On 21/07/2013 06:29, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have
been built. The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay. YOU.

At least that's a start. You seem to have admitted there's more to the
costs of producing electricity than the cost of the energy used to make
it.


You are almost the dopiest here.
There are two costs.
Cost of converting the fuel. (Any fuel)
Costs of the fuel (free in the case of renewables)
Renewables will utimately be the cheapest in total because the energy cost
is free and the price of fossil fuel will rise.

And then there is the (strong) possibilty our fuel supply will be cut
off/curtailed.
(Except for renewables.)

And nukes.
They will only be cut off because of people like you.

Hence the desperation over frack gas and renewables. (The renewables won't
run out either the frack gas will be expended in a decade).



the renewables will go.
Just look how much gas is needed to make the bases for wind turbines.
Look a how much oil is need to make the blades.

You can't run major industrial processes on renewables as you can't stop
a steel furnace or a cement factory when it goes dark or if the wind
stops blowing.

You probably can't run bakeries and other food factories on them either.

In short unless you plan on killing 90% of the population you just can't
do renewables with any of the current technologies.

If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 21/07/2013 06:29, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have
been built. The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay. YOU.

At least that's a start. You seem to have admitted there's more to the
costs of producing electricity than the cost of the energy used to make
it.


You are almost the dopiest here.
There are two costs.
Cost of converting the fuel. (Any fuel)
Costs of the fuel (free in the case of renewables)
Renewables will utimately be the cheapest in total because the energy
cost
is free and the price of fossil fuel will rise.

And then there is the (strong) possibilty our fuel supply will be cut
off/curtailed.
(Except for renewables.)

And nukes.
They will only be cut off because of people like you.

Hence the desperation over frack gas and renewables. (The renewables
won't
run out either the frack gas will be expended in a decade).



the renewables will go.
Just look how much gas is needed to make the bases for wind turbines.
Look a how much oil is need to make the blades.

You can't run major industrial processes on renewables as you can't stop a
steel furnace or a cement factory when it goes dark or if the wind stops
blowing.

You probably can't run bakeries and other food factories on them either.

In short unless you plan on killing 90% of the population you just can't
do renewables with any of the current technologies.

If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.

Den, there is absolutely no chance.
Look at the pie chart.

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

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 21/07/2013 06:29, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have
been built. The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay. YOU.

At least that's a start. You seem to have admitted there's more to the
costs of producing electricity than the cost of the energy used to make
it.


You are almost the dopiest here.
There are two costs.
Cost of converting the fuel. (Any fuel)
Costs of the fuel (free in the case of renewables)
Renewables will utimately be the cheapest in total because the energy
cost
is free and the price of fossil fuel will rise.

And then there is the (strong) possibilty our fuel supply will be cut
off/curtailed.
(Except for renewables.)

And nukes.
They will only be cut off because of people like you.

Hence the desperation over frack gas and renewables. (The renewables
won't
run out either the frack gas will be expended in a decade).



the renewables will go.
Just look how much gas is needed to make the bases for wind turbines.
Look a how much oil is need to make the blades.

You can't run major industrial processes on renewables as you can't stop a
steel furnace or a cement factory when it goes dark or if the wind stops
blowing.

You probably can't run bakeries and other food factories on them either.

In short unless you plan on killing 90% of the population you just can't
do renewables with any of the current technologies.

If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.


Den, there is no chance.
Look at the pie chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:19:54 +0100, harryagain wrote:

And further all primary energy sources are subsidised. Except renewables

I'm sorry, renewables not subsidised?

What is your 42p/unit solar PV payment if not a subsisidy?

What is the payment above the wholesale rate to windmills when they
generate but a subsidy?

What is the payment to wind mills not to generate if not a subsisidy?

Renewables can't be cut off by crazy ayatollas etc in the ME.

But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is
**** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France as
wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming from
coal, followed by nuke then CCGT.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 09:26:46 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

You dopey bugger. There will be no "hot reserve" You don't even
know
what the term means do you?

So when renewables produce nothing, like wind hasn't been for the last
two weeks, we all get massive power cuts?

You dopey bugger. The sun has been blazing down plenty of Solar PV in
Harrys world. Oh the lights have just gone out, why's that? Ah, it's
got dark...

--
Cheers
Dave.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 21/07/2013 06:29, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have
been built. The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay. YOU.

At least that's a start. You seem to have admitted there's more to the
costs of producing electricity than the cost of the energy used to make
it.


You are almost the dopiest here.
There are two costs.
Cost of converting the fuel. (Any fuel)
Costs of the fuel (free in the case of renewables)
Renewables will utimately be the cheapest in total because the energy
cost
is free and the price of fossil fuel will rise.

And then there is the (strong) possibilty our fuel supply will be cut
off/curtailed.
(Except for renewables.)

And nukes.
They will only be cut off because of people like you.

Hence the desperation over frack gas and renewables. (The renewables
won't
run out either the frack gas will be expended in a decade).



the renewables will go.
Just look how much gas is needed to make the bases for wind turbines.
Look a how much oil is need to make the blades.

You can't run major industrial processes on renewables as you can't stop a
steel furnace or a cement factory when it goes dark or if the wind stops
blowing.

You probably can't run bakeries and other food factories on them either.

In short unless you plan on killing 90% of the population you just can't
do renewables with any of the current technologies.

If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.
Den. there is nochance
Look at the pie chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy

On Sunday, July 21, 2013 12:40:29 PM UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/07/2013 06:29, harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

...

In article ,

harryagain wrote:

The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have

been built. The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.



When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to

pay. YOU.



At least that's a start. You seem to have admitted there's more to the

costs of producing electricity than the cost of the energy used to make

it.





You are almost the dopiest here.

There are two costs.

Cost of converting the fuel. (Any fuel)

Costs of the fuel (free in the case of renewables)

Renewables will utimately be the cheapest in total because the energy cost

is free and the price of fossil fuel will rise.



And then there is the (strong) possibilty our fuel supply will be cut

off/curtailed.

(Except for renewables.)



And nukes.

They will only be cut off because of people like you.



Hence the desperation over frack gas and renewables. (The renewables won't

run out either the frack gas will be expended in a decade).







the renewables will go.

Just look how much gas is needed to make the bases for wind turbines.

Look a how much oil is need to make the blades.



You can't run major industrial processes on renewables as you can't stop

a steel furnace or a cement factory when it goes dark or if the wind

stops blowing.



You probably can't run bakeries and other food factories on them either.



In short unless you plan on killing 90% of the population you just can't

do renewables with any of the current technologies.



If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.

Dennis, there is no chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy


Look and see what primary energy is.
Just look at the pie chart.

On 21/07/2013 21:24, harry wrote:


If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.

Dennis, there is no chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy


Look and see what primary energy is.
Just look at the pie chart.



So how do you run a cement factory on solar energy or wind then?
They have start up times measured in days which is rather inconvenient
for an intermittent source like wind or solar.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 21/07/2013 21:24, harry wrote:


If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.

Dennis, there is no chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy


Look and see what primary energy is.
Just look at the pie chart.



So how do you run a cement factory on solar energy or wind then?
They have start up times measured in days which is rather inconvenient for
an intermittent source like wind or solar.

That is a chemical processes not power generation. Just as making iron is a
chemical process.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:19:54 +0100, harryagain wrote:

And further all primary energy sources are subsidised. Except renewables

I'm sorry, renewables not subsidised?

What is your 42p/unit solar PV payment if not a subsisidy?

What is the payment above the wholesale rate to windmills when they
generate but a subsidy?

What is the payment to wind mills not to generate if not a subsisidy?

Renewables can't be cut off by crazy ayatollas etc in the ME.

But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is
**** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France as
wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming from
coal, followed by nuke then CCGT.

