When Wylfa opened in 1971, it generated 1000 MWe €“ enough for 40% of
Wales' total electricity needs €“ and was the most powerful nuclear power
station in the world," the NDA said.

"Almost 45 years later, staff gathered to mark the Reactor One
switch-off, which followed three years after Reactor Two closed. The
five years of extended life at Reactor 1 were only possible thanks to an
innovative method of transferring partly used fuel from one reactor to
the other,€� the NDA said. The manufacture of Magnox fuel had ceased in 2008.

"Wylfa was originally due to shut in 2010 but the pioneering
Inter-Reactor Fuel Transfer, or IRX process, was endorsed by the
regulators and enabled another five years of operations," the NDA said.

The combined additional revenue from Wylfa's "extra lease of life", as
well as from the Oldbury nuclear power plant's four-year extension,
amounted to about GBP1 billion, which has been used for decommissioning
and clean-up, the NDA said. The final shipment of fuel from the two 217
MWe units at Oldbury to Sellafield is due to take place early next year,
when Wylfa unit 1 will begin its own program of defuelling.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...-31121501.html


44 years of just churning out those electrons.



--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not. Ayn Rand.

On 03/01/16 13:33, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 12:34:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

44 years of just churning out those electrons.

I wonder if in 44 years time, we'll still have forests of windmills
spoiling the horizons, or acres of farmland occupied by solar panels,
and whether climate change will still be a hot topic, or will it, like
cold fusion, have faded into obscurity.

I for one won't be here to know!

me neither but I guarantee you wont have either. Any country that
decides on a renewable only grid will cease to exist as other countries
with more sense will simply take it over



--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not. Ayn Rand.

The Natural Philosopher has brought this to us :
On 03/01/16 13:33, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 12:34:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

44 years of just churning out those electrons.

I wonder if in 44 years time, we'll still have forests of windmills
spoiling the horizons, or acres of farmland occupied by solar panels,
and whether climate change will still be a hot topic, or will it, like
cold fusion, have faded into obscurity.

I for one won't be here to know!

me neither but I guarantee you wont have either. Any country that decides on
a renewable only grid will cease to exist as other countries with more sense
will simply take it over

+1 It is the height of silliness.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 03/01/2016 12:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
When Wylfa opened in 1971, it generated 1000 MWe €“ enough for 40% of
Wales' total electricity needs €“ and was the most powerful nuclear power
station in the world," the NDA said.

"Almost 45 years later, staff gathered to mark the Reactor One
switch-off, which followed three years after Reactor Two closed. The
five years of extended life at Reactor 1 were only possible thanks to an
innovative method of transferring partly used fuel from one reactor to
the other,€� the NDA said. The manufacture of Magnox fuel had ceased in
2008.

"Wylfa was originally due to shut in 2010 but the pioneering
Inter-Reactor Fuel Transfer, or IRX process, was endorsed by the
regulators and enabled another five years of operations," the NDA said.

The combined additional revenue from Wylfa's "extra lease of life", as
well as from the Oldbury nuclear power plant's four-year extension,
amounted to about GBP1 billion, which has been used for decommissioning
and clean-up, the NDA said. The final shipment of fuel from the two 217
MWe units at Oldbury to Sellafield is due to take place early next year,
when Wylfa unit 1 will begin its own program of defuelling.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...-31121501.html



44 years of just churning out those electrons.



Calder Hall Reactor 1 actually generated for 47 years. I'm not sure what
its design life was, but the early commercial Magnox stations were
designed for 25 years, the later like Wylfa for 30 years.

Oh I expect climate change will be with us, as it is real, but whether we
can do much to change it is debatable. How much is really due to ourselves
and how much to the natural oscillation of the earths climate is debatable
of course.
As for wind farms. I noted during the year that these do change local
weather by actually changing the wind speed as indeed do cities and some
natural things like mountains...
As for solar, well, can we make these neutral or not? If they extract power
then I do not see how we can. About the only way we can actually win this is
to use less energy and to make sure that there are not so many humans on the
planet that we cannot support them.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 12:34:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

44 years of just churning out those electrons.

