"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:39:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 17/06/2014 02:44, Johny B Good wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:48:46 +0100, "harryagain"

8

Well ****-fer-brains, run on gas it's a lot less CO2 than petrol or
diesel.
I already pointed out the summer heat problem.
You wouldn't run them in summer.


I hate to have to say this but, for once, Harry does make an
excellent point. :-)


Well it appears its OK to generate CO2 in winter so all we need to do is
burn fossil fuel in winter and find some way to store the energy for
summer.

Running a micro CHP system in winter actually reduces your net CO2
contribution since you're burning, to a very close approximation, the
same amount of gas that an 80% efficient boiler would have used only
the 20% loss is now being realised as useful electrical energy which
reduces the demand on the national grid, reducing the carbon emissions
at the coal or gas fired power stations.

These greens always have the wrong answer for everything.

Sadly, that's depressingly true. They seem to lack the necessary
pragmatism and vision required to make more truly optimum choices in
regard of energy production solutions. If they could remove their
heads from up their collective arses and 'wake up and smell the
coffee', they'd be hollering the loudest for an accelerated LFTR
development program.

Whilst Fusion has now finally reached the break even point, even if
it's only for 150 picoseconds at a time, it may take yet another 50
years before this techology can be converted into an effective source
of energy.

In the meantime, further research on this front will continue to
demand vast amounts of energy to continue the Fusion Energy
development program. If we don't invest in an interim nuclear power
program such as the very promising LFTR technology very soon, we could
end up 'being caught short' as the looming energy crisis starts to
make itself felt in the developed world.
--
J B Good

Nobody yet knows whether the nuclear waste can be dealt with.
So nobody knows the cost.
Leaving it for your children to dea lwith is not the answer.

On 18/06/2014 07:07, harryagain wrote:


Nobody yet knows whether the nuclear waste can be dealt with.
So nobody knows the cost.
Leaving it for your children to dea lwith is not the answer.


Every time you post this drivel, you prove yet again your lack of
comprehension of the problem and solutions available. Repeatedly denying
that nuclear waste can be dealt with by any of the numerous methods that
have been outlined to you over the years does not make your assertions true.

The only problem dealing with nuclear waste is the FUD and NIMBYism of
the greens.

As for leaving the problem of disposing of waste to your children, who's
going to deal with the waste when your solar panels come to their "end
of life" and stop working in a generation or so?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 18/06/2014 07:07, harryagain wrote:


Nobody yet knows whether the nuclear waste can be dealt with.
So nobody knows the cost.

See, wrong answer again.
All greens have the wrong answer to everything.

Leaving it for your children to dea lwith is not the answer.



It is the correct answer, you leave it for a few years and then burn it
up as fuel.
You are leaving the solar panels and wind turbine reprocessing to your
kids what is the difference other than it will kill more of them than
nuclear will?
Just what is better about killing someone with green energy and not
killing them with nuke energy?


Waits for another wrong answer.

On 16/06/2014 00:24, Johny B Good wrote:

Basically I'm turning the current boiler's 79.2% efficiency (20.8%
loss) into high value electric energy (turning the efficiency equation
on its head so to speak).

I think the laws of thermodynamics might have something to say about that!

There is an element of some sense in the idea but I reckon you'll still
need a mains connection one way or the other..

There'd be no sense at all in running a micro CHP generator _without_
a connection to the grid otherwise you're going to have a problem
storing all that surplus electrical energy - the grid makes an
excellent storage facility.

That will be news to national grid...

From the viewpoint of the PSUs, it's far less problematic than home
PV generation since it contributes to the grid during peak demand
periods rather than during low demand periods. The mains gas
consumption remains pretty well unchanged eliminating the "Robbing
Peter to pay Paul" factor.

I expect this type of co-generation would be favoured the most by the
PSUs but they don't have any say in this and it seems the eco green
******** has decreed that the FIT rates be the least favourable of the
lot for CHP.

The FIT system generally seems skewed to encourage use of the least
effective and appropriate technologies first. Install small scale hydro
that can generate constant power 24/7 and you get a feeble FIT payment
for that!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:39:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 17/06/2014 02:44, Johny B Good wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:48:46 +0100, "harryagain"

8

Well ****-fer-brains, run on gas it's a lot less CO2 than petrol or
diesel.
I already pointed out the summer heat problem.
You wouldn't run them in summer.


I hate to have to say this but, for once, Harry does make an
excellent point. :-)


Well it appears its OK to generate CO2 in winter so all we need to do is
burn fossil fuel in winter and find some way to store the energy for
summer.

Running a micro CHP system in winter actually reduces your net CO2
contribution since you're burning, to a very close approximation, the
same amount of gas that an 80% efficient boiler would have used only
the 20% loss is now being realised as useful electrical energy which
reduces the demand on the national grid, reducing the carbon emissions
at the coal or gas fired power stations.

These greens always have the wrong answer for everything.

Sadly, that's depressingly true. They seem to lack the necessary
pragmatism and vision required to make more truly optimum choices in
regard of energy production solutions. If they could remove their
heads from up their collective arses and 'wake up and smell the
coffee', they'd be hollering the loudest for an accelerated LFTR
development program.

Whilst Fusion has now finally reached the break even point, even if
it's only for 150 picoseconds at a time, it may take yet another 50
years before this techology can be converted into an effective source
of energy.

In the meantime, further research on this front will continue to
demand vast amounts of energy to continue the Fusion Energy
development program. If we don't invest in an interim nuclear power
program such as the very promising LFTR technology very soon, we could
end up 'being caught short' as the looming energy crisis starts to
make itself felt in the developed world.

Nobody yet knows whether the nuclear waste can be dealt with.

Wrong, as always.

So nobody knows the cost.

Wrong, as always.

Leaving it for your children to dea lwith is not the answer.

