On Wed, 1 May 2019 02:35:32 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


How realistic are the manufacturers claims for energy produced by their
solar pv panels. If they claim 2kw howlikel is this to be true/realistic ?

Depends on where you put the panel, whether it tracks,
and how much cloud you get etc and how far from the
equator you install it. As usual, its normally the best
you can ever get in the best conditions.

Darn, you HAD to **** also in this thread, you incontinent senile
wisenheimer.

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2019 15:01, Tim Lamb wrote:

Looking at physical size... roughly 1.6x1.0m bit big to wave about on a
single scaffold pole.

An urban dweller asks...

If the PV is within the field might the cows decide to test its support as
a scratching post?

Even if they did, easy to have say a 50mm heavy walled
galvanised pipe so you just smirk when they do that.

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 15:51:53 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power when
we need it most.

Then you adjust the output from the generators that don't come from solar?

After all, no generator has a constant load 24/7.

Which basically means that all solar farms produce 80% (at best) of
their installed capacity from gas, and wind farms at least 50%. So if
you want "zero" net carbon, then neither is much use unless you can find
a way of storing 7TWh of energy!





Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving as the East West grid is built up.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 12:28:16 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
On 30/04/2019 12:15, tony sayer wrote:


Well right now. 30/4 at 12:14 not that sunny today Gridwatch is
reporting 6.31 GW 16% which is a fair chunk of the UK demand..



At 12:14...

The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power when
we need it most.

I'm still having mega problems understanding why we can't deliver
nuclear more cost effectively. It seem we should be able to do that and
keep both TNP and the global warming crowd happy. A reliable base load
give us much more scope for load balancing via smart devices.

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear waste.

Wrong, as always.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 15:51:53 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power
when
we need it most.

Then you adjust the output from the generators that don't come from
solar?

After all, no generator has a constant load 24/7.

Which basically means that all solar farms produce 80% (at best) of
their installed capacity from gas, and wind farms at least 50%. So if
you want "zero" net carbon, then neither is much use unless you can find
a way of storing 7TWh of energy!

Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about.

Bull****. We have days with not enough wind to see any windmill turning.

Not that its any big deal, the old mechanical windmills
did fine by just having enough pumping capacity so
that the tank handles the windless days fine.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 04:30:57 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about.

Bull****. We have days with not enough wind to see any windmill turning.

Where's that, senile Rodent? In Australia? So it got NOTHING to do with the
UK, AGAIN!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Wed, 1 May 2019 03:49:32 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power when we
need it most.

I'm still having mega problems understanding why we can't deliver nuclear
more cost effectively.

Basically

Basically you are a driveling senile asshole who no more gets any feedbacks
in ANY of the threads he infests, senile Ozzie troll! LOL

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Wed, 1 May 2019 04:28:19 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power when
we need it most.

I'm still having mega problems understanding why we can't deliver
nuclear more cost effectively. It seem we should be able to do that and
keep both TNP and the global warming crowd happy. A reliable base load
give us much more scope for load balancing via smart devices.

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear waste.

Wrong, as always.

Actually, he was very much right, you auto-contradicting senile asshole!

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

On 30/04/2019 15:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:02:32 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

On 30/04/2019 14:33, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:07:53 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

A friend has those water panels on her roof and has told me it saves a
lot of money on bills for heating water. I guess its lower tech though
and lets face it many like the idea of gadgetry!

I think it's quite high tech, if you are using the vacuum tubey things


My primary concerns are about getting what must be quite a weight of
water onto the roof, and the potential for burst pipes. Although I
guess if your roof is doing it's job, a leaky setup should be no worry.

There's not much weight - at least with the systems that I looked into.
The tubes contain little water and there is a separate insulated tank,
which can be inside.

A small pump pushes water from the bottom of the tank, into the bottom
of the collectors and it returns to the tank from the top. The small
volume, low flow, lets the water get very hot before returning.
The pump flow can be automatically varied to give slower flow when there
is less sunlight and so maintain a high return temperature.

When there is insufficient sunlight, the pump stops and the water drains
back down to the tank (preventing freezing in the tubes). The pump can
also be stopped if the tank is getting too hot to prevent boiling in the
tubes.