I wonder if in 44 years time, we'll still have forests of windmills
spoiling the horizons, or acres of farmland occupied by solar panels,
and whether climate change will still be a hot topic, or will it, like
cold fusion, have faded into obscurity.

I for one won't be here to know!

--

Chris

Why did they stop production of the fuel rods needed by such stations?
Seems a bit of a strange decision, rather like self mutilation, shooting
oneself in the foot etc.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
When Wylfa opened in 1971, it generated 1000 MWe ?" enough for 40% of
Wales' total electricity needs ?" and was the most powerful nuclear power
station in the world," the NDA said.

"Almost 45 years later, staff gathered to mark the Reactor One switch-off,
which followed three years after Reactor Two closed. The five years of
extended life at Reactor 1 were only possible thanks to an innovative
method of transferring partly used fuel from one reactor to the other,?�
the NDA said. The manufacture of Magnox fuel had ceased in 2008.

"Wylfa was originally due to shut in 2010 but the pioneering Inter-Reactor
Fuel Transfer, or IRX process, was endorsed by the regulators and enabled
another five years of operations," the NDA said.

The combined additional revenue from Wylfa's "extra lease of life", as
well as from the Oldbury nuclear power plant's four-year extension,
amounted to about GBP1 billion, which has been used for decommissioning
and clean-up, the NDA said. The final shipment of fuel from the two 217
MWe units at Oldbury to Sellafield is due to take place early next year,
when Wylfa unit 1 will begin its own program of defuelling.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...-31121501.html


44 years of just churning out those electrons.



--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or
condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the
ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must face
it, then decide whether this is what they want or not. Ayn Rand.

Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why did they stop production of the fuel rods needed by such stations?

They stopped producing the fuel elements in 2008, to allow closing down
the reprocessing plant in 2017, presumably based on the last of the
reactors reaching the end of their operating life around now.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Final_shipment_of_new_Magnox_fuel-1912114.html

"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message
...
Oh I expect climate change will be with us, as it is real, but whether we
can do much to change it is debatable. How much is really due to
ourselves and how much to the natural oscillation of the earths climate is
debatable of course.
As for wind farms. I noted during the year that these do change local
weather by actually changing the wind speed as indeed do cities and some
natural things like mountains...
As for solar, well, can we make these neutral or not? If they extract
power then I do not see how we can. About the only way we can actually win
this is to use less energy and to make sure that there are not so many
humans on the planet that we cannot support them.

Or decide that while big citys clearly do have some
effect on the local climate, that that is hardly the end
of civilisation as we know it and carry on regardless.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 12:34:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

44 years of just churning out those electrons.

I wonder if in 44 years time, we'll still have forests of windmills
spoiling the horizons, or acres of farmland occupied by solar panels,
and whether climate change will still be a hot topic, or will it, like
cold fusion, have faded into obscurity.

I for one won't be here to know!

--

Chris

Brian-Gaff wrote:

As for solar, well, can we make these neutral or not?
If they extract power then I do not see how we can.

This seems to be a misunderstanding.
The aim of solar power is not to save energy.
It is to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
There is enough energy coming from the sun,
in fact too much.


--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Dave Plowman (News) explained :
So you are saying all solar power devices take more energy to make than
they will produce in their lifetime? Which of course is rubbish. So the
alternative would be that all the energy they produce is wasted in some
way.

Without getting involved with any balance sheets, my guess would be
that yes they do generate more greenhouse gases in their manufacture,
installation and maintenance than they could possibly save.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 04/01/2016 16:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) explained :
So you are saying all solar power devices take more energy to make than
they will produce in their lifetime? Which of course is rubbish. So the
alternative would be that all the energy they produce is wasted in some
way.

Without getting involved with any balance sheets, my guess would be that
yes they do generate more greenhouse gases in their manufacture,
installation and maintenance than they could possibly save.


It seems the science has been done for you:

http://www.livescience.com/2324-sola...-measured.html

and they at least find solar use results in massive cuts to toxic waste
and air pollution.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 04/01/16 16:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) explained :
So you are saying all solar power devices take more energy to make than
they will produce in their lifetime? Which of course is rubbish. So the
alternative would be that all the energy they produce is wasted in some
way.

