http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.



--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

After serious thinking The Natural Philosopher wrote :
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.

"STA chief executive Paul Barwell said: €œSolar beautifully answers the
energy trilemma of tackling climate change, security and affordability,
but it is being cut out of the market and prevented from competing on a
level playing field with other technologies."

Doesn't removing subsidies actually make it into a level playing?

On 07/11/16 09:58, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
After serious thinking The Natural Philosopher wrote :
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152


Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.

"STA chief executive Paul Barwell said: €œSolar beautifully answers the
energy trilemma of tackling climate change, security and affordability,
but it is being cut out of the market and prevented from competing on a
level playing field with other technologies."

Doesn't removing subsidies actually make it into a level playing?

Classic doublethink


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

Josef Stalin

On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 11:53:24 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

The big problem with all these floating devices is making them robust
enough to withstand the extremely aggressive conditions presented by a
salt water environment, and more particularly, the winter storms.

snip

Watching programs about the early Engineers who built our bridges and
ships are often fraught with mishap and failure (cast iron bridges
fracturing and trains plunging into the sea etc).

However, it seem most of these things were simply improved upon until
they found something that worked and then lasted many decades.

Is it now we have done most of the important / interesting stuff and
now we are left dabbling with these 'alternative energy' schemes that
in most cases seem doomed to fail? Is it that we can (generally) send
rovers to distant planets, build bridges that are miles high and long
or build very tall buildings on sand ... but we can't make something
float in the sea and not have it sink or get swept away?

Is there really no 'will' to do these things, like someone tasked with
building perpetual motion machine, especially if there isn't some
generous subsidy it seems. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 07/11/2016 12:26, T i m wrote:


Is it now we have done most of the important / interesting stuff and
now we are left dabbling with these 'alternative energy' schemes that
in most cases seem doomed to fail? Is it that we can (generally) send
rovers to distant planets, build bridges that are miles high and long
or build very tall buildings on sand ... but we can't make something
float in the sea and not have it sink or get swept away?

You can have it:-

1:cheap
2:work
3:unsinkable

Choose any two halves from the above.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 13:02:58 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

In winter, off Land's End they have to cope with 'significant wave
heights'* of about 10 metres, and a good number of them will be much
higher than that, say up to 15 metres. That's about 45 feet in old
money, peak to trough, cycling say five to ten times per minute. That
puts one hell of a stress on any device anchored out there and
designed to absorb that energy.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_wave_height


Sure, I'm not saying it's *easy* but people without the materials,
skills, experience and technology we have today seem to have managed
building massive structures that don't seem to have been blown /
washed away? shrug

So, we can build nuclear power stations but we can't anchor something
in the sea easily?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:21:03 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 07/11/2016 12:26, T i m wrote:


Is it now we have done most of the important / interesting stuff and
now we are left dabbling with these 'alternative energy' schemes that
in most cases seem doomed to fail? Is it that we can (generally) send
rovers to distant planets, build bridges that are miles high and long
or build very tall buildings on sand ... but we can't make something
float in the sea and not have it sink or get swept away?

You can have it:-

1:cheap
2:work
3:unsinkable

Choose any two halves from the above.



'Nowdays' you mean? ;-(

The thing is there does seem to be the money and the will to build
things (and properly) these days and especially when there is good
money to be made back and quickly.

Maybe that last bit is what is putting a big dampener on many of these
alternative energy projects ... little money to be made and especially
without subsidies?

I'm ok with subsidies for any project that is fundamentally
(technically and ecologically) sound but that's not what it seems we
have with most of such alternative energy projects so far. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 07/11/2016 11:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Classic doublethink

I know what you mean. But then there are people who've retired after
getting on for 40 years working on taxpayer-funded fusion research at
Culham

(And yes, I am jealous of them: ~40 years paid to play with big toys!)



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Actually, the point is if you buy into climate change you then have to buy
into subsidising the technology that delivers the goods.
Of course if you feel its just normal for the world to get warmer and there
is sod all we can do about it, then burn down some forests.

The problem has always been one of degree, and that is not a pun. What I
mean is that throughout its life the Earth has warmed and cooled creating
and destroying species and habitats all the while, yet even if what we are
doing is a small part of what might be inevitable, do we really morally have
the right to make it worse than it need be, bring down major problems on
our heads years before we need to tackle them?
That is the way I look at it. I may not be around in 2049 or whatever, but
people still will be and surely we owe them something?
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-11-07, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
After serious thinking The Natural Philosopher wrote :
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.

"STA chief executive Paul Barwell said: "Solar beautifully answers the
energy trilemma of tackling climate change, security and affordability,
but it is being cut out of the market and prevented from competing on a
level playing field with other technologies."

Doesn't removing subsidies actually make it into a level playing?

Yes, but Greenies don't want a level playing field.


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 19th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

On 07/11/16 15:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
Actually, the point is if you buy into climate change you then have to buy
into subsidising the technology that delivers the goods.
Of course if you feel its just normal for the world to get warmer and there
is sod all we can do about it, then burn down some forests.

Or if you actually look at the data amd realise the world isn't getting
warmer anymore....


The problem has always been one of degree, and that is not a pun. What I
mean is that throughout its life the Earth has warmed and cooled creating
and destroying species and habitats all the while, yet even if what we are
doing is a small part of what might be inevitable, do we really morally have
the right to make it worse than it need be, bring down major problems on
our heads years before we need to tackle them?
That is the way I look at it. I may not be around in 2049 or whatever, but
people still will be and surely we owe them something?

Yep Around 100GW of nukes would be the best present to leave them.

Along with independence from Europe.

Brian



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

On Monday, 7 November 2016 09:31:53 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.


They're spending money subsidising nuclear power.
On a nuclear power station nobody's seen working and eats money.

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 08:44:52 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Monday, 7 November 2016 09:31:53 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.


They're spending money subsidising nuclear power.

But at least it's available most_of_the_time, not just when the sun is
shining or the wind is blowing (at the right speed).

On a nuclear power station nobody's seen working and eats money.

But there are many NPS's that are running all over the world, 24/7.
You can't promise that, or even promise to get close to that with
pretty well any renewable can you?

Cheers, T i m

On 07/11/2016 16:44, harry wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 09:31:53 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.


They're spending money subsidising nuclear power.
On a nuclear power station nobody's seen working and eats money.


It does have the advantage that it will generate electricity when its
needed and they don't get paid until it does generate.

On 07/11/2016 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152


Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.



I think the idea of subsidising farmers to stop growing crops and put in
PV arrays is absurd.

T i m wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

The big problem with all these floating devices is making them robust
enough to withstand the extremely aggressive conditions presented by
a salt water environment, and more particularly, the winter storms.

Watching programs about the early Engineers who built our
bridges and ships are often fraught with mishap and failure (cast
iron bridges fracturing and trains plunging into the sea etc).

And still manage to do that occasionally like that footbridge in London that
never wasn't viable initially and the bridges that fall down when being
built.

However, it seem most of these things were simply improved upon until
they found something that worked and then lasted many decades.

Not always, see above.

Is it now we have done most of the important / interesting stuff

Nope, most obviously with aircraft.

and now we are left dabbling with these 'alternative energy'
schemes that in most cases seem doomed to fail?

We appear to be into that **** because some like
harry are too stupid to even notice that nukes are
the only viable approach with a country wide grid.

With a real tendency for some engineers to keep playing
with stuff that isnt ever going to be very viable, because
what it used is so variable with wind and solar.

Yes, solar does work very well for the lower power situations
where using the grid isnt economically viable, but that is a
separate matter to how much sense it makes for a national grid.

Is it that we can (generally) send rovers to distant planets,
build bridges that are miles high and long or build very
tall buildings on sand ... but we can't make something
float in the sea and not have it sink or get swept away?

Nope, we do that fine too. The problem is the ****ed
economics compared with nukes when its on the grid.

Is there really no 'will' to do these things,

Nothing to do with will, the problem is the ****ed economics.

like someone tasked with building perpetual motion machine,
especially if there isn't some generous subsidy it seems. ;-(

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 13:02:58 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

In winter, off Land's End they have to cope with 'significant wave
heights'* of about 10 metres, and a good number of them will be much
higher than that, say up to 15 metres. That's about 45 feet in old
money, peak to trough, cycling say five to ten times per minute. That
puts one hell of a stress on any device anchored out there and
designed to absorb that energy.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_wave_height


Sure, I'm not saying it's *easy* but people without the materials,
skills, experience and technology we have today seem to have managed
building massive structures that don't seem to have been blown /
washed away? shrug

So, we can build nuclear power stations but we can't anchor something
in the sea easily?

Corse we can, happens with buoys and even ****ing great floating oil rigs
all the time.

Brian Gaff wrote

Actually, the point is if you buy into climate change you then have to buy
into subsidising the technology that delivers the goods.

Nukes deliver the goods on CO2, adding **** all to the
atmosphere and being much more viable than 'renewables'

Of course if you feel its just normal for the world to get warmer and
there is sod all we can do about it, then burn down some forests.

Or don’t do that because of the pollution that produces.

The problem has always been one of degree, and that is not a pun. What I
mean is that throughout its life the Earth has warmed and cooled creating
and destroying species and habitats all the while,

And we have survived that fine.

yet even if what we are doing is a small part of what might be inevitable,
do we really morally have the right to make it worse than it need be,
bring down major problems on our heads years before we need to tackle
them?

We do that all the time with big citys. What's different ?

That is the way I look at it. I may not be around in 2049 or whatever, but
people still will be and surely we owe them something?

Yes, we owe them a decent system of power generation using nukes
so the economy isnt ****ed by stupid 'renewable' power generation
that ****es immense amounts of money against the wall to no useful
outcome what so ever.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-11-07, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
After serious thinking The Natural Philosopher wrote :
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.

