In the DT -

"The operator of Britain's electricity network warned late on Wednesday
afternoon that low wind levels had forced it to search for emergency
sources of power.

In a statement, the National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO)
said: "Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator
outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with
has been reduced."

Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of course.
We excel at such things here.
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.!
"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In the DT -

"The operator of Britain's electricity network warned late on Wednesday
afternoon that low wind levels had forced it to search for emergency
sources of power.

In a statement, the National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO) said:
"Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator outages
means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with has been
reduced."

On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of course.
We excel at such things here.
Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below your
sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of Homeowners
club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn
fossil fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....

I don't know what you mean. I don't hear anything wrong. Could it be a news
config issue on others machines.
I can see the message below my sig line, if that is what you mean. On home
owners ones there is not a quoted message at all.
I'll have to have a poke about in the sig file and try something, but
everyone, don't shoot me for trying!

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.!
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of course.
We excel at such things here.
Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below your
sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of Homeowners
club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn fossil
fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....

OK this is a test reply on the group. this has words where the sig starts
and ends, so if there are any characters which are causing issues, I have no
controll over them.

Brian

--
The sig file starts here.
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
The sig file ends here.
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of course.
We excel at such things here.
Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below your
sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of Homeowners
club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn fossil
fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 22:44:52 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of
course.
We excel at such things here.
Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below your
sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of Homeowners
club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn
fossil fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....


Why don't we tap into global warming ?

So it looks like its being put in by the Microsoft software and I have no
control over it.
Sorry bout that.
Brian

--
The sig file starts here.
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
The sig file ends here.
"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
OK this is a test reply on the group. this has words where the sig starts
and ends, so if there are any characters which are causing issues, I have
no controll over them.

Brian

--
The sig file starts here.
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
The sig file ends here.
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of
course.
We excel at such things here.
Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below your
sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of Homeowners
club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn fossil
fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....

Humph. I've put it back.
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.!
"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
OK this is a test reply on the group. this has words where the sig starts
and ends, so if there are any characters which are causing issues, I have
no controll over them.

Brian

--
The sig file starts here.
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
The sig file ends here.
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of
course.
We excel at such things here.
Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below your
sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of Homeowners
club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn fossil
fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....

Well removing energy from the wind is doing exactly that, surely?


The problem is the higher energy density tends to make for chaotic weather
and its awfully hard to predict it and design something to take energy from
it.

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.!
"jon" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 22:44:52 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of
course.
We excel at such things here.
Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below your
sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of Homeowners
club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn
fossil fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....


Why don't we tap into global warming ?

On 14/10/2020 20:08, Andrew wrote:
In the DT -

"The operator of Britain's electricity network warned late on Wednesday
afternoon that low wind levels had forced it to search for emergency
sources of power.

In a statement, the National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO)
said: "Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator
outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with
has been reduced."

..... and the problem is??

Provided we still have spare capacity it's a non-issue.

The deployment of additional HVDC interconnectors to international wind
and solar farms will solve the issue long term.

Fredxx wrote:

there is no incentive to have any over capacity

I think National Grid ESO have said they keep reserve equal to the
largest operating plant at any given time available, to cover possible
loss of that plant?

If that's correct, they'll need a larger reserve once Hinkley C comes
online.

Brian Gaff wrote:

if there are any characters which are causing issues, I have no
controll over them.

Don't use a sig file?

On 15/10/2020 07:15, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I don't know what you mean. I don't hear anything wrong. Could it be a news
config issue on others machines.
I can see the message below my sig line, if that is what you mean. On home
owners ones there is not a quoted message at all.
I'll have to have a poke about in the sig file and try something, but
everyone, don't shoot me for trying!

Brian

Your sig file contains "-- " which means that everything below it will
vanish whenever anyone replies to you. The solutions are simple.

*DON'T TOP POST*

Or remove the offending .sig tag which truncates the message.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:18:13 +0100, Andy Bennet
wrote:

On 14/10/2020 20:08, Andrew wrote:
In the DT -

"The operator of Britain's electricity network warned late on Wednesday
afternoon that low wind levels had forced it to search for emergency
sources of power.