Without getting involved with any balance sheets, my guess would be that
yes they do generate more greenhouse gases in their manufacture,
installation and maintenance than they could possibly save.

the reason being mainly that they have externalised energy costs. they
make the rest of the grid far less efficient and encourage the use of
inefficient but cheap and fuel hungry plant to cover peak demands when
they fail to deliver.

The Green brain, like the Lefty**** brain, has been shown to be only
capable of working with very simple concepts and mathematics is anathema
to it, hence the confusion.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 04/01/16 17:14, RJH wrote:
On 04/01/2016 16:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) explained :
So you are saying all solar power devices take more energy to make than
they will produce in their lifetime? Which of course is rubbish. So the
alternative would be that all the energy they produce is wasted in some
way.

Without getting involved with any balance sheets, my guess would be that
yes they do generate more greenhouse gases in their manufacture,
installation and maintenance than they could possibly save.


It seems the science has been done for you:

http://www.livescience.com/2324-sola...-measured.html


and they at least find solar use results in massive cuts to toxic waste
and air pollution.

livescience isn't live and it isn't science. They of course totally
ignore the externalities emissions sand fuel burn of solar power

And the articles are straight cut and paste for whoever is paying them
to run them.

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 04/01/2016 18:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/16 17:14, RJH wrote:
On 04/01/2016 16:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) explained :
So you are saying all solar power devices take more energy to make than
they will produce in their lifetime? Which of course is rubbish. So the
alternative would be that all the energy they produce is wasted in some
way.

Without getting involved with any balance sheets, my guess would be that
yes they do generate more greenhouse gases in their manufacture,
installation and maintenance than they could possibly save.


It seems the science has been done for you:

http://www.livescience.com/2324-sola...-measured.html



and they at least find solar use results in massive cuts to toxic waste
and air pollution.

livescience isn't live and it isn't science. They of course totally
ignore the externalities emissions sand fuel burn of solar power

And the articles are straight cut and paste for whoever is paying them
to run them.


You need to raise your concerns with this bloke:

http://eee.columbia.edu/vasilis-fthenakis

He's the one cited/quoted, and it's from a peer reviewed source.

I didn't link to the source because it's a sub-only. But here's a decent
slice:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1036/ML103620062.pdf

89% of air emissions could be prevented with solar.

Now, can/will you present the counter evidence?


--
Cheers, Rob

On 04/01/16 19:29, RJH wrote:
On 04/01/2016 18:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/16 17:14, RJH wrote:
On 04/01/2016 16:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) explained :
So you are saying all solar power devices take more energy to make
than
they will produce in their lifetime? Which of course is rubbish. So
the
alternative would be that all the energy they produce is wasted in
some
way.

Without getting involved with any balance sheets, my guess would be
that
yes they do generate more greenhouse gases in their manufacture,
installation and maintenance than they could possibly save.


It seems the science has been done for you:

http://www.livescience.com/2324-sola...-measured.html




and they at least find solar use results in massive cuts to toxic waste
and air pollution.

livescience isn't live and it isn't science. They of course totally
ignore the externalities emissions sand fuel burn of solar power

And the articles are straight cut and paste for whoever is paying them
to run them.


You need to raise your concerns with this bloke:

http://eee.columbia.edu/vasilis-fthenakis

He's the one cited/quoted, and it's from a peer reviewed source.

Two greens in the pay of big renewable makes a peer group.

No one believes anyone who says 'peer reviewed' anymore. Its always a
sign of bull****.



I didn't link to the source because it's a sub-only. But here's a decent
slice:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1036/ML103620062.pdf

89% of air emissions could be prevented with solar.

Now, can/will you present the counter evidence?


Dont have to . False assumptions, false conclusions.

Just look at the actual fuel burn in Germany and Denmark on electricity
since they went massively solar and wind.

Guess what, No change.




--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 04/01/2016 08:10, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why did they stop production of the fuel rods needed by such stations?

