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.

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

On 06/01/2019 16:51, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 13:56:55 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones, and this is an example of it. In short, they use their resources
more efficiently.

As long as you accept that the closer you get to "100% efficiency" the
less you have to deal with anything out of the ordinary.

The problems start when morons don't realise this, pare everything down
to the bare minimum in the question for efficiency, and then wonder why a
blown fuse can bring a factory to a halt.

there is more than one definition of efficiency.

MTBF, and availaibilty (uptime)are some of them


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 06/01/2019 17:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 17:25:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/01/2019 16:51, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 13:56:55 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones, and this is an example of it. In short, they use their resources
more efficiently.

As long as you accept that the closer you get to "100% efficiency" the
less you have to deal with anything out of the ordinary.

The problems start when morons don't realise this, pare everything down
to the bare minimum in the question for efficiency, and then wonder why
a blown fuse can bring a factory to a halt.

there is more than one definition of efficiency.

Not to a bean counter. "How cheap can we do this for ?" is the only issue.

tyes to a bean counter if he loses custom because of them


MTBF, and availaibilty (uptime)are some of them

Yes. But only to the people viewed as a cost rather than an income stream
to the bean counters.

Not all bean countres are as stupid as you think


--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , 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.

Getting to 10 times the current infrastructure for solar and wind would:

a) cost trillions

b) there are days when the sun shines and the wind blows. On those
days, most of this extra infrastructure would not be needed. So it
would be shut down.

Running stuff that way is just what the Soviets did. They were rubbish
at maintenance so they built large numbers of extra passenger planes so
there were always enough working planes to operate. Which is an
unbelievable waste of society's resources. And now we're trying to
duplicate this in the energy sector.

There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones,

Not true of Norway.


and this is an example of it. In short, they use their resources
more efficiently.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , BillD
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , 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.

Getting to 10 times the current infrastructure for solar and wind would:

a) cost trillions

b) there are days when the sun shines and the wind blows. On those
days, most of this extra infrastructure would not be needed. So it
would be shut down.

Running stuff that way is just what the Soviets did. They were rubbish
at maintenance so they built large numbers of extra passenger planes so
there were always enough working planes to operate. Which is an
unbelievable waste of society's resources. And now we're trying to
duplicate this in the energy sector.

There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones,

Not true of Norway.

If you are trying to imply that Norway is a socialist country, then you
are wrong; it is not.


It was when it had the government do their oil and gas and most of their
power generation which is what made them much richer now than most other
similar countries.

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:

there is more than one definition of efficiency.

Not to a bean counter. "How cheap can we do this for ?" is the only
issue.

Bean Counter: Knows the cost of everything, the value of nothing.

Bloke has £4,000/year contract to look after 20 £2,000 boilers. He
does so, occasional parts but that's all the boilers all keep
chugging along working well for several years.

Bean counters spot this annual £4,000 expense, summon bloke, ask if
he can do the job for £2,000, nope, contract ends, boilers stop being
maintained.

Next year a boiler breaks down, bloke is called out, boiler is
fooked, needs to be replaced. £2,000 plus installation plus call out.
9 months later another breaks down, £2,000 plus installation plus
call out. Hum, "saving" that £4,000 maintenance contract expense has
cost 'em somewhat more than £4,000 *and* there 18 more old boilers
still out there, unmaintained and so quite likely to also die due to
lack of maintenance *and* the new ones aren't being maintained
either...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 06/01/2019 19:31, BillD wrote:
There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones,

All other things being equal...
Not true of Norway.

which is manifestly population poor and oil rich. Cf arab oil states.


and this is an example of it. In short, they use their resources
more efficiently.

No, they dont.

They just have a lot more. For now.





--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 07/01/2019 00:22, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:

there is more than one definition of efficiency.

Not to a bean counter. "How cheap can we do this for ?" is the only
issue.

Bean Counter: Knows the cost of everything, the value of nothing.

Bloke has £4,000/year contract to look after 20 £2,000 boilers. He
does so, occasional parts but that's all the boilers all keep
chugging along working well for several years.

Bean counters spot this annual £4,000 expense, summon bloke, ask if
he can do the job for £2,000, nope, contract ends, boilers stop being
maintained.

Next year a boiler breaks down, bloke is called out, boiler is
fooked, needs to be replaced. £2,000 plus installation plus call out.
9 months later another breaks down, £2,000 plus installation plus
call out. Hum, "saving" that £4,000 maintenance contract expense has
cost 'em somewhat more than £4,000 *and* there 18 more old boilers
still out there, unmaintained and so quite likely to also die due to
lack of maintenance *and* the new ones aren't being maintained
either...

bean counter notoces this and reinstates contract


--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On Sunday, 6 January 2019 19:31:23 UTC, BillD wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , 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.

Getting to 10 times the current infrastructure for solar and wind would:

a) cost trillions

b) there are days when the sun shines and the wind blows. On those
days, most of this extra infrastructure would not be needed. So it
would be shut down.

Running stuff that way is just what the Soviets did. They were rubbish
at maintenance so they built large numbers of extra passenger planes so
there were always enough working planes to operate. Which is an
unbelievable waste of society's resources. And now we're trying to
duplicate this in the energy sector.

There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones,

Not true of Norway.


Hello Wodders.
You've been told many times. Norway is not a socialist country.

This is why there is so much fuss being made about some way to store it of
course. It seems to me that before we turn the uk into one big windfarm we
need to solve the elecctricity storage problem.
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"David" wrote in message
...
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.

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

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 19:31:23 UTC, BillD wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , 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.

Getting to 10 times the current infrastructure for solar and wind
would:

a) cost trillions

b) there are days when the sun shines and the wind blows. On those
days, most of this extra infrastructure would not be needed. So it
would be shut down.

Running stuff that way is just what the Soviets did. They were rubbish
at maintenance so they built large numbers of extra passenger planes so
there were always enough working planes to operate. Which is an
unbelievable waste of society's resources. And now we're trying to
duplicate this in the energy sector.

There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones,

Not true of Norway.

You've been told many times. Norway is not a socialist country.

It obviously was when they chose to have the government do
their oil and gas and most of their power generation by the govt.

On 6 Jan 2019 19:31:20 GMT, BillD, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones,

Not true of Norway.

Hahahaaa... the nym-shifting, senile, trolling Ozzitard said it again!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On 6 Jan 2019 20:19:32 GMT, BillD, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


If you are trying to imply that Norway is a socialist country, then you
are wrong; it is not.


It was when it had the government do their oil and gas and most of their
power generation which is what made them much richer now than most other
similar countries.

That doesn't make it a socialist country, senile idiot!

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:34:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



You've been told many times. Norway is not a socialist country.

It obviously was when they chose to have the government do
their oil and gas and most of their power generation by the govt.

It never was and isn't a socialist country, senile fool!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones, and this is an example of it. In short, they use their resources
more efficiently.

Are we an example of those capitalist countries then? A model of
efficiency?

Or are you referring to the US? Preferring to spend billions building a
wall while many of their war veterans starve on the streets?

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

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

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.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a conqueror.

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

On 07/01/2019 11:03, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

This is why there is so much fuss being made about some way to store
it of course. It seems to me that before we turn the uk into one big
windfarm we need to solve the elecctricity storage problem.

You're belling the cat again, Brian.

Yeah Brian seems to be about a decade behind in the argument.


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

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 04:42:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 07/01/2019 00:22, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:

there is more than one definition of efficiency.

Not to a bean counter. "How cheap can we do this for ?" is the only
issue.

Bean Counter: Knows the cost of everything, the value of nothing.

Bloke has £4,000/year contract to look after 20 £2,000 boilers. He does
so, occasional parts but that's all the boilers all keep chugging along
working well for several years.

Bean counters spot this annual £4,000 expense, summon bloke, ask if he
can do the job for £2,000, nope, contract ends, boilers stop being
maintained.

