I simply do not know what to make of this.

I know its nearly April 1st, but two Liberal Democrats, from a party
absolutely against nuclear power, putting their signatures on a missive
that say we will have up to *160GW* of electrical capacity by 2050???

When current peak electrical demand is only 60GW...


"Nuclear energy is clean, secure and reliable. The Government is clear
on the important role nuclear has to play in the energy mix and is
working to ensure that the market can and will bring new nuclear power
forward. The Governments Carbon Plan 6 to reduce UK CO2 emissions to
2050 aims for there to be competition between different forms of low
carbon electricity generation. Although there are no set targets,
within 3 of the 4 key scenarios in the Governments Carbon Plan nuclear
energy is shown to deliver a much larger amount of generation than that
available now, with the potential to deliver between 16 GW and 75 GW of
the UKs electricity needs. The 75 GW from nuclear energy is part of a
scenario where total installed capacity in the UK is around 160 GW by
2050. Nuclear could contribute roughly 40-50% to the energy mix under
this scenario, compared with nearly 20% today."


The only possible way I can make any sense of this, is if the 160GW
capacity is comprised of mainly windmills and solar panels..which is
TOTALLY senseless if you also have nuclear*. But even then..

Running the putative numbers - let's say we have 75GW of nuclear.

That of and by itself is enough to meet the entire nations current
electricity demand. More than enough. So let's say we have 85GW of
intermittent renewable capacity on top. delivering an average of 20GW of
energy. That's a grid capable of averaging more than three times
existing demand.

Are we expected to have three times current population then? All be
driving electric cars? All be using heat-pumps for heating, or direct
electrical heating?

Can anyone shed light on this astounding document, beyond the seemingly
logical conclusion that DECC has gone stark staring bonkers?


In case it is a joke, and gets removed from DECC's web site, I took a copy.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/b...ear-future.pdf

* if carbon reduction is the aim. spending the money on 75GW of nuclear
power is enough to make for 70GW of reliable zero carbon power. Adding
wind to it to 'save uranium' will not result in one iota of emission
reduction beyond what is already achieved and indeed will increase
emissions by dint of having to build and maintain the windmills.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:22:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Can anyone shed light on this astounding document, beyond the seemingly
logical conclusion that DECC has gone stark staring bonkers?

I can't offer any insight, but if electricity is set to cost a pound a unit (mentioned on here recently, IIRC), who is
going to buy it all?

--
Terry Fields

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:22:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I simply do not know what to make of this.

I might read the document later.

My first thought is that they have simply extrapolated the current year
on year rise in demand out to 2050? That is 37 years away and it wouldn't
take much of year on year rise to get to silly numbers. Just 2% (not
compounded) a year gets the current 60 GW deamnd up to 104 GW.

Then factor in the poor load factor of windmills that they want at 20% or
so by 2020? 20% of 104 GW of demand is 20 GW give or take so that is 60
GW of installed wind being generous...

Remember that 160 GW is a capacity figure not demand...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27/03/2013 10:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I simply do not know what to make of this.

I know its nearly April 1st, but two Liberal Democrats, from a party
absolutely against nuclear power, putting their signatures on a missive
that say we will have up to *160GW* of electrical capacity by 2050???

When current peak electrical demand is only 60GW...


"Nuclear energy is clean, secure and reliable. The Government is clear
on the important role nuclear has to play in the energy mix and is
working to ensure that the market can and will bring new nuclear power
forward. The Governments Carbon Plan 6 to reduce UK CO2 emissions to
2050 aims for there to be competition between different forms of low
carbon electricity generation. Although there are no set targets,
within 3 of the 4 key scenarios in the Governments Carbon Plan nuclear
energy is shown to deliver a much larger amount of generation than that
available now, with the potential to deliver between 16 GW and 75 GW of
the UKs electricity needs. The 75 GW from nuclear energy is part of a
scenario where total installed capacity in the UK is around 160 GW by
2050. Nuclear could contribute roughly 40-50% to the energy mix under
this scenario, compared with nearly 20% today."


The only possible way I can make any sense of this, is if the 160GW
capacity is comprised of mainly windmills and solar panels..which is
TOTALLY senseless if you also have nuclear*. But even then..

Running the putative numbers - let's say we have 75GW of nuclear.

That of and by itself is enough to meet the entire nations current
electricity demand. More than enough. So let's say we have 85GW of
intermittent renewable capacity on top. delivering an average of 20GW of
energy. That's a grid capable of averaging more than three times
existing demand.

Are we expected to have three times current population then? All be
driving electric cars? All be using heat-pumps for heating, or direct
electrical heating?

Can anyone shed light on this astounding document, beyond the seemingly
logical conclusion that DECC has gone stark staring bonkers?


In case it is a joke, and gets removed from DECC's web site, I took a copy.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/b...ear-future.pdf


* if carbon reduction is the aim. spending the money on 75GW of nuclear
power is enough to make for 70GW of reliable zero carbon power. Adding
wind to it to 'save uranium' will not result in one iota of emission
reduction beyond what is already achieved and indeed will increase
emissions by dint of having to build and maintain the windmills.



Selling electricity to Germany.
Using electric kettles to evaporate water before rivers flood.
Setting a ludicrously high level of 75GW and saying that will will be
40-50% - but actually expecting it to be 80-90%.
Using fan heaters to melt snow.
Setting a high level of 75GW but expecting on to achieve half of that at
best.