In a statement, the National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO)
said: "Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator
outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with
has been reduced."

.... and the problem is??

Provided we still have spare capacity it's a non-issue.

The deployment of additional HVDC interconnectors to international wind
and solar farms will solve the issue long term.

ROTFLMAO! No...it...won't!! Not...a...cat...in...hell's...chance!

We already have several interconnectors to the near continent. They
are only able to supply at most about 10% of the UK's demand, quite
often less. Do you really think that enough interconnectors will be
laid to supply all of it? And that pre-supposes that the electricity
will be available in Europe for us to purchase, which it won't be.
When demand is high in the UK, because it's cold in winter, demand is
also high across Europe for the same reason. Often, when there's
little or no wind in the UK due to a 'blocking high' in winter, that
blocking high covers a substantial part of Europe. There won't be any
spare electricity to feed the interconnectors.

You live in a fools' paradise.

Denmark only generates electricity by wind. They sometimes have to import
power for days on end.

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

On 15/10/2020 08:42, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:18:13 +0100, Andy Bennet
wrote:

On 14/10/2020 20:08, Andrew wrote:
In the DT -

"The operator of Britain's electricity network warned late on Wednesday
afternoon that low wind levels had forced it to search for emergency
sources of power.

In a statement, the National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO)
said: "Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator
outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with
has been reduced."

.... and the problem is??

Provided we still have spare capacity it's a non-issue.

The deployment of additional HVDC interconnectors to international wind
and solar farms will solve the issue long term.

ROTFLMAO! No...it...won't!! Not...a...cat...in...hell's...chance!

We already have several interconnectors to the near continent. They
are only able to supply at most about 10% of the UK's demand, quite
often less. Do you really think that enough interconnectors will be
laid to supply all of it? And that pre-supposes that the electricity
will be available in Europe for us to purchase, which it won't be.
When demand is high in the UK, because it's cold in winter, demand is
also high across Europe for the same reason. Often, when there's
little or no wind in the UK due to a 'blocking high' in winter, that
blocking high covers a substantial part of Europe. There won't be any
spare electricity to feed the interconnectors.

You live in a fools' paradise.

Maybe at present, but perhaps the future is a little more positive. We
already have a global distribution system for fossil fuels, and have had
for more than a century. We lose a little energy distributing the fuels
around, but overall the system is quite efficient and relatively
inexpensive. Perhaps that is one reason why reusable/green/sustainable
(whatever...) energy has difficulty getting off the ground. And, by
having more than one source, politics - such as the oil crisis in 1974 -
has little effect on distribution now.

There are already quite a few ideas for "supergrids" (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperSmart_Grid), and some already exist
and operate over a great distance (see the "See also" links in the wiki
article). The UK-France interconnectors are one of them; that they can
supply only 10% of the UK demand is a limitation of the technology
rather than a political one. Assuming there will be enough natural
energy available across the world at any time to supply /all/ the
world's demands (solar, wind, wave, hydro, geothermal, etc), then if
interconnected on a world-wide grid one country could not, on its own,
stop world-wide distribution. Even the weather in one part of the world
such as the "blocking high" you referred to would be irrelevant if the
sun is shining in the southern hemisphere, or the wind is blowing in the
USA. If we could solve the distribution problem, then spare electricity
should be available at any time.

We may be nearer to solving that problem than any of us perhaps thought:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2256953-first-room-temperature-superconductor-could-spark-energy-revolution/.
We aren't there yet, but it's a good start. A practical room-temperature
superconductor would make a world-wide supergrid not only possible, but
inevitable.

--

Jeff

Chris Hogg wrote:

charles wrote:

Denmark only generates electricity by wind. They sometimes have to import
power for days on end.

I thought they also had some waste-to-energy incinerator plants.

They do, and some fossil too.

But yes, when they have surplus electricity they have to export it to
the likes of Sweden or Germany at knock-down prices (a buyers'
market), but when they don't have enough, they have to buy it back at
elevated prices (a sellers' market).
Apparently they sell a lot to norway every night to pump pater up their
hydro and buy it back the next day.

They're in a lose-lose situation.

I thought they were "unpopular" within the european energy markets a few
years ago for always wanting to export wind power when nobody else
wanted any?

On 15/10/2020 08:18, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 14/10/2020 20:08, Andrew wrote:
In the DT -

"The operator of Britain's electricity network warned late on
Wednesday afternoon that low wind levels had forced it to search for
emergency sources of power.

In a statement, the National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO)
said: "Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator
outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with
has been reduced."

.... and the problem is??

Provided we still have spare capacity it's a non-issue.

The deployment of additional HVDC interconnectors to international wind
and solar farms will solve the issue long term.

I can't believe you don't understand just how stupid that statement is...
At the moment there is low solar and low wind power all across N Europe.
and the cost of extension cables going further is more than the cost of
building nukes.



--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 15/10/2020 09:18, charles wrote:
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:18:13 +0100, Andy Bennet
wrote:

On 14/10/2020 20:08, Andrew wrote:
In the DT -

"The operator of Britain's electricity network warned late on Wednesday
afternoon that low wind levels had forced it to search for emergency
sources of power.

In a statement, the National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO)
said: "Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator
outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with
has been reduced."

.... and the problem is??

Provided we still have spare capacity it's a non-issue.

The deployment of additional HVDC interconnectors to international wind
and solar farms will solve the issue long term.

ROTFLMAO! No...it...won't!! Not...a...cat...in...hell's...chance!

We already have several interconnectors to the near continent. They
are only able to supply at most about 10% of the UK's demand, quite
often less. Do you really think that enough interconnectors will be
laid to supply all of it? And that pre-supposes that the electricity
will be available in Europe for us to purchase, which it won't be.
When demand is high in the UK, because it's cold in winter, demand is
also high across Europe for the same reason. Often, when there's
little or no wind in the UK due to a 'blocking high' in winter, that
blocking high covers a substantial part of Europe. There won't be any
spare electricity to feed the interconnectors.

You live in a fools' paradise.

Denmark only generates electricity by wind. They sometimes have to import
power for days on end.

Denmark has gas and rubbish burners as well


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 15/10/2020 09:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
Assuming there will be enough natural energy available across the world
at any time to supply /all/ the world's demands (solar, wind, wave,
hydro, geothermal, etc), then if interconnected on a world-wide grid one
country could ....

....exceed the cost of building, and the carbon footprint, of an all
nuclear local fleet by an order of magnitude, as well as reducing energy
security to absolute zero.

The Russians already grappled up one undersea cable with a submarine
and snapped it...just testing...

And covering the entire land surface of the globe in solar panels and
windmills may nor be enough anyway...

--
€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

It happens that Brian Gaff (Sofa) formulated :
I don't know what you mean. I don't hear anything wrong. Could it be a news
config issue on others machines.

The double hyphen you use, followed by a second double hyphen is
upsetting the quoting systems.

Between the body of the post and your sig, your posts contain the quite
normal double hyphen, before your sig/ before 'Brian'. The problem is
that you then have a line feed, a space, then another double hyphen, a
space, before your usual sig of 'This newsgroup posting....'.

On 15/10/2020 09:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
We may be nearer to solving that problem than any of us perhaps thought:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2256953-first-room-temperature-superconductor-could-spark-energy-revolution/.
We aren't there yet, but it's a good start. A practical room-temperature
superconductor would make a world-wide supergrid not only possible, but
inevitable.


Here is a man to whom money and politics are simply meaningless.
Who on earth sold you that load of utter guff? What about the cost and
the materials needed? What about the politically unstable regions it
would cross?

The economics of nuclear power show that instead of transporting
electricity round the world, you transport the uranium - its far
cheaper. And less polluting.



--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 15 Oct 2020 at 07:15:53 BST, ""Brian Gaff \" Sofa\)"
wrote:

I don't know what you mean. I don't hear anything wrong. Could it be a news
config issue on others machines.
I can see the message below my sig line, if that is what you mean. On home
owners ones there is not a quoted message at all.
I'll have to have a poke about in the sig file and try something, but
everyone, don't shoot me for trying!

Brian

I gather that you top post because it is easier for you to do. Can you set up
your newsreader so that your sig is placed *after* the quoted text at the end
of the whole message even though you top post? At the moment, because your
sig is placed after the text you have written and before the quoted text the
quoted text becomes part of the sig and is discarded on reply by most other
software.

--
Roger Hayter

On 15 Oct 2020 at 08:57:23 BST, "Andy Burns" wrote:

Brian Gaff wrote:

if there are any characters which are causing issues, I have no
controll over them.

Don't use a sig file?

With some mail software it is possible to get the sig placed at the very end
of the message after all the quotes even though you add text at the beginning.
I don't know if this is possible with Outlook Express, it is probably about 15
years since I have used it.

A possible alternative for Brian is to write his top posted message as usual
and then scroll to the very end of the message and type some boilerplate, such
as "sig follows" and this might induce OE to put the sig at the end. But then
I suppose if he could easily scroll to the very end he wouldn't need to top
post!

--
Roger Hayter

On 15/10/2020 11:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Oct 2020 at 08:57:23 BST, "Andy Burns" wrote:

Brian Gaff wrote:

if there are any characters which are causing issues, I have no
controll over them.

Don't use a sig file?

With some mail software it is possible to get the sig placed at the very end
of the message after all the quotes even though you add text at the beginning.
I don't know if this is possible with Outlook Express, it is probably about 15
years since I have used it.

A possible alternative for Brian is to write his top posted message as usual
and then scroll to the very end of the message and type some boilerplate, such
as "sig follows" and this might induce OE to put the sig at the end. But then
I suppose if he could easily scroll to the very end he wouldn't need to top
post!

Or alternatively you could chill. His sig doesn't bother me and even if
it did, I would cut him a little bit of slack.

On 14/10/2020 22:44, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of course.
Â* We excel at such things here.
Â* Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below your
sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of Homeowners
club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn
fossil fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....

And the 'Greenies' still don't get that you can't rely on renewables!

On 15 Oct 2020 at 12:18:29 BST, "Pancho"
wrote:

On 15/10/2020 11:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Oct 2020 at 08:57:23 BST, "Andy Burns" wrote:

Brian Gaff wrote:

if there are any characters which are causing issues, I have no
controll over them.

Don't use a sig file?

With some mail software it is possible to get the sig placed at the very end
of the message after all the quotes even though you add text at the
beginning.
I don't know if this is possible with Outlook Express, it is probably about
15
years since I have used it.

A possible alternative for Brian is to write his top posted message as usual
and then scroll to the very end of the message and type some boilerplate,
such
as "sig follows" and this might induce OE to put the sig at the end. But
then
I suppose if he could easily scroll to the very end he wouldn't need to top
post!

Or alternatively you could chill. His sig doesn't bother me and even if
it did, I would cut him a little bit of slack.

It doesn't bother me, except in the sense that it is technically suboptimal
and there could be a simple way of improving it. Just trying to be helpful!

--
Roger Hayter

On 15/10/2020 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/10/2020 09:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
Assuming there will be enough natural energy available across the world
at any time to supply /all/ the world's demands (solar, wind, wave,
hydro, geothermal, etc), then if interconnected on a world-wide grid one
country could ....

...exceed the cost of building, and the carbon footprint, of an all
nuclear local fleet by an order of magnitude, as well as reducing energy
security to absolute zero.

I don't have a great issue with nuclear power stations, but many do, and
they are a bit of a political pariah. On the other hand, "renewables"
seem to be acceptable. And as for cost, I think you'll find things have
changed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies

The Russians already grappled up one undersea cable with a submarine
and snapped it...just testing...

You are talking about communication cables, not power cables. In any
case, oil and gas pipelines have been damaged and disrupted for many
years by terrorist groups, so for a power cable it wouldn't be anything
new. Having said that, have any overland high voltage power cables been
blown up in recent years?

And covering the entire land surface of the globe in solar panels and
windmills may nor be enough anyway...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#/media/File:Solar_land_area.png

--

Jeff

On 15/10/2020 12:18:29, Pancho wrote:
On 15/10/2020 11:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Oct 2020 at 08:57:23 BST, "Andy Burns" wrote:

Brian Gaff wrote:

Â* if there are any characters which are causing issues, I have no
Â* controll over them.

Don't use a sig file?

With some mail software it is possible to get the sig placed at the
very end
of the message after all the quotes even though you add text at the
beginning.
I don't know if this is possible with Outlook Express, it is probably
about 15
years since I have used it.

A possible alternative for Brian is to write his top posted message as
usual
and then scroll to the very end of the message and type some
boilerplate, such
as "sig follows" and this might induce OE to put the sig at the end.
But then
I suppose if he could easily scroll to the very end he wouldn't need
to top
post!

Or alternatively you could chill. His sig doesn't bother me and even if
it did, I would cut him a little bit of slack.

I was trying to assist. I would prefer if Brian bottom posted as per
convention but accept there are reasons why he top posts. It destroys
the flow of an argument. It's a reason why I don't often reply to his posts.

Putting a sig "--" after his post is now the worst of both worlds. When
I reply Thunderbird automatically removes any text under a the "--".
That means the whole context of the thread is removed. Context is often
important in Usenet.

On 15/10/2020 12:27:18, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
On 14/10/2020 22:44, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of
course.
Â* We excel at such things here.
Â* Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below
your sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of
Homeowners club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn
fossil fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....

And the 'Greenies' still don't get that you can't rely on renewables!

I think they do, and the alternative is a worse consequence.

As it is, cost per unit to industrial customers is dependent on whether
they can be switched off.

I expect there to be more load shedding in the near future. Whether that
extends to domestic premises we'll see.

On 15/10/2020 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/10/2020 09:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
We may be nearer to solving that problem than any of us perhaps thought:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2256953-first-room-temperature-superconductor-could-spark-energy-revolution/.
We aren't there yet, but it's a good start. A practical room-temperature
superconductor would make a world-wide supergrid not only possible, but
inevitable.


Here is a man to whom money and politics are simply meaningless.
Who on earth sold you that load of utter guff? What about the cost and
the materials needed? What about the politically unstable regions it
would cross?

Much as you might like to deny it, that room-temperature superconductor
exists. It's obviously not a practical material, but 50 years ago there
was no superconductor which operated above liquid hydrogen temperatures,
and barely 35 years ago we got liquid nitrogen temperature
superconductors. Progress has been surprisingly rapid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity#/media/File:Timeline_of_Superconductivity_from_1900_to_20 15.svg
and that doesn't include the new material.

And what money and politics are you talking about? Carbon, hydrogen, and
sulphur (as in the new material) are not rare or difficult to obtain.
Not all the superconductors we now have use rare-earth elements. It
seems to me that we are far nearer to having a practical superconductor
than a practical fusion machine, yet how much money has been expended on
that, and continues to be spent?

The economics of nuclear power show that instead of transporting
electricity round the world, you transport the uranium - its far
cheaper. And less polluting.

Transporting electricity isn't expensive - it's been done since we have
been generating it. Nuclear power is no longer that cheap (see my other
reply), and there are waste disposal issues which cause problems.

--

Jeff

On 15/10/2020 13:43, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/10/2020 12:27:18, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
On 14/10/2020 22:44, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of
course.
Â* We excel at such things here.
Â* Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below
your sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of
Homeowners club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn
fossil fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....

And the 'Greenies' still don't get that you can't rely on renewables!

I think they do, and the alternative is a worse consequence.

As it is, cost per unit to industrial customers is dependent on whether
they can be switched off.

I expect there to be more load shedding in the near future. Whether that
extends to domestic premises we'll see.

That's why they want us to have smart meters!

On 15/10/2020 13:23, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 15/10/2020 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/10/2020 09:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
Assuming there will be enough natural energy available across the world
at any time to supply /all/ the world's demands (solar, wind, wave,
hydro, geothermal, etc), then if interconnected on a world-wide grid one
country could ....

...exceed the cost of building, and the carbon footprint, of an all
nuclear local fleet by an order of magnitude, as well as reducing energy
security to absolute zero.

I don't have a great issue with nuclear power stations, but many do, and
they are a bit of a political pariah. On the other hand, "renewables"
seem to be acceptable. And as for cost, I think you'll find things have
changed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies

wikipedia is not reliable on issues of renewable energy. I have given up
trying to correct it, The renewabalists are too any and have nothing
better to do than fill it with false information....

I have dome my holistic calculations, that no green or renewable
advocate ever does and know where the true cost of renewable energy is
borne, and it isn't in the cost of the windmills and solar panels



The Russians already grappled up one undersea cable with a submarine
and snapped it...just testing...

You are talking about communication cables, not power cables.
No. One HVDC link mysteriously failed .It appeared to 'have caught on a
dragging anchor'. No surface ships were noted at that time.

In any
case, oil and gas pipelines have been damaged and disrupted for many
years by terrorist groups, so for a power cable it wouldn't be anything
new. Having said that, have any overland high voltage power cables been
blown up in recent years?

And covering the entire land surface of the globe in solar panels and
windmills may nor be enough anyway...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#/media/File:Solar_land_area.png


All depends what population and what standard of living and whether you
want to actually grow crops as well.


--
€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.€�
Sir Roger Scruton

On 15/10/2020 13:46, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 15/10/2020 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/10/2020 09:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
We may be nearer to solving that problem than any of us perhaps thought:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2256953-first-room-temperature-superconductor-could-spark-energy-revolution/.

We aren't there yet, but it's a good start. A practical room-temperature
superconductor would make a world-wide supergrid not only possible, but
inevitable.


Here is a man to whom money and politics are simply meaningless.
Who on earth sold you that load of utter guff? What about the cost and
the materials needed? What about the politically unstable regions it
would cross?

Much as you might like to deny it, that room-temperature superconductor
exists.

That is utterly pernicious of you.I never ever claimed it didn't exist.
I claimed that it was not cost free, either in terms of cash, or carbon.
And there was no justification in extrapolating its mere existence to a
rendering a super grid 'inevitable'.

Resistive loss is just one small parameter in moving electricity around
and it isn't even the main one.
I am afraid that you are showing all the signs of a politically useful
idiot who has swallowed a lot of stuff without understanding it more
than superficially, and is prepared to defend his position with
emotional, hand-wavey qualitative overstatements, straw men, and appeals
to false authority, rather than reasoned technical arguments.

In short you are a typical lefty****.



It's obviously not a practical material, but 50 years ago there
was no superconductor which operated above liquid hydrogen temperatures,
and barely 35 years ago we got liquid nitrogen temperature
superconductors. Progress has been surprisingly rapid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity#/media/File:Timeline_of_Superconductivity_from_1900_to_20 15.svg

and that doesn't include the new material.

And what money and politics are you talking about? Carbon, hydrogen, and
sulphur (as in the new material) are not rare or difficult to obtain.
Not all the superconductors we now have use rare-earth elements. It
seems to me that we are far nearer to having a practical superconductor
than a practical fusion machine, yet how much money has been expended on
that, and continues to be spent?

The money is the actual physical cost of constructing and laying cables.
Yiu cant just slap a few atoms on the sea bed. You need a pretty strong
and massive bunch of protective structure of which the actual conductive
core is perhaps the smallest and cheapest part. Undersea cables are very
low loss already. making them superconduct wont reduce the cost
significantly enough to make any great difference to deployment


The economics of nuclear power show that instead of transporting
electricity round the world, you transport the uranium - its far
cheaper. And less polluting.

Transporting electricity isn't expensive

You are simply wrong.

tell me why my electricity bill averages at 20p a unit when the
wholesale rice of electricity is around 4p a unit, if getting it to me
is not expensive?

- it's been done since we have
been generating it. Nuclear power is no longer that cheap (see my other
reply), and there are waste disposal issues which cause problems.


Nuclear power is capable of matching 4p a unit, but wind and solar *with
batteries, extra grid, and backup* are nearer 25p.
THAT is why I am paying 20p a unit. because there is so much renewable
on the grid. And its generated in Scotland, but consumed darn sarf.



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 15/10/2020 14:34, Tim Streater wrote:
Further, something being "acceptable" doesn't mean that it works. If it did,
then I'd plump for magic, myself.

The sorcerors apprentice, however, springs to mind....

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

Public Health England excel at, umm Excel too :-)

On 14/10/2020 20:43, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of course.
We excel at such things here.
Brian

On 15/10/2020 08:42, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:18:13 +0100, Andy Bennet
wrote:

On 14/10/2020 20:08, Andrew wrote:
In the DT -

"The operator of Britain's electricity network warned late on Wednesday
afternoon that low wind levels had forced it to search for emergency
sources of power.

In a statement, the National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO)
said: "Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator
outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with
has been reduced."

.... and the problem is??

Provided we still have spare capacity it's a non-issue.

The deployment of additional HVDC interconnectors to international wind
and solar farms will solve the issue long term.

ROTFLMAO! No...it...won't!! Not...a...cat...in...hell's...chance!

We already have several interconnectors to the near continent. They
are only able to supply at most about 10% of the UK's demand, quite
often less. Do you really think that enough interconnectors will be
laid to supply all of it? And that pre-supposes that the electricity
will be available in Europe for us to purchase, which it won't be.
When demand is high in the UK, because it's cold in winter, demand is
also high across Europe for the same reason. Often, when there's
little or no wind in the UK due to a 'blocking high' in winter, that
blocking high covers a substantial part of Europe. There won't be any
spare electricity to feed the interconnectors.

You live in a fools' paradise.


The rest of that article goes on to explain that the link that should
have brought a lot of windy-electricity from Scotland to southern
England was out of action last year for some reason.

In article , Jack Harry Teesdale noreply492
scribeth thus
On 14/10/2020 22:44, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/10/2020 20:43:40, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Well its a typical UK issue. Wrong type of snow is another one of course.
* We excel at such things here.
* Brian


Any chance of removing those "--"? When you top post anything below your
sig gets removed and your posts start looking like those of Homeowners
club, ie without context.

The issue there is no incentive to have any over capacity. Generating
plant costs capital, and if it lies unused it doesn't recoup the
investment.

Plus there are disincentives to build any power-stations that burn
fossil fuel, or indeed any type of fuel.

In short we're doomed....

And the 'Greenies' still don't get that you can't rely on renewables!



Thats why we call 'em Greenies, green and wet behind the ears and a feck
off misguided nuisance whilst at it!...


--
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
On 15 Oct 2020 at 13:46:58 BST, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 15/10/2020 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/10/2020 09:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
We may be nearer to solving that problem than any of us perhaps thought:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...m-temperature-
superconductor-could-spark-energy-revolution/.
We aren't there yet, but it's a good start. A practical room-temperature
superconductor would make a world-wide supergrid not only possible, but
inevitable.


Here is a man to whom money and politics are simply meaningless.
Who on earth sold you that load of utter guff? What about the cost and
the materials needed? What about the politically unstable regions it
would cross?

Much as you might like to deny it, that room-temperature superconductor
exists. It's obviously not a practical material, ...

Not when you require a near centre-of-the-Earth pressure. And just because
progress has been made, doesn't mean that it will continue to be made. Room
temperature super-conductors will be able to be called "existing" when it's
possible to routinely buy a drum of such cable at an ordinary price.

And really, one would prefer not to have to transport power across the globe.
As TNP said, energy security is of paramount importance.


Well be a havin this ere fusion 'ere long, wont we?, at the same temp as
my arse after a curry!..

Its true yer knows!!

--
Tony Sayer


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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article , Andy
Bennet scribeth thus
On 14/10/2020 20:08, Andrew wrote:
In the DT -

"The operator of Britain's electricity network warned late on Wednesday
afternoon that low wind levels had forced it to search for emergency
sources of power.

In a statement, the National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO)
said: "Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator
outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with
has been reduced."

.... and the problem is??

Provided we still have spare capacity it's a non-issue.

The deployment of additional HVDC interconnectors to international wind
and solar farms will solve the issue long term.


Whoooo!! There a goes a flyin piggy!


--
Tony Sayer


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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.