http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

On 24/07/17 08:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:44:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986


Smart metering controlling freezers and washing machines so that they
are switched off at periods of peak demand sounds like a good idea,
provided of course they can't be hacked and the whole system reduced
to chaos. The first phase of smart meters does little to inspire
confidence in that direction.

If we're all going to be encouraged to have a few kWh of battery
storage in our garages for peak lopping, I hope the govt is going to
spend more on the fire and emergency services, because they'll
certainly be needed.

As for improving battery technology, good luck with that.

The problem is this is all ****ing in the wind.

at the moment there is about 8 hours of low demand betwen 11pm and 7 a.m.

about 13GW lower (20GW-33GW)

And ist summer too.

You cant leave your frezeer of ALL DAY to tach up overnmnight, and in
any case the net household differential based on 20m houseolds is 650
watts. Which is probably more than the average household uses all together.

Storage requiremenst? so you take 650 watts by night and release it by
day? well 5.2Kwh.

And what do you think THAT will cost, and how long will it last being
charged and discharged every day?

About £750. Plus inverter costs, Plus installation,

Call it £1000 for every household. With a life of 5 years.

20 million households makes that £20bn spent every 5 years on batteries
and inverters.

Makes Hinkley point look cheap.



--
"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 24/07/17 08:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:44:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986


Smart metering controlling freezers and washing machines so that they
are switched off at periods of peak demand sounds like a good idea,
provided of course they can't be hacked and the whole system reduced
to chaos. The first phase of smart meters does little to inspire
confidence in that direction.

They could do that without smart meters - the appliance watches the
frequency and when it drops below some threshold, it cuts out - subject
to its own rules of "am I cold enough", "how long am I allowed to be
off" etc.


If we're all going to be encouraged to have a few kWh of battery
storage in our garages for peak lopping, I hope the govt is going to
spend more on the fire and emergency services, because they'll
certainly be needed.

As for improving battery technology, good luck with that.

The Natural Philosopher wrote :
20 million households makes that £20bn spent every 5 years on batteries and
inverters.

Makes Hinkley point look cheap.

Only because Hinkley is the cheapest and truly greenest option.

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote :
20 million households makes that £20bn spent every 5 years on
batteries and inverters.

Makes Hinkley point look cheap.

Only because Hinkley is the cheapest and truly greenest option.

You know for sure how much it will cost then? Have you passed this on to
the builders?

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

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

dennis@home wrote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

Nothing whatever to do with brexit, remoan****ter.

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

I keep pointing out to the elderly bigots^Wcynics who supported Brexit
that some of the most objectionable ideas that the EU supports were at
the behest of our very own slimy, soon to be sovereign, politicians.

--

Roger Hayter

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:44:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986


Smart metering controlling freezers and washing machines so that they
are switched off at periods of peak demand sounds like a good idea,
provided of course they can't be hacked and the whole system reduced
to chaos. The first phase of smart meters does little to inspire
confidence in that direction.

If we're all going to be encouraged to have a few kWh of battery
storage in our garages for peak lopping, I hope the govt is going to
spend more on the fire and emergency services, because they'll
certainly be needed.

As for improving battery technology, good luck with that.


this article looks like a 100 year prediction not a 10 year one

tim


--

Chris

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

I keep pointing out to the elderly bigots^Wcynics who supported Brexit
that some of the most objectionable ideas that the EU supports were at
the behest of our very own slimy, soon to be sovereign, politicians.

but we can vote them out if we change our minds

we can't do anything to stop the Eurocrats once they are on the case

tim

On 24/07/2017 10:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

I keep pointing out to the elderly bigots^Wcynics who supported Brexit
that some of the most objectionable ideas that the EU supports were at
the behest of our very own slimy, soon to be sovereign, politicians.


Don't confuse them with facts.

On 24/07/17 08:55, Chris Hogg wrote:

If we're all going to be encouraged to have a few kWh of battery
storage in our garages for peak lopping, I hope the govt is going to
spend more on the fire and emergency services, because they'll
certainly be needed.

As for improving battery technology, good luck with that.

https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/07/22/tesla-battery-subsidy-and-sustainability-fantasies-n2358396

--

Jeff

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

I keep pointing out to the elderly bigots^Wcynics who supported Brexit
that some of the most objectionable ideas that the EU supports were at
the behest of our very own slimy, soon to be sovereign, politicians.

but we can vote them out if we change our minds

But not if those who change their minds aren't the majority who vote.

we can't do anything to stop the Eurocrats once they are on the case

We certainly won't be able to after we leave - that at least is true.

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

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

dennis@home wrote:
On 24/07/2017 10:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

I keep pointing out to the elderly bigots^Wcynics who supported Brexit
that some of the most objectionable ideas that the EU supports were at
the behest of our very own slimy, soon to be sovereign, politicians.


Don't confuse them with facts.


I see the socialists are into abuse again having failed to understand
reasoning!

On Monday, 24 July 2017 09:36:15 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 24/07/17 08:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:44:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986


Smart metering controlling freezers and washing machines so that they
are switched off at periods of peak demand sounds like a good idea,
provided of course they can't be hacked and the whole system reduced
to chaos. The first phase of smart meters does little to inspire
confidence in that direction.

They could do that without smart meters - the appliance watches the
frequency and when it drops below some threshold, it cuts out - subject
to its own rules of "am I cold enough", "how long am I allowed to be
off" etc.


If we're all going to be encouraged to have a few kWh of battery
storage in our garages for peak lopping, I hope the govt is going to
spend more on the fire and emergency services, because they'll
certainly be needed.

As for improving battery technology, good luck with that.


Drivel.
Frequency is nothing to do with loading.

On Monday, 24 July 2017 08:44:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

I have long been telling you this, ****-fer-brains.

On Monday, 24 July 2017 08:44:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

http://nationalgridconnecting.com/th...ttery-storage/

tim... wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

I keep pointing out to the elderly bigots^Wcynics who supported Brexit
that some of the most objectionable ideas that the EU supports were at
the behest of our very own slimy, soon to be sovereign, politicians.

but we can vote them out if we change our minds

we can't do anything to stop the Eurocrats once they are on the case

tim

In theory both have democratic structures that allow this to happen (n
the EU case by a qualified majority voting) but in neither case is there
a real alternative with a chance of getting in who think differently.
So I disagree that Brexit makes a difference, in paricular to the
environmental movement.

--

Roger Hayter

On 24/07/2017 13:58, harry wrote:



-- ****-fer-brains.


I see you finally fixed your sig.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:18:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote :
20 million households makes that £20bn spent every 5 years on
batteries and inverters.

Makes Hinkley point look cheap.

Only because Hinkley is the cheapest and truly greenest option.

You know for sure how much it will cost then? Have you passed this on to
the builders?

Have they factored in the decommissioning costs?

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:09:53 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:50:05 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:18:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote :
20 million households makes that £20bn spent every 5 years on
batteries and inverters.

Makes Hinkley point look cheap.

Only because Hinkley is the cheapest and truly greenest option.

You know for sure how much it will cost then? Have you passed this on to
the builders?

Have they factored in the decommissioning costs?

Standard practice these days is to include an amount for
decommissioning. Of course, Harry will say it's drivel, because no-one
knows how much it'll cost, regardless of the fact that a pretty good
estimate can be made from what is already known.

Not much.

Last time I had access to accurate information, they hadn't a clue on
decommissioning costs. I am skeptical that anything has changed.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986

I keep pointing out to the elderly bigots^Wcynics who supported Brexit
that some of the most objectionable ideas that the EU supports were at
the behest of our very own slimy, soon to be sovereign, politicians.

but we can vote them out if we change our minds

But not if those who change their minds aren't the majority who vote.

I think it's a given that the majority has to change their mind before their
opinion prevails (well the total of changed minds plus people of that
opinion in the first place)

tim

harry explained :
Drivel.
Frequency is nothing to do with loading.

Actually it has everything to do with network loading. The idea is also
a good, sound one.

On 24/07/2017 16:09, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:50:05 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:18:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote :
20 million households makes that £20bn spent every 5 years on
batteries and inverters.

Makes Hinkley point look cheap.

Only because Hinkley is the cheapest and truly greenest option.

You know for sure how much it will cost then? Have you passed this on to
the builders?

Have they factored in the decommissioning costs?

Standard practice these days is to include an amount for
decommissioning. Of course, Harry will say it's drivel, because no-one
knows how much it'll cost, regardless of the fact that a pretty good
estimate can be made from what is already known.

What about all the low and high level nuclear waste? How will they
assess the effect of that when it's dug up by our descendants who have
regressed to mediaevalism (or earlier)?

--
Max Demian

On 24/07/17 19:57, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/07/2017 16:09, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:50:05 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:18:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote :
20 million households makes that £20bn spent every 5 years on
batteries and inverters.

Makes Hinkley point look cheap.

Only because Hinkley is the cheapest and truly greenest option.

You know for sure how much it will cost then? Have you passed this
on to
the builders?

Have they factored in the decommissioning costs?

Standard practice these days is to include an amount for
decommissioning. Of course, Harry will say it's drivel, because no-one
knows how much it'll cost, regardless of the fact that a pretty good
estimate can be made from what is already known.

What about all the low and high level nuclear waste? How will they
assess the effect of that when it's dug up by our descendants who have
regressed to mediaevalism (or earlier)?

well **** them anyway.

bury it so deep mediaeval miners can't reach it


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

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 24/07/2017 14:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Monday, 24 July 2017 09:36:15 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 24/07/17 08:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:44:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986


Smart metering controlling freezers and washing machines so that they
are switched off at periods of peak demand sounds like a good idea,
provided of course they can't be hacked and the whole system reduced
to chaos. The first phase of smart meters does little to inspire
confidence in that direction.

They could do that without smart meters - the appliance watches the
frequency and when it drops below some threshold, it cuts out - subject
to its own rules of "am I cold enough", "how long am I allowed to be
off" etc.


If we're all going to be encouraged to have a few kWh of battery
storage in our garages for peak lopping, I hope the govt is going to
spend more on the fire and emergency services, because they'll
certainly be needed.

As for improving battery technology, good luck with that.


Drivel.
Frequency is nothing to do with loading.

Ye Gods, you're ignorant!

He has had this explained to him in detail many times in the past. He is
not just ignorant, but wilfully so.

How the hell you ever got a responsible job
with the NHS is beyond me.

It could explain a lot of things about the NHS though.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/07/2017 19:57, Max Demian wrote:

What about all the low and high level nuclear waste? How will they
assess the effect of that when it's dug up by our descendants who have
regressed to mediaevalism (or earlier)?


Well it wont be there if its highly radioactive as it will have decayed.
If its not highly radioactive then what does it matter?

The Natural Philosopher pretended :
well **** them anyway.

bury it so deep mediaeval miners can't reach it

A 'Do Not Disturb' ought to cover it lol

Chris Hogg submitted this idea :
Low and medium level waste will all have decayed away to safe levels.
It only takes ~100 years, give or take a decade or two. That's roughly
how long they leave a power station after they've removed the fuel
rods and before they start to dismantle the bits surrounding the core
or the cooling ponds. What makes you think they'll dig it up anyway?
If they've regressed as far as you say (and why on earth should they
regress at all?), I doubt they could dig into a sealed high-level
waste depository.

We will certainly regress, without the nuclear power.

On 24/07/2017 20:40, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/07/2017 19:57, Max Demian wrote:

What about all the low and high level nuclear waste? How will they
assess the effect of that when it's dug up by our descendants who have
regressed to mediaevalism (or earlier)?


Well it wont be there if its highly radioactive as it will have decayed.
If its not highly radioactive then what does it matter?

U235 is rather radioactive and has a half life of 704,000,000 years.

--
Max Demian

On 24/07/17 20:54, Chris Hogg wrote:
Low and medium level waste will all have decayed away to safe levels.

ROFLMAO.


ER no Chris. Low level waste is so weakly radiocative its dubtufiul if
it will decay at all.

medoum level wste is the biggest problem. It alos ios so weakly
radioactive it d9oesnt decay.

High level waste is gone in a few decades max. Somne in a few dayts


It only takes ~100 years, give or take a decade or two. That's roughly
how long they leave a power station after they've removed the fuel
rods and before they start to dismantle the bits surrounding the core
or the cooling ponds. What makes you think they'll dig it up anyway?
If they've regressed as far as you say (and why on earth should they
regress at all?), I doubt they could dig into a sealed high-level
waste depository.

Thats teh desripously radioacytive stuff.

That is not high level. Its low level.

What is conisreded te worsr is the biologically active medium level
wastes like caesium and strontium which decay over a couople of hundred
years but are very likleyt to get incorporated in bone.