That is because we don't yet have the full range of renewables.
We are notably lacking tidal power.

There will always need to be some gas powered electricity too.
But not oil, coal or nuclear.

Oil and coal will be need for some chemical processes.

On 22/07/13 07:00, harryagain wrote:

That is a chemical processes not power generation. Just as making iron is a
chemical process.

ROFLMAO!

a car is just a mechanical device harry. Not power generation. Just like
an electric train.



--
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.

harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

--
Terry Fields

harryagain wrote:


"Dave Liquorice" wrote

But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is
**** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France as
wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming from
coal, followed by nuke then CCGT.

That is because we don't yet have the full range of renewables.
We are notably lacking tidal power.

Ask your self this. It's summer, and electricity consumption is at
it's minimum for the year. Demand at midnight was about 25 GW

Wind, and Biomass are producing ~1GW.

If all the *possible* tidal-power sites were on-stream, would they
have produced the remaining ~24GW at that time?

It's now daylight, what is Solar adding to the mix, as demand rises
above 37GW?

When it's cloudy, windless, and maximum tide, what would 'renewables'
provide to meet the demand?

I hope you don't have a heart attack at such a time.
--
Terry Fields

On 22/07/2013 07:08, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:19:54 +0100, harryagain wrote:

And further all primary energy sources are subsidised. Except renewables

I'm sorry, renewables not subsidised?

What is your 42p/unit solar PV payment if not a subsisidy?

What is the payment above the wholesale rate to windmills when they
generate but a subsidy?

What is the payment to wind mills not to generate if not a subsisidy?

Renewables can't be cut off by crazy ayatollas etc in the ME.

But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is
**** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France as
wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming from
coal, followed by nuke then CCGT.

That is because we don't yet have the full range of renewables.
We are notably lacking tidal power.

And probably forever will be. Not that adding yet another non
dispatchable source of generation does anything to solve the problem.

There will always need to be some gas powered electricity too.

Yes, this is probably true.

But not oil, coal or nuclear.

And that obviously not.

Oil and coal will be need for some chemical processes.

Stunning...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 22/07/2013 07:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 21/07/2013 21:24, harry wrote:


If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.

Dennis, there is no chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy


Look and see what primary energy is.
Just look at the pie chart.



So how do you run a cement factory on solar energy or wind then?
They have start up times measured in days which is rather inconvenient for
an intermittent source like wind or solar.

That is a chemical processes not power generation. Just as making iron is a
chemical process.



Are you really that stupid?
Why do you think they use vast amounts of fuel every day?


What are you going to use to build the windmills when there is no concrete?

Intermittent re-newables are totally useless for running major
industrial plants and unless you have a reliable source you will lose them.
Germany is finding that out ATM.
If you want to continue to live anywhere near like you do now you need a
lot of reliable energy and if as you say the oil and gas are going nukes
are the only option we have left.

You may think a peasant economy with 10% of the current population is OK
but the 90% that have to go may not agree.

On 22/07/2013 08:44, Terry Fields wrote:
harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?


I doubt if the Sun will renew itself so that means there are no
renewable energy sources that we know of.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:08:24 +0100, harryagain wrote:

I'm sorry, renewables not subsidised?

What is your 42p/unit solar PV payment if not a subsisidy?

What is the payment above the wholesale rate to windmills when
they
generate but a subsidy?

What is the payment to wind mills not to generate if not a
subsisidy?

No answer noted.

But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is
**** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France
as
wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming
from
coal, followed by nuke then CCGT.

That is because we don't yet have the full range of renewables.

Even with a "full range" (define please) of renewables the UK just
isn't big enough to collect enough renewable energy to supply our
total energy demand on a 24/7 basis.

We are notably lacking tidal power.

If we had the severn barage when I posted last night it was just a
couple of hours after high tide at Avonmouth so it might have been
able to provide 5% of the demand. So still the upper 70's% required
to come from coal, nuke or gas.

The politicos listening to the greenie pressure groups have scuppered
the severn barage again anyway.

There will always need to be some gas powered electricity too.
But not oil, coal or nuclear.

Why gas and not nuke? Oh it's beacuse you must have something
dispatchable to cope with the unpredictable nature of the oh so
wonderful renewables.

Roll on smart meters. Give people a choice:

Pay for a "green" electricity at 20p+/unit (to pay for the subsidies
to the windmaills, solar PV etc) but when there is not enough "green"
electricity about you switch them off.

Pay 10p/unit for principally coal/nuke/gas which is available 24/7
unless something like Longannet/Sizewell B happens.

We will then see how much real support the "green" supliers get from
the population at large. Those on "green" tarrifs now are just
freeloading on the coal/nuke/gas generation whilst lining the pockets
of the "green" suppliers. They simply do not realise just how little
of their "green" electricty comes from "green" sources.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:50:11 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the
temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates
from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive
decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that
there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

Aye, just the normal bending of the truth by the greenies.

I doubt if the Sun will renew itself so that means there are no
renewable energy sources that we know of.

Good. So lets stop pratting about with this "renewables" lark and
build the things that will work and provide our required energy in a
predictable manner 24/7. ie nukes.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Monday, July 22, 2013 11:21:34 AM UTC+1, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:08:24 +0100, harryagain wrote: I'm sorry, renewables not subsidised? What is your 42p/unit solar PV payment if not a subsisidy? What is the payment above the wholesale rate to windmills when they generate but a subsidy? What is the payment to wind mills not to generate if not a subsisidy? No answer noted. But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is **** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France as wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming from coal, followed by nuke then CCGT. That is because we don't yet have the full range of renewables. Even with a "full range" (define please) of renewables the UK just isn't big enough to collect enough renewable energy to supply our total energy demand on a 24/7 basis. We are notably lacking tidal power. If we had the severn barage when I posted last night it was just a couple of hours after high tide at Avonmouth so it might have been able to provide 5% of the demand. So still the upper 70's% required to come from coal, nuke or gas. The politicos listening to the greenie pressure groups have scuppered the severn barage again anyway. There will always need to be some gas powered electricity too. But not oil, coal or nuclear. Why gas and not nuke? Oh it's beacuse you must have something dispatchable to cope with the unpredictable nature of the oh so wonderful renewables. Roll on smart meters. Give people a choice: Pay for a "green" electricity at 20p+/unit (to pay for the subsidies to the windmaills, solar PV etc) but when there is not enough "green" electricity about you switch them off. Pay 10p/unit for principally coal/nuke/gas which is available 24/7 unless something like Longannet/Sizewell B happens. We will then see how much real support the "green" supliers get from the population at large. Those on "green" tarrifs now are just freeloading on the coal/nuke/gas generation whilst lining the pockets of the "green" suppliers. They simply do not realise just how little of their "green" electricty comes from "green" sources. -- Cheers Dave.

+1

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 21:02:37 +0100, harryagain wrote:

Den. there is nochance
Look at the pie chart.

Which one?

The one that shows renewables only providing 10% of the "2010 World
Marketed Energy Use"? Yes it's above nuke but still less than half
each of coal/gas/oil which make up 84% together.

Or the "World Share of Primary Energy" that shows 64 % fossil, 18%
hydro, 17% nuclear, 4% renewable.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 22/07/13 08:44, Terry Fields wrote:
harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.
Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

Of course. The sun itself is not renewable.


--
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 22/07/13 12:00, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 21:02:37 +0100, harryagain wrote:

Den. there is nochance
Look at the pie chart.
Which one?

The one that shows renewables only providing 10% of the "2010 World
Marketed Energy Use"? Yes it's above nuke but still less than half
each of coal/gas/oil which make up 84% together.

Or the "World Share of Primary Energy" that shows 64 % fossil, 18%
hydro, 17% nuclear, 4% renewable.

the trick there is to lump hydro in with 'renewables'

Non hydro renewables are barely contributing anything, and certainly
have resulted in little or no emissions savings.

hydro has been around a long time, and nearly all the best sites are
already taken.

--
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.

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Dave Liquorice" wrote

But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is
**** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France as
wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming from
coal, followed by nuke then CCGT.

That is because we don't yet have the full range of renewables.
We are notably lacking tidal power.

Ask your self this. It's summer, and electricity consumption is at
it's minimum for the year. Demand at midnight was about 25 GW

Wind, and Biomass are producing ~1GW.

If all the *possible* tidal-power sites were on-stream, would they
have produced the remaining ~24GW at that time?

It's now daylight, what is Solar adding to the mix, as demand rises
above 37GW?

When it's cloudy, windless, and maximum tide, what would 'renewables'
provide to meet the demand?

I hope you don't have a heart attack at such a time.
--
Terry Fields

High tide does not ocurr at the same time everywhere..
And we are all going to have to use less.
Demand led power supply will no longer be possible.
ie we are going tohave to use power when it's available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_management_system
A start on this has already been made in the UK

Most of our coal fired power stations are near the end of their lives.
Replacement power stations will be mostly gas but this can only be an
interim measure.
Nuclear has no place, we would need 15 or 20 new stations and they wouldn't
be ready for decades.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:08:24 +0100, harryagain wrote:

I'm sorry, renewables not subsidised?

What is your 42p/unit solar PV payment if not a subsisidy?

What is the payment above the wholesale rate to windmills when
they
generate but a subsidy?

What is the payment to wind mills not to generate if not a
subsisidy?

No answer noted.

But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is
**** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France
as
wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming
from
coal, followed by nuke then CCGT.

That is because we don't yet have the full range of renewables.

Even with a "full range" (define please) of renewables the UK just
isn't big enough to collect enough renewable energy to supply our
total energy demand on a 24/7 basis.

We are notably lacking tidal power.

If we had the severn barage when I posted last night it was just a
couple of hours after high tide at Avonmouth so it might have been
able to provide 5% of the demand. So still the upper 70's% required
to come from coal, nuke or gas.

The politicos listening to the greenie pressure groups have scuppered
the severn barage again anyway.

There will always need to be some gas powered electricity too.
But not oil, coal or nuclear.

Why gas and not nuke? Oh it's beacuse you must have something
dispatchable to cope with the unpredictable nature of the oh so
wonderful renewables.

Roll on smart meters. Give people a choice:

Pay for a "green" electricity at 20p+/unit (to pay for the subsidies
to the windmaills, solar PV etc) but when there is not enough "green"
electricity about you switch them off.

Pay 10p/unit for principally coal/nuke/gas which is available 24/7
unless something like Longannet/Sizewell B happens.

We will then see how much real support the "green" supliers get from
the population at large. Those on "green" tarrifs now are just
freeloading on the coal/nuke/gas generation whilst lining the pockets
of the "green" suppliers. They simply do not realise just how little
of their "green" electricty comes from "green" sources.



Smart meters are nothing to do with giving people a choice.
Ultimately they about supply led energy management.
The choice will be pay lots if you want to use peak time electricity or
little for off peak electricity.
Which is coming whether you like it or not, renewables or not.
We will all have domestic equipment that will ease this problem somewhat.

And what ever new power sources are developed, we will all pay for the
neglect of governments over the last few decades.

Bit here on projected prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...United_Kingdom

On 22/07/2013 18:57, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:08:24 +0100, harryagain wrote:

I'm sorry, renewables not subsidised?

What is your 42p/unit solar PV payment if not a subsisidy?

What is the payment above the wholesale rate to windmills when
they
generate but a subsidy?

What is the payment to wind mills not to generate if not a
subsisidy?

No answer noted.

But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is
**** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France
as
wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming
from
coal, followed by nuke then CCGT.

That is because we don't yet have the full range of renewables.

Even with a "full range" (define please) of renewables the UK just
isn't big enough to collect enough renewable energy to supply our
total energy demand on a 24/7 basis.

We are notably lacking tidal power.

If we had the severn barage when I posted last night it was just a
couple of hours after high tide at Avonmouth so it might have been
able to provide 5% of the demand. So still the upper 70's% required
to come from coal, nuke or gas.

The politicos listening to the greenie pressure groups have scuppered
the severn barage again anyway.

There will always need to be some gas powered electricity too.
But not oil, coal or nuclear.

Why gas and not nuke? Oh it's beacuse you must have something
dispatchable to cope with the unpredictable nature of the oh so
wonderful renewables.

Roll on smart meters. Give people a choice:

Pay for a "green" electricity at 20p+/unit (to pay for the subsidies
to the windmaills, solar PV etc) but when there is not enough "green"
electricity about you switch them off.

Pay 10p/unit for principally coal/nuke/gas which is available 24/7
unless something like Longannet/Sizewell B happens.

We will then see how much real support the "green" supliers get from
the population at large. Those on "green" tarrifs now are just
freeloading on the coal/nuke/gas generation whilst lining the pockets
of the "green" suppliers. They simply do not realise just how little
of their "green" electricty comes from "green" sources.



Smart meters are nothing to do with giving people a choice.
Ultimately they about supply led energy management.
The choice will be pay lots if you want to use peak time electricity or
little for off peak electricity.
Which is coming whether you like it or not, renewables or not.
We will all have domestic equipment that will ease this problem somewhat.

And what ever new power sources are developed, we will all pay for the
neglect of governments over the last few decades.

Bit here on projected prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...United_Kingdom



And which technology is the one that provides the cheapest most reliable
source that we actually have enough resources to use?

A hint its the second cheapest that doesn't require us to have ten
amazons in the UK.

They must have cocked the table up as they don't even have a main body
text that describes it.

On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

....
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens' who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell

On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.

On 22/07/2013 23:34, mcp wrote:
On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.


Its already non renewable.
there is no mechanism to renew it.

How much geothermal can you extract before you cause earthquakes or
other events due to the disturbance of heat flow in the crust?

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:47:06 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 22/07/2013 23:34, mcp wrote:
On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.

Its already non renewable.
there is no mechanism to renew it.

Our usage of geothermal energy is renewable, it is renewed by
radioactive decay. It's the same for other"renewables" e.g. solar.

How much geothermal can you extract before you cause earthquakes or
other events due to the disturbance of heat flow in the crust?

Extraction of geothermal energy is intrinsically inneficient due to
the low thermal gradient. You could never extract enough to disturb
heat flow in the crust. You could cause small earthquakes similar to
fracking if you drill in the wrong place but that's true of any
process involving drilling.

mcp wrote:

Our usage of geothermal energy is renewable, it is renewed by
radioactive decay. It's the same for other"renewables" e.g. solar.

And nuclear power stations.

--
Terry Fields

On 23/07/2013 00:27, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:47:06 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 22/07/2013 23:34, mcp wrote:
On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.

Its already non renewable.
there is no mechanism to renew it.

Our usage of geothermal energy is renewable, it is renewed by
radioactive decay. It's the same for other"renewables" e.g. solar.

So that would include gas, oil and nukes then as they are just as renewable.


How much geothermal can you extract before you cause earthquakes or
other events due to the disturbance of heat flow in the crust?

Extraction of geothermal energy is intrinsically inneficient due to
the low thermal gradient. You could never extract enough to disturb
heat flow in the crust. You could cause small earthquakes similar to
fracking if you drill in the wrong place but that's true of any
process involving drilling.


That's not what happens in greenland where they extract heat.

On 23/07/2013 09:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article om,
"dennis@home" wrote:

On 22/07/2013 23:34, mcp wrote:
On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.

Its already non renewable.
there is no mechanism to renew it.

Set yourself up a supernova. But you don't want to be within 20 or so
lightyears from it when it goes off.


I doubt if we would survive one that close, maybe a hundred times as far?

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens' who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, it is not the greenest
option.

Because there are too many people chasing too little fuel.
It's not a matterof vocla greens. It is supply and demand.
You won't be able to afford inefficient use of fuel.
None of us will.

And it is very likely oil from the ME will be cut off when the islamonuts
take over there.
We live in times of turmoil and things are going to get worse.
Maybe even economic collapse. They are only papering over the cracks.

We will then see how much real support the "green" supliers get from
the population at large. Those on "green" tarrifs now are just
freeloading on the coal/nuke/gas generation whilst lining the pockets
of the "green" suppliers. They simply do not realise just how little
of their "green" electricty comes from "green" sources.



Smart meters are nothing to do with giving people a choice.
Ultimately they about supply led energy management.
The choice will be pay lots if you want to use peak time electricity or
little for off peak electricity.
Which is coming whether you like it or not, renewables or not.
We will all have domestic equipment that will ease this problem somewhat.

And what ever new power sources are developed, we will all pay for the
neglect of governments over the last few decades.

Bit here on projected prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...United_Kingdom



And which technology is the one that provides the cheapest most reliable
source that we actually have enough resources to use?

A hint its the second cheapest that doesn't require us to have ten amazons
in the UK.

They must have cocked the table up as they don't even have a main body
text that describes it.

I don't entirely agree with that table either.
And no-one can know anything like that with any certitude.

"harryagain" wrote:

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got,

Lie.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 22/07/2013 07:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 21/07/2013 21:24, harry wrote:


If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.

Dennis, there is no chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy


Look and see what primary energy is.
Just look at the pie chart.



So how do you run a cement factory on solar energy or wind then?
They have start up times measured in days which is rather inconvenient
for
an intermittent source like wind or solar.

That is a chemical processes not power generation. Just as making iron is
a
chemical process.



Are you really that stupid?
Why do you think they use vast amounts of fuel every day?

It is just not going to be available except at very high cost. Wherever it
comes from.
The islamonuts will soon be cutting off our oil supplies too, you watch.
So we have to move away from energy intensive processes.
Why do you suppose we are moving away from brick/concrete block houses to
timber frame houses?
Why do you suppose the government is promoting energy efficiency, renewables
and electric cars?
I have seen it coming for years as has a minority of others.
Which is why I have a zero energy house and electric car.
If you don't go down this route in five or ten years you will be f****d.
It might seem expensive/uneconomic at the moment but it won't in the future.

Don't expect too much from frack gas, it will be expensive too and only buy
us a little time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbothermic
So carbon will always be needed for these processes.
And you need coal or oil to make plastics and fertilizer etc.
It's not all simply about energy.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"harryagain" wrote:

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got,


We haven't done it in sixty years so it is true.

On 22/07/13 23:34, mcp wrote:
On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.
Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?
The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.
Tell that to the sun.

Whats the problem? there's enough for several thousand years, That may
even be long enough to get fusion working.

--
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 23/07/13 12:02, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/07/2013 00:27, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:47:06 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 22/07/2013 23:34, mcp wrote:
On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.

Its already non renewable.
there is no mechanism to renew it.

Our usage of geothermal energy is renewable, it is renewed by
radioactive decay. It's the same for other"renewables" e.g. solar.

So that would include gas, oil and nukes then as they are just as
renewable.


How much geothermal can you extract before you cause earthquakes or
other events due to the disturbance of heat flow in the crust?

Extraction of geothermal energy is intrinsically inneficient due to
the low thermal gradient. You could never extract enough to disturb
heat flow in the crust. You could cause small earthquakes similar to
fracking if you drill in the wrong place but that's true of any
process involving drilling.


That's not what happens in greenland where they extract heat.

I haven seen any volcanoes in bradford.


--
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.

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

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

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

Well as the time scale is millions of years and it is non-polluting/no waste
it is comparable to tidal energy which you could argue slows the earth down.