http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7344326.html

Plus:-
How to get paid twice for electricity in the future.
Already happening in Germany.
Possible new source of income?

Is this why all those people who had panels installed are now being pestered
to have local storage installed as well. My friends say the way its being
explained makes no sense to them, how can inefficient batteries, for this is
what they are one assumes, actually make you more subsidy and or save money
more than feeding excess back into the grid?
It sounds bonkers to me.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7344326.html

Plus:-
How to get paid twice for electricity in the future.
Already happening in Germany.
Possible new source of income?

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:01:07 PM UTC+1, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Is this why all those people who had panels installed are now being pestered
to have local storage installed as well. My friends say the way its being
explained makes no sense to them, how can inefficient batteries, for this is
what they are one assumes, actually make you more subsidy and or save money
more than feeding excess back into the grid?
It sounds bonkers to me.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7344326.html

Plus:-
How to get paid twice for electricity in the future.
Already happening in Germany.
Possible new source of income?

I thought you got paid for the energy that your panels generated regardless of whether it got fed back into the grid or you used it. That might explain it.

But who checks it? Surely this sort of idea is very easy to fiddle by simply
feeding the same power through it twice thenm once from the cells then again
from the battery.
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:01:07 PM UTC+1, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Is this why all those people who had panels installed are now being
pestered
to have local storage installed as well. My friends say the way its being
explained makes no sense to them, how can inefficient batteries, for this
is
what they are one assumes, actually make you more subsidy and or save
money
more than feeding excess back into the grid?
It sounds bonkers to me.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7344326.html

Plus:-
How to get paid twice for electricity in the future.
Already happening in Germany.
Possible new source of income?

I thought you got paid for the energy that your panels generated
regardless of whether it got fed back into the grid or you used it. That
might explain it.

Its because you are paid for the electricity you generate, regardless of how much you use, if any, so if you can use all of it all too by storing it and using it when needed you save on electricity bills too
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:01:07 PM UTC+1, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Is this why all those people who had panels installed are now being pestered
to have local storage installed as well. My friends say the way its being
explained makes no sense to them, how can inefficient batteries, for this is
what they are one assumes, actually make you more subsidy and or save money
more than feeding excess back into the grid?
It sounds bonkers to me.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7344326.html

Plus:-
How to get paid twice for electricity in the future.
Already happening in Germany.
Possible new source of income?

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:01:07 UTC+1, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Is this why all those people who had panels installed are now being pestered
to have local storage installed as well. My friends say the way its being
explained makes no sense to them, how can inefficient batteries, for this is
what they are one assumes, actually make you more subsidy and or save money
more than feeding excess back into the grid?
It sounds bonkers to me.

Only because you don't understand it.
Your friends must be pretty thick.
FIT payments are for power generated, not power exported.
So, even if you use the power generated yourself, you still get paid for it.
So if you can store some of the power generated in batteries, you can use it later. So cutting back on your (imported) electricity bill.

Looked at it myself.
For the money saved,the outlay is far too great.
However who knows at some time in the future?

In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or store) it.
You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and get paid.
Thus you get paid twice.
Once for importing, and once for exporting.
Now that should encourage people to install batteries thus solving the intermittancy problem!

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:01:07 UTC+1, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Is this why all those people who had panels installed are now being pestered
to have local storage installed as well. My friends say the way its being
explained makes no sense to them, how can inefficient batteries, for this is
what they are one assumes, actually make you more subsidy and or save money
more than feeding excess back into the grid?
It sounds bonkers to me.

Only because you don't understand it.
Your friends must be pretty thick.

Or maybe they are simply question the morality of such a system and
can't believe they have it right?

FIT payments are for power generated, not power exported.

Or 'My cash cow as I spit on other electricity users' (as you call
it).

So, even if you use the power generated yourself, you still get paid for it.

Brilliant. Was it some offspring of the person who first though
selling the idea that sucking cigarette smoke into your lungs would be
a 'good earner' by any chance?

So if you can store some of the power generated in batteries, you can use it later. So cutting back on your (imported) electricity bill.

Win win (and even more spit for the rest of us). ;-(

Looked at it myself.
For the money saved,the outlay is far too great.

What about the money earned ... after all, I'm sure *we* can all
manage a bit more for you?

However who knows at some time in the future?

Well, hopefully this whole FIT BS was an EU thing and once we are out
it will be scrapped for the immoral thief it is and you will be forced
to pay us our money back! Hurrah!

In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or store) it.

Who is 'they' in their case OOI? Is it other electricity consumers
(who were never asked if it would be acceptable (for good reason
obviously)) like it is over here?

You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and get paid.

That's fine. Being paid for any energy you supply TO the grid and at
std commercial rates makes some sense (assuming we aren't standing
down other generation to compensate that).

Thus you get paid twice.
Once for importing, and once for exporting.

That sounds sensible (not).

Now that should encourage people to install batteries thus solving the intermittancy problem!

But not any of the moral or environmental problems? Not that any of
that bothers you of course, too busy counting our money .... (for now
anyway) weg

Cheers, T i m

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:01:07 UTC+1, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Is this why all those people who had panels installed are now being
pestered
to have local storage installed as well. My friends say the way its being
explained makes no sense to them, how can inefficient batteries, for this
is
what they are one assumes, actually make you more subsidy and or save
money
more than feeding excess back into the grid?
It sounds bonkers to me.

Only because you don't understand it.
Your friends must be pretty thick.
FIT payments are for power generated, not power exported.
So, even if you use the power generated yourself, you still get paid for
it.
So if you can store some of the power generated in batteries, you can use
it later. So cutting back on your (imported) electricity bill.

Looked at it myself.
For the money saved,the outlay is far too great.
However who knows at some time in the future?

In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or
store) it.
You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and get
paid.
Thus you get paid twice.
Once for importing, and once for exporting.

Now that should encourage people to install batteries

And produce obscene electricity prices which will **** industry big time.

thus solving the intermittancy problem!

Nope, because its never going to be economic to have
enough batterys to power the heating and aircon etc.

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:24:30 UTC+1, harry wrote:

In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or store) it.
You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and get paid.
Thus you get paid twice.
Once for importing, and once for exporting.
Now that should encourage people to install batteries thus solving the intermittancy problem!

It hasn't a hope of solving that problem, or even making a noticeable difference. A little basic maths will show you how unrealistic such an idea is.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:24:30 UTC+1, harry wrote:

In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or
store) it.
You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and get
paid.
Thus you get paid twice.
Once for importing, and once for exporting.
Now that should encourage people to install batteries thus solving the
intermittancy problem!

It hasn't a hope of solving that problem, or even making a noticeable
difference. A little basic maths will show you how unrealistic such an
idea is.


Except that it isn't mathematically unrealistic.

There is enough power in the sun for each person to collect enough power to
satisfy their own personal needs (including charging up their electric car)
if we have a means to store it across the "dark" periods of the day/year.

Ditto for the majority of companies who don't use electricity as a "raw
material" in their production.

The fact that the storage costs aren't economic, doesn't make it
mathematically impossible.

tim

On 06/10/16 12:44, tim... wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:24:30 UTC+1, harry wrote:

In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or
store) it.
You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and
get paid.
Thus you get paid twice.
Once for importing, and once for exporting.
Now that should encourage people to install batteries thus solving
the intermittancy problem!

It hasn't a hope of solving that problem, or even making a noticeable
difference. A little basic maths will show you how unrealistic such an
idea is.


Except that it isn't mathematically unrealistic.

There is enough power in the sun for each person to collect enough power
to satisfy their own personal needs (including charging up their
electric car) if we have a means to store it across the "dark" periods
of the day/year.


Except we don't. Which is where the mathematics shows it to be
completely unrealistic. And the mathematics doesn't just show its
uneconomic, it shows that for a broad range of 'possible' its not in
fact *possible* either.

Renewable energy *storage* is just cat belling.


Ditto for the majority of companies who don't use electricity as a "raw
material" in their production.

The fact that the storage costs aren't economic, doesn't make it
mathematically impossible.


???

I think you are mad. If someone says to me 'this burger costs £5' and I
say 'I only have £2 in my pocket' the mathematics is telling me I can't
have that burger unless I steal it.

(Of course as a reneawable energy person the concept of stealing from
others disguised as an altruistic act, comes naturally...)

tim







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

On 06/10/2016 12:44, tim... wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:24:30 UTC+1, harry wrote:

In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or
store) it.
You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and
get paid.
Thus you get paid twice.
Once for importing, and once for exporting.
Now that should encourage people to install batteries thus solving
the intermittancy problem!

It hasn't a hope of solving that problem, or even making a noticeable
difference. A little basic maths will show you how unrealistic such an
idea is.


Except that it isn't mathematically unrealistic.

There is enough power in the sun for each person to collect enough power
to satisfy their own personal needs (including charging up their
electric car) if we have a means to store it across the "dark" periods
of the day/year.

Tell that to the bloke on the ground floor of a block of flats.
By the time you have used all the roof space for panels and divided it
up he still wont get enough energy.

On 06/10/16 12:51, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tim...
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:24:30 UTC+1, harry wrote:

In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or
store) it.
You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and
get paid.
Thus you get paid twice.
Once for importing, and once for exporting.
Now that should encourage people to install batteries thus solving
the intermittancy problem!

It hasn't a hope of solving that problem, or even making a noticeable
difference. A little basic maths will show you how unrealistic such
an idea is.

harry has never shown any ability to do sums.

Except that it isn't mathematically unrealistic.

There is enough power in the sun for each person to collect enough
power to satisfy their own personal needs (including charging up their
electric car) if we have a means to store it across the "dark" periods
of the day/year.

But we don't, except in trivial amounts.

Ditto for the majority of companies who don't use electricity as a
"raw material" in their production.

The fact that the storage costs aren't economic, doesn't make it
mathematically impossible.

The storage costs are worse than uneconomic.

Indeed. They are in many cases ****ing impossible or downright lethal.

The amount of electrical energy needing to be stored for three winter
months is around 72TWh

72Twh is around 62 megatons of energy. Slightly larger than the biggest
hydrogen bomb ever detonated*.

Do you really want to be anywhere near a fast delivery store of that
capacity?


(One of the greatest advantages of nuclear power is that when its not in
a power reactor, its safe as anything. You don't need to store much, and
you simply need a bit of shielding. It wont go bang. Even if you stacked
in all in a pile and it went critical, it wouldn't go bang. Just melt
into a puddle and disperse. It is on fact incredibly difficult to get a
nuclear reaction other than natural decay, going at all.)


For something to be possible in the REAL world, as opposed to the magic
world of greeny-lefty**** cat-belling addle-brained 'we read it in the
Guardian, so it must be true' Bandar Log thinking, ALL the sums have to
add up, not just one.


Which is a second principle of engineering.

To go with 'Capital Costs scale with peak demand, income comes from
average demand'. The other reason why renewable energy is so effing
expensive and imposes costs on other operators.




*TSAR BOMBA
"The bomb was dropped from an altitude of 10.5 kilometres (34,000 ft);
it was designed to detonate at a height of 4 kilometres (13,000 ft) over
the land surface (4.2 kilometres (14,000 ft) over sea level) by
barometric sensors.

The original, November 1961 AEC estimate of the yield was 55€“60 Mt, but
since 1992 all Russian sources have stated its yield as 50 Mt.
Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Supreme Soviet of the
existence of a 100 Mt bomb. (Technically the design was capable of this
yield.) Although simplistic fireball calculations predicted the fireball
would hit the ground, the bomb's own shock wave reflected back and
prevented this.[19] The fireball reached nearly as high as the altitude
of the release plane and was visible at almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi)
away from where it ascended. The mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres
(40 mi) high (over seven times the height of Mount Everest), which meant
that the cloud was above the stratosphere and well inside the mesosphere
when it peaked. The cap of the mushroom cloud had a peak width of 95
kilometres (59 mi) and its base was 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide.

All buildings in the village of Severny (both wooden and brick), located
55 kilometres (34 mi) from ground zero within the Sukhoy Nos test range,
were destroyed. In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero
wooden houses were destroyed, stone ones lost their roofs, windows and
doors; and radio communications were interrupted for almost one hour.
One participant in the test saw a bright flash through dark goggles and
felt the effects of a thermal pulse even at a distance of 270 kilometres
(170 mi). The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree
burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was observed in
the air at Dikson settlement 700 kilometres (430 mi) away; windowpanes
were partially broken to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi).[20]
Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage at even greater distances,
breaking windows in Norway and Finland. Despite being detonated 4.2 km
above ground, its seismic body wave magnitude wa[5][15][17]s estimated
at 5€“5.25.[8][19] Sensors continued to identify the shockwaves after
their third trip around the world.[9][21]"


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ctricity-coal-
power-stations-uk-sun-a7344326.html

Real partial statistics. What about gas and nuclear?


--
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 5 Oct 2016 18:09:57 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ctricity-coal-
power-stations-uk-sun-a7344326.html

Real partial statistics. What about gas and nuclear?

A how much did this 'solar electricity' *cost* us (where us is not
including those with no ethics or morals etc). ;-)

And winter is coming. Anyone spouting the benefits of solar as a
real-world solution to anything (especially one that is creating a
cutback in anything more reliable) should be made to 1) rely on it
100% 24/7 and 2) not be subsidised by other electricity users.

PV has it's uses ... like trickle charging a battery or running a
wireless shed light but till the sun stops disappearing for quite a
percentage of every 24 hours or we find a realistic / efficient way of
storing the energy ... it's not a practical solution to anything and
is never likely to be positive environmentally (even if / when we run
out of fossil fuels). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 22:46:37 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On 5 Oct 2016 18:09:57 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ctricity-coal-
power-stations-uk-sun-a7344326.html

Real partial statistics. What about gas and nuclear?

A how much did this 'solar electricity' *cost* us (where us is not
including those with no ethics or morals etc). ;-)

And winter is coming. Anyone spouting the benefits of solar as a
real-world solution to anything (especially one that is creating a
cutback in anything more reliable) should be made to 1) rely on it
100% 24/7 and 2) not be subsidised by other electricity users.

PV has it's uses ... like trickle charging a battery or running a
wireless shed light but till the sun stops disappearing for quite a
percentage of every 24 hours or we find a realistic / efficient way of
storing the energy ... it's not a practical solution to anything and
is never likely to be positive environmentally (even if / when we run
out of fossil fuels). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

It means less crap in the atmosphere.
And less dependency of foreign fuel.
It's all happening whether you like it or not/capable of understanding it ****-fer-brains

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 22:46:37 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On 5 Oct 2016 18:09:57 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ctricity-coal-
power-stations-uk-sun-a7344326.html

Real partial statistics. What about gas and nuclear?

A how much did this 'solar electricity' *cost* us (where us is not
including those with no ethics or morals etc). ;-)

And winter is coming. Anyone spouting the benefits of solar as a
real-world solution to anything (especially one that is creating a
cutback in anything more reliable) should be made to 1) rely on it
100% 24/7 and 2) not be subsidised by other electricity users.

PV has it's uses ... like trickle charging a battery or running a
wireless shed light but till the sun stops disappearing for quite a
percentage of every 24 hours or we find a realistic / efficient way of
storing the energy ... it's not a practical solution to anything and
is never likely to be positive environmentally (even if / when we run
out of fossil fuels). ;-(

It means less crap in the atmosphere.

Another lie when you include the manufacturing
crap in the atmosphere when compared with nukes.

And less dependency of foreign fuel.

**** all less when compared with nukes.

It's all happening whether you like it
or not/capable of understanding it

Until May gets enough of a clue to pull the plug on it.

We've done that already.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:26:02 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 22:46:37 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On 5 Oct 2016 18:09:57 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ctricity-coal-
power-stations-uk-sun-a7344326.html

Real partial statistics. What about gas and nuclear?

A how much did this 'solar electricity' *cost* us (where us is not
including those with no ethics or morals etc). ;-)

And winter is coming. Anyone spouting the benefits of solar as a
real-world solution to anything (especially one that is creating a
cutback in anything more reliable) should be made to 1) rely on it
100% 24/7 and 2) not be subsidised by other electricity users.

PV has it's uses ... like trickle charging a battery or running a
wireless shed light but till the sun stops disappearing for quite a
percentage of every 24 hours or we find a realistic / efficient way of
storing the energy ... it's not a practical solution to anything and
is never likely to be positive environmentally (even if / when we run
out of fossil fuels). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

It means less crap in the atmosphere.

No it doesn't, unless you think all the materials they are made of
just occur naturally?

And less dependency of foreign fuel.

Only when the sun is shining! Like I said when you have the balls to
go off grid and stop ponsing off others then maybe, just maybe you
will have earned the right to even speak of any of it.

It's all happening whether you like it or not

Yes, for now, but you wait till the revolution brother and I'm afraid
you will be one of the first against the wall. ;-(

/capable of understanding it

snip

The irony here of course is I *am* more than capable of understanding
it by the fact I'm not parasiteing off others in some subsidised
bubble.

I have had an EV and using solar panels for as long or possibly longer
than you (and still have a Sinclair C5) but I am yet to see any
evidence that either solve any real energy or pollution issues, in
fact both are probably the reverse. *When* we have abundant and
*truly* green energy available 24/7 and we have carbon neutral
chemistry (or 100% recyclable) in batteries or energy storage then we
might be getting close. A compressed air powered car, charged by your
own wind powered pump for example (and not necessarily a serious one).

Less reliance on 'foreign fuel' will only happen when we build more
nukes or the sun starts shining or the wind keeps blowing 24/7.

Now, if we could only harness all your BS and hot air we would be
sorted! ;-)


Cheers, T i m

On Thursday, 6 October 2016 09:05:55 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:26:02 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 22:46:37 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On 5 Oct 2016 18:09:57 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

The irony here of course is I *am* more than capable of understanding
it by the fact I'm not parasiteing off others in some subsidised
bubble.

I have had an EV and using solar panels for as long or possibly longer
than you (and still have a Sinclair C5) but I am yet to see any
evidence that either solve any real energy or pollution issues, in
fact both are probably the reverse. *When* we have abundant and
*truly* green energy available 24/7 and we have carbon neutral
chemistry (or 100% recyclable) in batteries or energy storage then we
might be getting close. A compressed air powered car, charged by your
own wind powered pump for example (and not necessarily a serious one).

Less reliance on 'foreign fuel' will only happen when we build more
nukes or the sun starts shining or the wind keeps blowing 24/7.

Now, if we could only harness all your BS and hot air we would be
sorted! ;-)

Sinclaire C5????
Riiiiight.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 09:05:53 +0100, T i m wrote:

Only when the sun is shining! Like I said when you have the balls to go
off grid and stop ponsing off others then maybe, just maybe you will
have earned the right to even speak of any of it.

For various reasons I dip in and out of a newsgroup for dedicated
cannabis growers.

While there is a surprising spread of political views, there's defintely
a more left-leaning, green bias. Loads of claptrap spouted about how we
all need to be using renewables ya-di-dah.

When it gets too much, you can shut them up by pointing out that
no-one in the history of every has gone off-grid to grow cannabis ...

Plenty have here. Obviously its grown outside, not in grow houses.

I saw the excellent Marcus Brigstocke recently, who suggested that since
Michael Gove is so down with experts, the next time he needs dental
treatment, he practice what he preaches and ditches the expert dentist,
and go to Eric from the tyre fitters ... who is raring for his first case.

He's just down on a particular sort of expert that hasnt got a damned
thing right in more than a century now. Not all experts in any field.

On Thursday, 6 October 2016 07:26:05 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 22:46:37 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On 5 Oct 2016 18:09:57 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ctricity-coal-
power-stations-uk-sun-a7344326.html

Real partial statistics. What about gas and nuclear?

A how much did this 'solar electricity' *cost* us (where us is not
including those with no ethics or morals etc). ;-)

And winter is coming. Anyone spouting the benefits of solar as a
real-world solution to anything (especially one that is creating a
cutback in anything more reliable) should be made to 1) rely on it
100% 24/7 and 2) not be subsidised by other electricity users.

PV has it's uses ... like trickle charging a battery or running a
wireless shed light but till the sun stops disappearing for quite a
percentage of every 24 hours or we find a realistic / efficient way of
storing the energy ... it's not a practical solution to anything and
is never likely to be positive environmentally (even if / when we run
out of fossil fuels). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

It means less crap in the atmosphere.

Quite the opposite. Look at how much 'crap in the atmosphere' wuold result if we lived on solar PV electricity only, it would far exceed today's 'crap in the atmosphere.'

And less dependency of foreign fuel.

Nuclear fuel is a trivial part of total costs. Solar PV cost would massively exceed total nuclear cost if we based our electricity generation on that instead.

It's all happening whether you like it or not

It is.

/capable of understanding it ****-fer-brains

Some of us can do maths, and thus see through the politics.


NT

On Thursday, 6 October 2016 12:27:45 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 6 October 2016 07:26:05 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 22:46:37 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On 5 Oct 2016 18:09:57 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ctricity-coal-
power-stations-uk-sun-a7344326.html

Real partial statistics. What about gas and nuclear?