Wrong, as always.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:02:23 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 16/06/2014 00:24, Johny B Good wrote:

Basically I'm turning the current boiler's 79.2% efficiency (20.8%
loss) into high value electric energy (turning the efficiency equation
on its head so to speak).

I think the laws of thermodynamics might have something to say about that!

Ok then, let me explain it this way:

A small home generator driven by an ICE is going to be chucking away
some 70 to 80 percent of the heat energy input from the fuel, in this
case Natural Gas. A gas central heating boiler is only going to
transfer circa 80% of the energy into the house, the rest going up the
flue.

If you size up the micro CHP plant to match the waste heat to the
original CH boiler, the generator output can be used to supplement the
grid supply, reducing the high wintertime demand.

At the very least, you'll be saving on electricity at an equivilent
cost of some 3 or 4 times the cost of the fuel's energy equivilent
with hardly any change to your consumption of gas.

In effect, instead of sending that 20% of waste heat up the flue,
you'll be sending the equivilent heat energy into the grid as high
value electrical energy.

In the wintertime, you'll still be a net consumer of electricity, the
grid connection simply allows you to smooth out your demand whilst
making a valuable contribution during peak demand periods, unlike PV
which supplies its energy during off-peak periods, placing the grid in
danger of becoming unstable once the whole world and their dog get in
on the act.

If the whole world and their dog got into the micro CHP 'act', the
PSUs wouldn't bat an eyelid since this would contribute to the
stability of the grid.


There is an element of some sense in the idea but I reckon you'll still
need a mains connection one way or the other..

There'd be no sense at all in running a micro CHP generator _without_
a connection to the grid otherwise you're going to have a problem
storing all that surplus electrical energy - the grid makes an
excellent storage facility.

That will be news to _THE_ national grid...

Very old news. They've been using pumped storage facilties
(Ffestiniog and Dinorwig) for many decades now so it's certainly very
stale news.

My point here is that the grid makes an excellent storage facility
from the householders' viewpoint since it can absorb the surplus to
useful effect by supplementing the local supply during peak demand
periods, reducing stress on the grid as a whole.


From the viewpoint of the PSUs, it's far less problematic than home
PV generation since it contributes to the grid during peak demand
periods rather than during low demand periods. The mains gas
consumption remains pretty well unchanged eliminating the "Robbing
Peter to pay Paul" factor.

I expect this type of co-generation would be favoured the most by the
PSUs but they don't have any say in this and it seems the eco green
******** has decreed that the FIT rates be the least favourable of the
lot for CHP.

The FIT system generally seems skewed to encourage use of the least
effective and appropriate technologies first. Install small scale hydro
that can generate constant power 24/7 and you get a feeble FIT payment
for that!

The FIT rates will surely drop for solar power as more efficient and
cheaper per watt panels appear in the market place in sufficient
quantities so as to make their use in the UK start to look like a
sensible investment.

Regulations regarding the export of home generated power into the
grid will have to be made to restrict the periods during which such
energy is permitted to be exported.

This will afflict PV the most since this will require the
intermediary of an electrical storage device to delay the export of
the surplus energy gained during the off peak daylight hours. In other
words, such installations won't be allowed to use the grid as an
immediate energy storage sink as is presently the case.

Micro CHP, otoh, might actually be exempted from such time of export
restrictions simply because most would only be fired up during times
of occupancy when the occupants will be using some or all of the
excess electrical energy.
--
J B Good

On 18/06/2014 12:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 16/06/2014 00:24, Johny B Good wrote:

Basically I'm turning the current boiler's 79.2% efficiency (20.8%
loss) into high value electric energy (turning the efficiency equation
on its head so to speak).

I think the laws of thermodynamics might have something to say about that!

There is an element of some sense in the idea but I reckon you'll still
need a mains connection one way or the other..

There'd be no sense at all in running a micro CHP generator _without_
a connection to the grid otherwise you're going to have a problem
storing all that surplus electrical energy - the grid makes an
excellent storage facility.

That will be news to national grid...

A lot of greens think the grid stores their power and that they don't
burn any carbon when the sun goes in. Like I said to harry, the greens
always have the wrong answer.

On 18/06/2014 14:32, Johny B Good wrote:


The FIT rates will surely drop for solar power as more efficient and
cheaper per watt panels appear in the market place in sufficient
quantities so as to make their use in the UK start to look like a
sensible investment.

It will never be a sensible way to generate power unless there is some
storage available, the tidly bit that is in the grid is several orders
of magnitude too small.

It may well be a sensible investment for some, just don't try and kid
yourself or anyone else its a green project.


Regulations regarding the export of home generated power into the
grid will have to be made to restrict the periods during which such
energy is permitted to be exported.

This will afflict PV the most since this will require the
intermediary of an electrical storage device to delay the export of
the surplus energy gained during the off peak daylight hours. In other
words, such installations won't be allowed to use the grid as an
immediate energy storage sink as is presently the case.

Micro CHP, otoh, might actually be exempted from such time of export
restrictions simply because most would only be fired up during times
of occupancy when the occupants will be using some or all of the
excess electrical energy.

Why will that be true, surely you need the plant to be available to
generate power when there is demand and not just from the householder.
Its a waste of time if you can't get power when its needed, just like
wind and solar is.

On 18/06/2014 15:23, dennis@home wrote:
On 18/06/2014 14:32, Johny B Good wrote:


The FIT rates will surely drop for solar power as more efficient and
cheaper per watt panels appear in the market place in sufficient
quantities so as to make their use in the UK start to look like a
sensible investment.

It will never be a sensible way to generate power unless there is some
storage available, the tidly bit that is in the grid is several orders
of magnitude too small.

Storage as meant in this application is where the other generators
attached to the grid work a bit less hard when yours is working, and
harder when it isn't. You can't easily store AC, even in tiny amounts.
Flywheel and an alternator, maybe?

It may well be a sensible investment for some, just don't try and kid
yourself or anyone else its a green project.

Yup.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 18/06/2014 07:07, harryagain wrote:


Nobody yet knows whether the nuclear waste can be dealt with.
So nobody knows the cost.
Leaving it for your children to dea lwith is not the answer.


Every time you post this drivel, you prove yet again your lack of
comprehension of the problem and solutions available. Repeatedly denying
that nuclear waste can be dealt with by any of the numerous methods that
have been outlined to you over the years does not make your assertions
true.

The only problem dealing with nuclear waste is the FUD and NIMBYism of the
greens.

As for leaving the problem of disposing of waste to your children, who's
going to deal with the waste when your solar panels come to their "end of
life" and stop working in a generation or so?

So what is the cost Mr Know it all?
Do you even know of anyone that does know?

You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly you have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without even
slight research.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 18/06/2014 14:32, Johny B Good wrote:


The FIT rates will surely drop for solar power as more efficient and
cheaper per watt panels appear in the market place in sufficient
quantities so as to make their use in the UK start to look like a
sensible investment.

It will never be a sensible way to generate power unless there is some
storage available, the tidly bit that is in the grid is several orders of
magnitude too small.

It may well be a sensible investment for some, just don't try and kid
yourself or anyone else its a green project.


Regulations regarding the export of home generated power into the
grid will have to be made to restrict the periods during which such
energy is permitted to be exported.

This will afflict PV the most since this will require the
intermediary of an electrical storage device to delay the export of
the surplus energy gained during the off peak daylight hours. In other
words, such installations won't be allowed to use the grid as an
immediate energy storage sink as is presently the case.

Micro CHP, otoh, might actually be exempted from such time of export
restrictions simply because most would only be fired up during times
of occupancy when the occupants will be using some or all of the
excess electrical energy.

Why will that be true, surely you need the plant to be available to
generate power when there is demand and not just from the householder.
Its a waste of time if you can't get power when its needed, just like wind
and solar is.

You're just not smart enough to get your head around this stuff are you Den?
Did you ever go to school?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 18/06/2014 12:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 16/06/2014 00:24, Johny B Good wrote:

Basically I'm turning the current boiler's 79.2% efficiency (20.8%
loss) into high value electric energy (turning the efficiency equation
on its head so to speak).

I think the laws of thermodynamics might have something to say about
that!

There is an element of some sense in the idea but I reckon you'll still
need a mains connection one way or the other..

There'd be no sense at all in running a micro CHP generator _without_
a connection to the grid otherwise you're going to have a problem
storing all that surplus electrical energy - the grid makes an
excellent storage facility.

That will be news to national grid...

A lot of greens think the grid stores their power and that they don't burn
any carbon when the sun goes in. Like I said to harry, the greens always
have the wrong answer.

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
We can simply tell who wrote that without even looking at the author


... soo very predictable...

Bit of light reading for you.
If you're capable of understanding it that is.
http://stophinkley.org/WManDecom/DEC...l27May2014.pdf


Yes and?...

We can't afford the true cost of nuclear power.
The costs until now have been hidden. Kicked into the future.
Now they are in the open, we can see what a bunch of lies we were told in
the past.

The pigeons are coming home to roost.

On 18/06/2014 18:40, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 18/06/2014 07:07, harryagain wrote:


Nobody yet knows whether the nuclear waste can be dealt with.
So nobody knows the cost.
Leaving it for your children to dea lwith is not the answer.


Every time you post this drivel, you prove yet again your lack of
comprehension of the problem and solutions available. Repeatedly denying
that nuclear waste can be dealt with by any of the numerous methods that
have been outlined to you over the years does not make your assertions
true.

The only problem dealing with nuclear waste is the FUD and NIMBYism of the
greens.

As for leaving the problem of disposing of waste to your children, who's
going to deal with the waste when your solar panels come to their "end of
life" and stop working in a generation or so?

So what is the cost Mr Know it all?
Do you even know of anyone that does know?

It depends on the final decision, but it will be a tiny fraction of a
penny per kilowatt hour generated, even using the most pessimistic
assumption of no re-use of fuel after the first time through the
reactor. Re-use of fuel or the use of Thorium reactors will reduce this
even further.

Then again, *you* keep making vague assertions about how you know how
much it will cost, so maybe you'd like to enlighten us?

I note that you have yet again carefully dodged the issue of what's to
happen to your solar panels at their end of life.

You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly you have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without even
slight research.

It doesn't take much research to show that your favoured options of
photovoltaic and wind generation are totally useless and actually
*increase* pollution per kilowatt hour of energy used over and above
that caused by burning fossil fuels. Though I did meet someone last year
who had spent a year researching renewables and came to the conclusion
that they're a waste of time, money and effort. That's what he wrote in
his thesis, anyway. (In Chinese, as that's where he came from)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 18/06/2014 12:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 16/06/2014 00:24, Johny B Good wrote:

Basically I'm turning the current boiler's 79.2% efficiency (20.8%
loss) into high value electric energy (turning the efficiency equation
on its head so to speak).

I think the laws of thermodynamics might have something to say about
that!

There is an element of some sense in the idea but I reckon you'll still
need a mains connection one way or the other..

There'd be no sense at all in running a micro CHP generator _without_
a connection to the grid otherwise you're going to have a problem
storing all that surplus electrical energy - the grid makes an
excellent storage facility.

That will be news to national grid...

A lot of greens think the grid stores their power and that they don't burn
any carbon when the sun goes in. Like I said to harry, the greens always
have the wrong answer.

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.

The greens have been talking ******** for decades, can't see them
talking sense any time soon. According to them we ran out of fossil
fuels ages ago.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 18/06/2014 14:32, Johny B Good wrote:
Ok then, let me explain it this way:

A small home generator driven by an ICE is going to be chucking away
some 70 to 80 percent of the heat energy input from the fuel, in this
case Natural Gas. A gas central heating boiler is only going to
transfer circa 80% of the energy into the house, the rest going up the
flue.

