| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Half of Sizewell B switched off
National Grid are paying EDF to switch off half of Sizewell B. Demand
is so low due to lockdown there is too much generation on the grid making it tricky to balance. https://theenergyst.com/national-gri...b-deal-but-say s-no-need-to-panic/ https://tinyurl.com/yd2owm5u That artical says the minimum demand forecast for Sunday was 14.4 GW. Doesn't look like it got that low on Gridwatch. National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. -- Cheers Dave. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On Tue, 12 May 2020 00:59:27 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:
National Grid are paying EDF to switch off half of Sizewell B. Demand is so low due to lockdown there is too much generation on the grid making it tricky to balance. https://theenergyst.com/national-gri...b-deal-but-say s-no-need-to-panic/ https://tinyurl.com/yd2owm5u That artical says the minimum demand forecast for Sunday was 14.4 GW. Doesn't look like it got that low on Gridwatch. National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. This lockdown has thrown up some very interesting statistics. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
This is where we could do with some way to store electricity, quite
obviously. Lets flood London and use the Thames barrier as a tidal generator. 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.! "John" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 May 2020 00:59:27 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote: National Grid are paying EDF to switch off half of Sizewell B. Demand is so low due to lockdown there is too much generation on the grid making it tricky to balance. https://theenergyst.com/national-gri...b-deal-but-say s-no-need-to-panic/ https://tinyurl.com/yd2owm5u That artical says the minimum demand forecast for Sunday was 14.4 GW. Doesn't look like it got that low on Gridwatch. National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. This lockdown has thrown up some very interesting statistics. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
Brian Gaff wrote:
This is where we could do with some way to store electricity Given the lack of extra suitable lakes for hydro storage, someone is now trialling dangling concrete blocks down holes ... |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote
Don't get that, surely people at home all the time still use power, but if manufacturing is not using their share where is everything we need coming from if not here? China, silly. "Dave Liquorice" wrote in message idual.net... National Grid are paying EDF to switch off half of Sizewell B. Demand is so low due to lockdown there is too much generation on the grid making it tricky to balance. https://theenergyst.com/national-gri...b-deal-but-say s-no-need-to-panic/ https://tinyurl.com/yd2owm5u That artical says the minimum demand forecast for Sunday was 14.4 GW. Doesn't look like it got that low on Gridwatch. National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. -- Cheers Dave. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
Brian Gaff (Sofa) has brought this to us :
This is where we could do with some way to store electricity, quite obviously. Lets flood London and use the Thames barrier as a tidal generator. That idea has considerable merit. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 08:42, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2020 08:04:53 +0100, Andy Burns wrote: Brian Gaff wrote: This is where we could do with some way to store electricity Given the lack of extra suitable lakes for hydro storage, someone is now trialling dangling concrete blocks down holes ... https://tinyurl.com/y2cq45vl Of course, you'd have keep the shafts pumped for inspection etc. which would use some of the stored energy. It's also been proposed to use those holes for pumped storage. E.G. https://tinyurl.com/yasnnc8o See also https://blogs.platts.com/2018/02/08/...d-mine-shafts/ I suggest converting the Snowdon Mountain Railway to electricity with a generate/discharge capability, and replacing the diddy little carriage with 10,000 tons of concrete on flat-cars. The diddy little carriage could tag along at the back. But do the sums. For 1000 tonnes and 1000m shaft (deeper than Killingley) you get about 30 MWh. The Snowdon drop is about 1000m too. But you couldn't put 10,000 tons on flatbeds and tow them, you would have to have motor/generators on a significant proportion of the wheels. So that would give you 300 MWh. Dinorwic is 9000 MWh. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 08:46, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa) has brought this to us : This is where we could do with some way to store electricity, quite obviously. Lets flood London and use the Thames barrier as a tidal generator. That idea has considerable merit. Say 1000 km^2, 10 metres total height, I make that 15 GWh gross, so 1.5 times Dinorwic. |
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Tue, 12 May 2020 17:14:41 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread -- Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed: "Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it." MID: |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 00:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