--
Rod

On 27/03/13 10:48, Terry Fields wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:22:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Can anyone shed light on this astounding document, beyond the seemingly
logical conclusion that DECC has gone stark staring bonkers?

I can't offer any insight, but if electricity is set to cost a pound a unit (mentioned on here recently, IIRC), who is
going to buy it all?



well at the very very worst, EDF's insistence on a strike price of 14.5p
for nuclear is the worst it COULD get. Oh, apart from the insane idea of
'reducing uranium usage' by using whirligigs.

Currently bulk electricity prices are around the 5p mark give or take.

Even at 10p wholseale, thats a massive incentive to nuclear investors,
who can, if the gvernment allows them to, generate at around 6p-8p,
compared with a minimum of 12p for a wind/gas mixture and up to 30p+ for
offshore wind or solar, and gas.

If the government were to make loans available at the same sort of
interest rates it makes them available to itself, to nuclear new
build...it would be even less.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mar 27, 10:22*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
I simply do not know what to make of this.

I know its nearly April 1st, but two Liberal Democrats, from a party
absolutely against nuclear power, putting their signatures on a missive
that say we will have up to *160GW* of electrical capacity by 2050???

When current peak electrical demand is only 60GW...

"Nuclear energy is clean, secure and reliable. The Government is clear
on the important role nuclear has to play in the energy mix and is
working to ensure that the market can and will bring new nuclear power
forward. The Government’s Carbon Plan 6 to reduce UK CO2 emissions to
2050 aims for there to be competition between different forms of low
carbon electricity generation. Although there are no set targets,
within 3 of the 4 key scenarios in the Government’s Carbon Plan nuclear
energy is shown to deliver a much larger amount of generation than that
available now, with the potential to deliver between 16 GW and 75 GW of
the UK’s electricity needs. The 75 GW from nuclear energy is part of a
scenario where total installed capacity in the UK is around 160 GW by
2050. Nuclear could contribute roughly 40-50% to the energy mix under
this scenario, compared with nearly 20% today."

The only possible way I can make any sense of this, is if the 160GW
capacity is comprised of mainly windmills and solar panels..which is
TOTALLY senseless if you also have nuclear*. *But even then..

Running the putative numbers - let's say we have 75GW of nuclear.

That of and by itself is enough to meet the entire nations current
electricity demand. More than enough. So let's say we have 85GW of
intermittent renewable capacity on top. delivering an average of 20GW of
energy. That's a grid capable of averaging more than three times
existing demand.

Are we expected to have three times current population then? All be
driving electric cars? All be using heat-pumps for heating, or direct
electrical heating?

Can anyone shed light on this astounding document, beyond the seemingly
logical conclusion that DECC has gone stark staring bonkers?

In case it is a joke, and gets removed from DECC's web site, I took a copy.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/b...ndustrial-stra...

* if carbon reduction is the aim. spending the money on 75GW of nuclear
power is enough to make for 70GW of reliable zero carbon power. Adding
wind to it to 'save uranium' will not result in one iota of emission
reduction beyond what is already achieved and indeed will increase
emissions by dint of having to build and maintain the windmills.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

I'm guessing that domestic gas for heating may be a distant memory by
then....

On 27/03/13 11:00, polygonum wrote:

Selling electricity to Germany.

No interconnects.

Using electric kettles to evaporate water before rivers flood.

That sounds like it might have come from the bowels of Greenpeace's Karma.

Setting a ludicrously high level of 75GW and saying that will will be
40-50% - but actually expecting it to be 80-90%.

Yerrs. That has a slight ring of truth about it. I have asked a certain
person at DECC to clarify, but I don't expect a rapid answer.



Using fan heaters to melt snow.

why no simply have a sno blower equipped with used fuel rods? Or better
still a working reactor? could use the sno top provide cooling for a
nuclear powered steam turbine.

I am sure a submarine sized reactor could be popped into a caterpillar
tracked machine that would fit on a motorway.




Setting a high level of 75GW but expecting on to achieve half of that at
best.


'That's not the Plusnet way'..always set targets lower and pat yourself
on the back when you achieve them.

What I am waiting for is the howls of protest from Limp Dumb menbers
when their brightest and best sign of a report that says 'we are firmly
committed to **** loads of nuclear power' when the Limp dumb manifesto
is all about getting rid of nuclear power altogether..

"No to nuclear and dirty coal. The power stations we rely on are not
only threatening the climate, many of them are coming to the end of
their useful life. As we replace them, we have to move on from old
technologies. We will not waste taxpayer subsidies on nuclear
power. And we will block any plans for dirty coal power stations."

(http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/...d%20Energy.pdf)

"We will say no to a new generation of nuclear power stations; nuclear
power is a far more expensive way of reducing carbon emissions than
promoting energy conservation and renewable energy."

(http://www.libdems.org.uk/sitefiles/...0manifesto.pdf)


Not how difficult it is to actually get at these policy documents. The
liberal democrats on their front pages don't HAVE a policy on energy,
only on the 'environment'


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 27/03/13 11:17, Phil wrote:

I'm guessing that domestic gas for heating may be a distant memory by
then....

That may in fact be the case.

160GW of capacity is enough (at a decent capacity factor) to run nearly
all the country on.

They must be looking to electric trains, cars buses...electrically
heated homes..offices..warehouses..

