or bunker oil - as essentially scrap.

Personally I'd like to see CHP municipal waste burners as well. And a
lot more co-fired biomass.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Feb 10, 10:56 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
short term - or even opening new coal mines..open cast scraping of poor
grade coal is relatively cheap, and we can burn brown coal as well as
any German.

Since when was open cast mining cheap?

Since forever.

You can't put the overburden back.

Yes you can.

You can just rearrange the spoil.
Burying nuclear waste is less toxic than that.


Well I wouldn't be disagreeing there.

An ex opencast wasteland is an eyesore for centuries.

Nah. Fill it with water and make a lake. Graffham water?

Anyway bare earth turns to forest in less than a couple of centuries.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:22:32 -0800, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Somewhere between the mid 1970's we seem to have lost the plot with the
common market. It was supposed to be about reducing taxes not telling us
how we should live.

You think ?

Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Feb 10, 11:24 am, Tim Watts wrote:

Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours here
and there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion programme will get
doubled and completed in half the time then...

I have a feeling that protesters to that will be a lot more violent
and a lot better organised than they were in the good old days.

They may have banned guns in this country but they haven't banned the
people willing to use them.

I suspect a lot of protestors (ie the "fashional protestor" as opposed to
the ones with deeply held core beliefs) will have a sudden awakening when
their lights go out 4 times a week for 3-5 hours throughout the entire
winter.

Especially if that happens around 6-10pm every night (most likely time).

Anyone who's left who still thinks nuclear is bad, I would at least be
prepared to buy a pint for.

It's the modern greeny nimby dickhead ******* who doesn't want anything
built, but is happy to enjoy the fruits of the same, that I want to nut.

--
Tim Watts

On 10/02/2012 15:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 10/02/2012 10:30, David WE Roberts wrote:
...
Oh, and what are renewables?
One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil
fuels.
That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind.

The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from
hydro, solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still
winter nights.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

Like most people, you seem to forget about tidal flow generation (not
tidal barrier), which I think might actually be a viable technology,
unlike solar and wind power. Hydro is good, if you have the places to
build it, which Britain is fairly short of. I think nuclear is our
best bet, but it should include some fast consumer reactors, which
would reduce nuclear waste from around 95%, much of it high level
waste, to around 1%, mostly low level, but I'll bet it won't.

Colin Bignell
Agree with all of that except tidal flow, which is just another frigging
wind turbine, only this time buried where its
(a) bound to go wrong and
(b) guaranteed to be fearfully expensive to fix.

I would quite happily build all nuclear. However, I rather doubt that we
could get away without any renewable energy and, IMO, tidal flow
promises to be the best of of a bad lot. At least it is predictable.

Colin Bignell

On 10/02/12 15:55, David WE Roberts wrote:

Well, I would pay money to see a politician grasp the nettle with his
balls on any front whatsoever :-)


When I re-read it, I thought I'd got a bit carried away ! :-)

Andy C

On 10/02/2012 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:06:06 +0000, Newshound wrote:

The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she
would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas
man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.
I agree with much that you say, but with respect it is *not* caused
by the free market, but by IDIOTS MUCKING ABOUT WITH IT.

A bit of a rant but basically sound. And yes a level palying field
free market wouldn't have millions if not billions spent of wind
mills and useless PV as they would not be economic to build.

Exactly so. IF there is a deep social issue then you use the taxes and
regulation to either discourage or ban the offending element.

Taxing all carbon fuels is a simple way to encourage the development of
non carbon fuels.

I am a bit wary of carbon tax trading as it has become another chip on
the roulette wheel at the casino of the merchant w^dbankers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...g-markets.html

Subsidising wind is a way to make people build wind whether it reduces
carbon or not.

Particularly so when you pay them by *installed* capacity rather than
actual MW delivered to the grid. Wind can play a part in suitably windy
locations, but solar PV is a real waste of time at our high latitude.

I recently saw a village hall with PV panels facing due W and shaded by
trees. Will post a picture next time I pass with a camera. I did wonder
"who sold you that?" and "how much grant money was wasted on it?"

Within 40 degrees of the equator solar PV and solar in general makes
sense. This far north it is a waste of time even if installed properly.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Nightjar wrote:
On 10/02/2012 15:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 10/02/2012 10:30, David WE Roberts wrote:
...
Oh, and what are renewables?
One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil
fuels.
That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind.

The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from
hydro, solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still
winter nights.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what
alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the
fissionables from abroad)?

Like most people, you seem to forget about tidal flow generation (not
tidal barrier), which I think might actually be a viable technology,
unlike solar and wind power. Hydro is good, if you have the places to
build it, which Britain is fairly short of. I think nuclear is our
best bet, but it should include some fast consumer reactors, which
would reduce nuclear waste from around 95%, much of it high level
waste, to around 1%, mostly low level, but I'll bet it won't.

Colin Bignell
Agree with all of that except tidal flow, which is just another frigging
wind turbine, only this time buried where its
(a) bound to go wrong and
(b) guaranteed to be fearfully expensive to fix.

I would quite happily build all nuclear. However, I rather doubt that we
could get away without any renewable energy

we have done for years and years. Its no different now.

Electricity wise we could go 100% nuclear if we wanted. Its a bit more
expensive than using gas to balance, though


and, IMO, tidal flow
promises to be the best of of a bad lot. At least it is predictable.


Which counts for nothing.


Colin Bignell

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
tony sayer wrote:
It's ********, obvious to anyone who looks at the instananeosu
figures a few times - but TNP had hard data in his post anyway.

Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours
here and there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion
programme will get doubled and completed in half the time then...

Lets hope this happens and show these bloody "experts" up for what
they
are deluded bull ****ters;!...

Apparently London consumes as much as 10GW all by itself. Up to 20% of
the entire national demand.. greedy *******s. And not a single power
station left, hardly..

Well give them all the wind power then.
--
hugh

In message , Newshound
writes


The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.

I agree with much that you say, but with respect it is *not* caused by
the free market, but by IDIOTS MUCKING ABOUT WITH IT.

If a simple carbon tax had been introduced twenty years ago, plus some
sort of committment to stability, we would have been building nuclear
power stations for years.
And how many coal powered fire stations do the Chinese build every year?
--
hugh

In message , Martin Brown
writes
I recently saw a village hall with PV panels facing due W and shaded by
trees. Will post a picture next time I pass with a camera. I did wonder
"who sold you that?" and "how much grant money was wasted on it?"
I recently saw two identical pairs of semi bungalows both with solars on
the roof - they were at right angles to each other.
--
hugh

In message
,
Weatherlawyer writes
What we really need is a jolly good dose of rebellion and a few
politicals stretching from lamp posts by their ankles until dead.

Make that more than a few and start with EuroMPs.
The scum.
...And a certain ex-euro MP should be first in the queue.
--
hugh

hugh wrote:
In message , Newshound
writes


The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately
caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she would do
anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas man in
Russia as long as she could crush them.

I agree with much that you say, but with respect it is *not* caused by
the free market, but by IDIOTS MUCKING ABOUT WITH IT.

If a simple carbon tax had been introduced twenty years ago, plus some
sort of committment to stability, we would have been building nuclear
power stations for years.
And how many coal powered fire stations do the Chinese build every year?
20?

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:24:52 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:
Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours here
and there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion programme will
get doubled and completed in half the time then...

well, that's assuming that the sequence doesn't go:

blackout - panic - rioting - civil war - zombie apocalypse.

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:24:52 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:
Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours here
and there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion programme will
get doubled and completed in half the time then...

well, that's assuming that the sequence doesn't go:

blackout - panic - rioting - civil war - zombie apocalypse.


Can we fast foward to the bit after that.

Uk.d-i-y survivalists form new global society based on science, common
sense , car body filler, and angle grinders powered by nuclear energy?

I can't believe I'm saying this but the only manifesto I'd vote for is
UKIP's. Not a chance in hell of their getting in though.

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-pol...nt-ukip-policy

"Increase nuclear power generation to provide up to 50% of our
electricity needs. Because Britain’s domestic energy plants are ageing
and renewable energy sources have been shown to be unreliable, UKIP will
pass hybrid Acts of Parliament to accelerate the planning process and
allow old reactors to be replaced

· Support the efficient extraction of indigenous coal for use in
cleaner, coal-fired electricity generation plants

· Oppose wind farms in general and require large new wind power schemes
to be funded by the market. Most current schemes have proved uneconomic,
often operating at less than a third of capacity - sometimes less than a
tenth *- thereby producing a derisory amount of power

· Ensure any large new wind farms are constructed offshore. UKIP regards
onshore wind turbines and the accompanying power lines as eyesores in
beautiful countryside

· Repeal the UK’s Climate Change Act and return to a Department of Energy

· Immediately repeal disastrous EU Directives such as the Large
Combustion Plant Directive. This Directive threatens to put the lights
out by closing a quarter of the UK’s domestic coal and energy plants by
2015 without providing any realistic, working alternatives. UKIP will
pull out of EU Carbon Trading Schemes, the proposed EU Carbon Tax and
binding targets on renewable and bio fuels"

Another Dave
--
Change nospam to gmx