On 01/05/2019 13:06, Pancho wrote:
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.

Yup.

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.

Yup that's a fair - I was being sloppy with my terminology. You don't
need to backup all the installed overcapacity - just the actual
proportion of it that matches your maximum demand (and a bit).

Zero net is achieved by biomass and gas carbon capture.

In theory...

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

Indeed. Many of the suggested fixes for storage etc are theoretically
possible and would work on small to medium scale. Its only when you try
scaling them to grid level they turn into staggeringly difficult
problems to solve and implement! Even if you manage to capture all the
carbon from burning gas (and keep in mind a significant contribution to
the gas carbon footprint is released in its extraction, transportation
and storage, not just when its burnt), what do you do with it then?

(to paraphrase harry "nobody knows what to do with the waste (CO2)")


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
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.

Which shows Harry that you have a poor to nil concept of power
provision;(..


Mind you thats much the same as the average politician..

And FWIW wind today at 14:29 is 0.30 GW or 0.82% of the UK demand..


See if you can open this up its the wind thats blowing right now..


https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...a/orthographic
=-0.73,50.04,1792

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article , Pancho Pancho.Dontmaileme@outl
ook.com scribeth thus
On 30/04/2019 14:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:28:13 +0100, Pancho wrote:

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

That's if you are obsessed about PV solar (which conveniently is also the
only solar you can sell to the grid).

Now if it was a case about being *serious* about solar, rather than a
greenwashed ponzi scheme, you'd be using solar panels to directly heat
water and then keep that stored in your hot tank for used whenever - thus
reducing your gas/electric consumption.

The point is in the UK we use most energy in the winter.

So yes piping hot water in the summer. I don't know about you but I
spend very little on hot water.

Solar power is an excellent idea, but not in the UK.

The point I find irritating is that I'm not seeing sensible energy
policy from anyone important.

A bit like Brexit, politicians would rather twiddle their thumbs than
make a good long term decision that would cause problems for them in the
short term.


You wont see anything of sense from the politicos as IF all the global
warming issue is true then the changes needed aren't going to get any
votes at all..

Here's one for starters at the moment 3 GW solar, **** all wind and 55%
of the UK power is from fossil Gas, so what are you going to do to
replace that with a non fossil carbon supply???

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Here's one for starters at the moment 3 GW solar, **** all wind and 55%
of the UK power is from fossil Gas, so what are you going to do to
replace that with a non fossil carbon supply???

Why has it got to be all or nothing, Tony? We don't run generating plants
flat out 24/7 now, do we?

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Here's one for starters at the moment 3 GW solar, **** all wind and 55%
of the UK power is from fossil Gas, so what are you going to do to
replace that with a non fossil carbon supply???

Why has it got to be all or nothing, Tony? We don't run generating plants
flat out 24/7 now, do we?


Yes we do when they are on line else there're not that efficient.

Anyway thats beside the point. Right this moment the UK demand is 37 GW
most of that is from Gas at 21.4GW coal is nil wind is .77 GW, solar is
fading down for the day at 1.5 GW the rest a max of imports and storage
and nuclear.

So what's to replace the 21.4 GW of Gas Dave?...


--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article , Tim Streater
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Pancho Pancho.Dontmaileme@outl
ook.com scribeth thus
On 30/04/2019 14:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:28:13 +0100, Pancho wrote:

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

That's if you are obsessed about PV solar (which conveniently is also the
only solar you can sell to the grid).

Now if it was a case about being *serious* about solar, rather than a
greenwashed ponzi scheme, you'd be using solar panels to directly heat
water and then keep that stored in your hot tank for used whenever - thus
reducing your gas/electric consumption.

The point is in the UK we use most energy in the winter.

So yes piping hot water in the summer. I don't know about you but I
spend very little on hot water.

Solar power is an excellent idea, but not in the UK.

The point I find irritating is that I'm not seeing sensible energy
policy from anyone important.

A bit like Brexit, politicians would rather twiddle their thumbs than
make a good long term decision that would cause problems for them in the
short term.