National Grid are paying EDF to switch off half of Sizewell B. Demand is so low due to lockdown there is too much generation on the grid making it tricky to balance. https://theenergyst.com/national-gri...b-deal-but-say s-no-need-to-panic/ https://tinyurl.com/yd2owm5u That artical says the minimum demand forecast for Sunday was 14.4 GW. Doesn't look like it got that low on Gridwatch. National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. What has this to do with DIY. -- |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 06:14, John wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2020 00:59:27 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote: National Grid are paying EDF to switch off half of Sizewell B. Demand is so low due to lockdown there is too much generation on the grid making it tricky to balance. https://theenergyst.com/national-gri...b-deal-but-say s-no-need-to-panic/ https://tinyurl.com/yd2owm5u That artical says the minimum demand forecast for Sunday was 14.4 GW. Doesn't look like it got that low on Gridwatch. National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. This lockdown has thrown up some very interesting statistics. Name them. -- |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
Chris Hogg wrote:
newshound wrote: Chris Hogg wrote: But do the sums. For 1000 tonnes and 1000m shaft (deeper than Killingley) you get about 30 MWh. The Snowdon drop is about 1000m too. But you couldn't put 10,000 tons on flatbeds and tow them, you would have to have motor/generators on a significant proportion of the wheels. So that would give you 300 MWh. Dinorwic is 9000 MWh. Quite. It was a tongue in cheek suggestion, very 'green', and useless. Gravitricity are trialling with 250kW (note lack of 'h' but their blurb mentions 15 minute runtime, so maybe 62kWh) aren't their crowd-funders convinced that gravity works? |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
Dave Liquorice wrote:
National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. Gridwatch shows 'notches' of lowered demand for several days recently, ass though they've used load-shedding, i.e. the opposite of what that says? |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 10:16, Andy Burns wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote: newshound wrote: Chris Hogg wrote: But do the sums. For 1000 tonnes and 1000m shaft (deeper than Killingley) you get about 30 MWh. The Snowdon drop is about 1000m too. But you couldn't put 10,000 tons on flatbeds and tow them, you would have to have motor/generators on a significant proportion of the wheels. So that would give you 300 MWh. Dinorwic is 9000 MWh. Quite. It was a tongue in cheek suggestion, very 'green', and useless. Gravitricity are trialling with 250kW (note lack of 'h' but their blurb mentions 15 minute runtime, so maybe 62kWh) aren't their crowd-funders convinced that gravity works? The problem is that 'green' energy is simply **** people have known about for years and rejected as being hopelessly ineffective or uneconomic. There are no real 'breakthroughs' at all. As far as storage goes water-up-a-hill remains the best method but is limited by lack of - er - hills. Making hills, or digging holes, is expensive (and carbon intensive) One of the less stupid ideas would be something like build a barrier across loch Ness and pump water out of it to store and then refill from the sea to generate. And bugger Nessie. -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 11:03, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote: National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. Gridwatch shows 'notches' of lowered demand for several days recently, ass though they've used load-shedding, i.e. the opposite of what that says? No those are data errors I am afraid. When the solar energy estimates cant be scraped from Sheffield -- "First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your oppressors." - George Orwell |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 11:03, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote: National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. Gridwatch shows 'notches' of lowered demand for several days recently, ass though they've used load-shedding, i.e. the opposite of what that says? Not sure what you are talking about, but the notches seem to coincide with a loss of solar. I would guess this is something to do with how solar is reported, rather than a genuine drop in demand. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
One of the less stupid ideas would be something like build a barrier across loch Ness and pump water out of it to store and then refill from the sea to generate. Since the surface is 15m above sea level, wouldn't it drain by itself and need pumping to refill? Not that 15m is much of a head ... |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: Gridwatch shows 'notches' of lowered demand for several days recently, No those are data errors I am afraid. When the solar energy estimates cant be scraped from Sheffield Ah, I did wonder about that, "obvious errors" in the past have been to zero |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
newshound brought next idea :
Say 1000 km^2, 10 metres total height, I make that 15 GWh gross, so 1.5 times Dinorwic. A decent exchange rate. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 11:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The problem is that 'green' energy is simply **** people have known about for years and rejected as being hopelessly ineffective or uneconomic. There are no real 'breakthroughs' at all. As far as storage goes water-up-a-hill remains the best method but is limited by lack of - er - hills. Making hills, or digging holes, is expensive (and carbon intensive) One of the less stupid ideas would be something like build a barrier across loch Ness and pump water out of it to store and then refill from the sea to generate. And bugger Nessie. You can pay for Scottish infrastructure, I don't trust them. Not to mention transmission. Have you ever considered generating hydrogen in periods of excess supply? :-) |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
Pancho wrote:
the notches seem to coincide with a loss of solar. yes, a more obvious now that today's solar notch has inched-in a bit from the edge of the graph. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
Pancho wrote:
Have you ever considered generating hydrogen in periods of excess supply? :-) The gravytrainicity website talks about storing pressurised air in their mine shafts to get double-duty out of them, perhaps they could generate hydrogen and store that instead of air, to get triple-duty out of them? |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 11:31, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote: Have you ever considered generating hydrogen in periods of excess supply? :-) The gravytrainicity website talks about storing pressurised air in their mine shafts to get double-duty out of them, perhaps they could generate hydrogen and store that instead of air, to get triple-duty out of them? Talk is cheap. I believe that cavities in salt deposits (where the salt has been dissolved out) can serve as reasonable pressure containment. Coal deposits in limestone OTOH are pretty porous. Good luck pressurising them without lining the shafts with concrete. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 11:21, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
newshound brought next idea : Say 1000 km^2, 10 metres total height, I make that 15 GWh gross, so 1.5 times Dinorwic. A decent exchange rate. A few million displaced residents might disagree. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/05/2020 11:03, Andy Burns wrote: Dave Liquorice wrote: National Grid are also looking at Demand Turn Up or variations where they pay for generators to reduce their export to the grid or consume more power. Gridwatch shows 'notches' of lowered demand for several days recently, ass though they've used load-shedding, i.e. the opposite of what that says? No those are data errors I am afraid. When the solar energy estimates cant be scraped from Sheffield Certainly true that EDF have been actively cooperating with Grid by managing load reductions at Sizewell to help grid with stability. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
newshound wrote:
Coal deposits in limestone OTOH are pretty porous. Good luck pressurising them without lining the shafts with concrete. They do talk of having a pressure dome on top and lining them, but the motor/generators will be inside the dome, so good luck keeping the H2 outside the explosive range :-P |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
The Natural Philosopher wrote :
One of the less stupid ideas would be something like build a barrier across loch Ness and pump water out of it to store and then refill from the sea to generate. And bugger Nessie. That sounds like a very sensible idea on the face of it and maybe not that difficult to implement. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On Tue, 12 May 2020 12:38:49 +0100, Harry Bloomfield, Esq. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote : One of the less stupid ideas would be something like build a barrier across loch Ness and pump water out of it to store and then refill from the sea to generate. And bugger Nessie. That sounds like a very sensible idea on the face of it and maybe not that difficult to implement. Loch Ness is fresh water, and is now being used to supply drinking water to Inverness, so probably not a good idea to pump in salt water. Changing the level might cause issues for the canal traffic as well, though I guess it would be possible to modify the locks to cope. There's already a pumped storage scheme at Foyers (Loch Ness is the lower level). Probably quite a few other hydro stations in the Highlands could be upgraded to pumped storage - but once again capacity of the lines to England is an issue. Mike |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 11:31, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote: Have you ever considered generating hydrogen in periods of excess supply? :-) The gravytrainicity website talks about storing pressurised air in their mine shafts to get double-duty out of them, perhaps they could generate hydrogen and store that instead of air, to get triple-duty out of them? Or get *paid* to take all that excess crude oil, and pump it back down into the depleted North Sea wells. ?. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 13:13, Mike Humphrey wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2020 12:38:49 +0100, Harry Bloomfield, Esq. wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote : One of the less stupid ideas would be something like build a barrier across loch Ness and pump water out of it to store and then refill from the sea to generate. And bugger Nessie. That sounds like a very sensible idea on the face of it and maybe not that difficult to implement. Loch Ness is fresh water, and is now being used to supply drinking water to Inverness, so probably not a good idea to pump in salt water. Changing the level might cause issues for the canal traffic as well, though I guess it would be possible to modify the locks to cope. would be an ecological disaster. The 'scottishscientist' idea has already been debunked, from what I gather. There's already a pumped storage scheme at Foyers (Loch Ness is the lower level). Probably quite a few other hydro stations in the Highlands could be upgraded to pumped storage - but once again capacity of the lines to England is an issue. Mike |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 08:46, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa) has brought this to us : This is where we could do with some way to store electricity, quite obviously. Lets flood London and use the Thames barrier as a tidal generator. That idea has considerable merit. That would make social distancing on the deep tube lines (that would be flooded) very difficult (or easy). |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 08:04, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote: This is where we could do with some way to store electricity Given the lack of extra suitable lakes for hydro storage, someone is now trialling dangling concrete blocks down holes ... There is BIG hole in Fulham where the TBM's being used to bore the London supersewer were lowered down. Deep hole too, through the clay layer and down to the hard stuff. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
In article , Andy Burns
writes Brian Gaff wrote: This is where we could do with some way to store electricity Given the lack of extra suitable lakes for hydro storage, someone is now trialling dangling concrete blocks down holes ... Mafia have already done it - with somebody's feet in the blocks. -- bert |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
In article ,
newshound writes On 12/05/2020 11:31, Andy Burns wrote: Pancho wrote: Have you ever considered generating hydrogen in periods of excess supply? :-) The gravytrainicity website talks about storing pressurised air in their mine shafts to get double-duty out of them, perhaps they could generate hydrogen and store that instead of air, to get triple-duty out of them? Talk is cheap. I believe that cavities in salt deposits (where the salt has been dissolved out) can serve as reasonable pressure containment. Coal deposits in limestone OTOH are pretty porous. Good luck pressurising them without lining the shafts with concrete. I have no wish to live on top of a bomb thank you very much. -- bert |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 11:21, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Andy Burns wrote: Gridwatch shows 'notches' of lowered demand for several days recently, No those are data errors I am afraid. When the solar energy estimates cant be scraped from Sheffield Ah, I did wonder about that, "obvious errors" in the past have been to zero the solar does drop to zero. but since its added to demand to make the graphs it shoes there as a notch -- €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 |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 12:47, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2020 12:38:49 +0100, Harry Bloomfield, Esq. wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote : One of the less stupid ideas would be something like build a barrier across loch Ness and pump water out of it to store and then refill from the sea to generate. And bugger Nessie. That sounds like a very sensible idea on the face of it and maybe not that difficult to implement. There's this impossibly large scheme for Strathdearn, above Loch Ness, by someone calling themselves 'Scottish Scientist' https://scottishscientist.wordpress....-for-scotland/ https://tinyurl.com/hcb953s feasible, bit an equivalent nuclear capacity at one tenth the price and with almost no environmental impact would be saner -- €œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance" - John K Galbraith |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 13:33, Andrew wrote:
On 12/05/2020 08:04, Andy Burns wrote: Brian Gaff wrote: This is where we could do with some way to store electricity Given the lack of extra suitable lakes for hydro storage, someone is now trialling dangling concrete blocks down holes ... There is BIG hole in Fulham where the TBM's being used to bore the London supersewer were lowered down. Deep hole too, through the clay layer and down to the hard stuff. So maybe 150m? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Clay Let's say a 20 metre cube of lead as the "weight", mass of around 100,000 tonnes. Stored energy 50 MWh. |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 12/05/2020 12:47, Chris Hogg wrote:
There's this impossibly large scheme for Strathdearn, above Loch Ness, by someone calling themselves 'Scottish Scientist' https://scottishscientist.wordpress....-for-scotland/ https://tinyurl.com/hcb953s I heard about that. They want to pump a loch up in the mountains full of sea water. Some will leak out of course... what was that about environmentally friendly? Andy |
Half of Sizewell B switched off
On 14/05/2020 07:22, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2020 21:30:09 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote: On 12/05/2020 12:47, Chris Hogg wrote: There's this impossibly large scheme for Strathdearn, above Loch Ness, by someone calling themselves 'Scottish Scientist' https://scottishscientist.wordpress....-for-scotland/ https://tinyurl.com/hcb953s I heard about that. They want to pump a loch up in the mountains full of sea water. Some will leak out of course... what was that about environmentally friendly? Andy I don't think anyone is taking it seriously, except presumably the author himself. Salt water contamination was just one of the objections. I thought he was creating a lower lake as well. Others covered such things as the capacity of the transmission lines needed to carry all that power away, and if the scheme is capable of generating 6,800 GWh of electricity, it would need a comparable amount of energy to recharge it. Ah, that's Scottish windmills of course. Enough nukes might do it, but then if you've got that many nukes, why both with the scheme in the first place? Because it is all predicated on this stupid stupid assumption that we have to go zero carbon without using nukes. No matter what it costs. Under that scenario its actually reasonably well thought out. Unlike windmills this will only *double* the cost of electricity again, not *treble it*. -- In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. - George Orwell |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter