Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles, and
wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer over the
fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a minimum of
£3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into the
coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p

--
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.

The Natural Philosopher scribbled...


Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles, and
wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer over the
fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a minimum of
£3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into the
coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p


You're so right. Just think, we could have used that money to buy fuel
and arms for the RAF so they could fight another war.

BTW my food bill probably went up by £1 this week. Different trough and
no gain for me.

Artic wrote:
The Natural Philosopher scribbled...

Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles, and
wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer over the
fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a minimum of
£3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into the
coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p


You're so right. Just think, we could have used that money to buy fuel
and arms for the RAF so they could fight another war.

Or we could have used it to improve paediatric care in the NHS.

Bill

On 10/09/13 15:41, Artic wrote:
The Natural Philosopher scribbled...

Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles, and
wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer over the
fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a minimum of
£3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into the
coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p

You're so right. Just think, we could have used that money to buy fuel
and arms for the RAF so they could fight another war.

BTW my food bill probably went up by £1 this week. Different trough and
no gain for me.

with electricity prices rising to supermarkets, of course prices will go up.

2/3rd of the cost of green idiocy gets 'lost' in general inflation.



--
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 10/09/13 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:
Artic wrote:
The Natural Philosopher scribbled...

Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles,
and wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer
over the fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a
minimum of £3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into
the coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p


You're so right. Just think, we could have used that money to buy
fuel and arms for the RAF so they could fight another war.

Or we could have used it to improve paediatric care in the NHS.

or build new nukes that actually work...




--
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 Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:13:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles, and
wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer over the
fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a minimum of
£3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

What'd the other 90% cost?

ah yes, this explains why the Mafia got involved in it early on in Italy
then.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles, and
wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer over the
fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a minimum of £3.6
million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into the
coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p

--
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.

You just can't, or more likely just won't, hoist it on board, will
you?

According to the previously linked BBC Report in March 2013:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-21774652

"Today, electricity sells on the wholesale market for about £45 per
megawatt-hour (Mw). But anything under £90 a Mw would see Hinkley lose
money."

So currently wholesale is half of the MINIMUM of what new nuclear
would cost.

Today Gridwatch shows nuclear to be at 7.73GW.

So if that were to be generated by new nuclear build at the minimum
likely price of £95/Mw or 9.5p/unit (EDF have to make a profit, and it
makes the maths easier) that's £50/Mw or 5p/unit extra to the current
price, so that's:
7.73 * 1,000 * 24 * 50 = £9,276,000

So that's 13p/person or 40p/household that would have to be paid to
EDF over and above the current price of electricity, or about 2.5
times the extra cost of wind.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:02:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

or build new nukes that actually work...
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

As did all the historical subsidies to nuclear power ...

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:02:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

2/3rd of the cost of green idiocy gets 'lost' in general inflation.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 10/09/13 17:49, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:13:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles, and
wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer over the
fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a minimum of
£3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.
What'd the other 90% cost?
half the price.

--
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 Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:49:27 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

You just can't, or more likely just won't, hoist it on board, will
you?

According to the previously linked BBC Report in March 2013:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-21774652

"Today, electricity sells on the wholesale market for about £45 per
megawatt-hour (Mw). But anything under £90 a Mw would see Hinkley lose
money."

So currently wholesale is half of the MINIMUM of what new nuclear
would cost.

Today Gridwatch shows nuclear to be at 7.73GW.

So if that were to be generated by new nuclear build at the minimum
likely price of £95/Mw or 9.5p/unit (EDF have to make a profit, and it
makes the maths easier) that's £50/Mw or 5p/unit extra to the current
price, so that's:
7.73 * 1,000 * 24 * 50 = £9,276,000

So that's 13p/person or 40p/household that would have to be paid to
EDF over and above the current price of electricity, or about 2.5
times the extra cost of wind.

I'd fully agree with your costings IF wind was compelled to deliver an exactly
defined level of generation at an exactly defined time, in say 2030. The level
of generation has to be achieved under conditions of a stationary blocking high.

Nukes at £95 per MWh in are a bargain. Give me 30GW asap, and while we are at
it another 30GW of coal. In parallel hack every wind turbine down and tell the
FIT parasites to **** off.

--

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:24:22 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

I'd fully agree with your costings IF wind was compelled to deliver an exactly
defined level of generation at an exactly defined time, in say 2030. The level
of generation has to be achieved under conditions of a stationary blocking high.

What relevance has wind got to the exorbitant cost of nuclear energy?

Nukes at £95 per MWh in are a bargain.

Not exactly compared with the cost of carbon-based generation - the
documents linked by Nightjar in a recent thread strongly suggest that
once you've taken into account the recent increases in the cost of
Hinkley C, even including either a carbon tax or carbon capture,
carbon-based generation will be cheaper, and we have the fuels for it,
and haven't for nuclear fission.

Give me 30GW asap

We haven't got the fuel for it. With current expected world supplies,
say 10 years from when we've completed the first new plant, and the
UK's current stockpiles of 392GWyr, you can be certain only of 30GW
for 23 years or 8GW to last the full proposed plant lifetime of 60
years. Either way, you'll be incurring a great deal of extra expense
- over and above the latest huge increases in the cost of building
the plant as evidenced by Hinkley C - recycling current stockpiles
of waste fuel, depleted uranium, etc.

and while we are at
it another 30GW of coal.

That would certainly be doable.

In parallel hack every wind turbine down and tell the
FIT parasites to **** off.

Nuclear, if it does actually go ahead as currently envisaged by HMG,
will be a FIT parasite also, about 2.5 times than wind is currently.

Having answered your points, I'm going to take a little time out for
some thinking out loud ...

The problem with wind is, as every body here knows, its variability.

However, demand is variable too. For years the operators of the NG
have been doing a merry dance trying to meet varying demand by
switching on & off constant supplies, often at ridiculously short
notice - how in the name of human intelligence can it be sensible to
have the grid overloading and have to power up extra capacity just
because there's a commercial break in a popular TV program, or because
one has just ended?

What is needed is more storage, then existing problems of meeting
variable demand would be somewhat relieved, and the variable
contribution of wind would be much more easily and usefully absorbed
into the system. The question is how?

We've already done a great deal with hydro - already there are some
places in Scotland where the same bit of water will go through as many
as 4 hydro stations on its way to the sea. However, there are still
one or two pumped storage schemes that were once mooted, but never got
built, or at least the pumped storage part wasn't. Certainly we
should build those asap, but this won't be enough on its own, and
anyway doesn't alleviate any of the problems caused by variable
demand.

So we have to be prepared to think rather more blue sky ...

Mackay suggests electrifying car travel, and using the charging of the
vehicles to buffer variable supply and demand. But this would
increase the demand for electricity overall, and thereby increase some
already existing important difficulties, such as can the existing grid
cope with the increased flows? In fact, we are already currently
exacerbating such problems by electrifying all the railways. Why not
at least put battery banks in the locos, or perhaps by the tracks
(saves carting their weight around)? If that works, we could consider
extending it to cover increasing amounts of road transport as well.

For the price of one Hinkley C, we could easily afford to put
batteries and an invertor into every home.

Could we create pumped sea-water storage reservoirs and use wind-power
to fill them?

I don't know how many of these and other possible ideas would work,
but I am certain of one thing: If fusion cannot deliver, the future
will of necessity be very, very different from the past, and therefore
it's no good THINKING as in the past. We're probably going to have to
wring every last joule from renewable sources that we can, and the
sooner we get used to that idea and stop mindlessly bitching about it
in Pavlovian parrot-fashion, the better. We're probably going to have
to learn to capture carbon, and again, the sooner we start to learn
how, the better. If we decide we really do need nuclear, HMG's
existing proposals will lead to a very quick and costly dead-end, so
we'd just as surely need to be thinking differently about nuclear
power as well, and the sooner we accept that, the better. And the
sooner a certain bigot here stops posting endless lies and
disinformation on all these matters, the better.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/13 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:
Artic wrote:
The Natural Philosopher scribbled...

Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles,
and wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer
over the fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a
minimum of £3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into
the coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p


You're so right. Just think, we could have used that money to buy fuel
and arms for the RAF so they could fight another war.

Or we could have used it to improve paediatric care in the NHS.

or build new nukes that actually work...

I see your demetia is troubling you.
We have established they are expensive white elephants.

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
You just can't, or more likely just won't, hoist it on board, will
you?

According to the previously linked BBC Report in March 2013:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-21774652

"Today, electricity sells on the wholesale market for about £45 per
megawatt-hour (Mw). But anything under £90 a Mw would see Hinkley lose
money."

So currently wholesale is half of the MINIMUM of what new nuclear
would cost.

Today Gridwatch shows nuclear to be at 7.73GW.

So if that were to be generated by new nuclear build at the minimum
likely price of £95/Mw or 9.5p/unit (EDF have to make a profit, and it
makes the maths easier) that's £50/Mw or 5p/unit extra to the current
price, so that's:
7.73 * 1,000 * 24 * 50 = £9,276,000

So that's 13p/person or 40p/household that would have to be paid to
EDF over and above the current price of electricity, or about 2.5
times the extra cost of wind.


He's too thick to understand stuff like that.
In his dotage I suspect.

On 11/09/13 09:08, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/13 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:
Artic wrote:
The Natural Philosopher scribbled...

Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles,
and wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer
over the fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a
minimum of £3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into
the coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p

You're so right. Just think, we could have used that money to buy fuel
and arms for the RAF so they could fight another war.
Or we could have used it to improve paediatric care in the NHS.

or build new nukes that actually work...
I see your demetia is troubling you.
We have established they are expensive white elephants.

We haven't.





--
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, 11 Sep 2013 10:03:56 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Yes, this is the part that's too hard for J and harry to understand. As
I type, wind is producing just over 2GW. On Monday, it was under 1GW, at
times *well* under. Since the windies promise us what you've asked for
above, a constant level of generation, we're obviously due a refund e.g.
for July, when you were lucky to get 0.1GW the whole month.

Suggest you read what I actually have been posting on this subject,
not what you choose to think I have been posting.

I'm still waiting for JJ and harry to indicate where and to whom the
country (i.e. the rest of us) should apply for a refund, but curiously
they seem unable to do so.

Well, if we're going to play silly buggers, I'm still waiting for you,
and others like you, to indicate where and to whom the country (i.e.
the rest of us) should apply for a refund of all the historical
subsidies that nuclear power has had and yet still expects us to pick
up the tab for looking after its waste, but curiously you seem unable
to do so.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 10/09/2013 13:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles, and
wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer over the
fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a minimum of
£3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

The spivs in the city manipulating spot market price costs us far more

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into the
coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p

Have a listen to R4's Whinge at One - you will love it!

Manufacturers of wind turbines have been derating 800kW capable units to
500kW to harvest the income generated by FIT rules optimally. That is by
deliberately obtaining less electricity from each one installed.

Law of unintended consequences and a particularly daft set of rules.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Could we create pumped sea-water storage reservoirs and use wind-power
to fill them?

I don't know how many of these and other possible ideas would work,
but I am certain of one thing: If fusion cannot deliver, the future
will of necessity be very, very different from the past, and therefore
it's no good THINKING as in the past. We're probably going to have to
wring every last joule from renewable sources that we can, and the
sooner we get used to that idea and stop mindlessly bitching about it
in Pavlovian parrot-fashion, the better. We're probably going to have
to learn to capture carbon, and again, the sooner we start to learn
how, the better. If we decide we really do need nuclear, HMG's
existing proposals will lead to a very quick and costly dead-end, so
we'd just as surely need to be thinking differently about nuclear
power as well, and the sooner we accept that, the better. And the
sooner a certain bigot here stops posting endless lies and
disinformation on all these matters, the better.

Have you -any- ideas on how large these storage places would need to be
at all?..

Even if we could get the wind to fulfil our needs, existing ones let
alone with cars being electrically powered to add to demand..

And idea just how many and the amount of land they would need?.

Also just how long would they need to last to cope with blocking highs
across the UK?. Those days of fairly even air pressure over the UK land
mass..
--
Tony Sayer

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:10:00 PM UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:

(JavaJive wrote)
Could we create pumped sea-water storage reservoirs and use wind-power
to fill them?

snip

Have you -any- ideas on how large these storage places would need to be
at all?..

