On 09/01/2019 07:16, BillD wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/01/2019 22:10, BillD wrote:
They have always had lots who leave the country for various reasons. The
climate alone has real downsides and there have always been more job
opportunities outside such a small country.

But surely that is what socialism is supposed to fix?



No it isnt.

So job creation and climate change are nothing that socialism is
involved with OK?


--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/2019 07:16, BillD wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/01/2019 22:10, BillD wrote:
They have always had lots who leave the country for various reasons. The
climate alone has real downsides and there have always been more job
opportunities outside such a small country.

But surely that is what socialism is supposed to fix?



No it isnt.

So job creation and climate change are nothing that socialism is
involved with OK?



Clearly quite a bit of job creation was involved with the government doing
their oil and gas and most of their power generation. Same with the NHS in
the UK and with government schools in both countries.

On Monday, 7 January 2019 11:09:22 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
If you are trying to imply that Norway is a socialist country, then you
are wrong; it is not.

Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so much.
And an example of a capitalist one you admire.



Venezuela.

Switzerland

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/01/2019 22:10, BillD wrote:
They have always had lots who leave the country for various reasons. The
climate alone has real downsides and there have always been more job
opportunities outside such a small country.

But surely that is what socialism is supposed to fix?

You've been taken in yet again, Turnip. Only the likes of Trump would
claim to be able to fix the short winter days.

--
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

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

On 07/01/2019 13:38, George Miles wrote:
Insulating our houses means we have to import less oil, gas, coal etc.

Having no more than 2 kids per female (worldwide), or no more
than 1 where the population is already unsustainable, is the
only way to reduce CO2 output and demand on oil reserves.

On 08/01/2019 18:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/01/2019 17:23, David wrote:


Nuclear seems to have increased; have they brought another reactor on
line?


Not sure - there's one completely down for crack testing or something.

Thats hHunterston B. Down for graphite inspection

Then Dungeness B is down till end of Jan and End of Feb (reactor 1 and
2) respectively) for routine maintenance and inspection

Heysham 1/reactor 2 was tripped but due to resume today. Maybe that's
it. Looks like another 500MW came on line which is about right.



It's an interesting consequence of privatisation that, where once
planned nuclear outages were always in the summer, they are now as often
as not in the winter. Presumably a consequence of clever players
optimising the various markets. I won't use the loaded word "gaming".

On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 18:01:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 08/01/2019 17:23, David wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 13:49:15 +0000, David wrote:

Today is an example of the case against relying too much on
renewables.

Winter, so cold.

Blocking high over the UK, so little wind.

Grey skies over the UK, so little sun.

Looking at Gridwatch we are getting roughly 2% of power from solar and
2% of power from wind.

As it is Sunday I assume that the demand is less than during the week.
Let us see what tomorrow brings!

As I said, something of a warning. Simple arithmetic suggests that if
we had 10 times the current infrastructure for solar and wind based
generation that would meet only 40% of current demand. During the day.

Hmmm....demand up quite a bit. Just as well it is windy.

Nuclear seems to have increased; have they brought another reactor on
line?


Not sure - there's one completely down for crack testing or something.

Thats hHunterston B. Down for graphite inspection

Then Dungeness B is down till end of Jan and End of Feb (reactor 1 and
2) respectively) for routine maintenance and inspection

Heysham 1/reactor 2 was tripped but due to resume today. Maybe that's
it. Looks like another 500MW came on line which is about right.

CCGT now near the stops, and coal ramping up to supply more than wind.

Looking at the figures, can we meet demand at night in the winter without
coal?

Must stop looking at the meters!

Cheers



Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

snip

CCGT now near the stops, and coal ramping up to supply more than wind.

Looking at the figures, can we meet demand at night in the winter
without coal?

Must stop looking at the meters!

They're firing up the OCGT!

They're firing up the OCGT!!!

{Goes for a lie down in a darkened room}

--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

David wrote:

They're firing up the OCGT!
Prolly just a little test burn to make sure a couple of them are
ship-shape ...

On 09/01/2019 18:21, David wrote:


Looking at the figures, can we meet demand at night in the winter without
coal?
at night poissibly.
By day. I suspect not


Must stop looking at the meters!


Please be advised the 'stops' are notional.

Ther may be mpore or less capacity avialable depending on the state of
individual stations


Cheers



Dave R




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

On 09/01/2019 18:38, David wrote:
snip

CCGT now near the stops, and coal ramping up to supply more than wind.

Looking at the figures, can we meet demand at night in the winter
without coal?

Must stop looking at the meters!

They're firing up the OCGT!

They're firing up the OCGT!!!

{Goes for a lie down in a darkened room}

Yep. Obviously spot prices are high enough..



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

On 09/01/2019 18:47, Andy Burns wrote:
David wrote:

They're firing up the OCGT!
Prolly just a little test burn to make sure a couple of them are
ship-shape ...

been on fer an hour.



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

On 09/01/2019 19:21, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 9 Jan 2019 18:21:03 GMT, David wrote:

CCGT now near the stops, and coal ramping up to supply more than wind.

(not sure if TNP's coloured segments on his meters actually represent
maximum capacities; he will comment, no doubt)


Sorta but dont take their word for it.


Looking at the figures, can we meet demand at night in the winter without
coal?

Must stop looking at the meters!

A couple of nights ago, and as I type now, even the OCGT are up.



Mmm. and we are importing from France too...now of France goes all chilly...


--
"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 09/01/2019 20:45, newshound wrote:
I'm confused, is there a browser problem? What I see is a 2017 article
saying that, of their 82 TWh pumped storage capacity, they already used
virtually all of it themselves. To service Germany they would need to
build *lots* more, which they don't want to do, and they would need a
huge investment in grid infrastructure to do it.

The article is saying that it's *not* a practical solution, which is
what you were saying too.

If you have enough hydro water you dont necessarily need to pump it. You
simply hold it and run your country off imported renewabubbles and
unicorn farts.

When those die down, you have your water...


--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 09/01/2019 21:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:45:17 +0000, newshound
wrote:

I'm confused, is there a browser problem? What I see is a 2017 article
saying that, of their 82 TWh pumped storage capacity, they already used
virtually all of it themselves. To service Germany they would need to
build *lots* more, which they don't want to do, and they would need a
huge investment in grid infrastructure to do it.

Actually it says (cut-and-pasted) "This means nearly all the countrys
82 terawatt-hours of storage was used by Norwegians." It doesn't say
"82 terawatt-hours of _pumped_ storage". I agree it's misleading, but
I take it to mean that the 82 TWh is the storage capacity of their
conventional hydroelectric schemes, i.e. the reservoirs behind the
dams.

that equates to approximately 9MW continuous generation.

So it could well be.

Wiki:

Hydropower generation capacity is around 31 GW in 2014, when 131 TWh was
produced; about 95% of total production.[4]

Of the total production in 2011 of 128 TWh; 122 TWh was from
hydroelectric plants, 4795 GWh was from thermal power, and 1283 GWh was
wind generated.[5] In the same year, the total consumption was 114
TWh.[5] Hydro production can vary 60 TWh between years, depending on
amount of precipitation, and the remaining hydro potential is about 34
TWh.[6]

In 2016, the Norwegian government published a €œWhite Paper€� regarding
their future energy intentions through 2030. This announcement
emphasized four main goals, which were improving security in the supply
of their power, improving the efficiency of their renewables, making
their energy more efficiency and environmentally and climate sensitive,
and fostering economic development and value through fiscally
responsible and renewable technology.[7]

The annual electricity consumption was about 26-27 MWh per inhabitant
during 2004-2009 when the European union (EU15) average in 2008 was 7.4
MWh. Norways consumption of electricity was over three times higher per
person compared to the EU 15 average in 2008. The domestic electricity
supply promotes use of electricity,[8] and it is the most common energy
source for heating floors and hot water.




--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

David wrote:

They're firing up the OCGT!

Prolly just a little test burn to make sure a couple of them are
ship-shape ...

been on fer an hour.

Yet at the same time, pumped hydro was being "shy" compared to their
usual early evening output, and this morning all inter-connectors are
either exporting or idle.

It's not even been especially cold yet.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/2019 21:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:45:17 +0000, newshound
wrote:

I'm confused, is there a browser problem? What I see is a 2017 article
saying that, of their 82 TWh pumped storage capacity, they already used
virtually all of it themselves. To service Germany they would need to
build *lots* more, which they don't want to do, and they would need a
huge investment in grid infrastructure to do it.

Actually it says (cut-and-pasted) "This means nearly all the country‘s
82 terawatt-hours of storage was used by Norwegians." It doesn't say
"82 terawatt-hours of _pumped_ storage". I agree it's misleading, but
I take it to mean that the 82 TWh is the storage capacity of their
conventional hydroelectric schemes, i.e. the reservoirs behind the
dams.

that equates to approximately 9MW continuous generation.

So it could well be.

Wiki:

Hydropower generation capacity is around 31 GW in 2014, when 131 TWh was
produced; about 95% of total production.[4]

Of the total production in 2011 of 128 TWh; 122 TWh was from
hydroelectric plants, 4795 GWh was from thermal power, and 1283 GWh was
wind generated.[5] In the same year, the total consumption was 114
TWh.[5] Hydro production can vary 60 TWh between years, depending on
amount of precipitation, and the remaining hydro potential is about 34
TWh.[6]

In 2016, the Norwegian government published a ”White Paper• regarding
their future energy intentions through 2030. This announcement
emphasized four main goals, which were improving security in the supply
of their power, improving the efficiency of their renewables, making
their energy more efficiency and environmentally and climate sensitive,
and fostering economic development and value through fiscally
responsible and renewable technology.[7]

The annual electricity consumption was about 26-27 MWh per inhabitant
during 2004-2009 when the European union (EU15) average in 2008 was 7.4
MWh. Norway‘s consumption of electricity was over three times higher per
person compared to the EU 15 average in 2008. The domestic electricity
supply promotes use of electricity,[8] and it is the most common energy
source for heating floors and hot water.


one needs to remeber that Norway is a cold country. Much of the EU energu
consumption is in much warmer countries, so it's not surprising that more
than average EU energy is needed to keep warm

--
"Any

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 09/01/2019 21:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:45:17 +0000, newshound
wrote:

I'm confused, is there a browser problem? What I see is a 2017 article
saying that, of their 82 TWh pumped storage capacity, they already used
virtually all of it themselves. To service Germany they would need to
build *lots* more, which they don't want to do, and they would need a
huge investment in grid infrastructure to do it.

Actually it says (cut-and-pasted) "This means nearly all the countrys
82 terawatt-hours of storage was used by Norwegians." It doesn't say
"82 terawatt-hours of _pumped_ storage". I agree it's misleading, but
I take it to mean that the 82 TWh is the storage capacity of their
conventional hydroelectric schemes, i.e. the reservoirs behind the
dams.

Ah, OK. But the overall tenor *is* saying that Norway can't be the
battery for Germany (let alone Europe).

On 10/01/2019 08:34, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

David wrote:

They're firing up the OCGT!

Prolly just a little test burn to make sure a couple of them are
ship-shape ...

been on fer an hour.

Yet at the same time, pumped hydro was being "shy" compared to their
usual early evening output, and this morning all inter-connectors are
either exporting or idle.

It's not even been especially cold yet.

hydro may well be waiting for higher prices. I dont think its rained
that much recently.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 10/01/2019 09:26, newshound wrote:
On 09/01/2019 21:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:45:17 +0000, newshound
wrote:

I'm confused, is there a browser problem? What I see is a 2017 article
saying that, of their 82 TWh pumped storage capacity, they already used
virtually all of it themselves. To service Germany they would need to
build *lots* more, which they don't want to do, and they would need a
huge investment in grid infrastructure to do it.

Actually it says (cut-and-pasted) "This means nearly all the countrys
82 terawatt-hours of storage was used by Norwegians." It doesn't say
"82 terawatt-hours of _pumped_ storage". I agree it's misleading, but
I take it to mean that the 82 TWh is the storage capacity of their
conventional hydroelectric schemes, i.e. the reservoirs behind the
dams.

Ah, OK. But the overall tenor *is* saying that Norway can't be the
battery for Germany (let alone Europe).

That is certainly true, but it can *help*. If renewable energy ought to
be *helped*.

If Brexit has done one thing, its exposed the utter corruption and
venality and arrogance of *all* the EU and UK politicians.

If they lied about one thing are they telling the truth about climate
change?

Course they aren't!

There is a global war between globalists and populations.

The globalists know this. The populations are only just waking up to it.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

pumped hydro was being "shy" compared to their usual
early evening output

hydro may well be waiting for higher prices. I dont think its rained
that much recently.

I didn't mean fluvial hydro, presumably Dinorwic is not especially
dependent on rainfall, and it's just a small bonus to them?

On 10/01/2019 10:10, Andy Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

pumped hydro was being "shy" compared to their usual
early evening output

hydro may well be waiting for higher prices. I dont think its rained
that much recently.

I didn't mean fluvial hydro, presumably Dinorwic is not especially
dependent on rainfall, and it's just a small bonus to them?

Oh pumped is not there to run in cold weather. It's there to balance the
evening peak.


typically it bangs out a variable half a GW for an hour or three


--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

pumped is not there to run in cold weather. It's there to balance the
evening peak.

well yes, and you normally see a "pulse" from it on the graphs at 7pm'ish

typically it bangs out a variable half aÂ* GW for an hour or three

Clearly there was a lot of wind-power available on Monday, so CCGT and
coal were trimmed back, and pumped storage barely bothered running that
evening.

If supply was short enough on Wednesday night (wholesale prices weren't
high for the month, so was it really?) to run OCGT, then wouldn't hydro
have cashed-in too?

On 10/01/2019 08:51, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/2019 21:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:45:17 +0000, newshound
wrote:

I'm confused, is there a browser problem? What I see is a 2017 article
saying that, of their 82 TWh pumped storage capacity, they already used
virtually all of it themselves. To service Germany they would need to
build *lots* more, which they don't want to do, and they would need a
huge investment in grid infrastructure to do it.

Actually it says (cut-and-pasted) "This means nearly all the country€˜s
82 terawatt-hours of storage was used by Norwegians." It doesn't say
"82 terawatt-hours of _pumped_ storage". I agree it's misleading, but
I take it to mean that the 82 TWh is the storage capacity of their
conventional hydroelectric schemes, i.e. the reservoirs behind the
dams.

that equates to approximately 9MW continuous generation.

So it could well be.

Wiki:

Hydropower generation capacity is around 31 GW in 2014, when 131 TWh was
produced; about 95% of total production.[4]

Of the total production in 2011 of 128 TWh; 122 TWh was from
hydroelectric plants, 4795 GWh was from thermal power, and 1283 GWh was
wind generated.[5] In the same year, the total consumption was 114
TWh.[5] Hydro production can vary 60 TWh between years, depending on
amount of precipitation, and the remaining hydro potential is about 34
TWh.[6]

In 2016, the Norwegian government published a €�White Paper€¢ regarding
their future energy intentions through 2030. This announcement
emphasized four main goals, which were improving security in the supply
of their power, improving the efficiency of their renewables, making
their energy more efficiency and environmentally and climate sensitive,
and fostering economic development and value through fiscally
responsible and renewable technology.[7]

The annual electricity consumption was about 26-27 MWh per inhabitant
during 2004-2009 when the European union (EU15) average in 2008 was 7.4
MWh. Norway€˜s consumption of electricity was over three times higher per
person compared to the EU 15 average in 2008. The domestic electricity
supply promotes use of electricity,[8] and it is the most common energy
source for heating floors and hot water.


one needs to remeber that Norway is a cold country. Much of the EU energu
consumption is in much warmer countries, so it's not surprising that more
than average EU energy is needed to keep warm


I thinks it's also that those are figures for electricity only. Norway
is exceptional in using so little gas and oil (despite having vast
reserves of them!) compared with electricity - for the manifest reason
that it has long had so much hydroelectric capacity.


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