Next year a boiler breaks down, bloke is called out, boiler is fooked,
needs to be replaced. £2,000 plus installation plus call out.
9 months later another breaks down, £2,000 plus installation plus call
out. Hum, "saving" that £4,000 maintenance contract expense has cost
'em somewhat more than £4,000 *and* there 18 more old boilers still out
there, unmaintained and so quite likely to also die due to lack of
maintenance *and* the new ones aren't being maintained either...

bean counter notoces this and reinstates contract

Except the previous offer isn't available. Bloke might have retired or
let the boiler fixing business. Beancounter (who clearly doesn't know the
score, or they wouldn't have made the previous decision) now has to
engage a new contractor on a less favourable deal.

A good example of beancounters costing money was a previous job, when the
IT Ops guys were "required" to move to an annualised hours contract to
eliminate overtime payments. It was forced through in the teeth of strong
resentment.

Until October the following year when every single member of the team had
worked their annualised hours. Cue much (unsuccessful) backtracking from
the new beancounters (mysteriously the old one found a new job just
before the ****/fan interface). Eventually they had to reinstate the old
contracts - from January - and effectively pay double time for the two
months left in the year.

Now I'm sure the IT Ops guys would make a complete Horlicks of running
the company finances, so there are skills to beancounting. The problem is
IT Ops guys don't get to point at a beancounter and ask "WTF do they
do ?" - even if their understanding of the answer is pretty much the same
as a beancounters of what a Network Support Technician does.

It was in the newly privatised Electrity Supply industry in New Zealand,
where the bean counters closed one division becasue it didn't show a
profit. It was the maintenence division. A major cable fault cost them a
fortune in compensation to customers because it took so long to fix.

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

Yes David, solar and wind dont work on dull January mornings (and nights),
yes Brian, better energy storage is needed,
but in terms of CO2 its better to not waste money and burn so much oil and coal every year,
the 'bean counter' / accountants did their sums.

I went to a talk by Ed Davey who was LibdDem energy minister:
he was proud of being responsible for lots more renewable energy,
and for a huge cable to Norway we can can export spare energy,
store it in one of their Fjord pump water batteries,
and import it a few hours later.

I dont know how the damage caused by mining and dumping Lithium etc fits into the equations - my taxes should pay for scientists to calculate the costs and benefits.

Insulating our houses means we have to import less oil, gas, coal etc.

George

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 1:49:17 PM UTC, David WE Roberts (Google) 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.

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

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 1:49:17 PM UTC, David WE Roberts (Google) 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!

Wind power is 30% tocay!

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 1:49:17 PM UTC, David WE Roberts (Google) 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!

Wind power is 30% today!

In article ,
George Miles wrote:
I dont know how the damage caused by mining and dumping Lithium etc fits
into the equations - my taxes should pay for scientists to calculate the
costs and benefits.

Insulating our houses means we have to import less oil, gas, coal etc.

I get the impression the old farts so against any form of renewable energy
actually want the planet to become uninhabitable in many places - and the
sooner the better.

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
There's a reason that capitalist countries are richer than socialist
ones, and this is an example of it. In short, they use their resources
more efficiently.

Are we an example of those capitalist countries then? A model of
efficiency?

Or are you referring to the US? Preferring to spend billions building a
wall while many of their war veterans starve on the streets?


The only veterans in the US who starve on the streets are those who are
actually stupid enough to blow their pension on drugs instead of food. The
problem is morbid obesity, not starvation.

On 07/01/2019 13:38, George Miles wrote:
Yes David, solar and wind dont work on dull January mornings (and nights),
yes Brian, better energy storage is needed,
but in terms of CO2 its better to not waste money and burn so much oil and coal every year,
the 'bean counter' / accountants did their sums.

I went to a talk by Ed Davey who was LibdDem energy minister:
he was proud of being responsible for lots more renewable energy,

shows what a cluyseless **** he really was.

and for a huge cable to Norway we can can export spare energy,

Ther is no huge cable to Norway and if teher was it would be nothing to
do with him

store it in one of their Fjord pump water batteries,
and import it a few hours late

They dont hacve pump water batteries


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ther is no huge cable to Norway

It is underway though ...

http://northsealink.com

On 07/01/2019 18:04, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ther is no huge cable to Norway

It is underway though ...

http://northsealink.com

I know, years after dickhead davey claimed responsibility..


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

On 07/01/2019 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so much.
And an example of a capitalist one you admire.

I'd be interested in the reverse pairing.

I don't know of any truly socialist country that's ever been stable for
any length of time. For some reason they all seem to end in chaos.

Andy

Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2019 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so much.
And an example of a capitalist one you admire.

I'd be interested in the reverse pairing.

I don't know of any truly socialist country that's ever been stable for
any length of time. For some reason they all seem to end in chaos.

Andy


Norway didnt.

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2019 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so much.
And an example of a capitalist one you admire.

I'd be interested in the reverse pairing.

I don't know of any truly socialist country that's ever been stable for
any length of time. For some reason they all seem to end in chaos.

I doubt you'd find any truly socialist country - despite what they might
call themselves. Or a totally capitalist one either. All are shades of
grey between the two extremes.

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

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

On 07/01/2019 22:58, BillD wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2019 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so much.
And an example of a capitalist one you admire.

I'd be interested in the reverse pairing.

I don't know of any truly socialist country that's ever been stable for
any length of time. For some reason they all seem to end in chaos.

Andy


Norway didnt.

hasn't yet.
Wait till north sea oil runs out.


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

Vaclav Klaus

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/2019 22:58, BillD wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2019 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so
much. And an example of a capitalist one you admire.

I'd be interested in the reverse pairing.

I don't know of any truly socialist country that's ever been stable
for any length of time. For some reason they all seem to end in chaos.

Andy


Norway didn‘t.

hasn't yet.
Wait till north sea oil runs out.

Unlike the UK with its jam now mentality, Norway has made provision for
when its oil runs out.

--
*WHERE DO FOREST RANGERS GO TO "GET AWAY FROM IT ALL?"

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

On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 00:27:40 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2019 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so much.
And an example of a capitalist one you admire.

I'd be interested in the reverse pairing.

I don't know of any truly socialist country that's ever been stable for
any length of time. For some reason they all seem to end in chaos.

I doubt you'd find any truly socialist country - despite what they might
call themselves. Or a totally capitalist one either. All are shades of
grey between the two extremes.

I wonder how many shades it might be :-D

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?

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

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.



Cheers


Dave R



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/2019 22:58, BillD wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2019 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so much.
And an example of a capitalist one you admire.

I'd be interested in the reverse pairing.

I don't know of any truly socialist country that's ever been stable for
any length of time. For some reason they all seem to end in chaos.

Andy


Norway didnt.

hasn't yet.
Wait till north sea oil runs out.



Wont end in chaos because the govt oil and gas operation operates all over
the world now and they have saved the immense revenue steam and have plenty
of hydro power too.

On 07/01/2019 22:58, BillD wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2019 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so much.
And an example of a capitalist one you admire.

I'd be interested in the reverse pairing.

I don't know of any truly socialist country that's ever been stable for
any length of time. For some reason they all seem to end in chaos.


Norway didnt.

Up thread we were told that it isn't a true socialist country.

But that my be like the No True Scotsman thing...

Incidentally one of my colleagues is a raving lefty - and Norwegian.
What's he doing here then?

Andy

Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2019 22:58, BillD wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2019 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Please give your example of a socialist country that you hate so much.
And an example of a capitalist one you admire.

I'd be interested in the reverse pairing.

I don't know of any truly socialist country that's ever been stable for
any length of time. For some reason they all seem to end in chaos.


Norway didnt.

Up thread we were told that it isn't a true socialist country.

No country is in that sense, even the ones like Venezuela.

But that my be like the No True Scotsman thing...

Incidentally one of my colleagues is a raving lefty - and Norwegian.
What's he doing here then?

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.

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
Incidentally one of my colleagues is a raving lefty - and Norwegian.
What's he doing here then?

You should get him to read this group. He'd get a good laugh at all the
raving righties on here.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

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

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?


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

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.