Even if we could get the wind to fulfil our needs, existing ones let
alone with cars being electrically powered to add to demand..

And idea just how many and the amount of land they would need?.

Also just how long would they need to last to cope with blocking highs
across the UK?. Those days of fairly even air pressure over the UK land
mass..
Just to put some figures on that, if you could get 100% efficiency and assuming you had say a 100 metre height difference, you need 3.6 tonnes of water per kWh. (I'm approximating g as 10metres per second per second). Seawater storage is likely to be smaller height difference, so if we go down to 10m you need 36 tonnes/kWh.
The average domestic power consumption is about 12.5kWh per day, so you'd need 450 tonnes per household per day.
I have a feeling that efficiency is likely to be a bit less for small height difference, as well.

On 11/09/13 18:54, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:10:00 PM UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
(JavaJive wrote)
Could we create pumped sea-water storage reservoirs and use wind-power
to fill them?

snip
Have you -any- ideas on how large these storage places would need to be
at all?..

Even if we could get the wind to fulfil our needs, existing ones let
alone with cars being electrically powered to add to demand..

And idea just how many and the amount of land they would need?.

Also just how long would they need to last to cope with blocking highs
across the UK?. Those days of fairly even air pressure over the UK land
mass..
Just to put some figures on that, if you could get 100% efficiency and assuming you had say a 100 metre height difference, you need 3.6 tonnes of water per kWh. (I'm approximating g as 10metres per second per second). Seawater storage is likely to be smaller height difference, so if we go down to 10m you need 36 tonnes/kWh.
The average domestic power consumption is about 12.5kWh per day, so you'd need 450 tonnes per household per day.
I have a feeling that efficiency is likely to be a bit less for small height difference, as well.
very much so.

I calcluated a lake the size of loch ness 1000 feet high could keep
britain going for a couple of weeks..

Cost would probably exceed cost of 20 nuclear power stations that could
keep Britain going indefinitely.

Renewable energy is just a cosmetic solution. Lipstick on an old whore's
face. It doesn't actually do anything useful at all.

Its already twice the price of nuclear, and adding storage to make it
work doubles the price 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.

As proved up thread and in other recent threads, new nuclear cannot be
less than about the current price of on shore wind.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:24:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Its already twice the price of nuclear, and adding storage to make it
work doubles the price again
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:24:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cost would probably exceed cost of 20 nuclear power stations that could
keep Britain going indefinitely.

Care to guesstimate the cost of Fukushima?

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:24:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I calcluated a lake the size of loch ness 1000 feet high could keep
britain going for a couple of weeks..

Cost would probably exceed cost of 20 nuclear power stations that could
keep Britain going indefinitely.

Well now, let's see ...

Let us assume that only our electrical energy needs to be stored, not
as originally stated by TNP all other forms of energy, and let's call
that 50GW. The cost of nuclear stations to supply that at the Hinkley
C price of £7bn/1.6MW = 50000 / 1.6 * 7 £bn or £218,750bn!

And far from keep Britain going indefinitely, they would run out of
fuel in 10-15 years, possibly sooner, given that the huge increase in
demand they would cause may have the knock-on effect of panic buying
and stockpiling by other countries eacy trying to ensure security of
its own supply.

Almost makes wind look viable by comparison ...

Renewable energy is just a cosmetic solution. Lipstick on an old whore's
face. It doesn't actually do anything useful at all.

No, you are conflating all forms of renewable energy into your
peculiar personal form of bigotry. Hydro has served us very well over
the years.

Its already twice the price of nuclear, and adding storage to make it
work doubles the price again

As previously shown, new nuclear is about the same price as onshore
wind.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:54:00 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Just to put some figures on that, if you could get 100% efficiency and
assuming you had say a 100 metre height difference, you need 3.6 tonnes
of water per kWh.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Calculation-of-Hydro-Power.htm

100 m head, 1.7 l/s gives 1 kW electrical output @ 60% effciency.

1.7 l/s is 1.7 * 60 * 60 = 6120 l/Hr or 6.12 tonnes or cu m per hour.