I looked into buying the bits separately and making my own control
system. I did come up with a simple control circuit and software design
when I was looking into it, but I don't think I kept it when I didn't
take things any further.

SteveW

On topic: check.
Useful info: check.
No personal abuse: check.
Adds to discussion: check.

You really need to work at this newsgroup thing, mate. It may not be for
you.

Oh don't worry, I occassionally dabble in the various Brexit threads.

SteveW

On Wed, 1 May 2019 04:10:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Looking at physical size... roughly 1.6x1.0m bit big to wave about on a
single scaffold pole.

An urban dweller asks...

If the PV is within the field might the cows decide to test its support as
a scratching post?

Even if they did, easy to have say a 50mm heavy walled
galvanised pipe so you just smirk when they do that.

Senile wisenheimer will have a ready answer to EVERYTHING ...and I mean
EVERYTHING! BG

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On 30/04/2019 12:15, tony sayer wrote:
Well right now. 30/4 at 12:14 not that sunny today Gridwatch is
reporting 6.31 GW 16% which is a fair chunk of the UK demand..
Right now it's 0.24GW

So not a lot of use


--
€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 30/04/2019 14:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

tony sayer wrote:

today Gridwatch is reporting 6.31 GW

From 13GW of installed PV capacity.

But the nuclear lot want a power station running flat out all day every
day.

Is there anything wrong with maximising output?



Its the bean counters who insist.

Given that nuclear has extremely high fixed cost (loan repayment on
caspex) and maintenence that is irrespective of how much power it
produces and the fuel cost is essentially bugger all, you run it all the
time for any income you can get for it.

But thee are difficiult concepts for Lefty****s to grasp. Even one
dimensional thinking is hard for them,



--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 30/04/2019 14:22, Tim Lamb wrote:
I suppose we need to consider pump motor efficiency.
The worst small DC motor I have ever tested was around 50%.

Spend a little and you are up in the 75%+

If you get a quite big one , run it on a higher voltage and gear it down
it is even better.


--
€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 30/04/2019 16:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive Page
wrote:

Well it's only worth-while because of the very generous subsidy for
those of us who got in early ...

Meaning that it was never really worthwhile. Subsidies are always a bad
idea as they hide the true cost of something.

Thus spake a true Tory. Except where that subsidy applies to him, of
course.

Even true tory's can understand basic economics... subsidy can be
worthwhile when it promotes a behaviour that contributes to a common
good. Much like taxation can be be use to fold the costs of
externalities back into any practice where they are currently avoided.
That forces the true cost of an activity back onto those responsible for
it, and restores more realistic market forces.

Those that promote subsidy of renewable energy generation will argue
that its an industry that is new and hence needs support to reach
maturity (an argument wearing thin IMHO), and that there is a common
good being achieved from the production of low carbon energy.

There are major flaws in the argument that stem from the fact that we
currently have no practical use for intermittent energy sources. Hence
the delivery of it must be forced to become a continuous. Either the
producer of the energy must provide their own storage, or they rely on
existing flexible generation capacity elsewhere in the grid to make up
the shortfalls. Currently a massive externality the producer is not
having to meet. To add insult to injury, most of that flexible
generation capacity will be gas powered. So currently, by having grid
connected solar, you just lock in a requirement for gas generation which
seems to go against much of its whole stated purpose.



All renewable energy does is push electricity prices up, so instead of a
common good its straight profiteeri8nmg by ****s at the expense of society.

In short exactly what lefty****s accuse the capitalists of doing.

All Socialists and Greens are now the people they warned you about




--
€œThe fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?

Andy

On 30/04/2019 21:19, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving
as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?


Oh dear. Harry?

He once was conned into buying solar panels IIRC.


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2019 21:19, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving
as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?


Oh dear. Harry?

He once was conned into buying solar panels IIRC.

Twice actually and it appears to have paid off for him.

On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 15:51:53 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power when
we need it most.

Then you adjust the output from the generators that don't come from solar?

After all, no generator has a constant load 24/7.

Which basically means that all solar farms produce 80% (at best) of
their installed capacity from gas, and wind farms at least 50%. So if
you want "zero" net carbon, then neither is much use unless you can find
a way of storing 7TWh of energy!





Drivel.

Show us some better load figures then

The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving as the East West grid is built up.

