http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7193576.html

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-
global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


I'm sure TNP will comment on his own good time but on that..

But from that..


Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett said: €œThis is excellent news.
Offshore wind is a fast-growing source of green energy, and one which
the UK should be tapping into much more.

"As it becomes increasingly clear that Hinkley Point C is a white
elephant which will not meet the UK's energy needs, the government must
instead direct resources to renewable sources like wind, the price of
which is falling rapidly while the cost of building new nuclear
facilities mounts."


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still think
that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind blowing to
cover the shortfall.

Just how to prats like her get into influential positions like that
where other guvvermint wallys take notice of them?.



Last one turn out the lights purlesse!...



Oh! there're out!, so let me light a few candles, much nicer light
Dontcha tink;?...
--
Tony Sayer

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:53:47 +0100
tony sayer wrote:

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-
global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


I'm sure TNP will comment on his own good time but on that..

But from that..


Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett said: €œThis is excellent news.
Offshore wind is a fast-growing source of green energy, and one which
the UK should be tapping into much more.

"As it becomes increasingly clear that Hinkley Point C is a white
elephant which will not meet the UK's energy needs, the government
must instead direct resources to renewable sources like wind, the
price of which is falling rapidly while the cost of building new
nuclear facilities mounts."


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still
think that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind
blowing to cover the shortfall.

Just how to prats like her get into influential positions like that
where other guvvermint wallys take notice of them?.

snip

She forgets to mention the cost of Hornsea 1 power, as agreed, at
£140 per megawatt-hr.

--
Davey.

On 16/08/16 23:42, Davey wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:53:47 +0100
tony sayer wrote:

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-
global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


Just how to prats like her get into influential positions like that
where other guvvermint wallys take notice of them?.

snip

She forgets to mention the cost of Hornsea 1 power, as agreed, at
£140 per megawatt-hr.

Of course.


Makes Hinckley point look like a good deal.

Especially when the cots of stabilising that windpower is at least
another £22/Mwh. Then the cost of the extra grid...the real cost of wind
is probably nearer £200/Mwh. Yis folks every time that turbine turns
your smart meter clocks up £0.25p a unit.



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

En el artículo , Davey
escribió:

She forgets to mention the cost of Hornsea 1 power, as agreed, at
£140 per megawatt-hr.

Ouch!!!

Makes juice from Hinkley C look like a bargain. I really, really hope
we cancel it and stick two fingers up at the Chinese. Untrustworthy
****s.

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

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:53:47 +0100
tony sayer wrote:

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-
global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


I'm sure TNP will comment on his own good time but on that..

But from that..


Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett said: €œThis is excellent news.
Offshore wind is a fast-growing source of green energy, and one which
the UK should be tapping into much more.

"As it becomes increasingly clear that Hinkley Point C is a white
elephant which will not meet the UK's energy needs, the government
must instead direct resources to renewable sources like wind, the
price of which is falling rapidly while the cost of building new
nuclear facilities mounts."


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still
think that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind
blowing to cover the shortfall.

Just how to prats like her get into influential positions like that
where other guvvermint wallys take notice of them?.

snip

She forgets to mention the cost of Hornsea 1 power, as agreed, at
£140 per megawatt-hr.

That was then...

according to the TV report the new farm will be much more efficient (and
presumably will cost much less - though no number was mentioned)

Though doesn't negate the other problems, I agree

tim

On 17/08/16 10:49, tim... wrote:

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:53:47 +0100
tony sayer wrote:

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-

global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


I'm sure TNP will comment on his own good time but on that..

But from that..


Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett said: €œThis is excellent news.
Offshore wind is a fast-growing source of green energy, and one which
the UK should be tapping into much more.

"As it becomes increasingly clear that Hinkley Point C is a white
elephant which will not meet the UK's energy needs, the government
must instead direct resources to renewable sources like wind, the
price of which is falling rapidly while the cost of building new
nuclear facilities mounts."


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still
think that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind
blowing to cover the shortfall.

Just how to prats like her get into influential positions like that
where other guvvermint wallys take notice of them?.

snip

She forgets to mention the cost of Hornsea 1 power, as agreed, at
£140 per megawatt-hr.

That was then...

according to the TV report the new farm will be much more efficient (and
presumably will cost much less - though no number was mentioned)

Exactly. Windmills haven't fallen in price. Offshore its £3billion per
GW nameplate capacity

At around 35% capacity factor. And a lifetime of less than 25 years.

Contrasts Hinkley at around £6bn per GW., and 90% capacity factor. And a
40 year minimum life.


Though doesn't negate the other problems, I agree

tim




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

Josef Stalin

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/16 10:49, tim... wrote:

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:53:47 +0100
tony sayer wrote:

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-

global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


I'm sure TNP will comment on his own good time but on that..

But from that..


Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett said: €œThis is excellent news.
Offshore wind is a fast-growing source of green energy, and one which
the UK should be tapping into much more.

"As it becomes increasingly clear that Hinkley Point C is a white
elephant which will not meet the UK's energy needs, the government
must instead direct resources to renewable sources like wind, the
price of which is falling rapidly while the cost of building new
nuclear facilities mounts."


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still
think that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind
blowing to cover the shortfall.

Just how to prats like her get into influential positions like that
where other guvvermint wallys take notice of them?.

snip

She forgets to mention the cost of Hornsea 1 power, as agreed, at
£140 per megawatt-hr.

That was then...

according to the TV report the new farm will be much more efficient (and
presumably will cost much less - though no number was mentioned)

Exactly. Windmills haven't fallen in price.

but they have, that as the point of the news report.

Offshore its £3billion per GW nameplate capacity

At around 35% capacity factor. And a lifetime of less than 25 years.

only for the turbine. The tower construction, and the distribution system,
which I suspect is a major part in the cost will be good for much longer
with a replacement turbine in place.

tim

On 17/08/16 12:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Exactly. Windmills haven't fallen in price. Offshore its £3billion
per GW nameplate capacity

At around 35% capacity factor.

Does this mean that you'll never see more than 350MW from this lot,
given optimum conditions all round?

No it means it will average 350MW.

And a lifetime of less than 25 years.

Contrasts Hinkley at around £6bn per GW., and 90% capacity factor. And
a 40 year minimum life.



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

Josef Stalin

On 17/08/16 13:52, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:40:51 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Exactly. Windmills haven't fallen in price. Offshore its £3billion per
GW nameplate capacity

At around 35% capacity factor.

Does this mean that you'll never see more than 350MW from this lot,
given optimum conditions all round?


They _claim_ they're going to get an annual 4.1TWh from H-1,
(http://tinyurl.com/ztsua4s last line of that section). H-1 has a
boilerplate capacity of 1.2GW, so 4.1TWh per annum corresponds to an
average power output of 468GW. So a capacity factor of 39%.
Optimistic? Who knows; only time will tell.

IF the damned turbines dont break they might just scrape that offshore.

But the turbines are always failing. Its ghastly conditions to operate
machinery like 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 Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:49:36 +0100
"tim..." wrote:

She forgets to mention the cost of Hornsea 1 power, as agreed, at
£140 per megawatt-hr.

That was then...

But is still the price they will be paid. Unless it gets increased to
account for inflation.

--
Davey.

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:49:36 +0100
"tim..." wrote:

She forgets to mention the cost of Hornsea 1 power, as agreed, at
£140 per megawatt-hr.

That was then...

But is still the price they will be paid. Unless it gets increased to
account for inflation.

The point is it's the agreed price for H1.

The agreed price for H2 could be anything

The assumption that it is the same as H1 is false.

timn

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:41:35 +0100
Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:32:21 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:49:36 +0100
"tim..." wrote:

She forgets to mention the cost of Hornsea 1 power, as agreed, at
£140 per megawatt-hr.

That was then...

But is still the price they will be paid. Unless it gets increased to
account for inflation.

AIUI all strike prices (aka Contracts for Difference, CfD) are index
linked. This, from http://tinyurl.com/za5q6ll p.22

"4.21. In the November CfD Heads of Term we indicated that the CfD
strike price would be indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
either wholly or partially. In the EMR Spending Review Announcement of
June 2013 we confirmed that the CfD strike price would be fully
indexed in line with CPI throughout the entire term of the CfD."


So it will always be the same multiple of the price of Hinckley Point's
power that it started out at.

--
Davey.

On 16/08/16 21:53, tony sayer wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-
global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


Ah. I see that a twice-as-expensive-as-nuclear guaranteed subsidy for a
frantically useless and intermittent source has bent the accountants in
favour of a vast white elephant.

Twas ever thus.

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 16/08/2016 21:53, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-
global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still think
that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind blowing to
cover the shortfall.



According to the BBC text news, it will supply power for 2 million
homes. I don't think so, not even in a gale.

On 17/08/16 11:04, Andrew wrote:
On 16/08/2016 21:53, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-

global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still think
that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind blowing to
cover the shortfall.



According to the BBC text news, it will supply power for 2 million
homes. I don't think so, not even in a gale.

Homes don't take that much electricity to run.

IIRC is around 15kWh/day.

lets say 24kwh, so about a Kw average, so two millions homes is 4GW.

Well that's the peak output of the farm..so its the usual green fraud, of

(a) making a big number of homes, which are not the major consumers of
leccy and
(b) using the word 'could' so as to quote peak power, not average power and
(c) leaving out intermittency, by not saying that a wind farm this size
could supply no homes at all, in calm weather.



--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:04:33 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 16/08/2016 21:53, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-
global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still think
that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind blowing to
cover the shortfall.



According to the BBC text news, it will supply power for 2 million
homes. I don't think so, not even in a gale.

Certainly not in a gale - they will shut down.

But Ofgem reckons the average medium sized house uses 3,100kWh per
year http://tinyurl.com/h9kz4w7 , or an average rate of 0.353kW. The
average output from Hornsea 2 will be 0.7GW, allowing for a claimed
39% load factor on 1.8GW, so they can reasonably claim to be able to
supply 2 million homes at the 0.353kW rate (1.98 million homes to be
exact, if one can be exact about these things). On the same basis,
Hornsea 1 will supply a little over 1 million homes. But that's the
trouble with averages like that in this situation. They tell you
nothing about the doldrum days.

As an aside, and answering my own question about whether Dong Energy

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/d.htm

is actually Chinese, Dong apparently stands for Danish Oil and Natural
Gas, and is 76% owned by the Danish government. But coincidentally,
Dong in Chinese means East, which would also be appropriate if they
were Chinese-funded.

Chris Hogg posted
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:04:33 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 16/08/2016 21:53, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...indfarm-climat
e-change-
global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still think
that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind blowing to
cover the shortfall.



According to the BBC text news, it will supply power for 2 million
homes. I don't think so, not even in a gale.

Certainly not in a gale - they will shut down.

But Ofgem reckons the average medium sized house uses 3,100kWh per
year http://tinyurl.com/h9kz4w7 , or an average rate of 0.353kW. The
average output from Hornsea 2 will be 0.7GW, allowing for a claimed
39% load factor on 1.8GW, so they can reasonably claim to be able to
supply 2 million homes at the 0.353kW rate (1.98 million homes to be
exact, if one can be exact about these things). On the same basis,
Hornsea 1 will supply a little over 1 million homes. But that's the
trouble with averages like that in this situation. They tell you
nothing about the doldrum days.

Or peak demand. Presumably that 0.353kW average demand per home is
averaged across time as well as homes. So if there are times of day when
everybody has things running full blast the total demand is much higher.
And that peak demand figure is what the grid has to be built to deliver.

--
Les

I find I get quite a bit of wind when out at see on a boat, sadly it is not
the useful kind.
B Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...limate-change-
global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html


I'm sure TNP will comment on his own good time but on that..

But from that..


Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett said: "This is excellent news.
Offshore wind is a fast-growing source of green energy, and one which
the UK should be tapping into much more.

"As it becomes increasingly clear that Hinkley Point C is a white
elephant which will not meet the UK's energy needs, the government must
instead direct resources to renewable sources like wind, the price of
which is falling rapidly while the cost of building new nuclear
facilities mounts."


Course what the silly green moo forgets that on days like today the
freaking wind output is sod all so on windless days and they still think
that a few offshore wind farms will have sufficient wind blowing to
cover the shortfall.

Just how to prats like her get into influential positions like that
where other guvvermint wallys take notice of them?.



Last one turn out the lights purlesse!...



Oh! there're out!, so let me light a few candles, much nicer light
Dontcha tink;?...
--
Tony Sayer

On 17/08/16 09:12, Chris Hogg wrote:
Is
there a secret government agenda here, to go for lots of wind-power
backed up by OCGT's to cope with the doldrum days, that we mere
mortals know nothing about?

Its not that secret.
Government is prepared to pay for capacity, no matter how cheap.

Interesting thing of course.

The study done on the Irish grid shows that half the potential carbon
savings from wind were lost due to the increase in inefficiency of CCGT
kit run in "whores' drawers" mode.

Replacing that CCGT with half-the-efficiency OCGT means that all those
windmills won't reduce CO2 emissions one iota...chuck in some Diesel
plant and its probable that the net effect of the windmills will be to
increase emissions overall.


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On 19/08/16 19:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:49:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 17/08/16 09:12, Chris Hogg wrote:
Is
there a secret government agenda here, to go for lots of wind-power
backed up by OCGT's to cope with the doldrum days, that we mere
mortals know nothing about?

Its not that secret.
Government is prepared to pay for capacity, no matter how cheap.

Interesting thing of course.

The study done on the Irish grid shows that half the potential carbon
savings from wind were lost due to the increase in inefficiency of CCGT
kit run in "whores' drawers" mode.

Replacing that CCGT with half-the-efficiency OCGT means that all those
windmills won't reduce CO2 emissions one iota...chuck in some Diesel
plant and its probable that the net effect of the windmills will be to
increase emissions overall.

I was surprised this evening to hear on our local SW News that a
farmer had recently applied for PP to install 20MW of diesel
generation on his farm in North Cornwall, to supply the grid at times
of peak demand, i.e. short term operating reserve, STOR, and that such
a system had already been installed in Plymouth. While most green
energy schemes are wholly misguided, and these STOR schemes are the
unintended consequences of such schemes, it does strike me that they
are the worst of all possible solutions. Surely even OCGTs would be
more efficient, CO2 per kWh-wise. OK so diesel plants have virtually
instant start-up, but even OCGTs must be almost as fast, a few minutes
at most. Some background info here http://tinyurl.com/hshs395

Of course. All our energy policies are the worst of all possible solutions.

That's greens, thats politics.


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