Plans have just been approved for a new pumped storage scheme in
North Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-n...wales-23920312

After much digging it's proposed to be just under 50 MW. So tiddly
widdly.


--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:32:55 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 10/09/2013 13:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Today as a more than usually stiff breeze covers the British isles, and
wind power creeps up to 10% of demand, you can cry in your beer over the
fact that today will cost you, the electricity consumer, a minimum of
£3.6 million quid you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay.

The spivs in the city manipulating spot market price costs us far more

For a populaton of c 70 million, thats 5p each you have dropped into the
coffers of the troughers, or in terms of households about 15p

Have a listen to R4's Whinge at One - you will love it!

Manufacturers of wind turbines have been derating 800kW capable units to
500kW to harvest the income generated by FIT rules optimally. That is by
deliberately obtaining less electricity from each one installed.

Yes they should get more electricity and increased FIT payments but the
increased capital cost of a flat rated 500kW vs one originally at 800kW and
replated to 500kW should also be considered.

18.04p @ 500kW vs 9.79p @ 800kW is quite significant but this loophole will only
work with discrete installations. The individual turbine rating is of no
concern across an average wind farm with multiple installations. FIT boundaries
for wind turbines are currently at 0.1, 0.5, 1.5 and 5MW and this is determined
by the aggregated connection capacity, not the individual turbine rating.
Similar tariff steps exist on Solar, Hydro and Biomass.

You could conceivably have an individual grid connection for each wind turbine,
although the cost of doing this would almost certainly outweigh the increased
FIT payment received.

The early 'rent a roof' solar schemes took full advantage of this loophole by
installing a few MW of generation in sub 4kW chunks and getting about 5x the
rate they would for stuffing them all in a field on a single connection.

--

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 02:15:12 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

What is needed is more storage, then existing problems of meeting
variable demand would be somewhat relieved, and the variable
contribution of wind would be much more easily and usefully absorbed
into the system. The question is how?

As has been mentioned here many times in the past that particular problem has
already been solved. Build a large wall around the coast of Scotland and flood
it, all of it. It's a practical solution to the severe problems we face due to
wind turbines and if Alex Salmond & Co drown then it's ultimately for a good
cause.


--

Flooding the Thames Valley would be a much better option, it would
drown more of the country's excess population, not to mention the most
objectionable part of it, and produce electricity closer to where the
survivors live.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:59:00 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

As has been mentioned here many times in the past that particular problem has
already been solved. Build a large wall around the coast of Scotland and flood
it, all of it. It's a practical solution to the severe problems we face due to
wind turbines and if Alex Salmond & Co drown then it's ultimately for a good
cause.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

Today Gridwatch shows nuclear to be at 7.73GW.

So if that were to be generated by new nuclear build at the minimum
likely price of £95/Mw or 9.5p/unit (EDF have to make a profit, and it
makes the maths easier) that's £50/Mw or 5p/unit extra to the current
price, so that's:
7.73 * 1,000 * 24 * 50 = £9,276,000

So that's 13p/person or 40p/household that would have to be paid to
EDF over and above the current price of electricity, or about 2.5
times the extra cost of wind.

....less the cost of keeping conventional generation on standby for
those inconvenient times when the wind doesn't blow.

Fortunately, we're about to enjoy the equinoxial gales, so that will
make the wind figures look good - minus the cost of providing standby,
of course.

--
Terry Fields

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:54:55 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

The cost of nuclear stations to supply that at the Hinkley
C price of £7bn/1.6MW = 50000 / 1.6 * 7 £bn or £218,750bn!

1.6 MW power plant can fit in a standard container and be driven
about...

I think you mean 1.6 GW and a final answer a tad over £218bn.

But at least that would be power 24/7 not just when the wind blows.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 12/09/13 00:08, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:54:55 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

The cost of nuclear stations to supply that at the Hinkley
C price of £7bn/1.6MW = 50000 / 1.6 * 7 £bn or £218,750bn!
1.6 MW power plant can fit in a standard container and be driven
about...

I think you mean 1.6 GW and a final answer a tad over £218bn.

But at least that would be power 24/7 not just when the wind blows.

actual prices are reckoned to be between £2bn and £4bn/GW capacity.