Its not uncommon for the whole of Northern Europe to be becalmed for
many days in a row.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 21:19:55 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?

Andy

The same reason.
Because the wind moves about ****-fer brains.

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 00:52:24 UTC+1, 2987pl wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2019 21:19, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving
as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?


Oh dear. Harry?

He once was conned into buying solar panels IIRC.

Twice actually and it appears to have paid off for him.

Exactly so.
They have long paid back the capital cost in FIT payments and electricity saved.

Plus, in Summer, they run my electric car for free. And in most of Winter with a little foresight

Notice the dopey whingers here too stupid to install them.
Or too poor and and idle.

They will be gibbering shortly about moral values. You watch.
(How can a socialist possibly have moral values?)

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:31:22 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2019 12:15, tony sayer wrote:
Well right now. 30/4 at 12:14 not that sunny today Gridwatch is
reporting 6.31 GW 16% which is a fair chunk of the UK demand..
Right now it's 0.24GW




....... in the UK.
You have examine the entire connected grid.

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:51:43 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2019 16:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive Page
wrote:

Well it's only worth-while because of the very generous subsidy for
those of us who got in early ...

Meaning that it was never really worthwhile. Subsidies are always a bad
idea as they hide the true cost of something.

Thus spake a true Tory. Except where that subsidy applies to him, of
course.

Even true tory's can understand basic economics... subsidy can be
worthwhile when it promotes a behaviour that contributes to a common
good. Much like taxation can be be use to fold the costs of
externalities back into any practice where they are currently avoided.
That forces the true cost of an activity back onto those responsible for
it, and restores more realistic market forces.

Those that promote subsidy of renewable energy generation will argue
that its an industry that is new and hence needs support to reach
maturity (an argument wearing thin IMHO), and that there is a common
good being achieved from the production of low carbon energy.

There are major flaws in the argument that stem from the fact that we
currently have no practical use for intermittent energy sources. Hence
the delivery of it must be forced to become a continuous. Either the
producer of the energy must provide their own storage, or they rely on
existing flexible generation capacity elsewhere in the grid to make up
the shortfalls. Currently a massive externality the producer is not
having to meet. To add insult to injury, most of that flexible
generation capacity will be gas powered. So currently, by having grid
connected solar, you just lock in a requirement for gas generation which
seems to go against much of its whole stated purpose.



All renewable energy does is push electricity prices up, so instead of a
common good its straight profiteeri8nmg by ****s at the expense of society.

In short exactly what lefty****s accuse the capitalists of doing.

All Socialists and Greens are now the people they warned you about


And nuclear energy profits the Chinese and French.
(At least they are hoping so. They may well get their fingers burned.)

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 00:52:24 UTC+1, 2987pl wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2019 21:19, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are
improving
as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?


Oh dear. Harry?

He once was conned into buying solar panels IIRC.

Twice actually and it appears to have paid off for him.

Exactly so.
They have long paid back the capital cost in FIT payments and electricity
saved.

Plus, in Summer, they run my electric car for free. And in most of Winter
with a little foresight

Notice the dopey whingers here too stupid to install them.
Or too poor and and idle.

They will be gibbering shortly about moral values. You watch.
(How can a socialist possibly have moral values?)

They can when they work and are in favour of welfare
for those incapable of working like Brian is now.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:51:43 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2019 16:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive Page
wrote:

Well it's only worth-while because of the very generous subsidy for
those of us who got in early ...

Meaning that it was never really worthwhile. Subsidies are always a
bad
idea as they hide the true cost of something.

Thus spake a true Tory. Except where that subsidy applies to him, of
course.

Even true tory's can understand basic economics... subsidy can be
worthwhile when it promotes a behaviour that contributes to a common
good. Much like taxation can be be use to fold the costs of
externalities back into any practice where they are currently avoided.
That forces the true cost of an activity back onto those responsible
for
it, and restores more realistic market forces.

Those that promote subsidy of renewable energy generation will argue
that its an industry that is new and hence needs support to reach
maturity (an argument wearing thin IMHO), and that there is a common
good being achieved from the production of low carbon energy.

There are major flaws in the argument that stem from the fact that we
currently have no practical use for intermittent energy sources. Hence
the delivery of it must be forced to become a continuous. Either the
producer of the energy must provide their own storage, or they rely on
existing flexible generation capacity elsewhere in the grid to make up
the shortfalls. Currently a massive externality the producer is not
having to meet. To add insult to injury, most of that flexible
generation capacity will be gas powered. So currently, by having grid
connected solar, you just lock in a requirement for gas generation
which
seems to go against much of its whole stated purpose.



All renewable energy does is push electricity prices up, so instead of a
common good its straight profiteeri8nmg by ****s at the expense of
society.

In short exactly what lefty****s accuse the capitalists of doing.

All Socialists and Greens are now the people they warned you about


And nuclear energy profits the Chinese and French.
(At least they are hoping so. They may well get their fingers burned.)

Good for the UK if they do get built with no profit for them.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 09:52:14 +1000, 2987pl, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?


Oh dear. Harry?

He once was conned into buying solar panels IIRC.

Twice actually and it appears to have paid off for him.

"Twice"? You REALLY got NOTHING in your life than what goes on here, eh,
senile Rodent? No wonder you remember every detail, everyone ever said! BG

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Wed, 1 May 2019 17:07:04 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


They will be gibbering shortly about moral values. You watch.
(How can a socialist possibly have moral values?)

They can when they work and are in favour of welfare
for those incapable of working like Brian is now.

You don't need socialists for that, driveling senile idiot.

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Wed, 1 May 2019 17:11:23 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

All Socialists and Greens are now the people they warned you about


And nuclear energy profits the Chinese and French.
(At least they are hoping so. They may well get their fingers burned.)

Good for the UK if they do get built with no profit for them.

The UK never WAS, nor is, nor EVER will be ANY of yours, senile Ozzietard!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On 01/05/2019 07:36, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:51:43 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2019 16:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive Page
wrote:

Well it's only worth-while because of the very generous subsidy for
those of us who got in early ...

Meaning that it was never really worthwhile. Subsidies are always a bad
idea as they hide the true cost of something.

Thus spake a true Tory. Except where that subsidy applies to him, of
course.

Even true tory's can understand basic economics... subsidy can be
worthwhile when it promotes a behaviour that contributes to a common
good. Much like taxation can be be use to fold the costs of
externalities back into any practice where they are currently avoided.
That forces the true cost of an activity back onto those responsible for
it, and restores more realistic market forces.

Those that promote subsidy of renewable energy generation will argue
that its an industry that is new and hence needs support to reach
maturity (an argument wearing thin IMHO), and that there is a common
good being achieved from the production of low carbon energy.

There are major flaws in the argument that stem from the fact that we
currently have no practical use for intermittent energy sources. Hence
the delivery of it must be forced to become a continuous. Either the
producer of the energy must provide their own storage, or they rely on
existing flexible generation capacity elsewhere in the grid to make up
the shortfalls. Currently a massive externality the producer is not
having to meet. To add insult to injury, most of that flexible
generation capacity will be gas powered. So currently, by having grid
connected solar, you just lock in a requirement for gas generation which
seems to go against much of its whole stated purpose.



All renewable energy does is push electricity prices up, so instead of a
common good its straight profiteeri8nmg by ****s at the expense of society.

In short exactly what lefty****s accuse the capitalists of doing.

All Socialists and Greens are now the people they warned you about


And nuclear energy profits the Chinese and French.
(At least they are hoping so. They may well get their fingers burned.)

Yes, I agree on that. It is stupid to export the profits, that is just
money taken out of our economy.

Our government should have funded new nuclear power plants directly - it
can borrow at much lower cost than private companies and once paid off,
any profits from selling electricity could have gone to the treasury
(reducing the required tax take) or been used to lower consumers' bills.

SteveW

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power
when we need it most.

Then you adjust the output from the generators that don't come from
solar?

After all, no generator has a constant load 24/7.

Which basically means that all solar farms produce 80% (at best) of
their installed capacity from gas, and wind farms at least 50%. So if
you want "zero" net carbon, then neither is much use unless you can find
a way of storing 7TWh of energy!

Are you saying there is no point in reducing CO2? Got to be all or nothing?

--
*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats*

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Good summary, which makes my point quite nicely. The contracts with
(so-called) renewables ought to have specified that the onus would be
on *them* to make up the power shortfall when the wind doesn't shine
etc.

