On 20/01/2015 14:28, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/01/2015 09:20, CB wrote:
On 20/01/2015 08:57, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/01/2015 19:26, Andy Burns wrote:
CB wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

coal 35.67%
ccgt 32.43%
nuclear 21.13%
interconnects 4.29%
wind 3.29%
hydro 1.46%
pumped 1.05%
other 0.66%
ocgt 0.02%

I notice solar is not on that (or is it included in "other")

It's just a sum over the day of the gridwatch power numbers, I
dunno if
TNP has mentioned which slot the PV goes into? Apparently some of the
wind is counted differently too.

Lots of the small scale PV won't even be counted...

They have no means of instantaneously metering it.

Some figures here.
Note rate of increase of installations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_p...dom#Statistics


It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the solution.
Plenty of retards here can't get their brains around this.


Interesting link, thank you - even with the plethora of panels currently
blighting some parts of the country the generation is still only 0.64%
of total.

The installed capacity is only 0.65% of the total consumption - the
actual generation is going to be at best only 20% of that installed
capacity.

In fact, looking at harry's link I was being too kind - make that 10%
of the installed capacity! So not quite useless then, but a bit less.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 20/01/2015 14:54, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
solar and some wind is 'negative demand'

You can see faint midday dips in the summer.

This is apparently starting to cause problems in Germany.
They have been talking about reducing/stopping any more fixed
south facing panel subsidies, and maybe encouragng fixed
east/west facing ones.

I often mused on the thought of a rotating roof.

A house sized "lazy Susan" bearing perhaps?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 20/01/2015 14:18, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

The extra 5GW demand which appeared yesterday morning is still there,
superimposed on the regular daily load pattern. I wonder what it is?


How much power is needed to de-ice and spin wind turbines?

Dennis@home wrote
Andrew Gabriel wrote

The extra 5GW demand which appeared yesterday morning is still there,
superimposed on the regular daily load pattern. I wonder what it is?

How much power is needed to de-ice and spin wind turbines?

Unlikely to be anything like 5GW.

Maybe it’s the pumped water.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

The demand today was over 1TWh.

Demand? Consumption surely?

Is it not possible to refer to energy demand (as obvious from the units)
as distinct from power demand?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in demand
cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.
There will probably always be the need for some gas.
Though some think 100% renewable is possible..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in demand
cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.

Wrong, as always.

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to be farting
around with 'renewables' when you need the same
amount of coal and gas and nukes to cover when
they are producing sweet **** all.

There will probably always be the need for some gas.

Not in a country with enough of a clue
to generate most of their electricity nukes.

Though some think 100% renewable is possible..

They are fools that have never had a ****ing clue.

It isn't even possible in a place that has immense
amounts of pumped water to cover the times
when 'renewables' are producing sweet **** all.

In spades with solar in northern europe in winter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

Just because some fools believe **** like that...

On 21/01/2015 07:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in
demand cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.

Wrong, as always.

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to be farting
around with 'renewables' when you need the same
amount of coal and gas and nukes to cover when
they are producing sweet **** all.

Knowledgable people understand better.

There will probably always be the need for some gas.

Not in a country with enough of a clue
to generate most of their electricity nukes.

Maybe, but nuclear has its own issues, not least that it's not a 100%
solution; and renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation of
at least SOME of the balance (albeit some of the time)

On 21/01/15 09:50, Jim Newman wrote:
nuclear has its own issues, not least that it's not a 100% solution; and
renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation of at least SOME
of the balance (albeit some of the time)

Essentially wrong on both counts.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 07:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in
demand cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.

Wrong, as always.

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to be farting
around with 'renewables' when you need the same
amount of coal and gas and nukes to cover when
they are producing sweet **** all.

Knowledgable people understand better.

Easy to claim.

There will probably always be the need for some gas.

Not in a country with enough of a clue
to generate most of their electricity nukes.

Maybe, but nuclear has its own issues,

Only some fools that start mindlessly
hyperventilating at the mention of it.

not least that it's not a 100% solution;

Bull****.

and renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation

Bull****.

of at least SOME of the balance (albeit some of the time)

**** all of the time in fact.

On 21/01/2015 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/01/15 09:50, Jim Newman wrote:
nuclear has its own issues, not least that it's not a 100% solution; and
renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation of at least SOME
of the balance (albeit some of the time)

Essentially wrong on both counts.


Well, I'm sure some people here will be convinced by your evidence.

On 21/01/2015 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 07:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of
dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in
demand cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which
have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable
to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.

Wrong, as always.

