http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631

harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631



The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). So that won't be biased
then. Ha!

Bill

On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631


A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is noteworthy
that, even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the
report still can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

--
Colin Bignell

On 16/10/14 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631


It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

Andy C

Andy Cap wrote:

It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

Andy C

Ditto roof mounted PV cells. The **** will be hitting the fan big style
in a few years when all these cowboy installs start to fail. Leaking
roofs, waterlogged connections, dodgy inverters, oh dear me.

As an aerial installer I've looked at quite a few of these jobs close
up, and by gum some of them are rough.

Bill

On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:47:06 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...13/wind-power-
is-cheapest-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds?CMP=EMCENVEML1631

It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

The books obviously don't
balance:

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/busines...energy-solutio
ns-up-100-7944689

http://tinyurl.com/lz398t2

--
Cheers
Dave.

But its no bloody good it being cheaper if it is not windy when you want the
bloody power is it!
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631



Written by the expert that looks like Eddie Hitler

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/arthurneslen



--
Adam

On 16/10/14 21:32, ARW wrote:
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631




Written by the expert that looks like Eddie Hitler

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/arthurneslen




It does!

harryagain wrote

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631

Usual pathetic excuse for bull****.

Essentially because they just ignore the power sources that have
BY FAR the lowest health and environmental impact, nukes.

And they don’t even consider the FACT that wind power has
to have coal fired power because of the times when the wind
isnt blowing so you don’t even see the lower purported health
impact that they are claiming anyway.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:

On 16/10/14 19:56, harryagain wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...is-cheapest-en
ergy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds?CMP=EMCENVEML1631


It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

Funny how harry keeps posting this crap. Is he a shill of some sort?

Nope, just a fool that doesnt have a ****ing clue about the basics.

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ower-is-cheape
st-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds?CMP=EMCENVEML1631


A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable
energy says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is
noteworthy that, even after factoring in as many intangibles as
possible, the report still can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

What they "forget" to factor in is the cost of the conventional plant
they have to have sitting idle on standby for when the wind isn't
blowing. Of course if that standby plant is nuclear then you may as well
run it 24/7 and forget the wind turbines.
--
bert

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:15:43 +0100, bert wrote:

What they "forget" to factor in is the cost of the conventional plant
they have to have sitting idle on standby for when the wind isn't
blowing.

All grid suppliers should be made to completely dispatchable to their
stated capacity for at least a given length of time. The costs of
this would be bourne by the generators.

There would have to be some time elements involved, no point in
asking Drax for 4 GW in two hours, when the fires are out... but for
wind they could have liquid air plant that would run up in minutes.
They produce the liquid air with the energy they produce when the
grid doesn't want it or, as they are now dispatchable, by choosing
when to sell to the grid. Being a quick reacting source they could
sell at best prices to the grid.

Of course if that standby plant is nuclear then you may as well
run it 24/7 and forget the wind turbines.

Slight snag is that nukes like to run flat out 24/7 for a year or
three, not be partially shut down then wound back up and a daily
cycle. To cope with varying demand there has to be dispatchable
sources to the grid.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 17/10/2014 08:35, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:15:43 +0100, bert wrote:

What they "forget" to factor in is the cost of the conventional plant
they have to have sitting idle on standby for when the wind isn't
blowing.

All grid suppliers should be made to completely dispatchable to their
stated capacity for at least a given length of time. The costs of
this would be bourne by the generators.

There would have to be some time elements involved, no point in
asking Drax for 4 GW in two hours, when the fires are out... but for
wind they could have liquid air plant that would run up in minutes.
They produce the liquid air with the energy they produce when the
grid doesn't want it or, as they are now dispatchable, by choosing
when to sell to the grid. Being a quick reacting source they could
sell at best prices to the grid.

Of course if that standby plant is nuclear then you may as well
run it 24/7 and forget the wind turbines.

Slight snag is that nukes like to run flat out 24/7 for a year or
three, not be partially shut down then wound back up and a daily
cycle. To cope with varying demand there has to be dispatchable
sources to the grid.


If liquid air storage works for wind turbines, why not for nuclear power
and do without the wind turbines?

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems and
had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been a source
of problems.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/10/2014 08:59, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 17/10/2014 08:35, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:15:43 +0100, bert wrote:

What they "forget" to factor in is the cost of the conventional plant
they have to have sitting idle on standby for when the wind isn't
blowing.

All grid suppliers should be made to completely dispatchable to their
stated capacity for at least a given length of time. The costs of
this would be bourne by the generators.

There would have to be some time elements involved, no point in
asking Drax for 4 GW in two hours, when the fires are out... but for
wind they could have liquid air plant that would run up in minutes.
They produce the liquid air with the energy they produce when the
grid doesn't want it or, as they are now dispatchable, by choosing
when to sell to the grid. Being a quick reacting source they could
sell at best prices to the grid.

Of course if that standby plant is nuclear then you may as well
run it 24/7 and forget the wind turbines.

Slight snag is that nukes like to run flat out 24/7 for a year or
three, not be partially shut down then wound back up and a daily
cycle. To cope with varying demand there has to be dispatchable
sources to the grid.


If liquid air storage works for wind turbines, why not for nuclear power
and do without the wind turbines?

There's no subsidy for it without the turbines?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems and
had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been a source
of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was still
working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about 6
thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to change
also 2 pump changes. I installed a Combi in this house 10 years ago and
don't expect it to last more than 15 years or so.
Combis are always breaking down and are generally MUCH more expensive to
fix.

In article ,
Bod wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems
and had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been
a source of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was still
working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about 6
thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to change
also 2 pump changes.

So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So what
makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which are the same?


I installed a Combi in this house 10 years ago and
don't expect it to last more than 15 years or so.
Combis are always breaking down and are generally MUCH more expensive to
fix.

Well, why fit a combi? You're not comparing like with like.

Combis are much cheaper/easier to install. Like I said, you get what you
pay for.

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems
and had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been
a source of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was
still working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about
6 thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to change
also 2 pump changes.

So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So what
makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which are the
same?

A thermocouple is a sacrificial part. Pumps are nothing to do with the
boiler. Rather like faulty illumination of needles does not say how
relialble your car's engine is.

I installed a Combi in this house 10 years ago and don't expect it to
last more than 15 years or so. Combis are always breaking down and are
generally MUCH more expensive to fix.

Well, why fit a combi? You're not comparing like with like.

It isn't so much "combi" as "condensing" that seems to make them unreliable.

Combis are much cheaper/easier to install. Like I said, you get what you
pay for.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 17/10/2014 11:18, charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems
and had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been
a source of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was
still working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about
6 thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to change
also 2 pump changes.

So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So what
makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which are the
same?

A thermocouple is a sacrificial part. Pumps are nothing to do with the
boiler. Rather like faulty illumination of needles does not say how
relialble your car's engine is.

For the majority of the population (who are not DIY minded and have to
get a man in) 6 thermocouples in 28 years is a call out fee every 4.5
years or so - not my idea of reliable even for a modern boiler.



I installed a Combi in this house 10 years ago and don't expect it to
last more than 15 years or so. Combis are always breaking down and are
generally MUCH more expensive to fix.

Well, why fit a combi? You're not comparing like with like.

It isn't so much "combi" as "condensing" that seems to make them unreliable.

Combis are much cheaper/easier to install. Like I said, you get what you
pay for.



--
Chris

On 17/10/2014 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems
and had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been
a source of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was still
working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about 6
thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to change
also 2 pump changes.

So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So what
makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which are the same?


I installed a Combi in this house 10 years ago and
don't expect it to last more than 15 years or so.
Combis are always breaking down and are generally MUCH more expensive to
fix.

Well, why fit a combi? You're not comparing like with like.

Combis are much cheaper/easier to install. Like I said, you get what you
pay for.

Not cheaper when you change from using a back boiler and changing it to
a combi like I did. Lots of pipe alterations/ HW cyl removal/ cold tank
and jockey tank removal etc.

On 17/10/2014 11:18, charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems
and had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been
a source of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was
still working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about
6 thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to change
also 2 pump changes.

So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So what
makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which are the
same?

A thermocouple is a sacrificial part. Pumps are nothing to do with the
boiler. Rather like faulty illumination of needles does not say how
relialble your car's engine is.

I installed a Combi in this house 10 years ago and don't expect it to
last more than 15 years or so. Combis are always breaking down and are
generally MUCH more expensive to fix.

Well, why fit a combi? You're not comparing like with like.

It isn't so much "combi" as "condensing" that seems to make them unreliable.

Combis are much cheaper/easier to install. Like I said, you get what you
pay for.

I fitted a combi because the old CH system took up too much room (HW
cyl/ Cold tank / expansion tank etc, plus my wife liked the idea of
constant HW from a combi. I deliberately chose a non condensing combi.

On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems and
had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been a source
of problems.

I have a Valiant "economax" (non condensing) or something combi that is
around 13 or 14 years old in the shop, runs 12 to 18 hours a day 5 days
a week through the whole season Still on the same pump and only had 1
diverter valve although it's needed a new one for about 8 years but we
have no need for hot water.

That's vastly superior to the condensing one at home with regards to
breaking down..

In article ,
news wrote:
On 17/10/2014 11:18, charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems
and had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been
a source of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was
still working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about
6 thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to change
also 2 pump changes.

So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So what
makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which are the
same?

A thermocouple is a sacrificial part. Pumps are nothing to do with the
boiler. Rather like faulty illumination of needles does not say how
relialble your car's engine is.

For the majority of the population (who are not DIY minded and have to
get a man in) 6 thermocouples in 28 years is a call out fee every 4.5
years or so - not my idea of reliable even for a modern boiler.

Assuming that the non-DIYers have an annual service to their boiler, the
thermocouple could be replaced at the same time. Thermocouples aren't part
of "modern" boilers anyhow. They have much more sophisticated bits

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:59:43 +0100, "Nightjar wrote:

If liquid air storage works for wind turbines, why not for nuclear power
and do without the wind turbines?

Good question, scale could be the problem. Pulling a few tens of
megawatts from the enviroment for a wind farm sized liquid air plant
isn't too difficult. Pulling a couple of gigawatts for a nuke is
another matter.

I guess you could offset having to take the heat from the enviroment
by pumping the heat generated (when you compress the air) into the
ground and drawing it back later. That techonology exists as
interseasonal heat stores.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
charles wrote:
So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So what
makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which are the
same?

A thermocouple is a sacrificial part. Pumps are nothing to do with the
boiler.

Many would question that statement as pumps are often inside the boiler
casing these days.

So what do you classify as the boiler? Just the actual heat exchanger?

--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bod wrote:
Well, why fit a combi? You're not comparing like with like.

Combis are much cheaper/easier to install. Like I said, you get what
you pay for.

Not cheaper when you change from using a back boiler and changing it to
a combi like I did. Lots of pipe alterations/ HW cyl removal/ cold tank
and jockey tank removal etc.

Even so you're not comparing like for like. And a modern condensing boiler
must have saved you a fortune in gas bills over a back boiler type - which
was about the most inefficient around.

--
*What hair colour do they put on the driver's license of a bald man? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/10/2014 14:07, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:59:43 +0100, "Nightjar wrote:

If liquid air storage works for wind turbines, why not for nuclear power
and do without the wind turbines?

Good question, scale could be the problem. Pulling a few tens of
megawatts from the enviroment for a wind farm sized liquid air plant
isn't too difficult. Pulling a couple of gigawatts for a nuke is
another matter.

I guess you could offset having to take the heat from the enviroment
by pumping the heat generated (when you compress the air) into the
ground and drawing it back later. That techonology exists as
interseasonal heat stores.


I would have thought that there would be more than enough waste heat
from a nuclear power plant.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So what
makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which are the
same?

A thermocouple is a sacrificial part. Pumps are nothing to do with the
boiler.

Many would question that statement as pumps are often inside the boiler
casing these days.

So what do you classify as the boiler? Just the actual heat exchanger?

It's as much part of the boiler as a starter motor is part of a car engine.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 17/10/2014 14:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
Well, why fit a combi? You're not comparing like with like.

Combis are much cheaper/easier to install. Like I said, you get what
you pay for.

Not cheaper when you change from using a back boiler and changing it to
a combi like I did. Lots of pipe alterations/ HW cyl removal/ cold tank
and jockey tank removal etc.

Even so you're not comparing like for like. And a modern condensing boiler
must have saved you a fortune in gas bills over a back boiler type - which
was about the most inefficient around.

I removed the back boiler immediately on moving in and I did say earlier
that I deliberately didn't choose a condensing boiler. They are more
expensive to buy and are notorious for having a much shorter life.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:07:06 +0100, "Nightjar wrote:

Good question, scale could be the problem. Pulling a few tens of
megawatts from the enviroment for a wind farm sized liquid air
plant
isn't too difficult. Pulling a couple of gigawatts for a nuke is
another matter.

I guess you could offset having to take the heat from the
enviroment
by pumping the heat generated (when you compress the air) into the
ground and drawing it back later. That techonology exists as
interseasonal heat stores.

I would have thought that there would be more than enough waste heat
from a nuclear power plant.

True as it'll be going full chat 24/7 ... So not only do you have 2
GW base load you also have 2 GW dispatchable. Why is that ringing a
thermodynamic alarm bell?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 17/10/2014 17:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:07:06 +0100, "Nightjar wrote:

Good question, scale could be the problem. Pulling a few tens of
megawatts from the enviroment for a wind farm sized liquid air
plant
isn't too difficult. Pulling a couple of gigawatts for a nuke is
another matter.

I guess you could offset having to take the heat from the
enviroment
by pumping the heat generated (when you compress the air) into the
ground and drawing it back later. That techonology exists as
interseasonal heat stores.

I would have thought that there would be more than enough waste heat
from a nuclear power plant.

True as it'll be going full chat 24/7 ... So not only do you have 2
GW base load you also have 2 GW dispatchable. Why is that ringing a
thermodynamic alarm bell?


Looking at the Wiki link Chris Hogg has given, a pilot plant is only
achieving 15% efficiency, with a possible, maybe, sometime in the
future, 60% efficiency, so I don't think we have invented perpetual
motion yet.

Interesting that they have to extract CO2, to prevent it freezing in
storage. In the long term, it might even extract more CO2 from the
atmosphere than the concrete for the power station created.

--
Colin Bignell

In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So
what makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which
are the same?

A thermocouple is a sacrificial part. Pumps are nothing to do with
the boiler.

Many would question that statement as pumps are often inside the
boiler casing these days.

So what do you classify as the boiler? Just the actual heat exchanger?

It's as much part of the boiler as a starter motor is part of a car
engine.

You'll have to define what you consider part of the boiler, then. And car
engine, come to that.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bod wrote:
Even so you're not comparing like for like. And a modern condensing
boiler must have saved you a fortune in gas bills over a back boiler
type - which was about the most inefficient around.

I removed the back boiler immediately on moving in and I did say earlier
that I deliberately didn't choose a condensing boiler. They are more
expensive to buy and are notorious for having a much shorter life.

But use less gas? You need to consider the overall costs of the system
for a like for like performance.

--
*Do paediatricians play miniature golf on Wednesdays?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631


A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is noteworthy that,
even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the report still
can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

Nope.Cheaper than nuclear too.

On 17/10/2014 18:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
Even so you're not comparing like for like. And a modern condensing
boiler must have saved you a fortune in gas bills over a back boiler
type - which was about the most inefficient around.

I removed the back boiler immediately on moving in and I did say earlier
that I deliberately didn't choose a condensing boiler. They are more
expensive to buy and are notorious for having a much shorter life.

But use less gas? You need to consider the overall costs of the system
for a like for like performance.

You've been taken in by all the hype.
Have a read of this:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...-of-money.html

On 17/10/2014 08:35, Dave Liquorice wrote:

There would have to be some time elements involved, no point in
asking Drax for 4 GW in two hours, when the fires are out... but for
wind they could have liquid air plant that would run up in minutes.
They produce the liquid air with the energy they produce when the
grid doesn't want it or, as they are now dispatchable, by choosing
when to sell to the grid. Being a quick reacting source they could
sell at best prices to the grid.

Unless of course you have a subsidy deal that means you can always sell
at the peak market price whenever you have capacity available, and the
grid is compelled to just suck it up by pushing other generators off.

;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 17/10/2014 11:18, charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:
On 17/10/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:
It's probably the cheapest in the same way modern CH boilers are the
cheapest, if you ignore maintenance, faults and poor life.

You make it sound like all non condensing boilers never gave problems
and had a long life. This is not so. Low end boilers have always been
a source of problems.

Hmm! I installed what you would call a low end boiler, we sold the
house 28 years after the install and that boiler (Ideal WRS40) was
still working 100%. All that ever went wrong in that period was about
6 thermocouples which cost about a fiver each and 10 minutes to change
also 2 pump changes.

So it wasn't ultra reliable. Just an economical and easy fix? So what
makes you think there aren't modern condensing boilers which are the
same?

A thermocouple is a sacrificial part. Pumps are nothing to do with the
boiler. Rather like faulty illumination of needles does not say how
relialble your car's engine is.

However if the pump is in the same case as the boiler (e.g. system /
combi) then what people used to call a fault with the pump or the
heating system they now think of as a boiler fault.

I installed a Combi in this house 10 years ago and don't expect it to
last more than 15 years or so. Combis are always breaking down and are
generally MUCH more expensive to fix.

Well, why fit a combi? You're not comparing like with like.

It isn't so much "combi" as "condensing" that seems to make them unreliable.

Years ago perhaps - can't see why a modern condensor should be any less
reliable than a similarly integrated and controlled conventional boiler.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 17/10/2014 17:34, Huge wrote:
On 2014-10-16, Bill Wright wrote:
harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631



The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). So that won't be biased
then.

Reporting in Lefty News, as well.

I *like* Lefty News. I just apply the same sceptic filter that I do to
the Mail or Torygraph.

On 17/10/2014 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2014 19:56, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...=EMCENVEML1631


A report by a consultancy that specialises in promoting renewable energy
says that it is cheapest. What a surprise. However, it is noteworthy that,
even after factoring in as many intangibles as possible, the report still
can't make it cheaper than nuclear power.

Nope.Cheaper than nuclear too.


From the article you provided a link to:

'Nuclear power, offshore wind and solar energy are all comparably
inexpensive generators, at roughly €125 per MW/h.'

--
Colin Bignell