A how much did this 'solar electricity' *cost* us (where us is not
including those with no ethics or morals etc). ;-)

And winter is coming. Anyone spouting the benefits of solar as a
real-world solution to anything (especially one that is creating a
cutback in anything more reliable) should be made to 1) rely on it
100% 24/7 and 2) not be subsidised by other electricity users.

PV has it's uses ... like trickle charging a battery or running a
wireless shed light but till the sun stops disappearing for quite a
percentage of every 24 hours or we find a realistic / efficient way of
storing the energy ... it's not a practical solution to anything and
is never likely to be positive environmentally (even if / when we run
out of fossil fuels). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

It means less crap in the atmosphere.

Quite the opposite. Look at how much 'crap in the atmosphere' wuold result if we lived on solar PV electricity only, it would far exceed today's 'crap in the atmosphere.'

And less dependency of foreign fuel.

Nuclear fuel is a trivial part of total costs. Solar PV cost would massively exceed total nuclear cost if we based our electricity generation on that instead.

It's all happening whether you like it or not

It is.

Some of us can do maths, and thus see through the politics.

Some of us can't and thus understand the engineering problem.
And the worst thing is that high-bypass turbines are already being manufactured by Rolls Royce for a completely different industry. And the turbines are said to be the most expensive development, holding back development of thorium furnaces.

Is that daft or what?

On Thursday, 6 October 2016 07:26:05 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 22:46:37 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On 5 Oct 2016 18:09:57 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:56:10 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ctricity-coal-
power-stations-uk-sun-a7344326.html

Real partial statistics. What about gas and nuclear?

A how much did this 'solar electricity' *cost* us (where us is not
including those with no ethics or morals etc). ;-)

And winter is coming. Anyone spouting the benefits of solar as a
real-world solution to anything (especially one that is creating a
cutback in anything more reliable) should be made to 1) rely on it
100% 24/7 and 2) not be subsidised by other electricity users.

PV has it's uses ... like trickle charging a battery or running a
wireless shed light but till the sun stops disappearing for quite a
percentage of every 24 hours or we find a realistic / efficient way of
storing the energy ... it's not a practical solution to anything and
is never likely to be positive environmentally (even if / when we run
out of fossil fuels). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

It means less crap in the atmosphere.

Crap being plant fertiliser which at 400 PPM is still too little for boreal forests if we hadn't cut all the little stunts down years ago.

I can recall the decades up until the 1970's when roof gutters were full of thriving weeds in areas that burned a lot of coal. I could never understand the rising clamour for getting rid of cheap fuel.

Only because you fools shut down so much of the second best way of
generating electricity.

"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7344326.html

On 10/5/2016 4:56 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7344326.html


Same ****ing stupid story in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ity-generation

No prizes for spotting my contribution to CiF.

I think solar panels should be on the roof of the big sheds in industrial estates, economies of scale over fitting the electronics to every little house roof. Lot more nasty chemicals and mining go into lead acid batteries than solar panels. If I buy cheap waste motor oil for my heating and burn it who pays for the pollution and health care for those damaged? When Ed Davey was libdem energy minister he signed off a huge cable to Norway which gives us energy from their fjord water turbines, and when we have too much sun and wind energy exports it to norway to pump water back to the top lake.

[g]

On 07/10/16 11:27, DICEGEORGE wrote:
I think solar panels should be on the roof of the big sheds in
industrial estates...

Then you are en even bigger fool than you at first appear.

Why don't you pay for them then? Instead of expecting ME to?


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

On Friday, 7 October 2016 11:27:16 UTC+1, DICEGEORGE wrote:
I think solar panels should be on the roof of the big sheds in industrial estates, economies of scale over fitting the electronics to every little house roof. Lot more nasty chemicals and mining go into lead acid batteries than solar panels. If I buy cheap waste motor oil for my heating and burn it who pays for the pollution and health care for those damaged? When Ed Davey was libdem energy minister he signed off a huge cable to Norway which gives us energy from their fjord water turbines, and when we have too much sun and wind energy exports it to norway to pump water back to the top lake.

[g]

Quite right.

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 16:56:15 UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7344326.html

Shutting cheap energy reserves below and installing expensively useless ones above doesn't sound like a winner to me.

Are you going to let us in on your thought process or don't you have one?

You stop sending organised teams in sequences that you can rely on, catering to the use of economies of scale that dwarfs most people's experiences with heavy industry and sit the occasional weather fault on a roof not designed to take it and imagine any of that is a good thing?