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to be farting
around with 'renewables' when you need the same
amount of coal and gas and nukes to cover when
they are producing sweet **** all.

Knowledgable people understand better.

Easy to claim.

There will probably always be the need for some gas.

Not in a country with enough of a clue
to generate most of their electricity nukes.

Maybe, but nuclear has its own issues,

Only some fools that start mindlessly
hyperventilating at the mention of it.

not least that it's not a 100% solution;

Bull****.

and renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation

Bull****.

of at least SOME of the balance (albeit some of the time)

**** all of the time in fact.

From upthread.
"Throwing gratuitous insults is one of the signs that some one knows
they are losing their argument. "

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.
There will probably always be the need for some gas.
Though some think 100% renewable is possible..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy




Yes harry of course if you and wonkypedia say so, others aren't quite so
convinced....



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...2/Electricity-
demand-hits-highest-this-winter-as-wind-power-slumps-to-its-lowest.html
--
Tony Sayer

Jim Newman wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Jim Newman wrote

nuclear has its own issues, not least that it's not a 100% solution;
and renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation of
at least SOME of the balance (albeit some of the time)

Essentially wrong on both counts.

Well, I'm sure some people here will be convinced by your evidence.

We all swooned at your evidence, particularly for the first clause.

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 07:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the
solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of
dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in
demand cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which
have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable
to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for
them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.

Wrong, as always.

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to be farting
around with 'renewables' when you need the same
amount of coal and gas and nukes to cover when
they are producing sweet **** all.

Knowledgable people understand better.

Easy to claim.

There will probably always be the need for some gas.

Not in a country with enough of a clue
to generate most of their electricity nukes.

Maybe, but nuclear has its own issues,

Only some fools that start mindlessly
hyperventilating at the mention of it.

not least that it's not a 100% solution;

Bull****.

and renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation

Bull****.

of at least SOME of the balance (albeit some of the time)

**** all of the time in fact.

From upthread.
"Throwing gratuitous insults is one of the signs that some one knows
they are losing their argument. "

That's not an insult, it’s a statement of fact.

On 21/01/2015 18:42, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 07:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the
solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of
dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in
demand cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which
have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable
to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for
them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.

Wrong, as always.

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to be farting
around with 'renewables' when you need the same
amount of coal and gas and nukes to cover when
they are producing sweet **** all.

Knowledgable people understand better.

Easy to claim.

There will probably always be the need for some gas.

Not in a country with enough of a clue
to generate most of their electricity nukes.

Maybe, but nuclear has its own issues,

Only some fools that start mindlessly
hyperventilating at the mention of it.

not least that it's not a 100% solution;

Bull****.

and renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation

Bull****.

of at least SOME of the balance (albeit some of the time)

**** all of the time in fact.

From upthread.
"Throwing gratuitous insults is one of the signs that some one knows
they are losing their argument. "

That's not an insult, it’s a statement of fact.

Yes dear, now run along and play

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 18:42, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 07:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the
solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every
installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of
dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in
demand cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes
in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which
have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable
to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for
them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.

Wrong, as always.

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to be farting
around with 'renewables' when you need the same
amount of coal and gas and nukes to cover when
they are producing sweet **** all.

Knowledgable people understand better.

Easy to claim.

There will probably always be the need for some gas.

Not in a country with enough of a clue
to generate most of their electricity nukes.

Maybe, but nuclear has its own issues,

Only some fools that start mindlessly
hyperventilating at the mention of it.

not least that it's not a 100% solution;

Bull****.

and renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation

Bull****.

of at least SOME of the balance (albeit some of the time)

**** all of the time in fact.

From upthread.
"Throwing gratuitous insults is one of the signs that some one knows
they are losing their argument. "

That's not an insult, it’s a statement of fact.

Yes dear, now run along and play

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

On 21/01/2015 19:59, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 18:42, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 07:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the
solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every
installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of
dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in
demand cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management
comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which
have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable
to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for
them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your
renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.

Wrong, as always.

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to be farting
around with 'renewables' when you need the same
amount of coal and gas and nukes to cover when
they are producing sweet **** all.

Knowledgable people understand better.

Easy to claim.

There will probably always be the need for some gas.

Not in a country with enough of a clue
to generate most of their electricity nukes.

Maybe, but nuclear has its own issues,

Only some fools that start mindlessly
hyperventilating at the mention of it.

not least that it's not a 100% solution;

Bull****.

and renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation

Bull****.

of at least SOME of the balance (albeit some of the time)

**** all of the time in fact.

From upthread.
"Throwing gratuitous insults is one of the signs that some one knows
they are losing their argument. "

That's not an insult, it’s a statement of fact.

Yes dear, now run along and play

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.
I learned from the masters here

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 19:59, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 18:42, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 07:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the
solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every
installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of
dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in
demand cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management
comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at
which
have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable
to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for
them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your
renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.

Wrong, as always.

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to be farting
around with 'renewables' when you need the same
amount of coal and gas and nukes to cover when
they are producing sweet **** all.

Knowledgable people understand better.

Easy to claim.

There will probably always be the need for some gas.

Not in a country with enough of a clue
to generate most of their electricity nukes.

Maybe, but nuclear has its own issues,

Only some fools that start mindlessly
hyperventilating at the mention of it.

not least that it's not a 100% solution;

Bull****.

and renewables gives the option for zero carbon generation

Bull****.

of at least SOME of the balance (albeit some of the time)

**** all of the time in fact.

From upthread.
"Throwing gratuitous insults is one of the signs that some one knows
they are losing their argument. "

That's not an insult, it’s a statement of fact.

Yes dear, now run along and play

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

I learned from the masters here

But clearly don’t have enough of a clue to try a rational argument.

On 21/01/2015 20:42, Rod Speed wrote:


But clearly don’t have enough of a clue to try a rational argument.

Oh do give over. You wouldn't recognise a rational argument if it was
laid out in front of you with references.

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 20:42, Rod Speed wrote:


But clearly don’t have enough of a clue to try a rational argument.

Oh do give over. You wouldn't recognise a rational argument if it was laid
out in front of you with references.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

In message , harryagain
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
. ..
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 11:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:57:09 -0000, harryagain wrote:

It's about saving fuel/pollution and is only part of the solution.

The jury is still out on that one. Given that for every installed
Watt of intermittent wind/PV you have to have a Watt of dispatchable
plant running at less than optimum efficiency to even out the
fluctuations.
Clearly a system that is designed to cope with fluctuations in demand
cannot cope with fluctuations in supply. Simples

No, it you that is simples.

That is where the smart grid and energy demand management comes in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management

Nothing new about demand management. Places I have worked at which have
large or huge power requirements, such as CERN, are always liable to be
the first to be cut when power is short because it's cheaper for them.

So tell me how the smart grid is going to help when your renewables
produce little or nothing at all.

We need as many different forms pf renewable energy as possible.
There will probably always be the need for some gas.
Though some think 100% renewable is possible..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy


All we need is nukes
--
bert

Ironic that the idiot Davey visited Hull to mark the start of work on the Siemens wind turbine plant while local windfarms and other turbines were standing still. Still it will make lots of money from our increased electricity bills to the benefit of the overseas parent company.

On 24/01/15 06:56, wrote:
Ironic that the idiot Davey visited Hull to mark the start of work on
the Siemens wind turbine plant while local windfarms and other
turbines were standing still. Still it will make lots of money from
our increased electricity bills to the benefit of the overseas parent
company.


Yep.

It is *very* cold here. And 8kW of electric heaters is struggling to
heat the house today - from cold, we were away for 3 days which let it
cool down.

Switched on 5kW remotely yesterday at 1pm and the house was "ok" ish but
it's still not really warm (heaters off overnight).

This has given me a useful data point for sizing the rads for the new CH
system. "More than 2kW" per room seems to be a reasonable theory.

Or more precisely -

About 1.5kW sized at optimal flow temperatures for a condensing boiler
which'll do most of the cooler times, with the option to jack the flow
temperature up and get 2.5kW.

Not sure how that pans out in reality - need to look at some rad specs.

On 21/01/2015 23:23, bert wrote:
All we need is nukes

Well, actually no. We need a lot more of them - but they aren't very
dispatchable. You need something you can turn on and off quickly to
handle the peaks, with nuclear for the baseload.

Andy

On 25/01/15 21:37, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/01/2015 23:23, bert wrote:
All we need is nukes

Well, actually no. We need a lot more of them - but they aren't very
dispatchable. You need something you can turn on and off quickly to
handle the peaks, with nuclear for the baseload.

They can be made pretty dispatchable - as dispatchable as coal.

Its surprising how much energy is in a big fat steam boiler, too.


Andy


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/01/2015 23:23, bert wrote:
All we need is nukes

Well, actually no. We need a lot more of them - but they aren't very
dispatchable. You need something you can turn on and off quickly to handle
the peaks, with nuclear for the baseload.

France manages fine with **** all to turn on and off quickly.