But staistically te real serious emitter is natural uranium lying around
everywhere. Followed by cosmic ray generated radio isotopes like
potassium and carbon.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 24/07/17 21:11, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
The Natural Philosopher pretended :
well **** them anyway.

bury it so deep mediaeval miners can't reach it

A 'Do Not Disturb' ought to cover it lol

'here there be dragins'


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 24/07/17 23:11, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/07/2017 20:40, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/07/2017 19:57, Max Demian wrote:

What about all the low and high level nuclear waste? How will they
assess the effect of that when it's dug up by our descendants who
have regressed to mediaevalism (or earlier)?


Well it wont be there if its highly radioactive as it will have decayed.
If its not highly radioactive then what does it matter?

U235 is rather radioactive and has a half life of 704,000,000 years.

The key being the 'rather'

The sea which conrains 4bn tinnes of U238, so several hundred million
tionnes of U235, does not glow in the dark from radiation..

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 25/07/17 14:43, Chris Hogg wrote:
if it
was only as you describe, it could surely be left to cool off in
cooling ponds for a few decades and then treated as low-level waste,
or at worst as intermediate-level waste. But it isn't.

Exactly.

Why do you think that is?


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 24/07/2017 23:11, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/07/2017 20:40, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/07/2017 19:57, Max Demian wrote:

What about all the low and high level nuclear waste? How will they
assess the effect of that when it's dug up by our descendants who
have regressed to mediaevalism (or earlier)?


Well it wont be there if its highly radioactive as it will have decayed.
If its not highly radioactive then what does it matter?

U235 is rather radioactive and has a half life of 704,000,000 years.


Rubbish!
If it has a half life of 700 million years it is not highly radioactive!

You can't have highly radioactive and long half life at the same time.
You just don't understand the science.

You can tell how radioactive it is as when they deliver MOX fuel rods to
a power station all they are in is a cardboard box!

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 24/07/2017 16:09, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:50:05 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:18:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote :
20 million households makes that £20bn spent every 5 years on
batteries and inverters.

Makes Hinkley point look cheap.

Only because Hinkley is the cheapest and truly greenest option.

You know for sure how much it will cost then? Have you passed this on
to
the builders?

Have they factored in the decommissioning costs?

Standard practice these days is to include an amount for
decommissioning. Of course, Harry will say it's drivel, because no-one
knows how much it'll cost, regardless of the fact that a pretty good
estimate can be made from what is already known.

What about all the low and high level nuclear waste? How will they assess
the effect of that when it's dug up by our descendants who have regressed
to mediaevalism (or earlier)?

Taint gunna happen. No human society has
ever done anything even remotely like that.

A few of the less useful inventions have got lost over
time and we no longer know how to make that thing
anymore, but thats about it and it has never happened
with anything important like the wheel.

In article om,
"dennis@home" writes
On 24/07/2017 19:57, Max Demian wrote:

What about all the low and high level nuclear waste? How will they
assess the effect of that when it's dug up by our descendants who have
regressed to mediaevalism (or earlier)?


Well it wont be there if its highly radioactive as it will have decayed.
If its not highly radioactive then what does it matter?
How many times do we have to explain that to the (wilfully) ignorant?
--
bert

On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 4:17:52 PM UTC+8, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

at the moment there is about 8 hours of low demand betwen 11pm and 7 a.m.


when everybody is charging their electric cars, that will become peak hours!!

On 29/07/2017 02:56, wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 4:17:52 PM UTC+8, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

at the moment there is about 8 hours of low demand betwen 11pm and 7 a.m.


when everybody is charging their electric cars, that will become peak hours!!


And the greenies are advocating that charging cars can _only_ happen
when the wind blows or the sun shines!

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 29/07/2017 02:56, wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 4:17:52 PM UTC+8, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

at the moment there is about 8 hours of low demand betwen 11pm and 7
a.m.


when everybody is charging their electric cars, that will become peak
hours!!


And the greenies are advocating that charging cars can _only_ happen
when the wind blows or the sun shines!

You've made that up.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

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

On 01/08/17 16:46, alan_m wrote:
On 29/07/2017 02:56, wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 4:17:52 PM UTC+8, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

at the moment there is about 8 hours of low demand betwen 11pm and 7
a.m.


when everybody is charging their electric cars, that will become peak
hours!!


And the greenies are advocating that charging cars can _only_ happen
when the wind blows or the sun shines!



Which would work very well with hydrogen powered cars - but no one seems
to be commenting on that.