They stopped producing the fuel elements in 2008, to allow closing down
the reprocessing plant in 2017, presumably based on the last of the
reactors reaching the end of their operating life around now.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Final_shipment_of_new_Magnox_fuel-1912114.html


In the early 2000s reprocessing was set to end in 2012 (because of
political promises on emissions) which meant that the Magnox fleet had
to be closed *and defuelled* (no mean feat for Wylfa, which had *lots*
of spent fuel in store) by 2010.

Magnox reprocessing was always a major source of the Sellafield
radiation releases, though less so after the building of EARP (the
enhanced actinide removal plant) which also had a later upgrade.

At the time of privatisation in 1990, no-one considered the older, steel
pressure vessel Magnox plant to be of any real value or future life. It
was only when the bean counters took over that it was suddenly realised
that it was actually a significant earner. As of course were Oldbury and
Wylfa, I don't see any reason to doubt the recent NDA figure that the
last five years were worth £1B in actual income.

On 04/01/2016 19:29, RJH wrote:


You need to raise your concerns with this bloke:

http://eee.columbia.edu/vasilis-fthenakis

He's the one cited/quoted, and it's from a peer reviewed source.

I didn't link to the source because it's a sub-only. But here's a decent
slice:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1036/ML103620062.pdf

89% of air emissions could be prevented with solar.

Now, can/will you present the counter evidence?

Sorry, but that's plainly rubbish.

It says "At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity
generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaics
displaces electricity from the grid."

Solar power has an interesting feature. It only works in daylight.

Assume that solar power can provide all the power we need, all day,
every day.

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

The second requirement is that all the power plants that run during the
night are able to go on standby during the day, and use very low levels
of energy to keep those steam boilers hot ready for the next night (they
take hours to warm up, and letting them get cold would waste all their
heat each morning).

Solar has its place; it's good for aircon, for example, where the
sunshine and the peak load coincide.

But 89%? No way.

Andy

On 04/01/16 21:36, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 04/01/2016 19:29, RJH wrote:


You need to raise your concerns with this bloke:

http://eee.columbia.edu/vasilis-fthenakis

He's the one cited/quoted, and it's from a peer reviewed source.

I didn't link to the source because it's a sub-only. But here's a decent
slice:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1036/ML103620062.pdf

89% of air emissions could be prevented with solar.

Now, can/will you present the counter evidence?

Sorry, but that's plainly rubbish.

It says "At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity
generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaics
displaces electricity from the grid."

IF

They missed out the bit AND IF the deployment of photovoltaics does not
result in increased consumption of carbon based fuel due to the
necessity of providing inefficient, but cheap, backup technology.

As I pointed out, massive renewable deployment in Denmmark and Germany
has not changed the carbon footprint of their grid one iota


Solar power has an interesting feature. It only works in daylight.

Assume that solar power can provide all the power we need, all day,
every day.

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

The second requirement is that all the power plants that run during the
night are able to go on standby during the day, and use very low levels
of energy to keep those steam boilers hot ready for the next night (they
take hours to warm up, and letting them get cold would waste all their
heat each morning).

Solar has its place; it's good for aircon, for example, where the
sunshine and the peak load coincide.

But 89%? No waoiy.


Its all; marketing bull**** disguised as science. Its a standard trick
the drug companies have used for years.

Andy


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 04/01/16 22:25, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.


Hahahah

Typical greeny lefty**** statement.

HOW MUCH can be stored at WHAT LEVEL OF SAFETY and WHAT LEVEL OF
EFFICIENCY and HOW MUCH WILL IT COST and HOW MUCH FOSSIL FUEL WILL IT
TAKE TO BUILD IT AND RUN IT?


Hey I have this great idea. Its called a rubber band. It stores energy,
so I've just solved the problem of intermittent renewable energy!

I will now apply fir an EU research grant, crowd funding and set up a
billion dollar company to develop rubber band grid storage!



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 04/01/16 23:00, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:38:30 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?

And in particular elaborate on the ways enough energy can be stored to
be realistically useful, bearing in mind that the best method of
storing 'electricity' (actually, potential energy) in the UK is the
Dinorwig pumped storage system, and that can only store and supply
approximately 10GWh (1.7GW for 6 hours) before it goes 'flat'*, where
the UK average daily consumption is approximately 840GWh (35GW for 24
hours).