John only addressed subsidies as regards energy. That's not what you said.

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

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Given that nuclear has extremely high fixed cost (loan repayment on
caspex) and maintenence that is irrespective of how much power it
produces and the fuel cost is essentially bugger all, you run it all the
time for any income you can get for it.

But thee are difficiult concepts for Lefty****s to grasp. Even one
dimensional thinking is hard for them,

All so easy, isn't it? Except we are incapable of designing and building
such things ourselves. So have to go cap in hand to China etc. Who are
going to make damn sure they get as much profit from it as possible. And
likely control over 'our' energy.

This is obviously what you rabid brexiteers meant by bringing back control.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

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

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel. The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are
improving as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?

Don't some still use wind in addition to their engines? To save on fuel
costs?

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

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

On 01/05/2019 10:31, Steve Walker wrote:
Our government should have funded new nuclear power plants directly - it
can borrow at much lower cost than private companies and once paid off,
any profits from selling electricity could have gone to the treasury
(reducing the required tax take) or been used to lower consumers' bills.

Disallowed under EU state assistance rules.
Yet another reason to leave.


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

Josef Stalin

On 01/05/2019 10:31, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/05/2019 07:36, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:51:43 UTC+1, The Natural PhilosopherÂ* wrote:
On 30/04/2019 16:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â* Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive Page
wrote:

Well it's only worth-while because of the very generous subsidy for
those of us who got in early ...

Meaning that it was never really worthwhile. Subsidies are always
a bad
idea as they hide the true cost of something.

Thus spake a true Tory. Except where that subsidy applies to him, of
course.

Even true tory's can understand basic economics... subsidy can be
worthwhile when it promotes a behaviour that contributes to a common
good. Much like taxation can be be use to fold the costs of
externalities back into any practice where they are currently avoided.
That forces the true cost of an activity back onto those responsible
for
it, and restores more realistic market forces.

Those that promote subsidy of renewable energy generation will argue
that its an industry that is new and hence needs support to reach
maturity (an argument wearing thin IMHO), and that there is a common
good being achieved from the production of low carbon energy.

There are major flaws in the argument that stem from the fact that we
currently have no practical use for intermittent energy sources. Hence
the delivery of it must be forced to become a continuous. Either the
producer of the energy must provide their own storage, or they rely on
existing flexible generation capacity elsewhere in the grid to make up
the shortfalls. Currently a massive externality the producer is not
having to meet. To add insult to injury, most of that flexible
generation capacity will be gas powered. So currently, by having grid
connected solar, you just lock in a requirement for gas generation
which
seems to go against much of its whole stated purpose.



All renewable energy does is push electricity prices up, so instead of a
common good its straight profiteeri8nmg by ****s at the expense of
society.

In short exactly what lefty****s accuse the capitalists of doing.

All Socialists and Greens are now the people they warned you about


And nuclear energy profits the Chinese and French.
(At least they are hoping so.Â* They may well get their fingers burned.)

Yes, I agree on that. It is stupid to export the profits, that is just
money taken out of our economy.

Our government should have funded new nuclear power plants directly - it
can borrow at much lower cost than private companies and once paid off,
any profits from selling electricity could have gone to the treasury
(reducing the required tax take) or been used to lower consumers' bills.


I'm trying to understand this currently I'm coming up with the following
theory.

The key issues with nuclear seems to be that economic viability depends
on a lot of reactors using the same design being built. This allows
design cost and the cost of understanding build issues to be spread.

I guess France did it in the past so it is viable. But the UK government
does have a habit of messing up big projects.

Really speaking a multinational would have a better chance at these
economies of scale but I suspect they fear that government regulation
and/or new technology could limit their ability to use the same design
multiple times.

So we currently have the technology to solve the low CO2 energy
production issue but we aren't doing it, primarily because companies are
worried that someone will figure a way to do it cheaper.

On 01/05/2019 10:31, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/05/2019 07:36, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:51:43 UTC+1, The Natural PhilosopherÂ* wrote:
On 30/04/2019 16:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â* Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive Page
wrote:

Well it's only worth-while because of the very generous subsidy for
those of us who got in early ...

Meaning that it was never really worthwhile. Subsidies are always
a bad
idea as they hide the true cost of something.

Thus spake a true Tory. Except where that subsidy applies to him, of
course.

Even true tory's can understand basic economics... subsidy can be
worthwhile when it promotes a behaviour that contributes to a common
good. Much like taxation can be be use to fold the costs of
externalities back into any practice where they are currently avoided.
That forces the true cost of an activity back onto those responsible
for
it, and restores more realistic market forces.

Those that promote subsidy of renewable energy generation will argue
that its an industry that is new and hence needs support to reach
maturity (an argument wearing thin IMHO), and that there is a common
good being achieved from the production of low carbon energy.

There are major flaws in the argument that stem from the fact that we
currently have no practical use for intermittent energy sources. Hence
the delivery of it must be forced to become a continuous. Either the
producer of the energy must provide their own storage, or they rely on
existing flexible generation capacity elsewhere in the grid to make up
the shortfalls. Currently a massive externality the producer is not
having to meet. To add insult to injury, most of that flexible
generation capacity will be gas powered. So currently, by having grid
connected solar, you just lock in a requirement for gas generation
which
seems to go against much of its whole stated purpose.



All renewable energy does is push electricity prices up, so instead of a
common good its straight profiteeri8nmg by ****s at the expense of
society.

In short exactly what lefty****s accuse the capitalists of doing.

All Socialists and Greens are now the people they warned you about


And nuclear energy profits the Chinese and French.
(At least they are hoping so.Â* They may well get their fingers burned.)

Yes, I agree on that. It is stupid to export the profits, that is just
money taken out of our economy.

Our government should have funded new nuclear power plants directly - it
can borrow at much lower cost than private companies and once paid off,
any profits from selling electricity could have gone to the treasury
(reducing the required tax take) or been used to lower consumers' bills.

That kind of action would require actually making a decision in national
interest, and not pandering to whatever pressure group makes most noise
at the time. Most governments would view that as "brave"!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 01/05/2019 10:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power
when we need it most.

Then you adjust the output from the generators that don't come from
solar?

After all, no generator has a constant load 24/7.

Which basically means that all solar farms produce 80% (at best) of
their installed capacity from gas, and wind farms at least 50%. So if
you want "zero" net carbon, then neither is much use unless you can find
a way of storing 7TWh of energy!

Are you saying there is no point in reducing CO2? Got to be all or nothing?

No, I am suggesting that its unwise to opt for a solution that only has
a limited reduction effect, and once implemented, will make it much
harder to achieve any further reductions - thus taking the option of
"nothing" off the table.

Especially when you consider we already have existing proven technology
that goes straight to "nothing" in one hit.





--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Wed, 01 May 2019 11:04:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Except we are incapable of designing and building such things ourselves.

JOOI who designed and built our existing nuclear power stations?

--
TOJ.

On 30/04/2019 15:51, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Pancho wrote:
The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power when
we need it most.

Then you adjust the output from the generators that don't come from
solar?

After all, no generator has a constant load 24/7.

Which basically means that all solar farms produce 80% (at best) of
their installed capacity from gas, and wind farms at least 50%. So if
you want "zero" net carbon, then neither is much use unless you can find
a way of storing 7TWh of energy!


That's not quite true.

Presumably you install wind and solar massive overcapacity. The gas
backup only has to match capacity and only has to be actually used when
the actual generation from overcapacity wind and solar falls below
capacity.

Zero net is achieved by biomass and gas carbon capture.

I'm not saying any of this is sensible, just theoretically possible.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Are you saying there is no point in reducing CO2? Got to be all or nothing?

No, I am suggesting that its unwise to opt for a solution that only has
a limited reduction effect, and once implemented, will make it much
harder to achieve any further reductions - thus taking the option of
"nothing" off the table.

Especially when you consider we already have existing proven technology
that goes straight to "nothing" in one hit.

But "we" don't have such technology. We'd have to buy it in. Nor is the
latest technology 'proven' either.

--
Is the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?*

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

In article ,
TOJ wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2019 11:04:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Except we are incapable of designing and building such things
ourselves.

JOOI who designed and built our existing nuclear power stations?

Probably the same as used to build our ships, trains, cars, motorbikes and
electronics?

--
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.

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