And even nuclear electric synthesised fuel.





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wednesday 27 March 2013 10:22 The Natural Philosopher wrote in uk.d-i-y:

I simply do not know what to make of this.

I know its nearly April 1st, but two Liberal Democrats, from a party
absolutely against nuclear power, putting their signatures on a missive
that say we will have up to *160GW* of electrical capacity by 2050???

How much!!!?

When current peak electrical demand is only 60GW...


"Nuclear energy is clean, secure and reliable. The Government is clear
on the important role nuclear has to play in the energy mix and is
working to ensure that the market can and will bring new nuclear power
forward. The Governments Carbon Plan 6 to reduce UK CO2 emissions to
2050 aims for there to be competition between different forms of low
carbon electricity generation. Although there are no set targets,
within 3 of the 4 key scenarios in the Governments Carbon Plan nuclear
energy is shown to deliver a much larger amount of generation than that
available now, with the potential to deliver between 16 GW and 75 GW of
the UKs electricity needs. The 75 GW from nuclear energy is part of a
scenario where total installed capacity in the UK is around 160 GW by
2050. Nuclear could contribute roughly 40-50% to the energy mix under
this scenario, compared with nearly 20% today."

I think I just had a heart attack.


The only possible way I can make any sense of this, is if the 160GW
capacity is comprised of mainly windmills and solar panels..which is
TOTALLY senseless if you also have nuclear*. But even then..

Running the putative numbers - let's say we have 75GW of nuclear.

That of and by itself is enough to meet the entire nations current
electricity demand. More than enough. So let's say we have 85GW of
intermittent renewable capacity on top. delivering an average of 20GW of
energy. That's a grid capable of averaging more than three times
existing demand.

Are we expected to have three times current population then? All be
driving electric cars? All be using heat-pumps for heating, or direct
electrical heating?

Perhaps someone is assuming we'll have no gas or petrol at all?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 27/03/2013 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/03/13 11:00, polygonum wrote:

Selling electricity to Germany.

No interconnects.


Plenty of time to lay one, two, three,... :-)

Or could it not go via France? (Have not thought about this so might be
crazy if France is already soaking their interconnects with Germany.)

--
Rod

On Wednesday 27 March 2013 11:37 The Natural Philosopher wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 27/03/13 11:17, Phil wrote:

I'm guessing that domestic gas for heating may be a distant memory by
then....

That may in fact be the case.

160GW of capacity is enough (at a decent capacity factor) to run nearly
all the country on.

They must be looking to electric trains, cars buses...electrically
heated homes..offices..warehouses..


I just walked past a bus near Drury Lane, London, with a big sign on the
side saying "Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered"

And there is the odd jelly-bean micro car around here that is always plugged
into a roadside EDF charge point.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 27/03/13 11:46, polygonum wrote:
On 27/03/2013 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/03/13 11:00, polygonum wrote:

Selling electricity to Germany.

No interconnects.


Plenty of time to lay one, two, three,... :-)

Or could it not go via France? (Have not thought about this so might be
crazy if France is already soaking their interconnects with Germany.)

well we have ta the moment just 1.5GW of interconnect working to France
and 1GW to Holland.

And no plans to build more.

There is allegedly going to be a GW or so to Norway, but I ain't holding
my breath. Too damned far.

Besides if Hollande's 'zero nuclear' plans get implemented, France will
need all the power it can get for itself.

Mind you, according to Der Spiegel, Marine le Pen* is more popular than
Hollande right now.

* France's equivalent of Nigel Farage.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 27/03/13 11:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/03/13 11:46, polygonum wrote:
On 27/03/2013 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/03/13 11:00, polygonum wrote:

Selling electricity to Germany.

No interconnects.


Plenty of time to lay one, two, three,... :-)

Or could it not go via France? (Have not thought about this so might be
crazy if France is already soaking their interconnects with Germany.)

well we have ta the moment just 1.5GW of interconnect working to France
and 1GW to Holland.

And no plans to build more.

There is allegedly going to be a GW or so to Norway, but I ain't holding
my breath. Too damned far.

Besides if Hollande's 'zero nuclear' plans get implemented, France will
need all the power it can get for itself.

Mind you, according to Der Spiegel, Marine le Pen* is more popular than
Hollande right now.

* France's equivalent of Nigel Farage.


Correction. The French interconnect is down to just 1GW AGAIN.

In fact the only time it was running at 2GW (rated capacity) was for
August and September last year.


In short it has been broken more often than its been fixed in the last
TWO YEARS.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes

If the government were to make loans available at the same sort of
interest rates it makes them available to itself, to nuclear new
build...it would be even less.

And what about dealing with the waste from all these extra nuke
stations?

You can bet your bottom dollar the energy companies will in the
contract to build and operate, avoid any obligation to deal with the
waste and it'll be left to guvmint to work out what to do with it and
the taxpayer to pick up the bill, which will be gigantic.

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

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes

On 27/03/13 11:00, polygonum wrote:

Selling electricity to Germany.

No interconnects.

I thought we were selling energy to Germany via the French interconnect
after they shuttered all their nukes last year?

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

On 27/03/13 12:23, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes

If the government were to make loans available at the same sort of
interest rates it makes them available to itself, to nuclear new
build...it would be even less.

And what about dealing with the waste from all these extra nuke
stations?


that is actually in the plan there. Its no big deal since I think most
of it gets recycled into new fuel. Or its so low in radioactivity its
barely intersting hazard wise.



You can bet your bottom dollar the energy companies will in the
contract to build and operate, avoid any obligation to deal with the
waste and it'll be left to guvmint to work out what to do with it and
the taxpayer to pick up the bill, which will be gigantic.



Well no, I will not bet on that at all, because waste disposal and
decommissioning costs are built into any of strategies that are
proposed, And they are done by the companies that operate the reactors.

That principle is well established and no one is contesting it. Nuclear
power must pay for its own decommissioning and waste disposal. The
argument is to what level that needs to be done.


Remember that paper is more about investment in research than in in
investment in actual power generation. They only talk about that in
terms of justifying the research - i.e. leading to a viable profitable
job-creating industries and exports.

I picked up on those figures because they seem over optimistic.

The only solid thing in there was about 16GW of nuclear by 2025 or
something., THAT seems reasonable.,

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 27/03/13 12:25, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes

On 27/03/13 11:00, polygonum wrote:

Selling electricity to Germany.

No interconnects.

I thought we were selling energy to Germany via the French interconnect
after they shuttered all their nukes last year?

Not really. Its complicated. Mostly we import cheap nukey power from
france and presumably wind overcapacity from holland MOST of the time.

winter 2011/12 we had all the coal and gas cranked up high and were
pushing power to FRANCE, because they don't have the peaking capacity we do.

Germany used to be a net exporter of electricity too. Italy is the big
importer in Europe, running off French and German nuclear and German
coal.,. but Germany still has half its nukes running for now, and
although its grid is in a total mess from renewables, they are not
actually short of energy, even when the wind doesn't blow and the sun
doesn't shine.

They do look set to become energy neutral however..losing the nukes at
the same time the coal comes online will adversely affect that.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 27/03/13 10:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
nuclear energy is shown to deliver a much larger amount of generation
than that available now, with the potential to deliver between 16 GW and
75 GW of the UKs electricity needs. The 75 GW from nuclear energy is
part of a scenario where total installed capacity in the UK is around
160 GW by 2050. Nuclear could contribute roughly 40-50% to the energy
mix under this scenario, compared with nearly 20% today."


So they promise lots of nuclear energy. But only when the total capacity
is more than twice current need. So an excuse to carry on building
windmills to make up the rest of planned capacity. "Nuclear *could*
contribute..." and in their world porcine aviation is a real possibility.

--
djc

On 27/03/13 12:49, djc wrote:
On 27/03/13 10:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
nuclear energy is shown to deliver a much larger amount of generation
than that available now, with the potential to deliver between 16 GW and
75 GW of the UKs electricity needs. The 75 GW from nuclear energy is
part of a scenario where total installed capacity in the UK is around
160 GW by 2050. Nuclear could contribute roughly 40-50% to the energy
mix under this scenario, compared with nearly 20% today."


So they promise lots of nuclear energy. But only when the total capacity
is more than twice current need. So an excuse to carry on building
windmills to make up the rest of planned capacity. "Nuclear *could*
contribute..." and in their world porcine aviation is a real possibility.

The problem I have is that its not so airy fairy as to be completely
dismissible, and yet so lacking in detail that its unclear what they
really think (if indeed they do [really think]).

It bears the hallmarks of someone putting out a policy documents that
uses as its basis some other internal document of which we are entirely
unaware.

And THAT is what I want to understand - what their strategic (tunnel)
vision/hallucination is, because you can bet your sweet bippy they will
be basing all sorts of lunacy on it.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes

That principle is well established and no one is contesting it. Nuclear
power must pay for its own decommissioning and waste disposal. The
argument is to what level that needs to be done.

Well, I hope so, but I'm pretty sure Private Eye's "Keeping the lights
on" column said otherwise. ISTR it said that the only operator left
bidding for the contract to build new nukes - all the others have
pulled out - are negotiating with guvmint to build and operate but not
to handle waste. Either that or they wanted huge subsidies to handle
waste.

From wonkypedia (I know...)

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

"It is current UK Government policy that the construction of any new
nuclear power stations in the UK will be led and financed by the
private sector.This transfers the running and immediate concerns to the
operator, while reducing (although not eliminating) government
participation and long-term involvement/liability (nuclear waste, as
involving government policy, will likely remain a liability, even if
only a limited one)."

"In 2010 The Daily Telegraph reported that additional incentives, such
as capacity payments and supplier nuclear obligations, would be needed
to persuade companies to build nuclear plants in the UK"

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

On 27/03/13 13:47, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes

That principle is well established and no one is contesting it. Nuclear
power must pay for its own decommissioning and waste disposal. The
argument is to what level that needs to be done.

Well, I hope so, but I'm pretty sure Private Eye's "Keeping the lights
on" column said otherwise. ISTR it said that the only operator left
bidding for the contract to build new nukes - all the others have
pulled out - are negotiating with guvmint to build and operate but not
to handle waste. Either that or they wanted huge subsidies to handle
waste.

From wonkypedia (I know...)

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

"It is current UK Government policy that the construction of any new
nuclear power stations in the UK will be led and financed by the
private sector.This transfers the running and immediate concerns to the
operator, while reducing (although not eliminating) government
participation and long-term involvement/liability (nuclear waste, as
involving government policy, will likely remain a liability, even if
only a limited one)."

"In 2010 The Daily Telegraph reported that additional incentives, such
as capacity payments and supplier nuclear obligations, would be needed
to persuade companies to build nuclear plants in the UK"

Fair comment.

But I think you need to be clear about financial and physical
responsibility.

We are all, through council taxes, financially responsible for our waste
disposal, but we are not physically responsible.

The government remains physically responsible to at least oversee and
regulate disposal of nuclear waste, but the cost will be borne by some
levy on the nuclear operators - generally that's a uranium tax .. or
perhaps they will be required to pay e,g. Sellafield to take used rods
away and deal with them.

It is more of the way that governments evade taking financial
responsibility whilst ensuring that they control physical
responsibility. Just like wind farms. They are not subsidised by
GOVERNMENT but by consumers, who have their free market choices removed
by legislation.

I think that the more honest of the people at DECC are really struggling
to find ways that are not too devious to create new policy frameworks
that embody 'the tax payer wont pay' even if the actual effect is to
make consumers pay.

Oddly, that is actually worse for the lower paid. Since they pay less
taxes but still have to pay for 'green' energy.

Law of unintended consequences yet again.



Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 27/03/2013 11:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Mind you, according to Der Spiegel, Marine le Pen* is more popular than
Hollande right now.

* France's equivalent of Nigel Farage.

Must say that physog-wise, Marine beats Nigel cheeks down.

--
Rod

On 27/03/13 22:44, polygonum wrote:
On 27/03/2013 11:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Mind you, according to Der Spiegel, Marine le Pen* is more popular than
Hollande right now.

* France's equivalent of Nigel Farage.

Must say that physog-wise, Marine beats Nigel cheeks down.

Not according to SWMBO, who has a slight 'pash' for Our Nige..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

Nuclear
power must pay for its own decommissioning and waste disposal.

Apparently the goalposts have moved:

"Renewables will be supported with 20-year contracts rather than
nuclear's expected 40 years and the unknown costs of nuclear waste and
accidents will also be placed on customers via government."

in other words, the consumer will now pay for waste disposal, not the
utility company.

The whole article is worth a read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-energy-cost-
nuclear-reactors

"Renewable energy providers to help bear cost of new UK nuclear reactors

Experts say decision to share cost of accommodating Hinkley Point
reactors among providers amounts to subsidy for nuclear"

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

On 28/03/2013 09:12, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

Nuclear
power must pay for its own decommissioning and waste disposal.

Apparently the goalposts have moved:

"Renewables will be supported with 20-year contracts rather than
nuclear's expected 40 years and the unknown costs of nuclear waste and
accidents will also be placed on customers via government."

in other words, the consumer will now pay for waste disposal, not the
utility company.

The whole article is worth a read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-energy-cost-
nuclear-reactors

"Renewable energy providers to help bear cost of new UK nuclear reactors

Experts say decision to share cost of accommodating Hinkley Point
reactors among providers amounts to subsidy for nuclear"

How much energy could you extract from moving goalposts? Assume, maybe,
50% efficiency?

There seems an almost limitless supply.

--
Rod

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:12:03 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:


The whole article is worth a read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-energy-cost-
nuclear-reactors

"Renewable energy providers to help bear cost of new UK nuclear reactors

Experts say decision to share cost of accommodating Hinkley Point
reactors among providers amounts to subsidy for nuclear".

This doesn't make sense to me:

""Nuclear reactors need back-up, which is expensive and which its advocates tend to forget," said Doug Parr,
policy director at Greenpeace. "The spreading of the cost is another implicit subsidy to get huge nuclear plants
built that people will be paying for without even realising it."

Nuclear is base-load; however could renewables act as back-up for it? It's renewables that need backup.

--
Terry Fields

En el artículo , Terry Fields
escribió:

Nuclear is base-load; however could renewables act as back-up for it? It's
renewables that need backup.

It's saying that there needs to be contingency for when a nuke suddenly
has to go off-line, for example when it ingests a load of jellyfish or
seaweed into its cooling system (as has happened), or a ****youshima-
style tsunami.

The bigger the station, the more contingency backup needs to be
available for when it suddenly goes offline.

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

On Thursday 28 March 2013 12:05 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

En el artÃ*culo , Terry Fields
escribió:

Nuclear is base-load; however could renewables act as back-up for it? It's
renewables that need backup.

It's saying that there needs to be contingency for when a nuke suddenly
has to go off-line, for example when it ingests a load of jellyfish or
seaweed into its cooling system (as has happened), or a ****youshima-
style tsunami.

The bigger the station, the more contingency backup needs to be
available for when it suddenly goes offline.


That's true of any power station.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 28/03/13 11:47, Terry Fields wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:12:03 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:


The whole article is worth a read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-energy-cost-
nuclear-reactors

"Renewable energy providers to help bear cost of new UK nuclear reactors

Experts say decision to share cost of accommodating Hinkley Point
reactors among providers amounts to subsidy for nuclear".

This doesn't make sense to me:


Of course not. Its just another renewable Big Lie. Nuclear generators
don't need backup at all.

""Nuclear reactors need back-up, which is expensive and which its advocates tend to forget," said Doug Parr,
policy director at Greenpeace. "The spreading of the cost is another implicit subsidy to get huge nuclear plants
built that people will be paying for without even realising it."

Nuclear is base-load; however could renewables act as back-up for it? It's renewables that need backup.

Exactly. you have basically seen through what amounts to pure propaganda
by greenpeace - the use of the Big Lie, to accuse others of the thing
you are most guilty of yourself, on the basis that no one will believe
anyone has the bald faced effrontery to tell such a monumental porkie.

Incidentally I did get a reply from David Mackay on asking him to
clarify why we appeared to be needing such a monumental amount of
electrical capacity.

He referred me to a 2011 DECC document
"The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future" in which the
routemap to slashing our carbon emissions to close to zero is laid out.

It appears that the rationale is that the only reasonably practical way
to have energy at any sort of efficiency that is consistent with
technology that more or less actually exists, is to go more or less all
electric.


So all domestic and industrial space heating and cooling is envisaged to
be electric - direct or heat-pumped. Trains take the strain and battery
cars and hybrids.

An array of ******** technology is also included to try and offset the
intermittency of renewables - that's the smart grid, electric cars, hand
wavey inter-connectors and storage that are total pie in the sky
probably, and realistically, huge amounts of nuclear power, and
unrealistically, huge amounts of renewable energy.

The document contains several errors of fact. Wind power in 2011 was
apparently 50% higher then it demonstrably generated last year with more
windmills than ever - for example, and the logical fallacy of deploying
nuclear AND intermittent renewables* is simply swept aside.

But if you like science fiction, its a good read.

All in all it probably means less than nothing - by the time we are ten
years into the plan the game will almost certainly have changed beyond
recognition anyway. The important thing is that some money is being
tipped towards nuclear research AND development...and that its got a
Limp Dumb signature on it.

Of course 95% of it will be wasted, but 5% may just conceivable do some
good. Which is more than you can say for windymills.

So whilst its clear that DECC and the coalition are at lest taking
nuclear seriously, they are still wedded to the erroneous notion that
renewable energy 'has a part to play' beyond burning rubbish, using a
bit of hydro, and having the odd **** digester to turn bull**** into
natural gas.

As I said, although not so detailed, I prefer Roger Helmer's policies
altogether.

Which are '******** to emissions, ******** to technology specific
subsidies, let's generate power using what's cheapest now and in the
future, and spend a little money on *investigating* a few alternatives
that actually may conceivably be cost effective ways to keep the lights
on, all the time bearing in mind that nuclear coal and gas, are here now
technologies that work, and nothing that can't compete with nuclear, is
likely to be a long term 'sustainable' option, and that means windmills
and solar panels'.


*As you point out, nuclear doesn't need backup, nor does using less of
it than you have available use one iota less fossil fuel or reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide. And saving uranium is hardly relevant in
either emissions or cost terms. So a nuclear/intermittent renewables
grid could be replaced with an all-nuclear grid, with no intermittent
renewables, with no emissions penalty. But HUGE cost savings. I have
pointed this out to David, but he remains fond of the renewable dream.
"80% nuclear 20% wind" is what he whispered in my ear last time we met,
as if telling a dirty joke.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 28/03/13 12:05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Terry Fields
escribió:

Nuclear is base-load; however could renewables act as back-up for it? It's
renewables that need backup.

It's saying that there needs to be contingency for when a nuke suddenly
has to go off-line, for example when it ingests a load of jellyfish or
seaweed into its cooling system (as has happened), or a ****youshima-
style tsunami.

The bigger the station, the more contingency backup needs to be
available for when it suddenly goes offline.

well that's (quantitive) rubbish, because the equivalent of 6 Sizewell
B's are already going on and off line *every few days*, in the shape of
the total wind farm output.

We have plenty of emergency capacity to deal with the odd nuke going
'unplanned outage' We don't have the reserves for 7GW of wind power
flapping up and down like a whore's drawers every other day. Well we do,
but it costs us dearly already. Day to night is around 10GW demand
variation we already have to cope with. Existing wind power already is
adding another 7GW of random fluctuation onto that doubling the dispatch
requirements.

Its a typical qualitative response from the Greens. Tantamount to Ed
Balls saying 'well your kid lost a quid yesterday so don't blame me for
losing £50bn'


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

En el artículo , Tim Watts
escribió:

That's true of any power station.

The point is that the proposed new nukes are going to be massive, and so
the contingency needs to be increased to suit. Realistically, this is
going to have to be OCGT or oil.

"The new reactors planned by EDF for Hinkley Point are significantly
larger than any existing power stations, meaning the national grid has
to pay for extra standby electricity to stop the grid crashing if one of
the reactors unexpectedly goes offline."

"Currently, the grid's back-up system plans for a major loss of up to
1,320MW a few times a year. But the two new reactors planned by EDF will
have 1,600GW of capacity each, meaning the grid will have to increase
its back-up to 1,800MW."

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

On 28/03/13 12:15, Tim Watts wrote:
On Thursday 28 March 2013 12:05 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

En el artÃ*culo , Terry Fields
escribió:

Nuclear is base-load; however could renewables act as back-up for it? It's
renewables that need backup.

It's saying that there needs to be contingency for when a nuke suddenly
has to go off-line, for example when it ingests a load of jellyfish or
seaweed into its cooling system (as has happened), or a ****youshima-
style tsunami.

The bigger the station, the more contingency backup needs to be
available for when it suddenly goes offline.


That's true of any power station.

Its true, but its scarcely relevant. For proper power stations. The day
to night demand variation is around 8 nuclear power stations worth. One
more power station going down makes that 9, a mere 12.5% increase. But
total wind farm capacity is over 8GW now if you include all the tiddlers
that aren't metered and so on, and that is getting close to doubling the
potential dispatch requirements. When one power station goes down
unplanned, , its one power station and it probably happens at most once
a month, when the wind drops its ALL the windmills out or at least well
down the power curve.

Wind energy in the UK has 'lost' a GW a day this week, from 5GW on
Sunday, to 4GW on Monday, to 3GW on Tuesday,iveed impact of 3GW - two
and a half nukes - off the grid in three days. The liklihood of that
happening is close to zero with conventional plant, its absolutely the
norm with wind power.

Such events cost money and fuel. They happen once a year with
conventional plant., They happen every 3-4 days with wind.

It is simply green renewable lies and distortions and selective reportage.

The greens are only on the side of themselves and their power base, and
they are firmly on the pockets of the renewable/gas profiteers.



*actually its probably 40% more than that, if you take unmetered into
account.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 28/03/13 12:34, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Tim Watts
escribió:

That's true of any power station.

The point is that the proposed new nukes are going to be massive, and so
the contingency needs to be increased to suit. Realistically, this is
going to have to be OCGT or oil.

"The new reactors planned by EDF for Hinkley Point are significantly
larger than any existing power stations, meaning the national grid has
to pay for extra standby electricity to stop the grid crashing if one of
the reactors unexpectedly goes offline."


Total ********. Sizewell C is 1.6GW. As I pointed out diurnal demand
fluctuations are ~10GW. We have the capacity already to back up the plant.


"Currently, the grid's back-up system plans for a major loss of up to
1,320MW a few times a year. But the two new reactors planned by EDF will
have 1,600GW of capacity each, meaning the grid will have to increase
its back-up to 1,800MW."

Assuming they all crash together. But they wont. Not unless greenpeace
sabotages them.

Any other event that takes out more than one power station unexpectdely
is likely to be massive enough so that the loss of 10% of our supply
will be the least of our worries.


Currently we have the ability to backup the loss of 8GW of wind.

That is already costing us dear. dumping that for a reliable set of
nukes will reduce costs, not increase them.

Its a simple smear job by renewable UK or greenpeace ore whichever other
organisation is in charge of GreenAgitProp.

Who only a year or so ago were claiming that 'wind wont need extra
backup, because it already exists to cover day to night demand
variations and the loss of a fossil/nuclear power station'

I.e. extra backup costs only applies to a competitive technology...

The same distoirtiosn were used by the Guardian to refute the Hughes
report which in simple terms said 'if we GO ON adding wind, the most
likely plant it will displace, is high efficiency CCGT, and there is a
risk that we will build cheap OCGT to cover peaking demands. The
giuradian claimed to have refuted this, by looking at gridwatch or
Bmreports and noting that in fact we haven't used any existing OCGT
plant at all. And FAILING to note that in 2012 and 2013, CCGT gas - the
most efficient and low emission plant we have, FELL dramatically and was
replaced with wind and COAL. Exactly as Hughes predicted.

Now the closure of coal plant being forced on us by the Greens will
inevitably lead to hihher electricity prices. And several genarators are
closing old but efficient CCGT plant. It only a mater of time befre they
start banging in really cheap fuel guzzling OCGT to cover peak demands,
rasing emissions and electricity prices..


Total hatchet job, but the faithful heave a sigh of relief, that they
have a straw left to cling to in their reliogion of whirlygigs and evil
carbon dioxide.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thursday 28 March 2013 12:34 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

En el artÃ*culo , Tim Watts
escribió:

That's true of any power station.

The point is that the proposed new nukes are going to be massive, and so
the contingency needs to be increased to suit. Realistically, this is
going to have to be OCGT or oil.


But they will act as contingency against each other. Unless they build them
all one one massive site somewhere in the southeast.

One nuke going pop in Dungeness isn't going to render all the rest
inoperable.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 28/03/2013 12:15, Tim Watts wrote:
On Thursday 28 March 2013 12:05 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

En el artÃ*culo , Terry Fields
escribió:

Nuclear is base-load; however could renewables act as back-up for it? It's
renewables that need backup.

It's saying that there needs to be contingency for when a nuke suddenly
has to go off-line, for example when it ingests a load of jellyfish or
seaweed into its cooling system (as has happened), or a ****youshima-
style tsunami.

The bigger the station, the more contingency backup needs to be
available for when it suddenly goes offline.


That's true of any power station.


They are not talking about the same thing.

A nuclear station needs power to run cooling, etc. even if it has shut down.

Green power could never supply such needs.

On 28/03/13 16:07, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/03/2013 12:15, Tim Watts wrote:
On Thursday 28 March 2013 12:05 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

En el artÃ*culo , Terry Fields
escribió:

Nuclear is base-load; however could renewables act as back-up for
it? It's
renewables that need backup.

It's saying that there needs to be contingency for when a nuke suddenly
has to go off-line, for example when it ingests a load of jellyfish or
seaweed into its cooling system (as has happened), or a ****youshima-
style tsunami.

The bigger the station, the more contingency backup needs to be
available for when it suddenly goes offline.


That's true of any power station.


They are not talking about the same thing.

A nuclear station needs power to run cooling, etc. even if it has shut
down.