The trouble is, the people who advocate all these renewable forms of
energy have absolutely no concept of the magnitude of the numbers
involved. They think that a few rechargeable scaled-up torch batteries
is all that's needed to store the stuff.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Its more easily expresseed in the following statement:

"Greeny lefty****s don't 'do' sums".

And in fact the tendency has apparently been part of humanity since at
least medieaval times since the fable of the belling of the cat makes
it quite clear that stupid prats have been with us a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_cat

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 04/01/16 22:40, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-04, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Standard greeny hand-waving.

So, how are you going to explain to the residents of South Wales that they
are to be displaced in order to flood their homes for pumped storage?


Greeny lefty****s don't explain. They dictate.

Watch Corbyn Dioxide emit his toxic pollution tomorrow...


Or to the environmentalists that the Bristol Channel it be closed by a tidal
barrage?

Its the environ - mentalists who apparently want to destroy the
environment, these days.

Which shows they are actually simply communists, only interested in
being left wing fascists with lost of power and money themselves and
don't give a **** for the environment..


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

Huge wrote:

On 2016-01-04, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Standard greeny hand-waving.

You and your fellow nutter seem to suffer from paranoia.
I'm not particularly green.
I just thought I'd point out that the argument you seemed to think foolproof
might have a lacuna.

So, how are you going to explain to the residents of South Wales that they
are to be displaced in order to flood their homes for pumped storage?

As I have never heard of this plan
I am probably not the right person to apologize to these unfortunate people.

Or to the environmentalists that the Bristol Channel it be closed by a
tidal barrage?

I did hear of a plan for a tidal barrage in the Bristol Channel,
or was it the Severn.
But the planners forgot to ask me for my advice.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Tim Streater wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?

I'm not a physicist, but I imagine there are many ways of storing energy -
batteries, electrolysis, raising water or other materials,
spinning wheels, synthesizing methane.
I'm sure an expert could suggest a dozen other ways.

I've no idea if any of these are commercially viable,
but I didn't say they were.
I simply stated, what is obvious, that energy can be stored.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 05/01/16 00:23, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?

I'm not a physicist, but I imagine there are many ways of storing energy -
batteries, electrolysis, raising water or other materials,
spinning wheels, synthesizing methane.
I'm sure an expert could suggest a dozen other ways.

I've no idea if any of these are commercially viable,
but I didn't say they were.

Not only are hey not commercially viable, they are not even possible in
many cases.

I am sorry if we confused you with a Green, but you display all; the
usual symptoms - ignorance of the technology, hopeless optimism and a
naiveté in assuming that people haven't thought of all this before and
the reason we don't run the country of banks of Duracells is on account
of it not actually working.

In short you appear on the surface to be the perfect Green, you think
everyone else is as stupid and ignorant and mathematically challenged as
you appear to be.

I simply stated, what is obvious, that energy can be stored.


Wow! Blinding revelation! WE are so ****ing impressed.

Water is wet, you know.

Sheesh, you are so far behind the curve you think you are ahead.

Personally I blame Blair and Nu Labia.,. telling everyone how wonderful
they were, they all now believe it.



--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 05/01/16 09:15, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:23:02 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?

I'm not a physicist, but I imagine there are many ways of storing energy -
batteries, electrolysis, raising water or other materials,
spinning wheels, synthesizing methane.
I'm sure an expert could suggest a dozen other ways.

I've no idea if any of these are commercially viable,
but I didn't say they were.
I simply stated, what is obvious, that energy can be stored.

As you say, a statement of the obvious, and again as you say, there
are lots of other ways, such as TNP's elastic band. The trouble is,
that there are hardly any ways of storing _electricity_, and
absolutely no ways of storing it in the amounts necessary to
compensate for days when there is no wind or sunshine, when the whole
country has to be supplied, possibly for several days. Supporters of
renewable energy sources just don't understand that. They live in a
cloud of ignorance that batteries can be used, or that we can import
electricity from Europe, or whatever. But none of that is going to be
practical. The numbers just don't add up!

Pumped storage is the only way of storing energy in even quite small
amounts comparable to what is needed. There are only four pumped
storage systems in the UK http://tinyurl.com/zv2gxr7 three of which
are less than half the size of Dinorwig, and opportunities for more
are severely limited by suitable topography.

The problem is made worse if one wants to convert a significant amount
of road vehicles to electric power. The UK presently uses on average,
840GWh of electrical energy per day. You can nearly double that if a
large proportion of road vehicles are to be powered by electricity.

So you can begin to see the magnitude of the problem. If renewables
are to be a major component in our electricity production, storage of
electrical energy in some form is essential to cover the variability,
and that is well-nigh impossible on the scale necessary using any of
the technologies presently available.

The best energy storage in the world is an atomic nucleus.

Enough energy to run the country for a year would fit into a delivery
van. And its also the safest way. At the sort of low levels of
enrichment needed, even piling it up in a big heap wouldn't cause it to
go critical, and it doesn't burn and it cant detonate.


Best of all it comes charged up with energy already. So you don't need
windmills and solar panels to charge it up.

And there are several thousand years of supply of it just lying around.
Long enough to get nuclear fusion working anyway.

And nuclear fusion of course means you dont need solar panels to capture
the output of a fusion reactor, you can do it directly.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In short you appear on the surface to be the perfect Green, you think
everyone else is as stupid and ignorant and mathematically challenged as
you appear to be.

You are looking in a mirror.
It is you who think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Timothy Murphy was thinking very hard :
Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

In small quantities and at terrific cost, yes it can.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

After serious thinking The Natural Philosopher wrote :
On 05/01/16 09:15, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:23:02 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?

I'm not a physicist, but I imagine there are many ways of storing energy -
batteries, electrolysis, raising water or other materials,
spinning wheels, synthesizing methane.
I'm sure an expert could suggest a dozen other ways.

I've no idea if any of these are commercially viable,
but I didn't say they were.
I simply stated, what is obvious, that energy can be stored.

As you say, a statement of the obvious, and again as you say, there
are lots of other ways, such as TNP's elastic band. The trouble is,
that there are hardly any ways of storing _electricity_, and
absolutely no ways of storing it in the amounts necessary to
compensate for days when there is no wind or sunshine, when the whole
country has to be supplied, possibly for several days. Supporters of
renewable energy sources just don't understand that. They live in a
cloud of ignorance that batteries can be used, or that we can import
electricity from Europe, or whatever. But none of that is going to be
practical. The numbers just don't add up!

Pumped storage is the only way of storing energy in even quite small
amounts comparable to what is needed. There are only four pumped
storage systems in the UK http://tinyurl.com/zv2gxr7 three of which
are less than half the size of Dinorwig, and opportunities for more
are severely limited by suitable topography.

The problem is made worse if one wants to convert a significant amount
of road vehicles to electric power. The UK presently uses on average,
840GWh of electrical energy per day. You can nearly double that if a
large proportion of road vehicles are to be powered by electricity.

So you can begin to see the magnitude of the problem. If renewables
are to be a major component in our electricity production, storage of
electrical energy in some form is essential to cover the variability,
and that is well-nigh impossible on the scale necessary using any of
the technologies presently available.

The best energy storage in the world is an atomic nucleus.

Enough energy to run the country for a year would fit into a delivery van.
And its also the safest way. At the sort of low levels of enrichment needed,
even piling it up in a big heap wouldn't cause it to go critical, and it
doesn't burn and it cant detonate.


Best of all it comes charged up with energy already. So you don't need
windmills and solar panels to charge it up.

And there are several thousand years of supply of it just lying around. Long
enough to get nuclear fusion working anyway.

And nuclear fusion of course means you dont need solar panels to capture the
output of a fusion reactor, you can do it directly.

+1

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Timothy Murphy formulated the question :
You are looking in a mirror.
It is you who think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant.

Actually, he is not - NP is one of the few who understands the problems
and the limits of the technology.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Chris Hogg wrote:

The problem is made worse if one wants to convert a significant amount
of road vehicles to electric power. The UK presently uses on average,
840GWh of electrical energy per day. You can nearly double that if a
large proportion of road vehicles are to be powered by electricity.

I would have thought this problem, at least, would be easily solved,
by charging spare batteries during the day.
I believe an Israeli company is developing a system
where batteries from electric vehicles are exchanged at stopping points
rather than charged.

Incidentally, I don't think it would be that difficult
to store sufficient energy to keep a house going during the night.
A tank of hot water would give sufficient heat,
and LED lights could easily be charged from batteries.

I'm not saying this is to be recommended -
I'm just saying that it is perfectly possible.
I actually suspect that nuclear energy will prove the most feasible
in the medium term.
But the energy (more precisely, the negentropy) from the sun
will probably be the solution in the long run.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
So, how are you going to explain to the residents of South Wales that they
are to be displaced in order to flood their homes for pumped storage?


Greeny lefty****s don't explain. They dictate.

Watch Corbyn Dioxide emit his toxic pollution tomorrow...

I get it now. You are obviously a member of the Saudi royal family. Only
your views allowed. And always right since god tells you you are.

--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *

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

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Timothy Murphy formulated the question :
You are looking in a mirror. It is you who think everyone who
disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant.

Actually, he is not - NP is one of the few who understands the problems
and the limits of the technology.

Think what you mean his his views agree with yours.

So many of his statements are obvious nonsense that a sensible person will
question them all.

--
*Why is it that rain drops but snow falls?

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

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

You are looking in a mirror.
It is you who think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and
ignorant.

Actually, he is not - NP is one of the few who understands the problems
and the limits of the technology.

First of all this remark, whether true or false, is completely irrelevant
to what I said, namely that he thinks anyone who disagrees with him
is stupid and ignorant.

As to your assertion, I am sure there are many people
who understand the problems (whatever they are)
just as well as your hero.
After all, people have PhD's in this area.


--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Huge wrote:

You and your fellow nutter seem to suffer from paranoia.

Only if you think an ability to read, write and add up is somehow
"paranoia".

Paranoia, in this context, is believing that
those who do not agree with you are involved in a conspiracy.

I doubt if you are any more adept at reading, writing and addition
than those you disagree with.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 05/01/16 10:45, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

The problem is made worse if one wants to convert a significant amount
of road vehicles to electric power. The UK presently uses on average,
840GWh of electrical energy per day. You can nearly double that if a
large proportion of road vehicles are to be powered by electricity.

I would have thought this problem, at least, would be easily solved,
by charging spare batteries during the day.
I believe an Israeli company is developing a system
where batteries from electric vehicles are exchanged at stopping points
rather than charged.

Incidentally, I don't think it would be that difficult
to store sufficient energy to keep a house going during the night.
A tank of hot water would give sufficient heat,
and LED lights could easily be charged from batteries.


Well yes, you can and indeed I looked into it.

around £5000 of car batteries with an expected life of 10 years would do
it with an inverter. Of course woe betide you if you want a cup of
midnight cocoa, or to heat up a tin of beans.

And of course £500 a year is about what most people pay for proper
electricity.

But the problem is - and if you look at Gridwatch and compare sunny days
to dull days you will instantly see it - is that the amount of
electricity produced by a solar panel on a dull wet cold winter day is
negligible.


I'm not saying this is to be recommended -
I'm just saying that it is perfectly possible.
I actually suspect that nuclear energy will prove the most feasible
in the medium term.
But the energy (more precisely, the negentropy) from the sun
will probably be the solution in the long run.

It won't. There is not enough of it.

At the sorts of efficiencies that are theoretically possible.

And its not storable in practical terms.

Easier to use local fusion reactors.

Rather than kill all the plant life by shading it with solar panels.





--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 05/01/16 10:11, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In short you appear on the surface to be the perfect Green, you think
everyone else is as stupid and ignorant and mathematically challenged as
you appear to be.

You are looking in a mirror.
It is you who think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant.

Maybe they are.

Have you considered that?


Have you done the calculations on energy and storage? I have.
I've spent the last 7 years investigating the details of renewable and
conventional energy.

Its not a random opinion I plucked out of the 'Guardian' or the 'New
Scientist' or heard on the Beeb.

