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

"I'm very peachable, if people know how to peach" - Sir David Attenborough (on
being asked if he was tired of being described as impeachable), on Desert
Island Discs, 2012-1-29.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
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).

Makes a lot more sense to have just nukes and run them
full time and don't bother with any alternative energy at
all except where the grid isnt economically feasible and
the demand is only at a very low level like with repeaters
etc that have to be on the top of mountains etc and with
water pumping where you don't care about the variability
of when the energy is available and the energy requirement
is low.

And have small scale nukes for islands and other places where
the grid isnt economic and the demand is much higher.

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.


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.


Clever innit??


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

Al Capone

On 25/07/16 22:40, MKF wrote:


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
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).

Makes a lot more sense to have just nukes and run them
full time and don't bother with any alternative energy at
all except where the grid isnt economically feasible and
the demand is only at a very low level like with repeaters
etc that have to be on the top of mountains etc and with
water pumping where you don't care about the variability
of when the energy is available and the energy requirement
is low.

And have small scale nukes for islands and other places where
the grid isnt economic and the demand is much higher.

The lowest emitting strategy would be to have nearly all nuclear and as
much hydro as is reasonably feasible. That's France and Switzerland
basically..

The lowest cost strategy would be all coal

The best balance between emissions and cost is nuclear* baseload and gas
to handle peak demands.

Renewable energy doesn't in this country lead to any useful** emissions
reductions at all and is very costly.

* About 80% of the cost of nuclear power today is in meeting regulations
that are almost certainly neither conducive to genuine safety or plant
efficiency.

**assuming emissions reductions are in anyway useful anyway, which is
massively open to question.

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 25/07/16 22:40, MKF wrote:


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
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).

Makes a lot more sense to have just nukes and run them
full time and don't bother with any alternative energy at
all except where the grid isnt economically feasible and
the demand is only at a very low level like with repeaters
etc that have to be on the top of mountains etc and with
water pumping where you don't care about the variability
of when the energy is available and the energy requirement
is low.

And have small scale nukes for islands and other places where
the grid isnt economic and the demand is much higher.

The lowest emitting strategy would be to have nearly all nuclear and as
much hydro as is reasonably feasible. That's France and Switzerland
basically..

Yes.

The lowest cost strategy would be all coal

Yes.

The best balance between emissions and cost is nuclear* baseload and gas
to handle peak demands.

Makes more sense to have bigger nukes and just throw the
extra electricity away when not at the peak power demand
or use it for something like turning bauxite into aluminium
in that situation.

Renewable energy doesn't in this country lead to any useful** emissions
reductions at all and is very costly.

* About 80% of the cost of nuclear power today is in meeting regulations
that are almost certainly neither conducive to genuine safety or plant
efficiency.

**assuming emissions reductions are in anyway useful anyway, which is
massively open to question.

No argument with any of that later stuff.

On 26/07/16 03:26, MKF wrote:
The best balance between emissions and cost is nuclear* baseload and
gas to handle peak demands.

Makes more sense to have bigger nukes and just throw the
extra electricity away when not at the peak power demand
or use it for something like turning bauxite into aluminium
in that situation.

That doesn't work economically.

You don't want to run an very expensive aluminium smelter just at night
and in summer ! :-)

And the times when we need 60GW in this country are very very few. What
is needed is capital cheap, if fuel expensive kit, to cover that. Gas -
especially OCGT - meets that spec.

The optimal strategy is to have about 120% of summer load - something
like 35GW or so - of nuclear, that can be wound down a bit at night and
weekends, and another 30GW or so of gas, with hydro coping with short
term peaks.

Maybe surplus power could be used to desalinate seawater or something.

Thats not so expensive to build plant for


--
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 25/07/2016 22:40, MKF wrote:

Makes a lot more sense to have just nukes and run them
full time and don't bother with any alternative energy at
all except where the grid isnt economically feasible and
the demand is only at a very low level like with repeaters
etc that have to be on the top of mountains etc and with
water pumping where you don't care about the variability
of when the energy is available and the energy requirement
is low.

And have small scale nukes for islands and other places where
the grid isnt economic and the demand is much higher.

Current nuclear plants aren't good at throttling up and down. They can
easily, and at low risk, handle the base load. But you need something
you can turn up and down easily. Pumped storage is good, but there isn't
enough. You can do something by saving the water in conventional hydro
for the peaks too. Hydro tends to be rain limited. But I think with the
current state of technology we still need something we can throttle up
and down easily - which means fossil.

I'll keep the wind for my sailing boat. It's good for a hobby, but no
use for trade.

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/07/2016 22:40, MKF wrote:

Makes a lot more sense to have just nukes and run them
full time and don't bother with any alternative energy at
all except where the grid isnt economically feasible and
the demand is only at a very low level like with repeaters
etc that have to be on the top of mountains etc and with
water pumping where you don't care about the variability
of when the energy is available and the energy requirement
is low.

And have small scale nukes for islands and other places where
the grid isnt economic and the demand is much higher.

Current nuclear plants aren't good at throttling up and down. They can
easily, and at low risk, handle the base load. But you need something you
can turn up and down easily.

Or use the surplus energy at lower demand times for stuff
that doesn’t care when it happens.

Pumped storage is good, but there isn't
enough. You can do something by saving the water in conventional hydro for
the peaks too. Hydro tends to be rain limited. But I think with the
current state of technology we still need something we can throttle up and
down easily - which means fossil.

Not when you use the surplus energy at lower demand times
for stuff that doesn’t care when it happens or even just throw
it away when you as paying very little in fuel costs with nukes.

I'll keep the wind for my sailing boat. It's good for a hobby, but no use
for trade.

Its fine for some uses like pumping water for use by stock etc.

On 26/07/16 21:16, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 25/07/2016 22:40, MKF wrote:

Makes a lot more sense to have just nukes and run them
full time and don't bother with any alternative energy at
all except where the grid isnt economically feasible and
the demand is only at a very low level like with repeaters
etc that have to be on the top of mountains etc and with
water pumping where you don't care about the variability
of when the energy is available and the energy requirement
is low.

And have small scale nukes for islands and other places where
the grid isnt economic and the demand is much higher.

Current nuclear plants aren't good at throttling up and down. They can
easily, and at low risk, handle the base load. But you need something
you can turn up and down easily. Pumped storage is good, but there isn't
enough. You can do something by saving the water in conventional hydro
for the peaks too. Hydro tends to be rain limited. But I think with the
current state of technology we still need something we can throttle up
and down easily - which means fossil.

You can throttle nukes up and down easily if they are designed for it
and fuelled for it,. EDF do it in the french nukes all the time

I'll keep the wind for my sailing boat. It's good for a hobby, but no
use for trade.

Andy


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 02:07:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

I suspect that is an assumption based on either absolute or relative
cost of the fuel.

Alter the underlying assumption - eg by getting a lot of cheap gas via
fracking and the costs might alter.

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.


Clever innit??

Maybe we need some morepumped storage and a few big intermittant but
high energy density power sources

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?

The original estimates a decade or 2 back were this could produce 12%
of the UK electric supply.......

1 of the big drawbacks is there seems to be a big assumption that
"green" electricity doesnt involve mucking around with the country
enough to have sde effects on ecology, wildlife and wetlands.

FWIW hydro is supposed to be the cheapest form of electric generation,
but dam based tidal power is close behind, as long as you can handle
the periodic "idle" in generation.

What this whole discussion is missing is that the issue isnt really
around power generation, but having to match generation to demand on
the fly.

Since we dont have easy, scaleable electricity storage we have to have
generating capacity available to match the dynamic demand - and there
arent many good places to build another few Dinorwic pumped storage
schemes to even out the output of wind farms and other variable
sources.
Stephen Hope
Replace xyz with ntl to reply

On 26/07/16 23:09, Stephen wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 02:07:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

I suspect that is an assumption based on either absolute or relative
cost of the fuel.

Alter the underlying assumption - eg by getting a lot of cheap gas via
fracking and the costs might alter.

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.


Clever innit??

Maybe we need some morepumped storage and a few big intermittant but
high energy density power sources

well yes. Care to bell that cat?

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

WE have big intermittent power sources. Its called wind farms



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?

much more expensive than even PV.

The original estimates a decade or 2 back were this could produce 12%
of the UK electric supply.......

yadda yadda. investment brochures are fact free.

1 of the big drawbacks is there seems to be a big assumption that
"green" electricity doesnt involve mucking around with the country
enough to have sde effects on ecology, wildlife and wetlands.

FWIW hydro is supposed to be the cheapest form of electric generation,
but dam based tidal power is close behind, as long as you can handle
the periodic "idle" in generation.

No, tidal power has been tried and is very expensive



What this whole discussion is missing is that the issue isnt really
around power generation, but having to match generation to demand on
the fly.

Wow. What took you so long.



Since we dont have easy, scaleable electricity storage we have to have
generating capacity available to match the dynamic demand - and there
arent many good places to build another few Dinorwic pumped storage
schemes to even out the output of wind farms and other variable
sources.

Tell me about it.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

Stephen Hope
Replace xyz with ntl to reply



--
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.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/07/16 23:09, Stephen wrote:

Since we dont have easy, scaleable electricity storage we have to have
generating capacity available to match the dynamic demand - and there
arent many good places to build another few Dinorwic pumped storage
schemes to even out the output of wind farms and other variable
sources.

Tell me about it.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

Isn't this where we are being headed with *smart metering* potentially
used to discourage peak usage, free weekend electricity and battery
powered transport. LED lighting a stroke of good fortune.


--
Tim Lamb

On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 21:16:03 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:


I'll keep the wind for my sailing boat. It's good for a hobby, but no
use for trade.

It was OK a few hundred years ago, before amazon ;-)

On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 21:24:57 UTC+1, MKF wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...



Current nuclear plants aren't good at throttling up and down. They can
easily, and at low risk, handle the base load. But you need something you
can turn up and down easily.

Or use the surplus energy at lower demand times for stuff
that doesnt care when it happens.

Such as what, that is the problem and if the energy is suplus then it's a waste.


Pumped storage is good, but there isn't
enough. You can do something by saving the water in conventional hydro for
the peaks too. Hydro tends to be rain limited. But I think with the
current state of technology we still need something we can throttle up and
down easily - which means fossil.

Not when you use the surplus energy at lower demand times

there won't be surplus energy at low demand times as en effecient system won't allow that.

for stuff that doesnt care when it happens or even just throw
it away when you as paying very little in fuel costs with nukes.

it's still being generated and how do you throw it away ?


I'll keep the wind for my sailing boat. It's good for a hobby, but no use
for trade.

Its fine for some uses like pumping water for use by stock etc.

Will the stock want water when the wind stops ?
You'll notice that when water is wanted most it's during high tempratures and when there's little wind.

whisky-dave wrote
MKF wrote
Vir Campestris wrote

Current nuclear plants aren't good at throttling up and down.
They can easily, and at low risk, handle the base load. But you
need something you can turn up and down easily.

Or use the surplus energy at lower demand times
for stuff that doesnt care when it happens.

Such as what,

All sorts of things like desal, turning bauxite into aluminium etc.

that is the problem

Nope.

and if the energy is suplus then it's a waste.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

Pumped storage is good, but there isn't enough. You can
do something by saving the water in conventional hydro for
the peaks too. Hydro tends to be rain limited. But I think with
the current state of technology we still need something we
can throttle up and down easily - which means fossil.

No it does not. Plenty of the best nukes do that fine.

Not when you use the surplus energy at lower demand times

there won't be surplus energy at low demand
times as en effecient system won't allow that.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

for stuff that doesnt care when it happens or even just throw
it away when you as paying very little in fuel costs with nukes.

it's still being generated

Duh.

and how do you throw it away ?

One obvious approach is to run the street lights during the day.

I'll keep the wind for my sailing boat. It's
good for a hobby, but no use for trade.

Its fine for some uses like pumping water for use by stock etc.

Will the stock want water when the wind stops ?

Corse they do, but that is completely trivial to handle
by having the windmill deliver water to a decent sized
tank that ensure that there will be plenty of water for
the stock when the wind isnt blowing for a while.

You'll notice that when water is wanted
most it's during high tempratures

Like hell it is with stock.

and when there's little wind.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.


I've ignored all your other mindlessly silly **** in other posts.

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.


No, tidal power has been tried and is very expensive


I only know of one real test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

Costs don't look that bad.

Technologies also improve the more they are used.

My favourite idea (which may be stupid) is developing small mass
produced nuclear reactors.

On 27/07/16 08:56, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/07/16 23:09, Stephen wrote:

Since we dont have easy, scaleable electricity storage we have to have
generating capacity available to match the dynamic demand - and there
arent many good places to build another few Dinorwic pumped storage
schemes to even out the output of wind farms and other variable
sources.

Tell me about it.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

Isn't this where we are being headed with *smart metering* potentially
used to discourage peak usage, free weekend electricity and battery
powered transport. LED lighting a stroke of good fortune.

only so much demand is offset-able

It takes a lot of people switching off kettles to allow one train to start.

And smart metering doesn't tell you the state of the grid supply.


Smart appliances that respond to the frequency on the grid might work.



But smart meters are there fir another purpose. I havent figured out
what use they are yet.





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

Adolf Hitler

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.


WE do have long distance power distribution.

the reason we dont have more pumnped storage is because its
environmentally destructive and expensive, due to lack of suitable sites.



No, tidal power has been tried and is very expensive


I only know of one real test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

Costs don't look that bad.

Technologies also improve the more they are used.


the price of 5million tonnes of concrete d9oesnt caghnge

My favourite idea (which may be stupid) is developing small mass
produced nuclear reactors.

Its the only idea you have come up with that isn't stupid ;-)


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/16 08:56, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/07/16 23:09, Stephen wrote:

Since we dont have easy, scaleable electricity storage we have to have
generating capacity available to match the dynamic demand - and there
arent many good places to build another few Dinorwic pumped storage
schemes to even out the output of wind farms and other variable
sources.

Tell me about it.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

Isn't this where we are being headed with *smart metering* potentially
used to discourage peak usage, free weekend electricity and battery
powered transport. LED lighting a stroke of good fortune.

only so much demand is offset-able

It takes a lot of people switching off kettles to allow one train to start.

And smart metering doesn't tell you the state of the grid supply.


Smart appliances that respond to the frequency on the grid might work.



But smart meters are there fir another purpose. I havent figured out
what use they are yet.






They allow the meter to be read without any human involvement and allows
the supplier to connect and disconnect supply without anyone involved in
doing that where electricity is supplied to.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Mike Lander
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/16 08:56, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/07/16 23:09, Stephen wrote:

Since we dont have easy, scaleable electricity storage we have to have
generating capacity available to match the dynamic demand - and there
arent many good places to build another few Dinorwic pumped storage
schemes to even out the output of wind farms and other variable
sources.

Tell me about it.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

Isn't this where we are being headed with *smart metering* potentially
used to discourage peak usage, free weekend electricity and battery
powered transport. LED lighting a stroke of good fortune.

only so much demand is offset-able

It takes a lot of people switching off kettles to allow one train to start.

And smart metering doesn't tell you the state of the grid supply.

Smart appliances that respond to the frequency on the grid might work.

But smart meters are there fir another purpose. I havent figured out
what use they are yet.

They allow the meter to be read without any human involvement and allows
the supplier to connect and disconnect supply without anyone involved in
doing that where electricity is supplied to.

That didn't quite parse, but I'll assume it means that the supplier can
cut a bunch of people off one lunchtime when needed. That'll go down
well as the chicken doesn't get cooked, eh?


When the tenant changes in a rental property or the owner of the property
changes.

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 12:00:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
MKF wrote
Vir Campestris wrote

Current nuclear plants aren't good at throttling up and down.
They can easily, and at low risk, handle the base load. But you
need something you can turn up and down easily.

Or use the surplus energy at lower demand times
for stuff that doesnt care when it happens.

Such as what,

All sorts of things like desal, turning bauxite into aluminium etc.

very small scale hardly worth the effort.



and if the energy is suplus then it's a waste.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

why produce an energy suplus, generate what you need.



Not when you use the surplus energy at lower demand times



for stuff that doesnt care when it happens or even just throw
it away when you as paying very little in fuel costs with nukes.

it's still being generated

Duh.

and throwing it away ?


and how do you throw it away ?

One obvious approach is to run the street lights during the day.

Why generate power to run street lights during the day ?



I'll keep the wind for my sailing boat. It's
good for a hobby, but no use for trade.

Its fine for some uses like pumping water for use by stock etc.

Will the stock want water when the wind stops ?

Corse they do,

So you'll have to have conventinal power too then.


but that is completely trivial to handle
by having the windmill deliver water to a decent sized
tank that ensure that there will be plenty of water for
the stock when the wind isnt blowing for a while.

So very small scale.



I've ignored all your other mindlessly silly **** in other posts.

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.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
MKF wrote
Vir Campestris wrote

Current nuclear plants aren't good at throttling up and down.
They can easily, and at low risk, handle the base load. But you
need something you can turn up and down easily.

Or use the surplus energy at lower demand times
for stuff that doesnt care when it happens.

Such as what,

All sorts of things like desal, turning bauxite into aluminium etc.

very small scale hardly worth the effort.

Might as well do something useful with the surplus power.

and if the energy is suplus then it's a waste.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

why produce an energy suplus, generate what you need.

The bigger power generating systems can only change the
amount of power they are generating relatively slowly.

Not when you use the surplus energy at lower demand times

for stuff that doesnt care when it happens or even just throw
it away when you as paying very little in fuel costs with nukes.

it's still being generated

Duh.

and throwing it away ?

and how do you throw it away ?

One obvious approach is to run the street lights during the day.

Why generate power to run street lights during the day ?

Because the bigger power generating system can't have
the amount of power they generate vary in seconds.

I'll keep the wind for my sailing boat. It's
good for a hobby, but no use for trade.

Its fine for some uses like pumping water for use by stock etc.

Will the stock want water when the wind stops ?

Corse they do,

So you'll have to have conventinal power too then.

Nope, just have decent tanks that the water
goes into when the wind is blowing and is
used from when the wind isnt blowing.

but that is completely trivial to handle
by having the windmill deliver water to a decent sized
tank that ensure that there will be plenty of water for
the stock when the wind isnt blowing for a while.

So very small scale.

Not when you have lots of them and they dont cost much.

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.


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 13:16:08 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
MKF wrote
Vir Campestris wrote

Current nuclear plants aren't good at throttling up and down.
They can easily, and at low risk, handle the base load. But you
need something you can turn up and down easily.

Or use the surplus energy at lower demand times
for stuff that doesnt care when it happens.

Such as what,

All sorts of things like desal, turning bauxite into aluminium etc.

very small scale hardly worth the effort.

Might as well do something useful with the surplus power.

That's the problem it's not really surplus is it, it's been paid for and been generated for another reason which it is no longer needed for.
You'd be better off just generating what you need.

This is the problem we had when we first joined the EEC. We had too much wine from France, when spain joined it desimated their vineyards lots were closed down because there was an over production of wine, which couldnl;t be sold or given away to EEC (or EU) cutomers but was sold off cheap to other countries like japan is doing with steel. Simialar thing happend with butter.

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.

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


--
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 27/07/16 08:56, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/07/16 23:09, Stephen wrote:

Since we dont have easy, scaleable electricity storage we have to have
generating capacity available to match the dynamic demand - and there
arent many good places to build another few Dinorwic pumped storage
schemes to even out the output of wind farms and other variable
sources.

Tell me about it.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

Isn't this where we are being headed with *smart metering* potentially
used to discourage peak usage, free weekend electricity and battery
powered transport. LED lighting a stroke of good fortune.

only so much demand is offset-able

I was thinking immersion heaters, dishwasher/clothes washer/tumble
driers and any remaining storage heaters.

I guess this is all minor compared to Monday am industrial start up.

It takes a lot of people switching off kettles to allow one train to start.

And smart metering doesn't tell you the state of the grid supply.

An easy location for frequency monitoring and possible response though.


Smart appliances that respond to the frequency on the grid might work.

I have registered that idea:-)



But smart meters are there fir another purpose. I havent figured out
what use they are yet.

Umm.. Sop to the Greens, alerting the general public to the real meaning
of kWhs, Govt. appearing to be doing something at no apparent cost to
the exchequer?

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Mike Lander
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/16 08:56, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/07/16 23:09, Stephen wrote:
Since we dont have easy, scaleable electricity storage we have
to have
generating capacity available to match the dynamic demand - and there
arent many good places to build another few Dinorwic pumped storage
schemes to even out the output of wind farms and other variable
sources.
Tell me about it.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf
Isn't this where we are being headed with *smart metering*
potentially
used to discourage peak usage, free weekend electricity and battery
powered transport. LED lighting a stroke of good fortune.
only so much demand is offset-able
It takes a lot of people switching off kettles to allow one train
to start.
And smart metering doesn't tell you the state of the grid supply.
Smart appliances that respond to the frequency on the grid might
work.

But smart meters are there fir another purpose. I havent figured out
what use they are yet.

They allow the meter to be read without any human involvement and allows
the supplier to connect and disconnect supply without anyone involved in
doing that where electricity is supplied to.

That didn't quite parse, but I'll assume it means that the supplier can
cut a bunch of people off one lunchtime when needed. That'll go down
well as the chicken doesn't get cooked, eh?

Surely they would have to change the terms of supply?


--
Tim Lamb

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Lamb wrote:

Isn't this where we are being headed with *smart metering* potentially
used to discourage peak usage, free weekend electricity and battery
powered transport. LED lighting a stroke of good fortune.

only so much demand is offset-able

For me, I'd say very little ... washing could be done overnight, a
putative smart fridge/freezer have a rest during the evening peak and
chill down again overnight, most other usage is 24x7 or happens at the
time it does because that's when I want to do it.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
MKF wrote
Vir Campestris wrote

Current nuclear plants aren't good at throttling up and down.
They can easily, and at low risk, handle the base load. But you
need something you can turn up and down easily.

Or use the surplus energy at lower demand times
for stuff that doesnt care when it happens.

Such as what,

All sorts of things like desal, turning bauxite into aluminium etc.

very small scale hardly worth the effort.

Might as well do something useful with the surplus power.

That's the problem

Nope.

it's not really surplus is it,

Of course it is is you can't reduce the power you are generating
quickly enough and dont have enough pumped water capacity
to use it there.

it's been paid for

That is bugger all with nukes.

and been generated for another reason which it is no longer
needed for. You'd be better off just generating what you need.

Yes, but like I said, some of the base load generating capacity
takes a while to run up and run down power generation wise.

This is the problem we had when we first joined the EEC.

Nope.

We had too much wine from France,

Even you should have noticed that the timescale with wine
production is quite a bit longer than with power generation.

when spain joined it desimated their vineyards lots were
closed down because there was an over production of
wine, which couldnl;t be sold or given away to EEC

Nothing like power generation.

(or EU) cutomers but was sold off cheap to
other countries like japan is doing with steel.

Japan is doing nothing like that with steel.

Simialar thing happend with butter.

Again, nothing even remotely like power generation.

It;s nto

Clearly blotto again.

a good idea to over produce as you'll either need
to dump the excess or sell it off cheaply to those
people that dont;l normamly buy your products.

It is very different with electricity which can be used
when there is more than the demand currently requires.

and if the energy is suplus then it's a waste.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

why produce an energy suplus, generate what you need.

The bigger power generating systems can only change the
amount of power they are generating relatively slowly.

Exactly the bigger ones not a few windmills here and there.

The windmills were discussing something else entirely.

and throwing it away ?

and how do you throw it away ?

One obvious approach is to run the street lights during the day.

Why generate power to run street lights during the day ?

Because the bigger power generating system can't have
the amount of power they generate vary in seconds.

So who goes around switching on the street lights ?

They have been automated for quite some time now.

I'll keep the wind for my sailing boat. It's
good for a hobby, but no use for trade.

Its fine for some uses like pumping water for use by stock etc.

Will the stock want water when the wind stops ?

Corse they do,

So you'll have to have conventinal power too then.

Nope, just have decent tanks that the water
goes into when the wind is blowing and is
used from when the wind isnt blowing.

but there;s not enough capacity

There is with windmills used for stock water.

and teh wind isnlt always blowing.

That's the reason for the tank.

but that is completely trivial to handle
by having the windmill deliver water to a decent sized
tank that ensure that there will be plenty of water for
the stock when the wind isnt blowing for a while.

So very small scale.

Not when you have lots of them and they dont cost much.

but windmills do cost a lot both to build and maintan.

No they dont with STOCK WATER.

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?

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
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,

What Britain actually has is rather fewer than 2M who choose
not to work and who put their hands out for benefits instead,
and quite a few temporarily between jobs.

we could give them buckets and get free labour

Nope, because they wouldn't do anything useful.

and fewer diabetics?

Ditto.

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?



--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

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


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

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
--
bert

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.




--
Tim Lamb

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.






--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

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.


G.Harman

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?