Hinkley is proposed to be 3.2GW which fist well with a £14bn estimate,
for a crappy French reactor that they have lost over £5bn on already.

Given the total opposition of half the government and most of the EU to it.

Hitachi CANDU and the AP1000 range would all be cheaper.

At £3bn a GW we could have an all nuclear baseload for £100bn. About
what we spent bailing out banks and about 5 times less than Germany is
expected to spend to end up coal fired with windmills on top top keep
the greens happy.

--
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, 12 Sep 2013 00:19:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 12/09/13 00:08, Dave Liquorice wrote:

I think you mean 1.6 GW and a final answer a tad over £218bn.

I saw that figure in Wikipedia, and was sufficiently surprised to read
it twice just to be certain I'd read it correctly, but still I hadn't
- looking at it yet again I realise I read a comma as a decimal
point.

Apologies to all.

But at least that would be power 24/7 not just when the wind blows.

But for how long? 10 years or so.

actual prices are reckoned to be between £2bn and £4bn/GW capacity.

Hinkley is proposed to be 3.2GW which fist well with a £14bn estimate,
for a crappy French reactor that they have lost over £5bn on already.

Given the total opposition of half the government and most of the EU to it.

Hitachi CANDU and the AP1000 range would all be cheaper.

At £3bn a GW we could have an all nuclear baseload for £100bn. About
what we spent bailing out banks and about 5 times less than Germany is
expected to spend to end up coal fired with windmills on top top keep
the greens happy.

Both suggested designs are fission reactors, so again, for how long?
10 years or so.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:10:00 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Could we create pumped sea-water storage reservoirs and use wind-power
to fill them?

Have you -any- ideas on how large these storage places would need to be
at all?..

No, as I said, I was thinking out loud, but I see docholliday has
already produced some figures.

Even if we could get the wind to fulfil our needs, existing ones let
alone with cars being electrically powered to add to demand..

Which is the very criticism I myself made of Mackay's ideas. That is
why it would be better to suck it and see with trains, which have
already been electrified, and so will not place an extra burden on the
grid.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

As previously shown, new nuclear is about the same price as onshore
wind.

This whole discussion misses the point. AGW is a myth. We are sitting on
a 200 year supply of coal. We are trying to solve a problem that doesn't
exist.

Bill

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 22:51:38 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

Flooding the Thames Valley would be a much better option, it would
drown more of the country's excess population, not to mention the most
objectionable part of it, and produce electricity closer to where the
survivors live.

Now that I like! I'm only about 10 miles NW of MK, so damn near in London
now.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:59:00 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

As has been mentioned here many times in the past that particular problem has
already been solved. Build a large wall around the coast of Scotland and flood
it, all of it. It's a practical solution to the severe problems we face due to
wind turbines and if Alex Salmond & Co drown then it's ultimately for a good
cause.


--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 12/09/13 03:49, Bill Wright wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

As previously shown, new nuclear is about the same price as onshore
wind.

This whole discussion misses the point. AGW is a myth. We are sitting
on a 200 year supply of coal. We are trying to solve a problem that
doesn't exist.

Quite possibly.

But as a long term opponent of renewable energy of the intermittent
kind, the real killer is, that you don't need to disprove AGW to see
that renewable energy represents no solution to it at all.

I only became an opponent of it once I started to do the sums to
discover how appallingly useless and expensive it was, compared to e.g.
nuclear.

I naively thought that others would have done these calculations too,
and acted on them.

Instead I found that others had indeed done the calculations and acted
on them to get policy enshrined in Law that meant that they would get
subsidies WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD ANY IMPACT ON CO2 EMISSIONS AT ALL.

we do not measure the sucess of renewable policy by CO2 reduction. We
measure it by 'how much electricity we generate from renewables' And as
I dug deeper, the realisation that these are scarcely connected, dawned.

For sure those who lobbied for a 'renewables target' and not a 'CO2
reduction target' knew full well this fact, and that makes them guilty
of fraud and deception on a massive scale.

It was at that point I realised that renewable energy had nothing
whatever to do with climate change at all. And everything to do with a
government guaranteed profit.