Green power could never supply such needs.


well exactly. useless innit?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:25:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear generators don't need backup at all.

cough 100% load factor from the moment you press "start" to the moment,
60 years later, when you press "stop"?

No refuelling, no break downs, nothing wearing out and needing to be
replaced, no unexpected trips?

One would have of course more than one and you'd have enough capacity to
ensure that one of the fleet could be offline without demand exceeding
supply but that is just all the others providing back up for the one off
line. I guess you can also refuel during the summer and have more than
one offline but again they are still being backed up by the others.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:00:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Any other event that takes out more than one power station unexpectdely
is likely to be massive enough so that the loss of 10% of our supply
will be the least of our worries.

cough 27 May 2008 Longannet and Sizewell B. Only 1510 MW or at an
educated guess about 3% of demand. If 10% dropped off without warning I
suspect we'd be into black start mode. Wind, though variable, doesn't go
from 5 GW to 0 GW instantly.

Sods Laws states that if something can go wrong it will and all random,
unrelated, events add up unidirectionally for maximum distruption.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 28/03/13 20:45, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:25:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear generators don't need backup at all.

cough 100% load factor from the moment you press "start" to the moment,
60 years later, when you press "stop"?



Nope. Planned outages planned months in advance generally for warmer
weather times and designed not to overlap.


No refuelling, no break downs, nothing wearing out and needing to be
replaced, no unexpected trips?

One would have of course more than one and you'd have enough capacity to
ensure that one of the fleet could be offline without demand exceeding
supply but that is just all the others providing back up for the one off
line. I guess you can also refuel during the summer and have more than
one offline but again they are still being backed up by the others.

its an entirely diferent scenario to wind.

Which is why I prefer te them co-operate. wind needs to co-operate with
a dispatchable power source. Nuclear just needs a bit of overcapacity.
Maybe 10%. wind needs 100% capacity near enough.

And whilst de mothballling some wheezy old inefficient oil burner once a
year for a week doesnt break the bank fuel wise, having to keep a
mountain of fast acting kit on permente standby and ready to go, does cost.

Its the usual renewable energy lobby trick of comparing apples and
oranges and making invalid comparisons between things that cant be
compared, because they are not the same.

The only thing that counts is ultimately cost. 10% more nuclear than
ytou need more or less adssdd 10% to teh cvost of electrcity. So makyeb
89 to 8.8p cost??

adding backup to 14p wind costs far more. Maybe 2p a unit, because of
the amount of backup you need. taking it to about 16p a unit(onshore).
For example.

The renewable lobby disregards backup costs for wind, but complains it
will be impossibly expensive for nuclear.

The renewable lobby complains about the decommissioning costs of
nuclear, but ignores that cost for wind.,

The renewable lobby complains about subsidies for nuclear, whilst being
the most heavily subsidised technology in the market place.

The renewable lobby says 'it cost as much to buil a 1GW nuclear power
station as a 1GW wind farm' but neglects to point out that te nuke will
last 4 times as long and gerenate 16 times more electricity over its
life and wont need 100% backup on permanent standby.

Th erreneable lobby claim that it needs subsidy because 1000 year old
technology is 'new' and 'needs help' whilst saying that nuclear -
especially thorium - doesn't qualify because its 'well established'.

The renewable lobby says that thorium is so new and untested there is no
guarantee it will work.

The renewable lobby raises fears over long term waste disposal of a
quantity of waste that would fit into a small hall. Meanwhile it ignores
the environmental impact of 200meter tall bird choppers that can be seen
for 50 miles , disrupt radio TV and cellular transmissions, radar, and
aircraft. whilst also destroying tourism and the lives of people
nearby,and the attendant pylons needed to carry the power - on occasion
when the wind does actually blow, miles and miles to where it may
possibly be needed.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 28/03/13 21:05, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:00:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Any other event that takes out more than one power station unexpectdely
is likely to be massive enough so that the loss of 10% of our supply
will be the least of our worries.

cough 27 May 2008 Longannet and Sizewell B. Only 1510 MW or at an
educated guess about 3% of demand. If 10% dropped off without warning I
suspect we'd be into black start mode. Wind, though variable, doesn't go
from 5 GW to 0 GW instantly.


No we wouldn't. Dinorwig can push 2GW into the grid for long enough to
get CCGT up and running, and that's not all there is, hydro wise -
there's at least 600MW of diesel out there somewhere buried under
hospitals, telephone exchanges and data centers, and there is at least
another 500MW that you can tell certain customers to 'shut down' . low
voltage can shed a few more hundred MW as well.

Instant response is to get the water power flat out - that's probably
2GW - for 15 mins till; you can shed the load and call up every
emergency diesel et there is. That buts you the 15 minutes you need to
get the few hundred MW of OCGT running and any CCGT that you have spare.
You could also chop 250MW off the export link to N Ireland

I'd say that losing 5GW off the grid suddenly is just about capable of
being absorbed at a pinch., 3GW certainly.

What is far MORE serious is simple lack of capacity in cold still;
weather. With everything up and then a station goes down.

The arguments is not - despite your attempts to make it so - about
ability to cope with occasional transients. Its about the cost of
dealing with constant massive transients day in and day out - especially
with solar. Its not that it cant be done, its the horrendous COST in
doing it.


Sods Laws states that if something can go wrong it will and all random,
unrelated, events add up unidirectionally for maximum distruption.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.