If you size up the micro CHP plant to match the waste heat to the
original CH boiler, the generator output can be used to supplement the
grid supply, reducing the high wintertime demand.

At the very least, you'll be saving on electricity at an equivilent
cost of some 3 or 4 times the cost of the fuel's energy equivilent
with hardly any change to your consumption of gas.

In effect, instead of sending that 20% of waste heat up the flue,
you'll be sending the equivilent heat energy into the grid as high
value electrical energy.

I wouldn't get that excited.

It looks as though they are more efficient than conventional boilers -
but not by much. About 85% total, so 15% is going up the flue. It's
better, but not revolutionary.

What you do get is electricity generation inside that 85%, so it is a
good way to make power - but it isn't going to affect your gas bill. In
fact, if it's 6:1 heatower (which seems typical) you'll get slightly
less heat from your gas than a good conventional boiler!

Luckily most of the electricity will probably become heat too, so your
gas bill might dip slightly.

Andy (who has no mains gas)

On 18/06/2014 01:13, Johny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:39:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 17/06/2014 02:44, Johny B Good wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:48:46 +0100, "harryagain"

8

Well ****-fer-brains, run on gas it's a lot less CO2 than petrol or diesel.
I already pointed out the summer heat problem.
You wouldn't run them in summer.


I hate to have to say this but, for once, Harry does make an
excellent point. :-)


Well it appears its OK to generate CO2 in winter so all we need to do is
burn fossil fuel in winter and find some way to store the energy for
summer.

Running a micro CHP system in winter actually reduces your net CO2
contribution since you're burning, to a very close approximation, the
same amount of gas that an 80% efficient boiler would have used only
the 20% loss is now being realised as useful electrical energy which
reduces the demand on the national grid, reducing the carbon emissions
at the coal or gas fired power stations.

I would surprised if much of that 20% is actually recoverable though...

And compared with the option of running a 90%+ efficiency boiler,
without the added complexity (and potential unreliability and capital
costs) of the electrical generation element, its a less clear choice.

(and that is before you consider the extra instability introduced into
the grid by even more non dispatchable generation, coupled with the
requirement the generation capacity be paid for and duplicated elsewhere).

Perhaps if you replace the room thermostat with remote control by smart
grid. That way the national grid can fire up your boiler when it needs
its./ If you are lucky that might sometimes correspond to when you want
your house heated!

These greens always have the wrong answer for everything.

Sadly, that's depressingly true. They seem to lack the necessary
pragmatism and vision required to make more truly optimum choices in
regard of energy production solutions. If they could remove their
heads from up their collective arses and 'wake up and smell the
coffee', they'd be hollering the loudest for an accelerated LFTR
development program.

To be fair, one or two of them are beginning to.

Whilst Fusion has now finally reached the break even point, even if
it's only for 150 picoseconds at a time, it may take yet another 50
years before this techology can be converted into an effective source
of energy.

In the meantime, further research on this front will continue to
demand vast amounts of energy to continue the Fusion Energy
development program. If we don't invest in an interim nuclear power
program such as the very promising LFTR technology very soon, we could
end up 'being caught short' as the looming energy crisis starts to
make itself felt in the developed world.

Indeed. The nice thing about LFTR is that much of the difficult
engineering has already been done and proven. The main outstanding bits
are the fuel cycle processing and online refuelling IIUC. Just think you
will then have the likes of harry telling us its too dangerous to use
all that nuclear waste for fuel, that previously they were telling us it
was too dangerous to store, (when they weren't telling us there was no
way to do so!)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 18/06/2014 09:30, dennis@home wrote:

Just what is better about killing someone with green energy and not
killing them with nuke energy?

We should get that printed on a tee shirt for the next greenpeace rally ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:14:10 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

I note that you have yet again carefully dodged the issue of what's to
happen to your solar panels at their end of life.

A useful reference point.

Solar panels with a claimed maximum rating of 1GW have a glass content in excess
of 50,000 Tonnes

So in Germany they currently have more than 1.5 million tonnes of glass to get
rid of in around 25 years, not just any glass, glass rammed full of cadmium.

--

On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.



Our present situation is caused by the greens, they always get the wrong
answer.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:08:04 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 18/06/2014 01:13, Johny B Good wrote:

====snip====


Running a micro CHP system in winter actually reduces your net CO2
contribution since you're burning, to a very close approximation, the
same amount of gas that an 80% efficient boiler would have used only
the 20% loss is now being realised as useful electrical energy which
reduces the demand on the national grid, reducing the carbon emissions
at the coal or gas fired power stations.

I would surprised if much of that 20% is actually recoverable though...

And compared with the option of running a 90%+ efficiency boiler,
without the added complexity (and potential unreliability and capital
costs) of the electrical generation element, its a less clear choice.

Are 90% or better efficiency CH boilers available today? If so, then
you have a valid point of concern, especially if you're not bothered
about reducing electricity usage.

(and that is before you consider the extra instability introduced into
the grid by even more non dispatchable generation, coupled with the
requirement the generation capacity be paid for and duplicated elsewhere).

That's the biggest advantage of micro CHP. you'll most likely be
generating the extra electricity when you and everyone else around you
is contributing to the peak demand on the grid. Your input _will_ be
very much appreciated by the PSUs on account it will be timed to
coincide with peak demand thus helping to stabilise the grid rather
than, in the case of PV, de-stabilising it.


Perhaps if you replace the room thermostat with remote control by smart
grid. That way the national grid can fire up your boiler when it needs
its./ If you are lucky that might sometimes correspond to when you want
your house heated!

That's a definite non-starter.


These greens always have the wrong answer for everything.

Sadly, that's depressingly true. They seem to lack the necessary
pragmatism and vision required to make more truly optimum choices in
regard of energy production solutions. If they could remove their
heads from up their collective arses and 'wake up and smell the
coffee', they'd be hollering the loudest for an accelerated LFTR
development program.

To be fair, one or two of them are beginning to.

Whilst Fusion has now finally reached the break even point, even if
it's only for 150 picoseconds at a time, it may take yet another 50
years before this techology can be converted into an effective source
of energy.

In the meantime, further research on this front will continue to
demand vast amounts of energy to continue the Fusion Energy
development program. If we don't invest in an interim nuclear power
program such as the very promising LFTR technology very soon, we could
end up 'being caught short' as the looming energy crisis starts to
make itself felt in the developed world.

Indeed. The nice thing about LFTR is that much of the difficult
engineering has already been done and proven. The main outstanding bits
are the fuel cycle processing and online refuelling IIUC. Just think you
will then have the likes of harry telling us its too dangerous to use
all that nuclear waste for fuel, that previously they were telling us it
was too dangerous to store, (when they weren't telling us there was no
way to do so!)

You're preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. :-)
--
J B Good

On 19/06/2014 04:42, Johny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:08:04 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 18/06/2014 01:13, Johny B Good wrote:

====snip====


Running a micro CHP system in winter actually reduces your net CO2
contribution since you're burning, to a very close approximation, the
same amount of gas that an 80% efficient boiler would have used only
the 20% loss is now being realised as useful electrical energy which
reduces the demand on the national grid, reducing the carbon emissions
at the coal or gas fired power stations.

I would surprised if much of that 20% is actually recoverable though...

And compared with the option of running a 90%+ efficiency boiler,
without the added complexity (and potential unreliability and capital
costs) of the electrical generation element, its a less clear choice.

Are 90% or better efficiency CH boilers available today? If so, then

Yup, pretty much any of the modern condensers are at that level of
performance. And note that is the SEDBUK seasonally adjusted performance
figure that looks at a more real world usage than the perfect "in the
lab" figures the manufacturers themselves might rather tout. If you push
the boat out with weather compensation, proportional controls etc then
you can get into the mid 90s.

Have a look at some of the more modern models he

http://www.boilers.org.uk/

(the efficiencies quoted are using the gross calorific values)

you have a valid point of concern, especially if you're not bothered
about reducing electricity usage.

It would certainly be nice to reduce electrical usage, but whether it
makes sense long term is a different matter.

(and that is before you consider the extra instability introduced into
the grid by even more non dispatchable generation, coupled with the
requirement the generation capacity be paid for and duplicated elsewhere).

That's the biggest advantage of micro CHP. you'll most likely be
generating the extra electricity when you and everyone else around you
is contributing to the peak demand on the grid. Your input _will_ be
very much appreciated by the PSUs on account it will be timed to
coincide with peak demand thus helping to stabilise the grid rather
than, in the case of PV, de-stabilising it.

For certain values of "will". I agree that is it far more likely to
coincide with natural demand cycles than say solar or wind, however it
will not be an exact correlation (e.g. warmer than expected winter day,
popular program on TV etc). That means you still ultimately can't rely
on it being there when its needed, and will need backup generation
capability to cope with when its not.

Perhaps if you replace the room thermostat with remote control by smart
grid. That way the national grid can fire up your boiler when it needs
its./ If you are lucky that might sometimes correspond to when you want
your house heated!

That's a definite non-starter.

No indeed, and I was playing devil's advocate.

However you could see a creep in that direction where perhaps the
"boiler" becomes an electrical generator first, and a home heater
second. The electrical generation capability being controlled remotely
which along with automated demand reduction some might consider to be an
alternative to actually getting on with the job of generating the energy
required.




--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 18/06/2014 18:40, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 18/06/2014 07:07, harryagain wrote:


Nobody yet knows whether the nuclear waste can be dealt with.
So nobody knows the cost.
Leaving it for your children to dea lwith is not the answer.


Every time you post this drivel, you prove yet again your lack of
comprehension of the problem and solutions available. Repeatedly denying
that nuclear waste can be dealt with by any of the numerous methods that
have been outlined to you over the years does not make your assertions
true.

The only problem dealing with nuclear waste is the FUD and NIMBYism of
the
greens.

As for leaving the problem of disposing of waste to your children, who's
going to deal with the waste when your solar panels come to their "end
of
life" and stop working in a generation or so?

So what is the cost Mr Know it all?
Do you even know of anyone that does know?

It depends on the final decision, but it will be a tiny fraction of a
penny per kilowatt hour generated, even using the most pessimistic
assumption of no re-use of fuel after the first time through the reactor.
Re-use of fuel or the use of Thorium reactors will reduce this even
further.


Which non-existent thorium reactors are these?


Then again, *you* keep making vague assertions about how you know how much
it will cost, so maybe you'd like to enlighten us?

I have no idea what the final cost will be and niether does anyone else
because they have no idea how to dispose of nuclear waste.
If you had read the link I posted you would see what a cockup ot all is and
the lies that has been told.
Here you are again.
http://stophinkley.org/WManDecom/DEC...l27May2014.pdf

I note that you have yet again carefully dodged the issue of what's to
happen to your solar panels at their end of life.

As they are 99.9% glass and aluminium there will be no dispoal problems



You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly you
have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without even
slight research.

It doesn't take much research to show that your favoured options of
photovoltaic and wind generation are totally useless and actually
*increase* pollution per kilowatt hour of energy used over and above that
caused by burning fossil fuels. Though I did meet someone last year who
had spent a year researching renewables and came to the conclusion that
they're a waste of time, money and effort. That's what he wrote in his
thesis, anyway. (In Chinese, as that's where he came from)

Once manufactured, no pollution is created.
Virually no maintenance is needed.;
There are no parasitic losses.

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:14:10 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

I note that you have yet again carefully dodged the issue of what's to
happen to your solar panels at their end of life.

A useful reference point.

Solar panels with a claimed maximum rating of 1GW have a glass content in
excess
of 50,000 Tonnes

So in Germany they currently have more than 1.5 million tonnes of glass to
get
rid of in around 25 years, not just any glass, glass rammed full of
cadmium.


You ARE full of crap aren't you?
Cadmium is not used in current PV panels but might be in future.

Cadmium is not mined, it is a by product of zinc production.
So it will be with us regardless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium...ltaics#Cadmium

All coloured glass BTW is filled with heavy metals.
As are uPVC window frames, household paints etc etc.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.



Our present situation is caused by the greens, they always get the wrong
answer.

Yeah Yeah.
Every industrialised country in the world is turning to renewable energy but
our dozey Den knows better.

You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly you
have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without even
slight research.

It doesn't take much research to show that your favoured options of
photovoltaic and wind generation are totally useless and actually
*increase* pollution per kilowatt hour of energy used over and above that
caused by burning fossil fuels. Though I did meet someone last year who
had spent a year researching renewables and came to the conclusion that
they're a waste of time, money and effort. That's what he wrote in his
thesis, anyway. (In Chinese, as that's where he came from)

Once manufactured, no pollution is created.
Virually no maintenance is needed.;
There are no parasitic losses.



And no leccy when the air pressure is the same across the land and not a
lot of power at night otherwise excellent thingies)!...

--
Tony Sayer

In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.



Our present situation is caused by the greens, they always get the wrong
answer.

Yeah Yeah.
Every industrialised country in the world is turning to renewable energy but
our dozey Den knows better.



What about those nuclear nasty frogs and the yanks?...

--
Tony Sayer

On 19/06/2014 19:53, tony sayer wrote:


You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly you
have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without even
slight research.

It doesn't take much research to show that your favoured options of
photovoltaic and wind generation are totally useless and actually
*increase* pollution per kilowatt hour of energy used over and above that
caused by burning fossil fuels. Though I did meet someone last year who
had spent a year researching renewables and came to the conclusion that
they're a waste of time, money and effort. That's what he wrote in his
thesis, anyway. (In Chinese, as that's where he came from)

Once manufactured, no pollution is created.
Virually no maintenance is needed.;
There are no parasitic losses.



And no leccy when the air pressure is the same across the land and not a
lot of power at night otherwise excellent thingies)!...

He hasn't worked out yet that having to run fossil fuelled stations in
their most inefficient mode all the time to even out the massive
variations in renewable energy sources causes pollution. Unless he's of
the opinion that all energy usage can be shut off during the hours of
darkness and when the wind's not blowing. So, we'll all start going to
bed at sunset and get up at sunrise, no evening TV or radio, no radio
alarm clocks, food spoiling more quickly in storage due to unstable
temperatures in fridges and so on and on and on....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 19/06/2014 18:30, harryagain wrote:
"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:14:10 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

I note that you have yet again carefully dodged the issue of what's to
happen to your solar panels at their end of life.

A useful reference point.

Solar panels with a claimed maximum rating of 1GW have a glass content in
excess
of 50,000 Tonnes

So in Germany they currently have more than 1.5 million tonnes of glass to
get
rid of in around 25 years, not just any glass, glass rammed full of
cadmium.


You ARE full of crap aren't you?
Cadmium is not used in current PV panels but might be in future.

It *is* used in some current panels. If you're going to spout rubbish,
at least make it up to date rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium..._photovoltaics

They contain 93 tonnes of cadmium per gigawatt of rated output, all of
which will have to be safely dealt with in a generation or so. As they
are more efficient and cheaper to make than silicon cells, their take up
and manufacture will probably only be limited by the supply of
tellurium, which is about as common as platinum.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 19/06/2014 19:55, tony sayer wrote:
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.



Our present situation is caused by the greens, they always get the wrong
answer.

Yeah Yeah.
Every industrialised country in the world is turning to renewable energy but
our dozey Den knows better.



What about those nuclear nasty frogs and the yanks?...

They'll go the way of the Germans and start burning coal again before
too long. The Yanks are already burning vast quantities of hydrocarbons
obtained from oils shale using what is alleged to be a very polluting
process to make up their shortfall.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:53, tony sayer wrote:


You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly you
have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without even
slight research.

It doesn't take much research to show that your favoured options of
photovoltaic and wind generation are totally useless and actually
*increase* pollution per kilowatt hour of energy used over and above
that
caused by burning fossil fuels. Though I did meet someone last year who
had spent a year researching renewables and came to the conclusion that
they're a waste of time, money and effort. That's what he wrote in his
thesis, anyway. (In Chinese, as that's where he came from)

Once manufactured, no pollution is created.
Virually no maintenance is needed.;
There are no parasitic losses.



And no leccy when the air pressure is the same across the land and not a
lot of power at night otherwise excellent thingies)!...

He hasn't worked out yet that having to run fossil fuelled stations in
their most inefficient mode all the time to even out the massive
variations in renewable energy sources causes pollution. Unless he's of
the opinion that all energy usage can be shut off during the hours of
darkness and when the wind's not blowing. So, we'll all start going to bed
at sunset and get up at sunrise, no evening TV or radio, no radio alarm
clocks, food spoiling more quickly in storage due to unstable temperatures
in fridges and so on and on and on....


You do talk some drivel
You haven't worked out that PV is only part of the solution and any
supplimentary (fossil/gas) power will not come from come from cnventional
power stations as we have today.

And power will be more expensive in times of dearth and non-essential stuff
will be shut off.

I see the wholesale price of gas has gone up 5% as I predicted.
And that's just for a few threats.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:55, tony sayer wrote:
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.



Our present situation is caused by the greens, they always get the
wrong
answer.

Yeah Yeah.
Every industrialised country in the world is turning to renewable energy
but
our dozey Den knows better.



What about those nuclear nasty frogs and the yanks?...

They'll go the way of the Germans and start burning coal again before too
long. The Yanks are already burning vast quantities of hydrocarbons
obtained from oils shale using what is alleged to be a very polluting
process to make up their shortfall.


Full of crap as usual. Is your head permanently up your arse? Don't you
follow any current events?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27645569

On 20/06/2014 06:37, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:53, tony sayer wrote:


You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly you
have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without even
slight research.

It doesn't take much research to show that your favoured options of
photovoltaic and wind generation are totally useless and actually
*increase* pollution per kilowatt hour of energy used over and above
that
caused by burning fossil fuels. Though I did meet someone last year who
had spent a year researching renewables and came to the conclusion that
they're a waste of time, money and effort. That's what he wrote in his
thesis, anyway. (In Chinese, as that's where he came from)

Once manufactured, no pollution is created.
Virually no maintenance is needed.;
There are no parasitic losses.



And no leccy when the air pressure is the same across the land and not a
lot of power at night otherwise excellent thingies)!...

He hasn't worked out yet that having to run fossil fuelled stations in
their most inefficient mode all the time to even out the massive
variations in renewable energy sources causes pollution. Unless he's of
the opinion that all energy usage can be shut off during the hours of
darkness and when the wind's not blowing. So, we'll all start going to bed
at sunset and get up at sunrise, no evening TV or radio, no radio alarm
clocks, food spoiling more quickly in storage due to unstable temperatures
in fridges and so on and on and on....


You do talk some drivel
You haven't worked out that PV is only part of the solution and any
supplimentary (fossil/gas) power will not come from come from cnventional
power stations as we have today.

So where *will* it come from? Bear in mind that small fossil fuel
stations are normally less efficient than large ones.

PV is a small part of the solution, as is wind. Tidal power is severely
constrained in the UK by geography, as is hydro.

And power will be more expensive in times of dearth and non-essential stuff
will be shut off.

Because we've not built enough capacity to replace the old, worn out stuff.

I see the wholesale price of gas has gone up 5% as I predicted.
And that's just for a few threats.

The price of hydrocarbons has very little to do with production costs
and demand, and a great deal to do with politics. It has been this way
for decades.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/06/2014 06:54, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:55, tony sayer wrote:
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.



Our present situation is caused by the greens, they always get the
wrong
answer.

Yeah Yeah.
Every industrialised country in the world is turning to renewable energy
but
our dozey Den knows better.



What about those nuclear nasty frogs and the yanks?...

They'll go the way of the Germans and start burning coal again before too
long. The Yanks are already burning vast quantities of hydrocarbons
obtained from oils shale using what is alleged to be a very polluting
process to make up their shortfall.


Full of crap as usual. Is your head permanently up your arse? Don't you
follow any current events?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27645569


Yes, they're going to be burning oil from oil shale instead of coal.
Oddly enough, that's what I just wrote. The *Germans* are the ones who
are burning more coal now to make up for the lack of nuclear power
caused by the FUD after Fukushima.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:53, tony sayer wrote:


You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly you
have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without even
slight research.

It doesn't take much research to show that your favoured options of
photovoltaic and wind generation are totally useless and actually
*increase* pollution per kilowatt hour of energy used over and above
that
caused by burning fossil fuels. Though I did meet someone last year who
had spent a year researching renewables and came to the conclusion that
they're a waste of time, money and effort. That's what he wrote in his
thesis, anyway. (In Chinese, as that's where he came from)

Once manufactured, no pollution is created.
Virually no maintenance is needed.;
There are no parasitic losses.



And no leccy when the air pressure is the same across the land and not a
lot of power at night otherwise excellent thingies)!...

He hasn't worked out yet that having to run fossil fuelled stations in
their most inefficient mode all the time to even out the massive
variations in renewable energy sources causes pollution. Unless he's of
the opinion that all energy usage can be shut off during the hours of
darkness and when the wind's not blowing. So, we'll all start going to bed
at sunset and get up at sunrise, no evening TV or radio, no radio alarm
clocks, food spoiling more quickly in storage due to unstable temperatures
in fridges and so on and on and on....


You do talk some drivel
You haven't worked out that PV is only part of the solution and any
supplimentary (fossil/gas) power will not come from come from cnventional
power stations as we have today.

So where O wise one will it come from then?.

Realistic real world answers please?...



And power will be more expensive in times of dearth and non-essential stuff
will be shut off.

You remember the three day week well then;?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:55, tony sayer wrote:
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.



Our present situation is caused by the greens, they always get the
wrong
answer.

Yeah Yeah.
Every industrialised country in the world is turning to renewable energy
but
our dozey Den knows better.



What about those nuclear nasty frogs and the yanks?...

They'll go the way of the Germans and start burning coal again before too
long. The Yanks are already burning vast quantities of hydrocarbons
obtained from oils shale using what is alleged to be a very polluting
process to make up their shortfall.


Full of crap as usual. Is your head permanently up your arse? Don't you
follow any current events?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27645569



Yes olde Barrack is going the shut down some coal plants but what's he
going to replace them with then?.

Seems you and he have about as much real world idea as each other...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
On 20/06/2014 06:54, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:55, tony sayer wrote:
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.



Our present situation is caused by the greens, they always get the
wrong
answer.

Yeah Yeah.
Every industrialised country in the world is turning to renewable energy
but
our dozey Den knows better.



What about those nuclear nasty frogs and the yanks?...

They'll go the way of the Germans and start burning coal again before too
long. The Yanks are already burning vast quantities of hydrocarbons
obtained from oils shale using what is alleged to be a very polluting
process to make up their shortfall.


Full of crap as usual. Is your head permanently up your arse? Don't you
follow any current events?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27645569


Yes, they're going to be burning oil from oil shale instead of coal.
Oddly enough, that's what I just wrote. The *Germans* are the ones who
are burning more coal now to make up for the lack of nuclear power
caused by the FUD after Fukushima.


Let alone what the Chinese are getting up to...
--
Tony Sayer

On 20/06/2014 10:00, tony sayer wrote:
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:55, tony sayer wrote:
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/06/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:

Only you are so dense Den.
The greens have seen our present situation arising decades ago.
You can't even comprehend it now.



Our present situation is caused by the greens, they always get the
wrong
answer.

Yeah Yeah.
Every industrialised country in the world is turning to renewable energy
but
our dozey Den knows better.



What about those nuclear nasty frogs and the yanks?...

They'll go the way of the Germans and start burning coal again before too
long. The Yanks are already burning vast quantities of hydrocarbons
obtained from oils shale using what is alleged to be a very polluting
process to make up their shortfall.


Full of crap as usual. Is your head permanently up your arse? Don't you
follow any current events?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27645569



Yes olde Barrack is going the shut down some coal plants but what's he
going to replace them with then?.

Gas predominately - they have suddenly found themselves sitting on
massive reserves of the stuff that they either did not even know were
there, or though were impossible to extract.

Seems you and he have about as much real world idea as each other...



--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2014 06:37, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:53, tony sayer wrote:


You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly
you
have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without
even
slight research.

It doesn't take much research to show that your favoured options of
photovoltaic and wind generation are totally useless and actually
*increase* pollution per kilowatt hour of energy used over and above
that
caused by burning fossil fuels. Though I did meet someone last year
who
had spent a year researching renewables and came to the conclusion
that
they're a waste of time, money and effort. That's what he wrote in
his
thesis, anyway. (In Chinese, as that's where he came from)

Once manufactured, no pollution is created.
Virually no maintenance is needed.;
There are no parasitic losses.



And no leccy when the air pressure is the same across the land and not
a
lot of power at night otherwise excellent thingies)!...

He hasn't worked out yet that having to run fossil fuelled stations in
their most inefficient mode all the time to even out the massive
variations in renewable energy sources causes pollution. Unless he's of
the opinion that all energy usage can be shut off during the hours of
darkness and when the wind's not blowing. So, we'll all start going to
bed
at sunset and get up at sunrise, no evening TV or radio, no radio alarm
clocks, food spoiling more quickly in storage due to unstable
temperatures
in fridges and so on and on and on....


You do talk some drivel
You haven't worked out that PV is only part of the solution and any
supplimentary (fossil/gas) power will not come from come from cnventional
power stations as we have today.

So where *will* it come from? Bear in mind that small fossil fuel stations
are normally less efficient than large ones.

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


PV is a small part of the solution, as is wind. Tidal power is severely
constrained in the UK by geography, as is hydro.


We are ideally situated for tidal power with lots of large river estuarys
with some of the highest tidal ranges in the world.
There is plenty of scope for micro hydro which is included in the FIT
scheme.
Even the Queen has one.
There were once thousands of water mills in the UK, all sites could be
converted.
Also existing hydro could be boosted by refillling the dams by pumping when
there is surplus wind energy.



And power will be more expensive in times of dearth and non-essential
stuff
will be shut off.

Because we've not built enough capacity to replace the old, worn out
stuff.

I see the wholesale price of gas has gone up 5% as I predicted.
And that's just for a few threats.

The price of hydrocarbons has very little to do with production costs and
demand, and a great deal to do with politics. It has been this way for
decades.


Get your head out of your arse.
Politcs will always play apart but the additional factor is the increasing
cost of fossil fuel as it becomes harder to find and extract. Eg we are now
talking about fracking.
When these nutters ISIS take over Saudi/even start their bothers there,
there will be WW3 and massive price hikes/shortages..

Just wait 'til the public finds out about coal bed gas extraction.
The NIMBYs have no idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergr...l_gasification
Coming to a place near you. (If you're particularly unlucky)

We need independent energy sources, but renewables are the only one that
last forever.
And don't result in your house falling down.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2014 19:53, tony sayer wrote:


You and a few other make these stupid remarks/statements. Clearly
you
have
swallowed the propaganda like the credulous fools you are without
even
slight research.

It doesn't take much research to show that your favoured options of
photovoltaic and wind generation are totally useless and actually
*increase* pollution per kilowatt hour of energy used over and above
that
caused by burning fossil fuels. Though I did meet someone last year
who
had spent a year researching renewables and came to the conclusion
that
they're a waste of time, money and effort. That's what he wrote in
his
thesis, anyway. (In Chinese, as that's where he came from)

Once manufactured, no pollution is created.
Virually no maintenance is needed.;
There are no parasitic losses.



And no leccy when the air pressure is the same across the land and not
a
lot of power at night otherwise excellent thingies)!...

He hasn't worked out yet that having to run fossil fuelled stations in
their most inefficient mode all the time to even out the massive
variations in renewable energy sources causes pollution. Unless he's of
the opinion that all energy usage can be shut off during the hours of
darkness and when the wind's not blowing. So, we'll all start going to
bed
at sunset and get up at sunrise, no evening TV or radio, no radio alarm
clocks, food spoiling more quickly in storage due to unstable
temperatures
in fridges and so on and on and on....


You do talk some drivel
You haven't worked out that PV is only part of the solution and any
supplimentary (fossil/gas) power will not come from come from cnventional
power stations as we have today.

So where O wise one will it come from then?.

Realistic real world answers please?...

We have had this conversation before.



And power will be more expensive in times of dearth and non-essential
stuff
will be shut off.

You remember the three day week well then;?..

Which part of non-essential don't you understand?

--
Tony Sayer

I remember it well.
A politically driven socialist/Marxist plot to topple the government.
Fomulated by people who thought they were "entitled" to a better living
standard then the rest of us.
Only feasible when electricity depends on large power stations dependent on
coal.
Which will no longer exist in the future.

But just history, little relevence to todays problems.
(The main exception being that both were caused by socialism)