Sold to politicians on the left as

- getting the 'green' vote because it 'addressed climate change'
- getting the left vote because it 'created green jobs'

The renewable lobby wrote the script, the IPCC provided spurious
evidence in terms of flawed models, and the politicians simply parroted
the mantra, and put in the legislation.

Renewable energy companies, not governments, framed the legislation. We
get upset when directirs and politicains vite themselves salary rises.
We don't seem upset when companies lobby hard and successfully to
guarantee their own profits.

Climate change may or may not be significantly affected by human
activity: the jury to my mind is still out, although getting close to a
'not guilty' verdict.

But there is no doubt in my mind that renewable energy as it currently
can be implemented does almost nothing to address CO2 emissions at all.

And there is no sign anywhere at all that it ever will.

Nor does it address any issues of long term energy security.

whereas nuclear does both, at less overall cost.



Bill


--
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, 12 Sep 2013 01:00:45 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But at least that would be power 24/7 not just when the wind
blows.

But for how long? 10 years or so.

Design life is 40 to 50 years. The Magnox stations that are now EOL
are 40+ years old, most generated at pretty much their rated output
for the vast majority of that time starting with 1970's technology.

Fuel? There is plenty of spent fuel sat at Sellafield but the
greenies won't let it be reprocessed but then winge on about the
storage ponds FFS! Only a tiny fraction of the available fuel is used
as it passes through a reactor. It's not like gas or coal, once it's
burnt it's gone.

I'd much rather pay 20p/unit for power that was there 24/7 not just
an *average* of 8 hours/day. Note average, There could be weeks with
virtually no power.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:10:00 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Could we create pumped sea-water storage reservoirs and use wind-power
to fill them?

Have you -any- ideas on how large these storage places would need to be
at all?..

No, as I said, I was thinking out loud, but I see docholliday has
already produced some figures.

Even if we could get the wind to fulfil our needs, existing ones let
alone with cars being electrically powered to add to demand..



Which is the very criticism I myself made of Mackay's ideas. That is
why it would be better to suck it and see with trains, which have
already been electrified, and so will not place an extra burden on the
grid.

Can you explain what you mean there as in some quarters suck it and see
will conjure up visions of Brunel and his atmospheric railway;!..
--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:20:30 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 01:00:45 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But at least that would be power 24/7 not just when the wind
blows.

But for how long? 10 years or so.

Design life is 40 to 50 years. The Magnox stations that are now EOL
are 40+ years old, most generated at pretty much their rated output
for the vast majority of that time starting with 1970's technology.

You're rather missing the point! WNA figures suggest that the fuel
might run out in as little as 10 years. Long term, that just as
insecure a supply as wind is in the short term. If it's strategic
security of supply you want, that means carbon-based, most probably
coal or gas from shale or coal.

Fuel? There is plenty of spent fuel sat at Sellafield but the
greenies won't let it be reprocessed but then winge on about the
storage ponds FFS! Only a tiny fraction of the available fuel is used
as it passes through a reactor. It's not like gas or coal, once it's
burnt it's gone.

Plenty? Again, this is a myth. There's a little under 400GWyrs'
worth of recyclable material in the UK. Over a 60 year plant
lifecycle, such as is planned for new nuclear, that's a mere 6.5GW.
It's nothing like enough.

I'd much rather pay 20p/unit for power that was there 24/7 not just
an *average* of 8 hours/day. Note average, There could be weeks with
virtually no power.

And may be others would agree with, I probably would myself, but
nuclear isn't going to give you such security; only carbon-based fuels
can do that, because they're the only ones for which we have supplies
indigenous to the UK.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I'm still waiting to hear about the nuclear subsidy refund ...

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:49:58 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Like July this year. Still waiting to hear about the refund.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:03:37 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Which is the very criticism I myself made of Mackay's ideas. That
is
why it would be better to suck it and see with trains, which have
already been electrified, and so will not place an extra burden on
the
grid.

Can you explain what you mean there as in some quarters suck it and see
will conjure up visions of Brunel and his atmospheric railway;!..

Some body has an idea that some form of atmospheric railway would be
cheaper and faster than HS2. Can't find a reference for it now.

--
Cheers
Dave.