You wont see anything of sense from the politicos as IF all the global
warming issue is true then the changes needed aren't going to get any
votes at all.

Here's one for starters: at the moment 3 GW solar, **** all wind and 55%
of the UK power is from fossil Gas, so what are you going to do to
replace that with a non fossil carbon supply???

Nuclear.

Obvs.

Yes you know that I know that more informed members of this board know
that Greenpeace won't see it extinction rebellion ?, dunno what they
think but it is non Carbon interesting.

However seeing how much palaver there is getting one built etc might be
cheaper to throw another cable or two to France and borrow one or three
of theirs...
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
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.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of FUD
on the subject..
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 01/05/2019 13:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

Well that's a legacy you get from listening to green nimbys for decades
after being world leaders in the field...

We buy in all the renewable generating kit as well.

Nor is the
latest technology 'proven' either.

You don't have to have the latest, just working.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

Only a few wanky cruise ships.

To save on fuel costs?

Actually to suck suckers in.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

Not incapable, just makes more sense to use those who
have been doing it for decades to make some for you.

So have to go cap in hand to China etc.

No cap in hand involved. Britain is getting them to competitively
bid for what Britain has decided it wants to have.

Who are
going to make damn sure they get as much profit from it as possible.

And it remains to be seen if they actually achieve that.

And
likely control over 'our' energy.

Not even possible.

"Pancho" wrote in message
...
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 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.)

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.

Part of the problem is that what france allows design wise, britain doesnt.

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.

Doesnt explain why france ended up with so much nuclear power.

On Thu, 2 May 2019 05:12:21 +1000, 2987pl, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


All so easy, isn't it? Except we are incapable of designing and building
such things ourselves.

Not incapable, just makes more sense

I wonder why people don't just ask YOU all their questions, you all-knowing
senile asshole? Don't you wonder too? I bet you do! BG

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Thu, 2 May 2019 05:09:29 +1000, 2987pl, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


Don't some still use wind in addition to their engines?

Only a few wanky cruise ships.

There no one around who is wankier than you, senile Rodent!

To save on fuel costs?

Actually to suck suckers in.

There's no sucker around like you, senile Rodent!

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

On Thu, 2 May 2019 05:23:18 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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.

Part of the problem is that what france allows design wise, britain doesn¢t.

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.

Doesn¢t explain why france ended up with so much nuclear power.

Thanks! And now **** off, you senile pest!

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

On 01/05/2019 11:18, Pancho wrote:
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.

No.

The Key issue with nuclear is the regulatory regime under which it is built.

A basic reactor is about the same amount of labour and materials as a
coal fired power station. And can be put up in a couple of years.

Regulatory approval streches the process to a decade and triples the
capital cost and cpaital cots is teh far and away largest single cost in
nuclear power generation, followed by O & M costs.


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.


French are worse.

Google Okiluoto and Flammanville.

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.

You are barking up the wrong tree. All nuclear companies are multinational.

What is happening however is that people are trying to get type approval
for a reactor that can be mass produced in a factory and shipped to its site

This isn't abpout economies of scale though, it sa about circumventing
regulation.

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.

We arent doing it because on the one hand no one wants to pour billions
into a project that can be stopped with a stroke of the regulatry pen,
and on teh wother we arent dong it becase there is no need to solve the
low C2 energy production iussue, because AGW is a crock of ****. Amd
attemptinmg tpo solcve it but not solving it at all is a way to make
****loads of subsidised money .

We have had a century of communism and socialism. It has achieved
bugger all. Because in order to exist it needs problems it can pretend
to solve.







--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 01/05/2019 12:51, 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?

We did - apart from sizewell 'B'


--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes you do.

We'd have to buy it in.

You already do that with most technology,
particularly with mobile phones and computers
and the renewable power generation.

Nor is the latest technology 'proven' either.

Just as true of the renewables.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 01/05/2019 13:06, Pancho wrote:
On 30/04/2019 15:51, 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!


That's not quite true.