Sure I am deliberately rude and abrasive, because people seem to need to
be shocked and bullied into thinking for themselves.

Since they seem to be totally unaware of the extent of their ignorance
and prejudice, and totally unaware of just how far away other peoples
thinking is.

Its a standard Green meme to wave a hand gaily and say 'storage' and
thereby utterly fail to address the intrinsic problem of renewable
intermittency. Whilst pretending its not an issue.


Energy density and intermittency are two issues with renewables that
can't be magicked away. They are intrinsic not to the technology, but to
the energy source itself. Which means that no amount of technology can
eliminate them, just ameliorate their worst effects, and of course that
technology adds to the cost, to the point where the final solution is
not just u7neconomic, its actually so ruinously expensive that its
verging, if not beyond, a unit energy return on energy invested.

That is, its unsustainable. You will never get enough energy out of a
*complete* renewable energy plus storage system to maintain and build
that system.

Any nation that tries will collapse in economic ruin.

You claim to be a mathematician.

Do some sums


--
Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost
its status.

Laurence Peter

Tim Streater wrote:

Incidentally, I don't think it would be that difficult
to store sufficient energy to keep a house going during the night.
A tank of hot water would give sufficient heat,

Judging by what people here have said in the past, you need about 4kWH
to run a house overnight. That's over and above the heat you normally
add to the tank of water overnight so you have hot water the next day.

I explicitly said that I was not recommending this as a "solution"
I was merely pointing out that it is perfectly feasible.
I certainly don't use 4kWh a night "to keep my house going".
Do you? What exactly are you using it for?

If you have a 100 litre water tank, you'd need to heat it an extra 35C
or so to store that. But you'd be using daytime electricity for the
purpose, so why bother - just use the cheaper overnight electricity
directly, which is what everybody does.

Sigh. I'm not recommending this, I'm saying it is perfectly feasible.
I don't see how you can possibly say how much heat I need
since you have no idea what my house is like.
But if in fact your figures are remotely accurate
then it would seem perfectly feasible - FEASIBLE not desirable -
to get a second 100 litre tank for the purpose.

and LED lights could easily be charged from batteries.

The you've shown you don't understand anything at all. What does
"charge an LED from a battery" mean?

I mean that a battery could be used to supply electricity for LED lights.
My 20 euro UPS could supply enough for two 5w LED lights.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Huge wrote:

It is you who think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and
ignorant.

But you *are* "stupid and ignorant".

An instant proof of what I said.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 05/01/16 10:58, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-05, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Timothy Murphy formulated the question :
You are looking in a mirror.
It is you who think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant.

Actually, he is not - NP is one of the few who understands the problems
and the limits of the technology.

Pity about his personal beliefs.


Dont have any personal beliefs.

My position is simple. If you want a carbon fuel free world, you need
nuclear. Nothing else will work.

That's not a matter of belief or faith or opinion. Its a conclusion
derived from the facts as agreed but people who are in some way technical.

I arrived there by a simple process of asking 'what would an all
renewable power system consist of' eliminating the impossible, and
analysing the possibles to understand how much it would cost on energy
and cash terms.

One solution works, no others come near it in terms of cost
environmental impact and sustainability, and that is nuclear power.

Its not a belief, because I didn't start with it and then derive a
rationalisation for it. I started with no interest other than curiosity
in any particular technology. I started because I had the skills, the
time and the background to consider a statement made on Usenet around 8
years or more ago, which was something akin to 'by 2020 the UK will be
running entirely on renewable energy'.

So I decided to see whether or not this could possibly be true.

My conclusion was, that barring some major breakthrough in quantum
physics, the short answer was 'no'.


There is of course no such thing as 'renewable energy' anywhere in the
Universe, and what the idiot greens call renewable energy is energy
derived from nuclear fission and fusion at second third or fourth hand.

What they mean of course is 'having a considerable supply of fuel - the
sun has hydrogen for a long time'.

But its output is limited and the means of capturing it are very very
inefficient.

It's very easy to believe in ****. Its a lot harder to work out from
proper science using real sums, what can and cant work.




--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen