On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:44:46 +0000
bert ] wrote:

You must be joking.

Correct.

--
Davey.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:50:51 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , bert ]
writes
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
RJH wrote:
You don't even need engineering knowledge to realise that the
wind is not constant! On how many summer evenings has it
dropped to nothing an hour or so before sunset, just when folks
are turning their lights on?

You have to wonder, indeed.


snip

Simples

Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little
somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure
that they could provide 100% of our needs? Furthermore, if the wind
happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess
power would they be capable of generating?

We had a several-hour long stretch this afternoon when there was no
wind. This, despite the forecast yesterday having predicted all-day
rain and wind. The four idiotic devices that cloud our horizon produced
not one watt of power for all that time. So the power that was used
anyway came from somewhere, and it wasn't there.

--
Davey.

RJH wrote:

Wind power was never supposed to 'keep the lights on'. It was only ever
part of a package. I do wonder if people don't know that.


But if the wind doesn't blow when the power is desperately needed, what
then? You wouldn't allow such a situation to develop in your own life;
why allow it in the life of the nation?

Bill

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Ian Jackson
wrote:

Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little
somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure
that they could provide 100% of our needs? Furthermore, if the wind
happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess
power would they be capable of generating?

Lessee now, according to Gridwatch there are times when our 5GW wind
plant dips below 50MW. Like most of July this year.

If we need around 50GW, it is easy to see that we'd need 1000 times as
many turbines as we have now, to cover 100% of our need at any time.
And at peak times (as in recent days), they'd produce 5000GW.

OK. When there wasn't much wind, 1000 times the number of existing
turbines (let's call it 'N') would be required to (hopefully) reliably
produce the required 50GW.

However, last July, the turbines that WERE capable of producing that
meagre 50MW would have been those in places where there actually WAS
some wind. In order to generate 50GW at that time, all N turbines would
have had to be in the same places.

But, of course, there would be times when the wind wasn't blowing at
those places, but was somewhere else instead. You would therefore have
to have lots of other areas where there were N turbines - ie you would
have them covering the whole country virtually from end to end.

Any more bright ideas?

Quite.
--
Ian

Chris Hogg posted

But as Harry rightly says, no-one ever envisaged all, or even more
than a modest amount, of our electricity being generated from wind.
But as other have equally rightly said, why bother to build two
systems of generation (wind + nuclear/gas/coal) when one
(nuclear/gas/coal) will do just as well.

Because (the greenies say) it will reduce the total output of
undesirable waste products like CO2 and spent nuclear fuel. The argument
being that you don't have to use the non-renewable energy sources while
the wind *is* blowing, even if it doesn't blow all the time.

--
Les

On 29/10/2014 23:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , bert ] writes

Because as has been explained many times the two principle ones
available are intermittent. There is nothing on the horizon that come
remotely near to being capable of producing the levels of energy
required and there is nothing on the horizon in terms of storing
significant amounts of electrical energy. So no matter how many
windmills or solar farms you build you still need equivalent back up
in reliable constantly available power and if that back up is nuclear,
whose operation is very green, then having built it you may as well
run it 24/7 and so building all the windmills and solar farms in the
first place is rendered pointless.
Simples

Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere
in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they
could provide 100% of our needs?

Depends on what you mean by "a little". There are times the output from
all of them is zero (rare), plenty of times when its under 5%. Taken
across the year the load factor is somewhere between 25% and 30%

With enough dispatchable CCGT generating capacity we could probably
balance the grid with perhaps 50% more notional installed capacity than
we currently have. Any more capacity than that would be pointless really.

Furthermore, if the wind happened to be
blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they
be capable of generating?

With what we currently have, they could in theory reach about 25% of
demand - depending on time of day / year.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 30/10/2014 10:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Ian Jackson
wrote:

Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little
somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure
that they could provide 100% of our needs? Furthermore, if the wind
happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much
excess power would they be capable of generating?

Lessee now, according to Gridwatch there are times when our 5GW wind
plant dips below 50MW. Like most of July this year.

If we need around 50GW, it is easy to see that we'd need 1000 times as
many turbines as we have now, to cover 100% of our need at any time.
And at peak times (as in recent days), they'd produce 5000GW.

OK. When there wasn't much wind, 1000 times the number of existing
turbines (let's call it 'N') would be required to (hopefully) reliably
produce the required 50GW.

You can't even count on that. There are times where "no wind" means none
at all (at least capable of generating). So you will always need 100% of
demand as backup capacity.

However, last July, the turbines that WERE capable of producing that
meagre 50MW would have been those in places where there actually WAS
some wind. In order to generate 50GW at that time, all N turbines would
have had to be in the same places.

But, of course, there would be times when the wind wasn't blowing at
those places, but was somewhere else instead. You would therefore have
to have lots of other areas where there were N turbines - ie you would
have them covering the whole country virtually from end to end.

Perhaps we need mobile turbines ;-)



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 29/10/2014 09:57, Bill wrote:
In message , Davey
writes
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:33:42 +0000
bert ] wrote:

Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...Wind-farms-can

-never-be-relied-upon-to-deliver-UK-energy-security.html


"Wind farms can never be relied upon to keep the lights on in Britain
because there are long periods each winter in which they produce
barely any power, according to a new report by the Adam Smith
Institute."

Anyone with an ounce of engineering knowledge could have told them
that years ago.

You don't even need engineering knowledge to realise that the wind is
not constant! On how many summer evenings has it dropped to nothing an
hour or so before sunset, just when folks are turning their lights on?

You have to wonder, indeed.

I wonder why people have to keep using this argument to knock wind
generation. It was never intended as a total replacement for other
forms of power generation, but as a top up when available, therefore
reducing the amount of coal, gas, nuclear used.

Its a fair point in theory, but the practicalities make it very
difficult in real life.

Nuclear and coal can't be modulated quickly enough to balance the
variability of the wind (and there is not much point trying to save
nuclear fuel anyway since its a negligible part of the cost of running
the plant). So all wind is really doing is displacing gas.

The way it has been implemented (more importantly the say the subsidies
work), its non economic not to use the wind power when it is available.
Thus pushing gas generation off the grid. This sounds like a "good
thing" at a superficial level, but the implication is that you may well
be forcing generators off the grid at the time when they are going to
generate most of their income. So it then becomes no profitable to build
and operate gas plant.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Chris Hogg posted
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:18:53 +0000, Big Les Wade
wrote:
Because (the greenies say) it will reduce the total output of
undesirable waste products like CO2 and spent nuclear fuel. The argument
being that you don't have to use the non-renewable energy sources while
the wind *is* blowing, even if it doesn't blow all the time.

That argument would be fine, if the amount of wind-generated
electricity resulted in an equivalent amount of coal-fired generation
being switched off with the reduction in CO2 that that would save. But
it doesn't, because coal-fired power stations have to be kept up and
running on standby to enable them rapidly to be brought back on line
when the wind drops. It's known as 'hot spinning'. I'm not sure of the
relative amounts of CO2 produced by a power station on standby
compared with when running on full power, but it's somewhere around
50%, I believe. Perhaps someone can give me the correct figure.
Etherington says the CO2 saving is between 30 and 50% of the
equivalent installed wind capacity. http://tinyurl.com/b5qjpub

Is it not feasible to "turn down" a gas-fired power station so that you
run it at slightly below capacity when the wind is blowing, and then
turn it up again when the wind drops? Do they really have to be either
100% on or on standby with nothing in between?

But France produces very little CO2 in its electricity generation,
simply because most of it comes from nuclear. If we had more nuclear
plants, we would cut our CO2 emissions, and wouldn't need wind
generators.

Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to go then the
whole renewable thing is moot anyway.

And it's becoming increasingly questionable whether global warming is
happening. If it's not, then CO2 emissions are irrelevant anyway.

Same applies.

--
Les

On Thursday, 30 October 2014 14:57:20 UTC, Big Les Wade wrote:

Is it not feasible to "turn down" a gas-fired power station so that you
run it at slightly below capacity when the wind is blowing, and then
turn it up again when the wind drops? Do they really have to be either
100% on or on standby with nothing in between?

Wouldn;t that depend on where the wind was, wind is rarely constant.
(unless you have a cider and kebab supper).

even in an hour it can change wquite a bit up and down the contry and it's not easily predicatable in a short time. Although there are p[lans for a £97m computer upgrade.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:15:04 +0000
John Rumm wrote:

On 30/10/2014 10:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article , Ian Jackson
wrote:

Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little
somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to
ensure that they could provide 100% of our needs? Furthermore,
if the wind happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the
UK, how much excess power would they be capable of generating?

Lessee now, according to Gridwatch there are times when our 5GW
wind plant dips below 50MW. Like most of July this year.

If we need around 50GW, it is easy to see that we'd need 1000
times as many turbines as we have now, to cover 100% of our need
at any time. And at peak times (as in recent days), they'd produce
5000GW.

OK. When there wasn't much wind, 1000 times the number of existing
turbines (let's call it 'N') would be required to (hopefully)
reliably produce the required 50GW.

You can't even count on that. There are times where "no wind" means
none at all (at least capable of generating). So you will always need
100% of demand as backup capacity.

However, last July, the turbines that WERE capable of producing that
meagre 50MW would have been those in places where there actually WAS
some wind. In order to generate 50GW at that time, all N turbines
would have had to be in the same places.

But, of course, there would be times when the wind wasn't blowing at
those places, but was somewhere else instead. You would therefore
have to have lots of other areas where there were N turbines - ie
you would have them covering the whole country virtually from end
to end.

Perhaps we need mobile turbines ;-)




Wind-powered with sails?

--
Davey

In message ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, 30 October 2014 14:57:20 UTC, Big Les Wade wrote:

Is it not feasible to "turn down" a gas-fired power station so that you
run it at slightly below capacity when the wind is blowing, and then
turn it up again when the wind drops? Do they really have to be either
100% on or on standby with nothing in between?

Wouldn;t that depend on where the wind was, wind is rarely constant.
(unless you have a cider and kebab supper).

even in an hour it can change wquite a bit up and down the contry and
it's not easily predicatable in a short time. Although there are p[lans
for a £97m computer upgrade.

I wonder how many wind turbines it takes to power a £97M computer?


--
Ian

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 29/10/2014 23:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , bert ] writes

Because as has been explained many times the two principle ones
available are intermittent. There is nothing on the horizon that come
remotely near to being capable of producing the levels of energy
required and there is nothing on the horizon in terms of storing
significant amounts of electrical energy. So no matter how many
windmills or solar farms you build you still need equivalent back up
in reliable constantly available power and if that back up is nuclear,
whose operation is very green, then having built it you may as well
run it 24/7 and so building all the windmills and solar farms in the
first place is rendered pointless.
Simples

Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere
in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they
could provide 100% of our needs?

Depends on what you mean by "a little". There are times the output from
all of them is zero (rare), plenty of times when its under 5%. Taken
across the year the load factor is somewhere between 25% and 30%

With enough dispatchable CCGT generating capacity we could probably
balance the grid with perhaps 50% more notional installed capacity than
we currently have. Any more capacity than that would be pointless really.

Furthermore, if the wind happened to be
blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they
be capable of generating?

With what we currently have, they could in theory reach about 25% of
demand - depending on time of day / year.

Are you missing my point? What I was getting at was "Based on ongoing
experience of how little a contribution wind can sometimes make,
(hypothetically) how many wind turbines would it take to have a fair
chance of meeting our full-load demand?" I'm know this is not a
realistic goal, but it might show up how totally inadequate wind could
be if it's all we had.
--
Ian

On 29/10/2014 15:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bill
wrote:

In message , Davey
writes
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:33:42 +0000
bert ] wrote:


Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...Wind-farms-can
-never-be-relied-upon-to-deliver-UK-energy-security.html


"Wind farms can never be relied upon to keep the lights on in Britain
because there are long periods each winter in which they produce
barely any power, according to a new report by the Adam Smith
Institute."

Anyone with an ounce of engineering knowledge could have told them
that years ago.

You don't even need engineering knowledge to realise that the wind is
not constant! On how many summer evenings has it dropped to nothing an
hour or so before sunset, just when folks are turning their lights on?

You have to wonder, indeed.

I wonder why people have to keep using this argument to knock wind
generation. It was never intended as a total replacement for other
forms of power generation, but as a top up when available, therefore
reducing the amount of coal, gas, nuclear used.

Wind only makes sense if you could use it in such a way that its
variable availability was not an issue. So, putting energy into
storage, frick zample.

Batteries you can forget for the time being, and perhaps for ever.

What else could usefully be done? Pumped storage? Not to any meaningful
degree unless you feel like flooding (say) a number of Welsh valleys.
Generation of H2 or hydrocarbons? What's the efficiency of these sorts
of schemes?

Compressed air storage, (with or without liquification and heat recovery).

Electrical generation used on site for electrolysing water to produce
and store hydrogen.

Atmospheric carbon sequestration to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels.

Mostly all hideously expensive and / or inefficient...

Note: the above applies AFAIK to any of the renewable sources: the
basic issue is that if you *have* to use the energy as it's generated,
then you are always building two power stations to get the output of
one.

Yup getting away from the need to consume and generate in lock step
symphony would open up loads of options.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 30/10/2014 17:32, Ian Jackson wrote:

Are you missing my point? What I was getting at was "Based on ongoing
experience of how little a contribution wind can sometimes make,
(hypothetically) how many wind turbines would it take to have a fair
chance of meeting our full-load demand?" I'm know this is not a
realistic goal, but it might show up how totally inadequate wind could
be if it's all we had.


What's a fair chance?
One day per year without electricity a year or more?

At a rough guesstimate a million 1 megawatt (the 60 metre ones)turbines
would probably supply enough electricity for all but about 30 days a year.

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:38:27 +0000, bert ] wrote:

And Germany is now building more coal fired plant.

Quite. And of the most polluting sort.

Well, brown coal *with* FGDS, and weren't they looking at CCS too?

In message , Ian Jackson
writes
In message , John
Rumm writes
On 29/10/2014 23:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , bert ] writes

Because as has been explained many times the two principle ones
available are intermittent. There is nothing on the horizon that come
remotely near to being capable of producing the levels of energy
required and there is nothing on the horizon in terms of storing
significant amounts of electrical energy. So no matter how many
windmills or solar farms you build you still need equivalent back up
in reliable constantly available power and if that back up is nuclear,
whose operation is very green, then having built it you may as well
run it 24/7 and so building all the windmills and solar farms in the
first place is rendered pointless.
Simples

Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere
in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they
could provide 100% of our needs?

Depends on what you mean by "a little". There are times the output
from all of them is zero (rare), plenty of times when its under 5%.
Taken across the year the load factor is somewhere between 25% and 30%

With enough dispatchable CCGT generating capacity we could probably
balance the grid with perhaps 50% more notional installed capacity
than we currently have. Any more capacity than that would be pointless
really.

Furthermore, if the wind happened to be
blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they
be capable of generating?

With what we currently have, they could in theory reach about 25% of
demand - depending on time of day / year.

Are you missing my point? What I was getting at was "Based on ongoing
experience of how little a contribution wind can sometimes make,
(hypothetically) how many wind turbines would it take to have a fair
chance of meeting our full-load demand?" I'm know this is not a
realistic goal, but it might show up how totally inadequate wind could
be if it's all we had.
I thought it had been made blatantly obvious several times over just how
inadequate wind is as a source of electrical energy for the national
grid. I've nothing against individuals using wind for their own personal
use except that I strongly object to me subsidising what one farmer
claimed recently was a "reasonable" return of 16%+ return on his
investment.
--
bert

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:11:00 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

And Germany is now building more coal fired plant.

Quite. And of the most polluting sort.

Well, brown coal *with* FGDS,

I guess you mean the new plants but that's still an awful lot of
fossil CO2 being shoved into the atmosphere that the switched off
nukes wouldn't have done.

Do the old coal plants have FGDS?

... and weren't they looking at CCS too?

There seem to have been quite a few goes at CCS an quite a few have
not survived...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Do the old coal plants have FGDS?

Largely it seems they do, I looked up eight of their big lignite
stations, they seem to have been modernised in late 90s onwards, old
units retired, new more powerful units added, FDG scrubbers added, it
got kind of boring finding the same story for each of them ...

... and weren't they looking at CCS too?

There seem to have been quite a few goes at CCS an quite a few have
not survived...

They seem to be edging past "pilot" to "first commercial scale" ...

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:48:53 +0000
bert ] wrote:

In message , Ian Jackson
writes
In message , John
Rumm writes
On 29/10/2014 23:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , bert
] writes

Because as has been explained many times the two principle ones
available are intermittent.
snip

Are you missing my point? What I was getting at was "Based on
ongoing experience of how little a contribution wind can sometimes
make, (hypothetically) how many wind turbines would it take to have
a fair chance of meeting our full-load demand?" I'm know this is not
a realistic goal, but it might show up how totally inadequate wind
could be if it's all we had.
I thought it had been made blatantly obvious several times over just
how inadequate wind is as a source of electrical energy for the
national grid. I've nothing against individuals using wind for their
own personal use except that I strongly object to me subsidising what
one farmer claimed recently was a "reasonable" return of 16%+ return
on his investment.

Exactly. Reasonable for him, but not for me or you.

--
Davey.

Chris Hogg posted
AIUI it happens all the time; that's how they balance supply and demand
on the grid ATM, within certain limits, until they reach a point when
they can disconnect a generating unit completely or add one in, as
necessary. But the key question is whether running a generator at 90%
generating capacity actually saves 10% of the fuel and only produces
90% of the CO2. I don't know, but I have the impression that it's not
that simple, and that you actually only save between 3 and 5% of the fuel.

[Let's assume for the sake of this argument that saving fossil fuel and
reducing CO2 emissions is good.] Then, even if switching the grid to 5%
wind power only allows you to save 1% of fuel/CO2, it would be worth
doing, because the wind power is free. Once you have installed it, of
course; if you start adding in the carbon cost of building it, then the
numbers are doubtless different.

I'm not saying I am committed to this argument, just that it can't
simply be waved away.

--
Les

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to go then the
whole renewable thing is moot anyway.

Quite. So build nuclear.

And so far I've not seen a single response from the likes of Adrian,
Dave Plowman, or harry to suggest a viable alternative. Their approach
appears to be that renewable is good so we should build it, end of.

And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be.
Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea
- as history has proved. Time and time again. And nuclear at the moment
relies on imported raw materials.

In no way do I claim to be any kind of an expert.

The problem is that those offering all the solutions ain't either.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be.
Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good
idea - as history has proved. Time and time again. And nuclear at the
moment relies on imported raw materials.

So your viable alternative is *what*, then?

Hedge your bets and use a mixture.

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

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

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to go then the
whole renewable thing is moot anyway.

Quite. So build nuclear.

And so far I've not seen a single response from the likes of Adrian,
Dave Plowman, or harry to suggest a viable alternative. Their approach
appears to be that renewable is good so we should build it, end of.

And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be.
Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea
- as history has proved. Time and time again. And nuclear at the moment
relies on imported raw materials.

In no way do I claim to be any kind of an expert.

...And it shows
The problem is that those offering all the solutions ain't either.

Bu they are a damn sight more expert than you.
--
bert

On 31/10/2014 17:30, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:02:39 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to go then the
whole renewable thing is moot anyway.

Quite. So build nuclear.

And so far I've not seen a single response from the likes of Adrian,
Dave Plowman, or harry to suggest a viable alternative. Their approach
appears to be that renewable is good so we should build it, end of.

And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be.
Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea
- as history has proved. Time and time again.

Cue fracking for gas?

And nuclear at the moment relies on imported raw materials.

I had a brief discussion with Java Jive recently over on
uk.tech.digital-tv on the availability of future supplies of uranium
fuel for nuclear power stations. He was of the view, based on the last
graph here http://tinyurl.com/n2sf4pp that uranium was going to be in
short supply in a few years time, and that the suggestion that nuclear
would solve all our problems, was ill-founded. We didn't agree.

Indeed, and he has made similar claims here. However this prediction is
based on the assumption that we continue to use new uranium in a single
pass through a reactor, and then consider what is left as "waste" (even
though 98.5% of the fissile fuel content still remains). For the moment
this is the most cost effective process given the cost of reprocessing
and the general non availability of other reactor technologies that
could use this "waste" as a viable fuel.

With appropriate reactors (fast breeder, liquid fluoride fuel cycle,

It also ignores the fact that thorium is a far more abundant element
than uranium - and there are stockpiles of that sat around the world
that people can't even give away at the moment (its considered a
hazardous waste product produced in any rare earth element mining
operation).

Add to that the stockpiles of weapons grade fissile material we have on
hand as a result of decommissioning projects and we have


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
In no way do I claim to be any kind of an expert.

..And it shows
The problem is that those offering all the solutions ain't either.

Bu they are a damn sight more expert than you.

But still resort to making things up. Hardly a definition of expert.

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

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

On 31/10/2014 13:51, Big Les Wade wrote:

[Let's assume for the sake of this argument that saving fossil fuel and
reducing CO2 emissions is good.] Then, even if switching the grid to 5%
wind power only allows you to save 1% of fuel/CO2, it would be worth
doing, because the wind power is free. Once you have installed it, of
course; if you start adding in the carbon cost of building it, then the
numbers are doubtless different.

I'm not saying I am committed to this argument, just that it can't
simply be waved away.

Trouble is the carbon cost of wind isn't zero. There's no fuel cost, but
a substantial build cost.

The turbines tend to be made of oil-based synthetics, and there's a lot
of concrete too.

Andy

In article ,
Chris Hogg writes:
I had a brief discussion with Java Jive recently over on
uk.tech.digital-tv on the availability of future supplies of uranium
fuel for nuclear power stations. He was of the view, based on the last
graph here http://tinyurl.com/n2sf4pp that uranium was going to be in
short supply in a few years time, and that the suggestion that nuclear
would solve all our problems, was ill-founded. We didn't agree.

Uranium can be extracted from seawater. The cost is somewhere around
3-10 times the cost of mining, it but since the fuel is an almost
insignificant part of the cost of nuclear electricity, that doesn't
really matter. There's enough there for well over 10,000 years of use,
although it won't all be viable to recover.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 31/10/2014 20:28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

With appropriate reactors (fast breeder, liquid fluoride fuel cycle,

Add to that the stockpiles of weapons grade fissile material we have
on hand as a result of decommissioning projects and we have

You suffering from bitrot?

More likely too many interruptions between starting and finishing that
post ;-) Still you probably got the basic idea - it was going to
continue with WAMSR etc.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 31/10/2014 21:45, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/10/2014 13:51, Big Les Wade wrote:

[Let's assume for the sake of this argument that saving fossil fuel and
reducing CO2 emissions is good.] Then, even if switching the grid to 5%
wind power only allows you to save 1% of fuel/CO2, it would be worth
doing, because the wind power is free. Once you have installed it, of
course; if you start adding in the carbon cost of building it, then the
numbers are doubtless different.

I'm not saying I am committed to this argument, just that it can't
simply be waved away.

Trouble is the carbon cost of wind isn't zero. There's no fuel cost, but
a substantial build cost.

The turbines tend to be made of oil-based synthetics, and there's a lot
of concrete too.

One could also mention the "radioactive waste" ;-)

(i.e. turbines use large quantities of rare earth materials in their
construction, and hence by implication have resulted in yet more throium
being dug up)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Chris Hogg posted
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:51:52 +0000, Big Les Wade
wrote:

Chris Hogg posted
AIUI it happens all the time; that's how they balance supply and demand
on the grid ATM, within certain limits, until they reach a point when
they can disconnect a generating unit completely or add one in, as
necessary. But the key question is whether running a generator at 90%
generating capacity actually saves 10% of the fuel and only produces
90% of the CO2. I don't know, but I have the impression that it's not
that simple, and that you actually only save between 3 and 5% of the fuel.

[Let's assume for the sake of this argument that saving fossil fuel and
reducing CO2 emissions is good.] Then, even if switching the grid to 5%
wind power only allows you to save 1% of fuel/CO2, it would be worth
doing, because the wind power is free. Once you have installed it, of
course; if you start adding in the carbon cost of building it, then the
numbers are doubtless different.

I'm not saying I am committed to this argument, just that it can't
simply be waved away.

What you're describing is more-or-less what we have now, and yes, it
may save a little CO2, although probably not as much as the
pro-wind-farm lobby would have us believe. Is it worth doing? I don't
know. I guess it depends on one's definition of 'worth' in this
context.

I would say rather that it depends on the numbers, which you admit you
don't know.

One thing's for su if global warming is real, and CO2 is a
major contributor, then making small savings are only going to make
small differences, where big differences will be what's wanted.

But many small differences can add up to a big difference. The greenies'
case for wind power is not that it will solve the entire problem but
that it will make a contribution.

You'll
never get big differences by installing wind power (or any other form
of intermittent generation, for that matter), simply because of the
equivalent in energy of back-up generators that you need and the CO2
that they emit while hot-spinning on stand-by.

That might be true, but to be sure of it you'd need to know all the
relevant numbers.

If someone came up with
an economic means of storing energy efficiently and on a truly massive
scale, things might be different.

But as I said before, why not just build nuclear? No CO2, steady
base-load output with no fluctuations due to vagaries in the weather,
small footprint, long working life and low fuel costs.

Because of the problem of disposing of spent fuel. It is very well for
pro-nuclear people to say oh that isn't really a problem. But it *is* a
problem as long as there is no political agreement on how to do it.

--
Les

Chris Hogg posted
All I can say is 'read this':
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


Very interesting. Thank you. It confirms much of what I already believed
without doing any sums.

But let me just note that the author admits he doesn't know the answer
to the substantive point we have been discussing here, namely whether
adding renewable generating plant to the grid will save fossil fuel.

See pages 11-12: "Overall, is the gain in average electricity generated
by intermittent renewables greater than the losses incurred in dealing
with their intermittency? And the answer is: No-one really knows ...
This is a really nasty problem, one that has occupied me for several
years, and essentially I have found no complete answer to it."

However, on p15 he suggests that adding renewable plant *does* save
fuel: "It seems that mostly efficiency [of conventional power stations]
is well preserved until quite low power output levels are reached. This
leads to one reasonably important conclusion. That intermittent
renewable energy on a grid (that does not increase spinning reserve
requirements) will not increase fuel burn per unit generated too much.
Although it does increase it somewhat."

and on p17 "the balance of probabilities is that renewable energy of the
intermittent kind probably does result in a net reduction of fuel used."

and p27 "When stripped back to its core concept - that it saves some
fuel - we can see that although this is largely true in low penetration,
it is less so as renewable capacity increases".

--
Les

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to
go then the whole renewable thing is moot anyway.

Quite. So build nuclear.

And so far I've not seen a single response from the likes of Adrian,
Dave Plowman, or harry to suggest a viable alternative. Their approach
appears to be that renewable is good so we should build it, end of.

And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be.

Sure, but both are irrelevant.

Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea

Bull**** when it doesn’t have to be imported much with nuclear.

- as history has proved. Time and time again.

History has done no such thing with the sort of import that nuclear
involves.

And nuclear at the moment relies on imported raw materials.

And its available from enough sources that the fact that its
an import is neither hear nor there given that it’s a very small
part of the cost of a nuke system. Its clearly worked fine for
France regardless of that theoretical downside which isnt real.

In no way do I claim to be any kind of an expert.

Just as well.

The problem is that those offering all the solutions ain't either.

Bull**** with nukes.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be.
Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good
idea - as history has proved. Time and time again. And nuclear at the
moment relies on imported raw materials.

So your viable alternative is *what*, then?

Hedge your bets and use a mixture.

If you do want to do that, a mixture of coal and nukes
makes a lot more sense than a mixture of say nukes
and wind and solar.

And the French have clearly done fine without hedging their bets.

And have ended up with BY FAR the best power system in the entire
world if you don’t count coal because of the CO2 produced by that.

On 02/11/2014 01:25, John Rumm wrote:
One could also mention the "radioactive waste" ;-)

(i.e. turbines use large quantities of rare earth materials in their
construction, and hence by implication have resulted in yet more throium
being dug up)

Well, _I_ have a suspicion it's going to be useful in a few years. The
supporters of these devices do, in general, have a different opinion.

Andy