"STA chief executive Paul Barwell said: "Solar beautifully answers the
energy trilemma of tackling climate change, security and affordability,
but it is being cut out of the market and prevented from competing on a
level playing field with other technologies."

Doesn't removing subsidies actually make it into a level playing?

Yes, but Greenies don't want a level playing field.


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 19th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

On Monday, 7 November 2016 17:40:32 UTC, rick wrote:
On 07/11/2016 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152


Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.



I think the idea of subsidising farmers to stop growing crops and put in
PV arrays is absurd.

It is.
PV arrays should be on roof tops & similar structures.

On 08/11/16 08:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Monday, 7 November 2016 17:40:32 UTC, rick wrote:
On 07/11/2016 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-intervention-

for-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.

I think the idea of subsidising farmers to stop growing crops and put
in PV arrays is absurd.

It is.
PV arrays should be on roof tops & similar structures.

There shouldn't be *any* PV arrays in this country. We're too far north
for it to make any sense.

AS long as I don't have to subsidise harry, I don't care how many solar
panels he puts on his hovel.

I have issues with the money he makes at my expense though.



--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On Tuesday, 8 November 2016 10:09:54 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/11/16 08:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Monday, 7 November 2016 17:40:32 UTC, rick wrote:
On 07/11/2016 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-intervention-

for-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.

I think the idea of subsidising farmers to stop growing crops and put
in PV arrays is absurd.

It is.
PV arrays should be on roof tops & similar structures.

There shouldn't be *any* PV arrays in this country. We're too far north
for it to make any sense.

AS long as I don't have to subsidise harry, I don't care how many solar
panels he puts on his hovel.

I have issues with the money he makes at my expense though.


I have issues with the hidden/postphoned costs of nuclear power.
And the unknowables.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:54:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

I have issues with the hidden/postphoned costs of nuclear power.
And the unknowables.

One thing we all know is your solar does nothing for you EVERY night
and many other days. So, *you* go off grid and rely on them *100%* or
stop taking our money, you can't have both or you are a hypocrite as
well as a FIT thief.

Also come up with a viable alternative to nuclear (that is available
24/7 of course).

Cheers, T i m

On Thursday, 10 November 2016 09:14:49 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:54:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

I have issues with the hidden/postphoned costs of nuclear power.
And the unknowables.

One thing we all know is your solar does nothing for you EVERY night
and many other days. So, *you* go off grid and rely on them *100%* or
stop taking our money, you can't have both or you are a hypocrite as
well as a FIT thief.

Also come up with a viable alternative to nuclear (that is available
24/7 of course).

Tidal power. As far apart as possible.
Demand side management.
Links to other countries.

On 11/11/16 18:13, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:46:05 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 10 November 2016 09:14:49 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:54:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

I have issues with the hidden/postphoned costs of nuclear power.
And the unknowables.

One thing we all know is your solar does nothing for you EVERY night
and many other days. So, *you* go off grid and rely on them *100%* or
stop taking our money, you can't have both or you are a hypocrite as
well as a FIT thief.

Also come up with a viable alternative to nuclear (that is available
24/7 of course).

Tidal power. As far apart as possible.
Demand side management.
Links to other countries.

Mindlessly repeating that bit of rubbish, despite it having been
pointed out to you that there isn't anywhere near enough tidal power
available, won't make it any more practical. Your stupidity amazes me.

Its not stupidity.

Harry is almost certainly a SPIV. Solar panel installation vendor.

He has skin in the game.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 11/11/2016 16:46, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 09:14:49 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:54:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

I have issues with the hidden/postphoned costs of nuclear power.
And the unknowables.

One thing we all know is your solar does nothing for you EVERY night
and many other days. So, *you* go off grid and rely on them *100%* or
stop taking our money, you can't have both or you are a hypocrite as
well as a FIT thief.

Also come up with a viable alternative to nuclear (that is available
24/7 of course).

Tidal power. As far apart as possible.

Doesn't work and wrecks the environment.

Demand side management.

Going to take many years to get any useful market penetration without
some ruling like an EU directive.

Links to other countries.

But not to Europe as they are going to implode according to you.



So where is a sensible suggestion from you?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 09:14:49 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:54:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

I have issues with the hidden/postphoned costs of nuclear power.
And the unknowables.

One thing we all know is your solar does nothing for you EVERY night
and many other days. So, *you* go off grid and rely on them *100%* or
stop taking our money, you can't have both or you are a hypocrite as
well as a FIT thief.

Also come up with a viable alternative to nuclear (that is available
24/7 of course).

Tidal power. As far apart as possible.

Nothing even remotely as viable as nukes.

There just arent anything like enough viable tidal sites for
that to get within a bulls roar of competing with nukes.

Demand side management.

Nothing even remotely as viable as nukes.

Much too much demand has to happen when it does.

Links to other countries.

Nothing even remotely as viable as nukes.
Not even viable to France to use theirs.