On 28/07/16 10:51, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/16 22:01, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/16 14:51, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:57:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/07/16 13:11, Nick wrote:
On 27/07/2016 12:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural
Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/07/16 12:00, Nick wrote:
On 27/07/2016 06:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

well yes. Care to bell that cat?

You build the mountains, I'll get finance to build the stations.

We have mountains. What we don't have is good long distance power
distribution. But that is cheaper than building mountains.

We don't have mountains, we have hills.

Perhaps Nick would care to list which mountains (or hills if you
prefer) he has in mind.


There are mountains in Scotland and Wales. I don't see the point
you are
making.
What you need is a high valley that is dammable, or a high cwm

WE don't have more than half a dozen suitable small sites

Or we would have done it years ago.

There is this proposal, claims 6,800 GWhr


https://scottishscientist.wordpress....-for-scotland/



http://preview.tinyurl.com/hcb953s

No idea if it is feasible.

read the comments. WAY too expensive. Cheaper to replace all
Britain's power stations with nukes


We still have nearly 2M unemplyed people who are non productive,
we could give them buckets and get free labour and fewer diabetics?

In terms of energy, feeding people is about as inefficient as it gets


Who was going to feed them?

They wont work for very long without feeding.

Mind you that was the 'final solution' in war-torn Germany. Work em till
they drop.



--
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 28/07/16 12:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:22:36 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 27/07/16 12:00, Nick wrote:
On 27/07/2016 06:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

well yes. Care to bell that cat?

You build the mountains, I'll get finance to build the stations.


We have mountains. What we don't have is good long distance power
distribution. But that is cheaper than building mountains.

We don't have mountains, we have hills.

Easily solved - just change the definition of a mountain.

Snip

They did that in Wales a year or so ago, upgrading Mynydd Graig Goch
to mountain status after it was re-measured.
http://tinyurl.com/gmykybc

But they've also downgraded another one from mountain to hill
http://tinyurl.com/hzsul5s

If the sea levels continue to rise, they'll all be downgraded
eventually!


However changing the definition of a mountain doesn't change Newton's laws.

Any more than sending loads of thick ****s to 'uni' and awarding them
'degrees' has made them intelligent.



--
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

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 28/07/16 08:48, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 27/07/16 19:06, Tim Lamb wrote:
And smart metering doesn't tell you the state of the grid supply.

An easy location for frequency monitoring
I beg your pardon? Do you think the National grid needs smart meters
to know what frequency its running?

Hardly:-)

I meant that shedding domestic load based on supply frequency could use
*local* information rather than some centralised system.

I am still puzzled. The grid is frequency locked. You can measure its
frequency anywhere with a few pence worth of electronics.

IN the appliance is the best place.

OK but there are other decisions required. Does the consumer agree to
having that particular load shed at that particular time? It may be that
the tumble drier contains some item of apparel required for an important
engagement:-)

I was thinking that a centralised request could poll the sheddable loads
to check if the consumer had left an override instruction. There is also
the matter of period charging where the consumer may consider the
potential saving not worthwhile for that occasion.







--
Tim Lamb

In message ,
writes
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:22:36 +0100, bert wrote:



We have mountains. What we don't have is good long distance power
distribution. But that is cheaper than building mountains.

We don't have mountains, we have hills.

Easily solved - just change the definition of a mountain.



make em out of Molehills.

Are there no convenient Scottish sea lochs you could close off?

--
Tim Lamb

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
On 25/07/16 22:28, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
On 24/07/16 12:58, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Even for coal, oil, and gas? (Genuine question; I don't know, but I'm
sure someone here does.)

No. the cost of fuel dominates fossil electricity production.


Thanks. I thought it did, but the nuclear discussion did make me wonder.

So it's definitely worthwhile putting _that_ sort of station into
standby, and for that matter mothballing (e. g. during the summer or
winter depending on which wants more locally).

Absolutely.

Gas is in particular and in relative terms very expensive. Below about
4p a unit electricity its not worth keeping the plant running.

Gas is also a very _convenient_ form of fossil fuel; using it in power
stations is rather a waste.

What happens in practice is that wind blows, an renewables coin it, and
gas gets forced off the market because although the reneables get paid
to generate certificates, the market price of electricity falls to the
point where gas cannot make a profit.

So that's why gas plant is closing.

Of course that means in wintere, we don't have the reserves.

So the consumer then pays to have massively CO2 emitting standby plant
on standby.

I don't think it emits much CO2 when in standby. (Yes, it does emit
some.)

Clever innit??


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anybody can garble quotations like that -- even with the Bible... Er... "And he
went and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). Go, and do thou likewise (Luke 10:37)."

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:22:36 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 27/07/16 12:00, Nick wrote:
On 27/07/2016 06:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

well yes. Care to bell that cat?

You build the mountains, I'll get finance to build the stations.


We have mountains. What we don't have is good long distance power
distribution. But that is cheaper than building mountains.

We don't have mountains, we have hills.

Easily solved - just change the definition of a mountain.

Snip

They did that in Wales a year or so ago, upgrading Mynydd Graig Goch
to mountain status after it was re-measured.
http://tinyurl.com/gmykybc

But they've also downgraded another one from mountain to hill
http://tinyurl.com/hzsul5s

If the sea levels continue to rise, they'll all be downgraded
eventually!

Nope, there isnt enough water to do that even if there is no ice left
anywhere.

On 28/07/2016 19:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
So the consumer then pays to have massively CO2 emitting standby plant
on standby.

I don't think it emits much CO2 when in standby. (Yes, it does emit some.)

According to some sources I've seen, enough to actually increase CO2
emissions per unit above that of just using fossil fuelled stations.

(IIRC, Denmark has now closed down all its fossil fuel generation plant
and is buying emergency power from Germany's pool, which is mostly coal
fired now they've closed down their nuclear plant, and so makes more CO2
overall than it did before shutting down its own plant. Though this
shows up in the official figures as an increase in Germany's production
per person, with Denmark showing a very low figure, as the CO2 for
electricity generation is made outside the country, and isn't counted i
the per unit or per person numbers.)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/07/2016 23:09, Stephen wrote:
Tidal power off the Bristol channel anyone?- only $12B to build the
dam, but how many power stations get a 100 year + design life and dont
have to pay for fuel?

You _must_ build the Morecambe Bay one at the same time so they can
cover gaps in each other's generation. No power at slack tide.

Andy

On 29/07/16 21:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 26/07/2016 23:09, Stephen wrote:
Tidal power off the Bristol channel anyone?- only $12B to build the
dam, but how many power stations get a 100 year + design life and dont
have to pay for fuel?

You _must_ build the Morecambe Bay one at the same time so they can
cover gaps in each other's generation. No power at slack tide.

Are these 180deg out of phase and the same amplitude?

no

--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

In article , Vir
Campestris writes
On 26/07/2016 23:09, Stephen wrote:
Tidal power off the Bristol channel anyone?- only $12B to build the
dam, but how many power stations get a 100 year + design life and dont
have to pay for fuel?

You _must_ build the Morecambe Bay one at the same time so they can
cover gaps in each other's generation. No power at slack tide.

Andy
So 2 installations for one lot of power thus doubling the price.
--
bert

On 30/07/16 08:07, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/07/16 21:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 26/07/2016 23:09, Stephen wrote:
Tidal power off the Bristol channel anyone?- only $12B to build the
dam, but how many power stations get a 100 year + design life and dont
have to pay for fuel?

You _must_ build the Morecambe Bay one at the same time so they can
cover gaps in each other's generation. No power at slack tide.

Are these 180deg out of phase and the same amplitude?

no

Then you don't get baseload from that.

110% of all renewable energy is advocated by people who never and could
never have done an engineering calculation in their lives.



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

Adolf Hitler