On 31/07/2016 09:42, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Steve Walker steve@walker-
family.me.uk escribió:

My understanding as that the problems with the French reactors have been
down to delays due to strikes (particularly by welders) and faulty steel
in the pressure vessel, that failed testing and needed to be replaced.

At Flamanville they've already built the concrete containment building
around the pressure vessel, so if it's decided to condemn and replace
the vessel they need to demolish the outer containment building too.

Even so, it is still a steel problem that could apply to any design, not
specifically to this new design.

On Saturday, 30 July 2016 22:07:26 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 12:06:45 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/07/16 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:
See Chris Hogg's comments in another post about costs. Don't imagine
that so-called renewables are such a good deal.
True costs of renewables is, with the backup and grid enhancements at
least 2p a unit more than the headline cost of building them.

And then there's the hidden environmental costs.

But no fuel to buy ever again.
Except the fuel required to manufacture the panels - which is more than
they produce in their lifetime. And how are you going to dispose of the
dangerous waste from defunct panels? Same way as we are disposing of the
dangerous chemicals in cfl light bulbs I expect - in landfill.
--
bert

You have spouted this drivel before.
Are you totally thick?
The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...e-pv-panels-uk

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...e-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third of
the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have a
smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are actually
providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night, assuming
the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:57:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...e-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third of
the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have a
smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are actually
providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night, assuming
the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la...than-coal.aspx

I do concentrate my electricity usage to when the sun is shining.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:13:38 -0700, harry wrote:

On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:57:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five years
in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...arbon-payback-
time-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third of
the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have a
smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are actually
providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night, assuming
the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la.../2016/june/uk-
milestone-%E2%80%93-solar-power-produces-more-electricity-than-coal.aspx

And that's a highly unbiased source - NOT.

And it's the summer, when load is light. And, looking at Gridwatch,
highly unlikely anyway.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:13:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:57:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...e-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third of
the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have a
smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are actually
providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night, assuming
the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

Sorry? Anything I've said above unreasonable in some way?

If you are trying to substitute conventional energy sources that are
available 24/7, 365 with alternatives that are only available
unpredictably, why should you be allowed to then make use of those
very sources you are trying to eliminate?

Have your cake and eat it?


They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la...than-coal.aspx


But still NONE when it's dark and that happens for a prolonged period
EVERY SINGLE DAY (it's called 'night time'). ;-)

I do concentrate my electricity usage to when the sun is shining.

And why wouldn't you, when we pay for it!

You reap what you sow and if you try to push solar (for example) down
peoples throats as some sort of utopian solution then you should be
forced to abide by it's limitations.

How about you practicing what you preach, get some electric storage in
and go completely off grid (and ideally without expecting us to have
to pay for that as well).

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 08:40:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


You have spouted this drivel before.
Are you totally thick?
The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...e-pv-panels-uk

The link you give refers to early studies published in 2004 and 2008.
A recent study published this year came to the opposite conclusion,
that in the UK ad northern Europe, solar panels never pay back the
energy invested in their manufacture. The authors are critical of
earlier attempts to calculate EROEI and methodology used.

"But the methodology for calculating the ERoEI differs greatly from
author-to-author. The main differences between solar PV Systems are
between the current ERoEI and what is called the ex-tended ERoEI
(ERoEI EXT ). The current methodology recommended by the International
Energy Agency is not strictly applicable for comparing photovoltaic
(PV) power generation with other systems. The main reasons are due to
the fact that on one hand, solar electricity is very
material-intensive, labour-intensive and capital-intensive and on the
other hand the solar radiation exhibits a rather low power density"

http://tinyurl.com/jddawbh

You pays your money and you takes your choice. If someone said the
energy payback time was six weeks in the middle of winter at the North
Pole, you'd believe it.

Harry is one of those people who pushes the benefits of an energy
solution that also happens to be a cash cow for him (at our cost) but
that he can't rely on solely and expects 'something/one else' to
provide HIM power when his panels stop working EVERY SINGLE NIGHT
(plus many more times). ;-(

It's like him pushing electric cars, not having an IC car himself but
expecting other people to keep one ready for him to hire when he needs
to travel more than 50 miles in one go (I know 'he' also has an IC car
in the same way he still expects us to keep the power flowing to him
when it's dark).

Cheers, T i m

On 01/08/16 06:52, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:13:38 -0700, harry wrote:

On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:57:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five years
in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...arbon-payback-
time-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third of
the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have a
smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are actually
providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night, assuming
the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la.../2016/june/uk-
milestone-%E2%80%93-solar-power-produces-more-electricity-than-coal.aspx

And that's a highly unbiased source - NOT.

And it's the summer, when load is light. And, looking at Gridwatch,
highly unlikely anyway.


Oh no, its trivially true. At midday in summer with no cloud cover solar
is knocking out several GW, and coal is pretty much turned off.

It is however almost meaningless. And deliberately misleading.


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:19:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/08/16 06:52, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:13:38 -0700, harry wrote:

On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:57:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five
years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...arbon-payback-
time-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third of
the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have a
smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are actually
providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night, assuming
the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la.../2016/june/uk-
milestone-%E2%80%93-solar-power-produces-more-electricity-than-
coal.aspx

And that's a highly unbiased source - NOT.

And it's the summer, when load is light. And, looking at Gridwatch,
highly unlikely anyway.


Oh no, its trivially true. At midday in summer with no cloud cover solar
is knocking out several GW, and coal is pretty much turned off.

I meant 'looking at Gridwatch over the year'.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 01/08/16 11:33, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:19:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/08/16 06:52, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:13:38 -0700, harry wrote:

On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:57:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five
years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...arbon-payback-
time-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third of
the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have a
smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are actually
providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night, assuming
the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la.../2016/june/uk-
milestone-%E2%80%93-solar-power-produces-more-electricity-than-
coal.aspx

And that's a highly unbiased source - NOT.

And it's the summer, when load is light. And, looking at Gridwatch,
highly unlikely anyway.


Oh no, its trivially true. At midday in summer with no cloud cover solar
is knocking out several GW, and coal is pretty much turned off.

I meant 'looking at Gridwatch over the year'.



Well even their article only said 'the month of May.

Its just cherry picking to spin their agenda.




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

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 01/08/2016 06:13, harry wrote:

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la...than-coal.aspx

So when its really sunny in summer and there isn't enough demand they
throttle back the coal and then solar produces more power than coal.

However those coal stations are still burning coal and producing CO2 to
cope with the clouds which disrupt solar suddenly so they need to be
kept in hot standby and of course they are needed every day when it goes
dark.

Its odd how greenies hate coal and nukes but rely on them to keep their
lights on. I agree that you should and the other greenies have a green
tariff that cuts you off when there isn't enough green energy to go
around to encourage you to understand the problems.

On 01/08/2016 09:57, T i m wrote:

How about you practicing what you preach, get some electric storage in
and go completely off grid (and ideally without expecting us to have
to pay for that as well).

There is zero chance of that as he would have to give up on his FITs
payments.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:14:46 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 01/08/2016 09:57, T i m wrote:

How about you practicing what you preach, get some electric storage in
and go completely off grid (and ideally without expecting us to have
to pay for that as well).

There is zero chance of that as he would have to give up on his FITs
payments.


Of course not as that was very much part of the reason for him having
them as a cash cow (and fleecing the rest of us).

No, if solar was even vaguely viable 'here' then people would be
queuing to install them wherever they could, at their own cost and
with no subsidies, just to save their own energy costs (and without
all this bs about saving the planet).

But of course because it's often overcast and dark every single night,
it isn't doing anything other than throwing a huge variable in the
works.

No, pay for the panels yourself, don't expect anyone to subsidise the
electricity you produce AND USE YOURSELF and sell any surplus energy
you produce back to the grid at the *std / commercial rate*. Then the
likes of harry wouldn't be considered a pariah by many.

Cheers, T i m

On 7/31/2016 1:32 PM, Steve Walker wrote:
On 31/07/2016 09:42, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Steve Walker steve@walker-
family.me.uk escribió:

My understanding as that the problems with the French reactors have been
down to delays due to strikes (particularly by welders) and faulty steel
in the pressure vessel, that failed testing and needed to be replaced.

At Flamanville they've already built the concrete containment building
around the pressure vessel, so if it's decided to condemn and replace
the vessel they need to demolish the outer containment building too.

Even so, it is still a steel problem that could apply to any design, not
specifically to this new design.


I have no information about the details. I believe that these vessels
are made of forged rings, welded together, and the concern might be with
the welds rather than the "bulk" material.

It's extraordinary what solutions people sometimes come up with when the
stakes are high enough. In the UK, some amazing repair welds were done
in-situ to the Sizewell A boiler shells.

http://www.ingenia.org.uk/Content/in...e5/Flewitt.pdf

On 7/31/2016 1:32 PM, Steve Walker wrote:
On 31/07/2016 09:42, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Steve Walker steve@walker-
family.me.uk escribió:

My understanding as that the problems with the French reactors have been
down to delays due to strikes (particularly by welders) and faulty steel
in the pressure vessel, that failed testing and needed to be replaced.

At Flamanville they've already built the concrete containment building
around the pressure vessel, so if it's decided to condemn and replace
the vessel they need to demolish the outer containment building too.

Even so, it is still a steel problem that could apply to any design, not
specifically to this new design.


I thought it was a QA failure.

On 01/08/16 14:08, newshound wrote:
On 7/31/2016 1:32 PM, Steve Walker wrote:
On 31/07/2016 09:42, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Steve Walker steve@walker-
family.me.uk escribió:

My understanding as that the problems with the French reactors have
been
down to delays due to strikes (particularly by welders) and faulty
steel
in the pressure vessel, that failed testing and needed to be replaced.

At Flamanville they've already built the concrete containment building
around the pressure vessel, so if it's decided to condemn and replace
the vessel they need to demolish the outer containment building too.

Even so, it is still a steel problem that could apply to any design, not
specifically to this new design.


I have no information about the details. I believe that these vessels
are made of forged rings, welded together, and the concern might be with
the welds rather than the "bulk" material.

It's extraordinary what solutions people sometimes come up with when the
stakes are high enough. In the UK, some amazing repair welds were done
in-situ to the Sizewell A boiler shells.

http://www.ingenia.org.uk/Content/in...e5/Flewitt.pdf

Steel and concrete that are subject to high neutron flux need to be
carefully specified.

Someone once told me of how they had to replace all the nuts (not the
bolts, thankfully) on a nuclear reactor using a robot, because all the
nuts had gone brittle with neutron capture.

IIRC something like that happened at these builds. Poor project
management meant stuff was put together before it could be checked.


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On Monday, 1 August 2016 06:52:43 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:13:38 -0700, harry wrote:

On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:57:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five years
in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...arbon-payback-
time-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third of
the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have a
smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are actually
providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night, assuming
the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la.../2016/june/uk-
milestone-%E2%80%93-solar-power-produces-more-electricity-than-coal.aspx

And that's a highly unbiased source - NOT.

And it's the summer, when load is light. And, looking at Gridwatch,
highly unlikely anyway.


--


Gridwatch is bollix.
It takes no account od 800,000 domestic solar PV installations.
Why don't you check it out from another source you brain dead ****?

On Monday, 1 August 2016 13:14:49 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2016 09:57, T i m wrote:

How about you practicing what you preach, get some electric storage in
and go completely off grid (and ideally without expecting us to have
to pay for that as well).

There is zero chance of that as he would have to give up on his FITs
payments.

No I wouldn't.

On 01/08/2016 13:12, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2016 06:13, harry wrote:

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la...than-coal.aspx


So when its really sunny in summer and there isn't enough demand they
throttle back the coal and then solar produces more power than coal.

However those coal stations are still burning coal and producing CO2 to
cope with the clouds which disrupt solar suddenly so they need to be
kept in hot standby and of course they are needed every day when it goes
dark.

Its odd how greenies hate coal and nukes but rely on them to keep their
lights on. I agree that you should and the other greenies have a green
tariff that cuts you off when there isn't enough green energy to go
around to encourage you to understand the problems.

Similar to what I have proposed a number of times concerning nuclear
power - a national vote and if it is voted against, then those voting
against are first to be cut off whenever there is a shortage of supply.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 09:35:20 -0700, harry wrote:

On Monday, 1 August 2016 06:52:43 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:13:38 -0700, harry wrote:

On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:57:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five
years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...arbon-payback-
time-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third
of the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have
a smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are
actually providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night,
assuming the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la.../2016/june/uk-
milestone-%E2%80%93-solar-power-produces-more-electricity-than-
coal.aspx

And that's a highly unbiased source - NOT.

And it's the summer, when load is light. And, looking at Gridwatch,
highly unlikely anyway.


--


Gridwatch is bollix.
It takes no account od 800,000 domestic solar PV installations. Why
don't you check it out from another source you brain dead ****?

The source is still biased. What about last December, when the wind was
generating about 0.1GW (no wind), it was bitterly cold, and the coal
stations were going flat out?



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 01/08/2016 17:36, harry wrote:
On Monday, 1 August 2016 13:14:49 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2016 09:57, T i m wrote:

How about you practicing what you preach, get some electric storage in
and go completely off grid (and ideally without expecting us to have
to pay for that as well).

There is zero chance of that as he would have to give up on his FITs
payments.

No I wouldn't.


I see you admit that you wouldn't do it.

On Monday, 1 August 2016 21:44:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2016 17:36, harry wrote:
On Monday, 1 August 2016 13:14:49 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2016 09:57, T i m wrote:

How about you practicing what you preach, get some electric storage in
and go completely off grid (and ideally without expecting us to have
to pay for that as well).

There is zero chance of that as he would have to give up on his FITs
payments.

No I wouldn't.


I see you admit that you wouldn't do it.

What I mean ****-fer-brains, is having a battery system does not mean I can't get the FIT payment.

In fact I do, it's in my electric car.

On Monday, 1 August 2016 10:15:59 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 08:40:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


You have spouted this drivel before.
Are you totally thick?
The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...e-pv-panels-uk

The link you give refers to early studies published in 2004 and 2008.
A recent study published this year came to the opposite conclusion,
that in the UK ad northern Europe, solar panels never pay back the
energy invested in their manufacture. The authors are critical of
earlier attempts to calculate EROEI and methodology used.

"But the methodology for calculating the ERoEI differs greatly from
author-to-author. The main differences between solar PV Systems are
between the current ERoEI and what is called the ex-tended ERoEI
(ERoEI EXT ). The current methodology recommended by the International
Energy Agency is not strictly applicable for comparing photovoltaic
(PV) power generation with other systems. The main reasons are due to
the fact that on one hand, solar electricity is very
material-intensive, labour-intensive and capital-intensive and on the
other hand the solar radiation exhibits a rather low power density"

http://tinyurl.com/jddawbh

You pays your money and you takes your choice. If someone said the
energy payback time was six weeks in the middle of winter at the North
Pole, you'd believe it.

Harry is one of those people who pushes the benefits of an energy
solution that also happens to be a cash cow for him (at our cost) but
that he can't rely on solely and expects 'something/one else' to
provide HIM power when his panels stop working EVERY SINGLE NIGHT
(plus many more times). ;-(

It's like him pushing electric cars, not having an IC car himself but
expecting other people to keep one ready for him to hire when he needs
to travel more than 50 miles in one go (I know 'he' also has an IC car
in the same way he still expects us to keep the power flowing to him
when it's dark).

How do you personally keep the power flowing?
Oh you don't, you just sit on your arse and pontificate.

I have an ICE car as well as an electric car.
Infrequently used.

I have frequently explained to you how renewable energy works but you are too thick to understand.

On 02/08/2016 08:33, harry wrote:
On Monday, 1 August 2016 21:44:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2016 17:36, harry wrote:
On Monday, 1 August 2016 13:14:49 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2016 09:57, T i m wrote:

How about you practicing what you preach, get some electric storage in
and go completely off grid (and ideally without expecting us to have
to pay for that as well).

There is zero chance of that as he would have to give up on his FITs
payments.

No I wouldn't.


I see you admit that you wouldn't do it.

What I mean ****-fer-brains, is having a battery system does not mean I can't get the FIT payment.

In fact I do, it's in my electric car.


More cr@p from harry as he tries to avoid the point.

On 02/08/2016 08:38, harry wrote:

I have frequently explained to you how renewable energy works but you are too thick to understand.


We have repeatedly explained how renewable energy works but you are too
thick to understand, as you are for everything else to do with energy
generation.

On 01/08/16 21:03, Bob Eager wrote:
Gridwatch is bollix.
It takes no account od 800,000 domestic solar PV installations. Why
don't you check it out from another source you brain dead ****?

actually it dies take account, but points out that no reliable real time
figures exist for those panels, so no one really knows what they are
producing.

The source is still biased. What about last December, when the wind was
generating about 0.1GW (no wind), it was bitterly cold, and the coal
stations were going flat out?

Harry wont answer that.


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 01/08/16 22:16, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 09:35:20 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


Gridwatch is bollix.
It takes no account od 800,000 domestic solar PV installations.
Why don't you check it out from another source you brain dead ****?

Gridwatch isn't 'bollix' Harry, but it is incomplete, simply because
the data isn't available on a minute by minute basis.

FWIW

In 2015, the UK PV capacity was 8,915MW and the amount of PV
electricity generated was 7,556GWh. This gives an average load factor
over the year of 9.7%, about what's expected.
http://tinyurl.com/jcvk9g8

Government stats give the total number of PV installations in the UK
in June 2016 as 887,992 with a total capacity of 10,487MW
http://tinyurl.com/j7cypmt Assuming the same load factor as in 2015,
gives an average PV generation in 2016 as 1.02GW (10,487x9.7/100).
Average UK electricity generation, not including solar, for the period
July 2015 to June 2016 was 32.4GW http://tinyurl.com/z3k7ucp Adding
the PV figures gives a combined total of 33.4GW, of which 3% is from
PV.

3% is not trivial, but it's not massive either. It's the equivalent of
a medium capacity power station, except that it can't _replace_ such a
station, because you need that station for when PV isn't performing,
which is every day.

E&OE

...or rather every night....


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

En el artículo ,
newshound escribió:

I thought it was a QA failure.

I thought so too. Too high carbon content in some of the steel.

google:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...-vessel-tests-
extended-1404165.html

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 00:33:47 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Monday, 1 August 2016 21:44:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2016 17:36, harry wrote:
On Monday, 1 August 2016 13:14:49 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2016 09:57, T i m wrote:

How about you practicing what you preach, get some electric storage in
and go completely off grid (and ideally without expecting us to have
to pay for that as well).

There is zero chance of that as he would have to give up on his FITs
payments.

No I wouldn't.


I see you admit that you wouldn't do it.

What I mean ****-fer-brains, is having a battery system does not mean I can't get the FIT payment.

Quite, so, go off grid and demonstrate you aren't having your cake and
eating it. Oh you can't can you because you are!

In fact I do, it's in my electric car.

Cool, even less reason why you can't go off grid then eh?

Oh yes there is, you want to be able to drive your car *and* use
electricity in your house so to do that you will carry on using
traditional energy sources when your Fantasy Panels aren't doing
anything (so that's 'at least' every night +) whilst getting us to pay
for your energy you use from them when the sun does shine.

But we know you really know that PV isn't a viable solution at this
latitude and you only went for it when you did (and probably wouldn't
go for it now, proving my point) as an income stream. Like a reverse
Robin Hood (as he robbed from the rich).

I don't blame you, it's not your fault you didn't fully understand who
was paying for it or if you did, that your moral compass was broken.
;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:18:14 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 02/08/2016 08:38, harry wrote:

I have frequently explained to you how renewable energy works but you are too thick to understand.


We have repeatedly explained how renewable energy works but you are too
thick to understand, as you are for everything else to do with energy
generation.

That's the problem with people 'like that', they think because they
*think* they have it right, everyone else is wrong and it confuses
them that no matter how many times they repeat their BS, no one seems
to 'understand' any better?

However, there really isn't anything to understand is there.

Solar panels only work when there is light on them. At night there is
no light so there is no power. ZERO.

Wind turbines only work when the wing is blowing over them (and even
then only over a fairly small range of speeds). So, when the wind
isn't blowing there is NO POWER.

So, I wonder where Harry (and his kind) think the power is going to
come from when it's dark and when the wind isn't blowing?

It seems he want's his cake and to eat it too, pretty common amongst
greedy / selfish and / or stupid people of course.

He expects other people to provide power for him (sources that *are*
available 24/7, 365) whilst knocking their ethics, when his system
useless.

I wonder if he was a single child as they often don't have a very good
idea of 'sharing'. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:06:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/07/16 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:
See Chris Hogg's comments in another post about costs. Don't imagine
that so-called renewables are such a good deal.
True costs of renewables is, with the backup and grid enhancements at
least 2p a unit more than the headline cost of building them.

And then there's the hidden environmental costs.


http://savetheeaglesinternational.or...y-thought.html

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
However, there really isn't anything to understand is there.

Solar panels only work when there is light on them. At night there is
no light so there is no power. ZERO.

Wind turbines only work when the wing is blowing over them (and even
then only over a fairly small range of speeds). So, when the wind
isn't blowing there is NO POWER.

And conventional power stations only work when there is fuel for them.
Remember the 3 day week?

So, I wonder where Harry (and his kind) think the power is going to
come from when it's dark and when the wind isn't blowing?

Well, the wind may not be blowing round your way. But may well be
elsewhere. As with the sun shining.

In rather the same way as the amount of power you consume at home isn't
the same at all times. You probably only use a tiny amount when asleep,
for example.

I really can't see what the problem is having a variety of types of power
generation. They all have both pros and cons.

--
*Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *

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

On 02/08/2016 14:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
However, there really isn't anything to understand is there.

Solar panels only work when there is light on them. At night there is
no light so there is no power. ZERO.

Wind turbines only work when the wing is blowing over them (and even
then only over a fairly small range of speeds). So, when the wind
isn't blowing there is NO POWER.

And conventional power stations only work when there is fuel for them.
Remember the 3 day week?

That was when the NUM decided there should be an end to coal mining in
the UK.

On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 09:39:52 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/08/16 21:03, Bob Eager wrote:
Gridwatch is bollix.
It takes no account od 800,000 domestic solar PV installations. Why
don't you check it out from another source you brain dead ****?

actually it dies take account, but points out that no reliable real time
figures exist for those panels, so no one really knows what they are
producing.

The source is still biased. What about last December, when the wind was
generating about 0.1GW (no wind), it was bitterly cold, and the coal
stations were going flat out?

Harry wont answer that.

No real time figures are available.
The amount generated is derived from meter readings submitted to the power suppliers.

On Monday, 1 August 2016 21:03:06 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 09:35:20 -0700, harry wrote:

On Monday, 1 August 2016 06:52:43 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:13:38 -0700, harry wrote:

On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:57:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The average PV installation covers it's embodied energy in five
years in the UK.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/...arbon-payback-
time-pv-panels-uk

Shame they won't be actually producing any energy for over a third
of the same period. ;-(

It's the same with these so called 'green' energy suppliers. If you
sign up with one of them (for the ethics) I think you *should* have
a smart meter and only be connected to the grid when they are
actually providing 'green' energy.

Then *you* might invest in some of your own energy storage or put up
with having the lights off most nights (and not every night,
assuming the wind is still blowing *somewhere*).

Cheers, T i m

Full of **** as usualaren't you?

They produce more electricity than coal nowadays in the UK.
http://www.solarsense-uk.com/news/la.../2016/june/uk-
milestone-%E2%80%93-solar-power-produces-more-electricity-than-
coal.aspx

And that's a highly unbiased source - NOT.

And it's the summer, when load is light. And, looking at Gridwatch,
highly unlikely anyway.


--


Gridwatch is bollix.
It takes no account od 800,000 domestic solar PV installations. Why
don't you check it out from another source you brain dead ****?

The source is still biased. What about last December, when the wind was
generating about 0.1GW (no wind), it was bitterly cold, and the coal
stations were going flat out?

That is when we need gas derived power.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 02/08/2016 14:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
However, there really isn't anything to understand is there.

Solar panels only work when there is light on them. At night there is
no light so there is no power. ZERO.

Wind turbines only work when the wing is blowing over them (and even
then only over a fairly small range of speeds). So, when the wind
isn't blowing there is NO POWER.

And conventional power stations only work when there is fuel for them.
Remember the 3 day week?

That was when the NUM decided there should be an end to coal mining in
the UK.

And most of our fuel now comes from abroad, so totally secure. You think?

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:11:19 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
However, there really isn't anything to understand is there.

Solar panels only work when there is light on them. At night there is
no light so there is no power. ZERO.

Wind turbines only work when the wing is blowing over them (and even
then only over a fairly small range of speeds). So, when the wind
isn't blowing there is NO POWER.

And conventional power stations only work when there is fuel for them.
Remember the 3 day week?

How does that lack of availability compare with nighttime or windless
days OOI Dave? ;-)

So, I wonder where Harry (and his kind) think the power is going to
come from when it's dark and when the wind isn't blowing?

Well, the wind may not be blowing round your way. But may well be
elsewhere. As with the sun shining.

Sue, if we cover the globe with sufficient 'green' power and connect
it to a worldwide grid then you could be right. Not sure how the UK
leaving Europe will help that, well, less we also have superconductors
that will span the Atlantic etc. ;-)

In rather the same way as the amount of power you consume at home isn't
the same at all times. You probably only use a tiny amount when asleep,
for example.

Quite. Luckily that's also when the sun isn't shining (here).

I really can't see what the problem is having a variety of types of power
generation. They all have both pros and cons.

Of course, however, if *any* of these alternatives are never a net
energy pollution benefit then should they exist in the first place?

How would you market a machine that gave an output 750W and that took
the equivalent of 1000W to make it work?

Now, I'm not saying that we should be looking for or use *real* energy
efficient replacements, just most of what we have so far aren't it.

Like, if harry with his big place and cash to splash on covering his
roof in solar collectors, can't live 'off grid' (even ignoring the
cost or the ecology) then how could anyone in the UK not living like a
caveman ever expect to not rely on the current range of reliable
energy sources (with the current alternatives available).

Cheers, T i m

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
T i m wrote

However, there really isn't anything to understand is there.

Solar panels only work when there is light on them.
At night there is no light so there is no power. ZERO.

Wind turbines only work when the wing is blowing over
them (and even then only over a fairly small range of speeds).
So, when the wind isn't blowing there is NO POWER.

And conventional power stations only work when there is fuel for them.
Remember the 3 day week?

Not a problem with nukes.

So, I wonder where Harry (and his kind) think the power is going
to come from when it's dark and when the wind isn't blowing?

Well, the wind may not be blowing round your way.
But may well be elsewhere.

But quite a bit of the time the entire country isnt
seeing anything like enough power from all the
wind systems to provide what the country is using.

As with the sun shining.

Even you should have noticed that it doesn’t enough to matter for
anything like a third to a half of very day depending on the season.

In rather the same way as the amount of power you
consume at home isn't the same at all times. You probably
only use a tiny amount when asleep, for example.

Its more complicated than that for the country as a whole
and that is what matters power generation wise.

I really can't see what the problem is having a variety of types of power
generation.

The problem with all the alternatives to coal and nukes is that
you have to have the coal fired and nukes to provide the power
when the others are currently producing **** all and with nukes
you might as well just have those and not bother with the other
stuff given that the marginal fuel costs are **** all with nukes.

They all have both pros and cons.

The only real pros are when the national grid isnt economically
feasible to have at a particular location and the power needed
is quite low. One the grid is there, none of the alternatives to
the grid are worth having, which is why non one except complete
loons bother with them if there is no subsidy involved.

And everything except nukes **** the environment pretty comprehensively.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
T i m wrote

Solar panels only work when there is light on them.
At night there is no light so there is no power. ZERO.

Wind turbines only work when the wing is blowing over them
(and even then only over a fairly small range of speeds). So,
when the wind isn't blowing there is NO POWER.

And conventional power stations only work when
there is fuel for them. Remember the 3 day week?

That was when the NUM decided there should
be an end to coal mining in the UK.

And most of our fuel now comes from abroad, so totally secure. You think?

Secure enough given that there are multiple sources and some
like Australia that is politically stable enough that even when
Britain chooses to leave the EU it doesn’t apply sanctions etc.

And with nukes, they need refuelling so infrequently that
even you incompetent clowns can keep some in stock so
that even when much of the world financial system implodes
completely you can just use what you have in stock when you
are fresh out of cash to pay for more fuel.

On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 18:17:26 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 02/08/2016 14:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
However, there really isn't anything to understand is there.

Solar panels only work when there is light on them. At night there is
no light so there is no power. ZERO.

Wind turbines only work when the wing is blowing over them (and even
then only over a fairly small range of speeds). So, when the wind
isn't blowing there is NO POWER.

And conventional power stations only work when there is fuel for them.
Remember the 3 day week?

That was when the NUM decided there should be an end to coal mining in
the UK.

And most of our fuel now comes from abroad, so totally secure. You think?


Another advantage of renewable energy.