Presumably you install wind and solar massive overcapacity.

Yup.

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.

Yup that's a fair - I was being sloppy with my terminology. You don't need
to backup all the installed overcapacity - just the actual proportion of
it that matches your maximum demand (and a bit).

Zero net is achieved by biomass and gas carbon capture.

In theory...

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

Indeed. Many of the suggested fixes for storage etc are theoretically
possible and would work on small to medium scale. Its only when you try
scaling them to grid level they turn into staggeringly difficult problems
to solve and implement! Even if you manage to capture all the carbon from
burning gas (and keep in mind a significant contribution to the gas carbon
footprint is released in its extraction, transportation and storage, not
just when its burnt), what do you do with it then?

(to paraphrase harry "nobody knows what to do with the waste (CO2)")

Thats not accurate. We know what to do with limestone most obviously.

On 01/05/2019 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

Well, we did have that capability but G Brown was too
afraid of the anti-nuclear lobby, and instead of ordering
replacements back in 2007 he sold off our UK capability
to Toshiba, who have now reneged on their agreement
to build a new plant on Anglesey.

And Rolls Royce still do have the skills because they
design and build all the reactors used in our nuclear subs.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Pancho Pancho.Dontmaileme@outl
ook.com scribeth thus
On 30/04/2019 14:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:28:13 +0100, Pancho wrote:

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

That's if you are obsessed about PV solar (which conveniently is also
the
only solar you can sell to the grid).

Now if it was a case about being *serious* about solar, rather than a
greenwashed ponzi scheme, you'd be using solar panels to directly heat
water and then keep that stored in your hot tank for used whenever -
thus
reducing your gas/electric consumption.

The point is in the UK we use most energy in the winter.

So yes piping hot water in the summer. I don't know about you but I
spend very little on hot water.

Solar power is an excellent idea, but not in the UK.

The point I find irritating is that I'm not seeing sensible energy
policy from anyone important.

A bit like Brexit, politicians would rather twiddle their thumbs than
make a good long term decision that would cause problems for them in the
short term.


You wont see anything of sense from the politicos as IF all the global
warming issue is true then the changes needed aren't going to get any
votes at all..

That’s overstated. Some would vote for the changes needed in that situation.

Here's one for starters at the moment 3 GW solar, **** all wind and 55%
of the UK power is from fossil Gas, so what are you going to do to
replace that with a non fossil carbon supply???

Nukes.

On 01/05/2019 14:34, Tim Streater wrote:
This is the Soviet model. Build many more planes than you actually
need, because maintenance is rubbish and your fleet of *working* planes
is far less than you've built. A massive waste of society's resources.
The same applies to massive overcapacity for wind and solar (your
words).

Also tractors, combine harvesters and orange carpet remember,
all 'socially useful'.

The More4 series Deutscheland86 is well worth watching on
more 4 if anyone has missed it. It may be drama, but I
suspect it is quite close to the truth.

In last fridays episode, one of the party 'leaders' has
suddenly noticed that background radiation as measured by
his thermionic-valve equipped meter is four times higher
that normal, after hearing reports on foreign news stations
of high readings. He tries to stop a colleague from eating
fresh strawberries, and wants to know what stocks of iodine
are held and if they can be handed out.

More bigwigs then arrive and pour scorn on his meter, suggesting
that he gets a better soviet one, pointing out that the last thing
they need is a panic and everything is 'normal'.

Then later in the program someone rushes in to the meeting to
say Gorbachov is on the TV announcing that Chernobyl is in
meltdown.....

On 30/04/2019 15:01, Pancho wrote:
Solar power is an excellent idea, but not in the UK.

Solar water heating works quite well in the UK, even on
cloudy days, but the initial costs put most people off.

If they considered the way electricity prices are heading
in the next 30 years they might reconsider, but people
are rather bad at working out inflation over that period,
even if it was only 3%.

On 30/04/2019 13:50, Martin Brown wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:31, newshound wrote:

Some years ago I tried to use solar lighting in winter for a small
stables. Admittedly not with a very big panel. Not very much light is
needed in the winter, but it still was a complete failure. Now, like
Martin I manage fine with a SLA swapped out every week or so.

At a stables if you wanted then wind power isn't too bad and you can get
300-500W units intended for topping off batteries in sailing boats.

Expensive, though. And knickable.


Solar in winter is pretty hopeless. There are bunch of solar powered
active radar "please go round the dangerous bend" signs round here which
kill their batteries stone dead every winter. In summer they are in fine
fettle all day but on a frosty winters morning they are useless and they
typically fail about two hours after sunset in mid-winter.


We had a solar powered "speed" sign on an approach road at work which
worked well all the year round. But it had a bloody great panel, at
least four feet square.

On 30/04/2019 16:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 15:01, Pancho wrote:
On 30/04/2019 14:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:28:13 +0100, Pancho wrote:

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

That's if you are obsessed about PV solar (which conveniently is also
the
only solar you can sell to the grid).

Now if it was a case about being *serious* about solar, rather than a
greenwashed ponzi scheme, you'd be using solar panels to directly heat
water and then keep that stored in your hot tank for used whenever -
thus
reducing your gas/electric consumption.

The point is in the UK we use most energy in the winter.

So yes piping hot water in the summer. I don't know about you but I
spend very little on hot water.

Even if you use 100L every day of the year, that usually only works out
at under £150/year in gas... That kind of throws many of these multi
thousand pound schemes for solar hot water into context.



Plus up to £150 standing charge :-(

On 30/04/2019 13:30, Martin Brown wrote:
On 30/04/2019 14:01, 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.

It might or might not be worthwhile. You need to get some early adopters
on board if the mass production cycle is ever to get off the ground.

Then they should have used the stick approach and not the carrot.
Instead of bribing people and slapping the cost of the bribe onto other
peoples electric bills they should have assessed every property for
suitability (location, age of property, orientation etc) and put all
all those properties UP by one council tax band. Those that fitted
solar PV (no grants, no FITS) or other effiociency measures would then
have their house rebanded one or two council tax bands lower.

I don't think the economics for solar PV stack up particularly well in
the UK - we don't get enough sunshine and when we do in summer there is
less not more demand for electricity. Solar thermal is better but also a
bit borderline and isn't subsided in the UK so hardly anyone does it.

OTOH when thin film perovskite PV comes of age it might even be viable
here if it drops the price per 1kW peak by an order of magnitude.

https://physicsworld.com/a/caffeine-...e-solar-cells/

They have reached about 20% efficiency and are thermally stable now
(although it is still a bit borderline).

On Thu, 2 May 2019 06:37:33 +1000, 2987pl, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

But "we" don't have such technology.

Yes you do.

LOL! And the senile retard auto-contradicts, AGAIN!

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

On Thu, 2 May 2019 06:39:45 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



That¢s not accurate.

Isn't it, you all-knowing self-important senile wisenheimer? LOL

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

On Thu, 2 May 2019 06:45:51 +1000, 2987plcantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

You wont see anything of sense from the politicos as IF all the global
warming issue is true then the changes needed aren't going to get any
votes at all..

That¢s overstated.

Is it, idjit? LOL

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

On 01/05/2019 22:02, Andrew wrote:
On 30/04/2019 16:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 15:01, Pancho wrote:
On 30/04/2019 14:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:28:13 +0100, Pancho wrote:

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

That's if you are obsessed about PV solar (which conveniently is
also the
only solar you can sell to the grid).

Now if it was a case about being *serious* about solar, rather than a
greenwashed ponzi scheme, you'd be using solar panels to directly heat
water and then keep that stored in your hot tank for used whenever -
thus
reducing your gas/electric consumption.

The point is in the UK we use most energy in the winter.

So yes piping hot water in the summer. I don't know about you but I
spend very little on hot water.

Even if you use 100L every day of the year, that usually only works
out at under £150/year in gas... That kind of throws many of these
multi thousand pound schemes for solar hot water into context.



Plus up to £150 standing charge :-(


Which you would be paying anyway assuming you want CH...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Wed, 01 May 2019 21:20:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We did - apart from sizewell 'B'

So why can't we design and build new ones? Have all the staff emigrated?

--
TOJ.

On 01/05/2019 12:51, 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?

We don't have the technical ability and experience to design new power
stations ourselves anymore - decades of green pressure and government
fear of the public response ensured that we didn't continue development
and so new recruits did not specialise in the areas needed.

We do have the ability to design small-scale units (such as submarine
reactors) and could, with the will, time and the money, replace the lost
expertise.

While the long term goal should be to replace our expertise, in the
short term we can use outside companies to design and build - with as
much as possible done in the UK.

What government could have done is finance new-build instead of looking
to the Chinese to do it and having a high strike price, which simply
exports the profits to China for the life of the plant.

SteveW

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2019 13:30, Martin Brown wrote:
On 30/04/2019 14:01, 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.

It might or might not be worthwhile. You need to get some early adopters
on board if the mass production cycle is ever to get off the ground.

Then they should have used the stick approach and not the carrot.
Instead of bribing people and slapping the cost of the bribe onto other
peoples electric bills they should have assessed every property for
suitability (location, age of property, orientation etc) and put all
all those properties UP by one council tax band. Those that fitted
solar PV (no grants, no FITS) or other effiociency measures would then
have their house rebanded one or two council tax bands lower.

But the lower council tax raised would have had to see the council
tax on the other propertys increased so it would still be a subsidy
from those who didnt choose to have PV or who couldnt afford it.

I don't think the economics for solar PV stack up particularly well in
the UK - we don't get enough sunshine and when we do in summer there is
less not more demand for electricity. Solar thermal is better but also a
bit borderline and isn't subsided in the UK so hardly anyone does it.

OTOH when thin film perovskite PV comes of age it might even be viable
here if it drops the price per 1kW peak by an order of magnitude.

https://physicsworld.com/a/caffeine-...e-solar-cells/

They have reached about 20% efficiency and are thermally stable now
(although it is still a bit borderline).

"TOJ" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 01 May 2019 21:20:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We did - apart from sizewell 'B'

So why can't we design and build new ones?

Because its cheaper to get those who currently build them to build another.

Have all the staff emigrated?

Mostly retired by now.

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:18:03 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
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.

The French went for nuclear electricity in a big way.
Now they are paying the (decommissioning) price.
Nuclear power is the most expensive power you can have. No-one knows the full decommissioning cost because no-one has completed the process.

They just store the nuclear waste away and leave the problem for future generations.

The Hinkley point power station is hugely over budget and late. And may never be completed.

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:06:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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?

https://www.cruiseline.co.uk/Windsta...saAguPEALw_wcB

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:06:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


What is the link to Brexit?
Our nuclear industry perished while were in the EUSSR.

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:27:01 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
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.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:18:03 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
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 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.)

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.

The French went for nuclear electricity in a big way.

Yep.

Now they are paying the (decommissioning) price.

More of your mindless silly stuff.

Nuclear power is the most expensive power you can have.

More of your mindless silly stuff.

No-one knows the full decommissioning cost
because no-one has completed the process.

Because there is no point in doing that, just
leave it to become much less radioactive.

They just store the nuclear waste away and
leave the problem for future generations.

They actually store it so that it can be reprocessed
when its cheaper to do that than to dig up more.

The Hinkley point power station is hugely over budget and late.

Corse nothing like that has ever happened with any other power generation,
eh ?

And may never be completed.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:06:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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?

https://www.cruiseline.co.uk/Windsta...saAguPEALw_wcB

That isnt to save on fuel costs, its just another stunt that
is an attempt to appeal to the more greeny tourist fools.
As the doco on it showed, the sails arent used much at all.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:06:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

What is the link to Brexit?

The EU wouldnt allow the sensible way to do nuclear power, state subsidys.

Our nuclear industry perished

Even sillier than you usually manage and thats saying something.

while were in the EUSSR.