On 13/04/2022 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2022 at 15:04:34 BST, Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2022 19:31, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 17:43, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it happens and I don't remember when it last did, adapt.
>>>
>>> Go to the grid watch site and look at the monthly graph to see how well
>>> wind has done. You may notice 8 consecutive days with wind producing
>>> practically nothing.
>>>
>>> https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
>>
>> A better site is the Drax electric Insights :-
>>
>> https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=3lpbsv
>>
>> You can select all or none of the sources of power and plot your
>> own graphs
>
> I think they both have their strengths.
>
> This article in particular I found interesting as it analyses the effect of
> recent wind lulls. Fans of wind, please read:
>
> https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/q1-2021/when-the-wind-goes-gas-fills-in-the-gap/
>
Interesting statistic in there that Drax can store 600GWh of biomass,
which seems to be a day or so of national demand at the moment.

During the 1984 Miners' Strike (well telegraphed in advance, so the CEGB
had time to build up coal stocks) the coal fired power stations must
have held at least three months of winter stocks (given that half the
mines were closed). That just demonstrates the seriously large storage
capacity of energy in fossil fuel compared to anything else.

On 15 Apr 2022 at 17:58:58 BST, newshound <sradcliffe544@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/04/2022 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2022 at 15:04:34 BST, Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 19:31, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 17:43, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If it happens and I don't remember when it last did, adapt.
>>>>
>>>> Go to the grid watch site and look at the monthly graph to see how well
>>>> wind has done. You may notice 8 consecutive days with wind producing
>>>> practically nothing.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
>>>
>>> A better site is the Drax electric Insights :-
>>>
>>> https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=3lpbsv
>>>
>>> You can select all or none of the sources of power and plot your
>>> own graphs
>>
>> I think they both have their strengths.
>>
>> This article in particular I found interesting as it analyses the effect of
>> recent wind lulls. Fans of wind, please read:
>>
>> https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/q1-2021/when-the-wind-goes-gas-fills-in-the-gap/
>>
> Interesting statistic in there that Drax can store 600GWh of biomass,
> which seems to be a day or so of national demand at the moment.
>
> During the 1984 Miners' Strike (well telegraphed in advance, so the CEGB
> had time to build up coal stocks) the coal fired power stations must
> have held at least three months of winter stocks (given that half the
> mines were closed). That just demonstrates the seriously large storage
> capacity of energy in fossil fuel compared to anything else.

Yes - it could almost have been designed for us, eh?

--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:19:23 +1000, John Rumm
<see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:

> On 13/04/2022 21:16, Steve Walker wrote:
>> On 13/04/2022 17:26, Chris Green wrote:
>>> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chernobyl can be discounted. It involved a design that would never
>>>> have
>>>> been licenced in the West, with known deficiencies, being operated for
>>>> an unauthorised test, with safety systems removed and continuing
>>>> despite
>>>> not being in the specified operating "zone" for the test. There's not
>>>> a
>>>> chance of one like that happening here. Never mind the training and
>>>> regulation of the workers here, you couldn't get anything disconnected
>>>> here without prior plans, discussion, approval by all disciplines,
>>>> multiple sign-off, agreed methods of work, inspection, etc.
>>>>
>>> Still killed very few people.
>> Expected to reach a total of around 4000 over the years.
>
> I wonder if that might go up a bit now since a bunch of Russian
> squaddies started digging trenches in the red forrest...

Unlikely, there weren't enough of them digging to make any difference.

>>>> More likely is a Fukushima type accident, but that was due to the
>>>> systems needing constant power, whereas modern designs are able to
>>>> fail
>>>> into a safe state without external power and remain like that with
>>>> nothing more than passive cooling.
>>>>
>>> One death actually attributable to the power station itself I think.
>> A couple of hundred deaths due to the necessary evacuation of the area.
>> It all pales into insignificance compared to the fossil fuel related
>> deaths though and is low enough not to be a major concern amidst all
>> the other reasons for deaths.
>
> It also pales into insignificance against the deaths (> 20k) and
> destruction caused by the tsunami that in turn damaged the Fukushima
> plant.
>

On 12/04/2022 09:16, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 08:35:03 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard
> <Ben@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>> Chemical energy storage
>>> ===============
>>> Basically you take stable compounds and by adding energy, turn them
>>> into unstable compounds. Water to hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water
>>> to diesel fuel etc etc. Since the optimal fuel for mobile use is
>>> hydrocarbon fuel, that's probably what you want. Because you don't
>>> really need to store energy for static on grid needs. I'll explain why
>>> later. At any level this will be less efficient that running directly
>> >from electricity, but if that is the price of portable power, and there
>>> is no alternative, so be it. Once again all the potential parameters of
>>> chemical fuel are absolutely well known - there are no hidden pots of
>>> gold, only basic chemistry and physics.
>>> All that can be possibly improved are better ways to manufacture
>>> synthetic fuels, that's all. improve efficiency a few percent.
>>
>> That doesn't show it isn't a useful thing to do, though. If you had
>> sufficiently large solar arrays in heavily insolated areas, might they
>> be able to produce hydrocarbon volumes significant enough to contribute
>> to the solution?
>
> The Sahara desert would be a good place assuming you could keep the
> panels free from dust, and such a scheme has been proposed in the
> past. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec and
> https://www.ecomena.org/desertec/ As well as photovoltaics, they also
> looked at solar furnaces, proposing to store heat as molten salt to
> power generators overnight. The electricity produced would be fed
> across the Mediterranean via DC interconnects into the European grid.
> It all came to nothing.

Probably because it is another of those solutions that sound good "in
theory", but are impractical, unaffordable, and so down right risky that
no investors would be interested.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Sky News:
Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
than other sources of energy, industry says

https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406

Yeah, I know:
Woke
Fart Student
Handy-Wavey
PutinBot
Jeremy Corbyn
Marketist
--

Mike

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:46:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

>Sky News:
>Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>than other sources of energy, industry says
>
>https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>
>Yeah, I know:
>Woke
>Fart Student
>Handy-Wavey
>PutinBot
>Jeremy Corbyn
>Marketist

7GW - and as that's being claimed by this "Cam Witten, head of policy
at Solar Energy UK" chap, it's probably the boilerplate figure because
making that sort of claim is what they do. Optimistically, in the UK
you can expect between 10 and 15% of the boilerplate figure, so about
1GW in reality. Is it worth despoiling the countryside, sterilising
good farming land, ruining open landscape views for that? A matter of
opinion, I suppose, but not mine. We have plenty of them in Cornwall.
They look horrible. Build another nuke.

--
Chris

On 16/04/2022 18:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:46:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sky News:
>> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>> than other sources of energy, industry says
>>
>> https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>>
>> Yeah, I know:
>> Woke
>> Fart Student
>> Handy-Wavey
>> PutinBot
>> Jeremy Corbyn
>> Marketist
>
> 7GW - and as that's being claimed by this "Cam Witten, head of policy
> at Solar Energy UK" chap, it's probably the boilerplate figure because
> making that sort of claim is what they do. Optimistically, in the UK
> you can expect between 10 and 15% of the boilerplate figure, so about
> 1GW in reality. Is it worth despoiling the countryside, sterilising
> good farming land, ruining open landscape views for that? A matter of
> opinion, I suppose, but not mine. We have plenty of them in Cornwall.
> They look horrible. Build another nuke.
>
And it will need 7GW of gas backup. So its just more marketing shyte anyway

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

Anon.

On 12 Apr 2022 at 09:16:12 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 08:35:03 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard
> <Ben@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>> Chemical energy storage
>>> ===============
>>> Basically you take stable compounds and by adding energy, turn them
>>> into unstable compounds. Water to hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water
>>> to diesel fuel etc etc. Since the optimal fuel for mobile use is
>>> hydrocarbon fuel, that's probably what you want. Because you don't
>>> really need to store energy for static on grid needs. I'll explain why
>>> later. At any level this will be less efficient that running directly
>>> from electricity, but if that is the price of portable power, and there
>>> is no alternative, so be it. Once again all the potential parameters of
>>> chemical fuel are absolutely well known - there are no hidden pots of
>>> gold, only basic chemistry and physics.
>>> All that can be possibly improved are better ways to manufacture
>>> synthetic fuels, that's all. improve efficiency a few percent.
>>
>> That doesn't show it isn't a useful thing to do, though. If you had
>> sufficiently large solar arrays in heavily insolated areas, might they
>> be able to produce hydrocarbon volumes significant enough to contribute
>> to the solution?
>
> The Sahara desert would be a good place assuming you could keep the
> panels free from dust, and such a scheme has been proposed in the
> past. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec and
> https://www.ecomena.org/desertec/ As well as photovoltaics, they also
> looked at solar furnaces, proposing to store heat as molten salt to
> power generators overnight. The electricity produced would be fed
> across the Mediterranean via DC interconnects into the European grid.
> It all came to nothing.

Sahara? The dust would be the *least* of your worries.

--
What you must understand is that, for today's left intellectuals, education is useful only to the extent that it endorses their prejudices. Beyond that, they refuse to go.

Roger Scruton

On 16 Apr 2022 at 18:38:33 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:46:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sky News:
>> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>> than other sources of energy, industry says
>>
>> https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>>
>> Yeah, I know:
>> Woke
>> Fart Student
>> Handy-Wavey
>> PutinBot
>> Jeremy Corbyn
>> Marketist
>
> 7GW - and as that's being claimed by this "Cam Witten, head of policy
> at Solar Energy UK" chap, it's probably the boilerplate figure because
> making that sort of claim is what they do. Optimistically, in the UK
> you can expect between 10 and 15% of the boilerplate figure, so about
> 1GW in reality. Is it worth despoiling the countryside, sterilising
> good farming land, ruining open landscape views for that? A matter of
> opinion, I suppose, but not mine. We have plenty of them in Cornwall.
> They look horrible. Build another nuke.

And if you did - guess what: it'd run 7x24 and not a few hours a day. Oh - and
you'd need the nuke anyway, for night and bad weather.

--
"Hard" and "Soft" Brexit are code words for Leaving or Staying in the EU, rather than for the terms of our departure.

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP

On 16 Apr 2022 17:51:23 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
wrote:

>On 16 Apr 2022 at 18:38:33 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:46:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sky News:
>>> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>>> than other sources of energy, industry says
>>>
>>> https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know:
>>> Woke
>>> Fart Student
>>> Handy-Wavey
>>> PutinBot
>>> Jeremy Corbyn
>>> Marketist
>>
>> 7GW - and as that's being claimed by this "Cam Witten, head of policy
>> at Solar Energy UK" chap, it's probably the boilerplate figure because
>> making that sort of claim is what they do. Optimistically, in the UK
>> you can expect between 10 and 15% of the boilerplate figure, so about
>> 1GW in reality. Is it worth despoiling the countryside, sterilising
>> good farming land, ruining open landscape views for that? A matter of
>> opinion, I suppose, but not mine. We have plenty of them in Cornwall.
>> They look horrible. Build another nuke.
>
>And if you did - guess what: it'd run 7x24 and not a few hours a day. Oh - and
>you'd need the nuke anyway, for night and bad weather.

If this Cam Witten has done the right thing and his 7GW is actual
output, and assuming an optimistic capacity factor of 15%, that means
he's got a boilerplate figure of 46.7GW worth of panels available
(7,000,000,000/0.15). At 300 watts per panel (a fairly typical figure,
it seems), that's around 156 million panels stashed away somewhere
looking for homes (46,700,000,000/300 = 156 million). Really??!! But
somehow I don't believe any of it. I'm sure Mike Halmarack believes it
all, but then he doesn't do sums.

E&OE :-)

--
Chris

On 16 Apr 2022 at 20:58:41 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 16 Apr 2022 17:51:23 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 18:38:33 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:46:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sky News:
>>>> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>>>> than other sources of energy, industry says
>>>>
>>>> https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I know:
>>>> Woke
>>>> Fart Student
>>>> Handy-Wavey
>>>> PutinBot
>>>> Jeremy Corbyn
>>>> Marketist
>>>
>>> 7GW - and as that's being claimed by this "Cam Witten, head of policy
>>> at Solar Energy UK" chap, it's probably the boilerplate figure because
>>> making that sort of claim is what they do. Optimistically, in the UK
>>> you can expect between 10 and 15% of the boilerplate figure, so about
>>> 1GW in reality. Is it worth despoiling the countryside, sterilising
>>> good farming land, ruining open landscape views for that? A matter of
>>> opinion, I suppose, but not mine. We have plenty of them in Cornwall.
>>> They look horrible. Build another nuke.
>>
>> And if you did - guess what: it'd run 7x24 and not a few hours a day. Oh - and
>> you'd need the nuke anyway, for night and bad weather.
>
> If this Cam Witten has done the right thing and his 7GW is actual
> output, and assuming an optimistic capacity factor of 15%, that means
> he's got a boilerplate figure of 46.7GW worth of panels available
> (7,000,000,000/0.15). At 300 watts per panel (a fairly typical figure,
> it seems), that's around 156 million panels stashed away somewhere
> looking for homes (46,700,000,000/300 = 156 million). Really??!! But
> somehow I don't believe any of it. I'm sure Mike Halmarack believes it
> all, but then he doesn't do sums.

Faith is all that matters.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 20:58:41 +0100, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 16 Apr 2022 17:51:23 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 16 Apr 2022 at 18:38:33 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:46:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sky News:
>>>> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>>>> than other sources of energy, industry says
>>>>
>>>> https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I know:
>>>> Woke
>>>> Fart Student
>>>> Handy-Wavey
>>>> PutinBot
>>>> Jeremy Corbyn
>>>> Marketist
>>>
>>> 7GW - and as that's being claimed by this "Cam Witten, head of policy
>>> at Solar Energy UK" chap, it's probably the boilerplate figure because
>>> making that sort of claim is what they do. Optimistically, in the UK
>>> you can expect between 10 and 15% of the boilerplate figure, so about
>>> 1GW in reality. Is it worth despoiling the countryside, sterilising
>>> good farming land, ruining open landscape views for that? A matter of
>>> opinion, I suppose, but not mine. We have plenty of them in Cornwall.
>>> They look horrible. Build another nuke.
>>
>>And if you did - guess what: it'd run 7x24 and not a few hours a day. Oh - and
>>you'd need the nuke anyway, for night and bad weather.
>
>If this Cam Witten has done the right thing and his 7GW is actual
>output, and assuming an optimistic capacity factor of 15%, that means
>he's got a boilerplate figure of 46.7GW worth of panels available
>(7,000,000,000/0.15). At 300 watts per panel (a fairly typical figure,
>it seems), that's around 156 million panels stashed away somewhere
>looking for homes (46,700,000,000/300 = 156 million). Really??!! But
>somehow I don't believe any of it. I'm sure Mike Halmarack believes it
>all, but then he doesn't do sums.
>
>E&OE :-)

One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
themselves obsolete.
--

Mike

Mike Halmarack wrote:

> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
> themselves obsolete.

Engineering and materials may have changed, physics not so much.

On 16 Apr 2022 20:09:47 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
wrote:

>> If this Cam Witten has done the right thing and his 7GW is actual
>> output, and assuming an optimistic capacity factor of 15%, that means
>> he's got a boilerplate figure of 46.7GW worth of panels available
>> (7,000,000,000/0.15). At 300 watts per panel (a fairly typical figure,
>> it seems), that's around 156 million panels stashed away somewhere
>> looking for homes (46,700,000,000/300 = 156 million). Really??!! But
>> somehow I don't believe any of it. I'm sure Mike Halmarack believes it
>> all, but then he doesn't do sums.
>
>Faith is all that matters.

Faith that science will come up with solutions to problems despite the
dogged resistance of the scientific status quo.
--

Mike

On 16/04/2022 16:46, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> Sky News:
> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
> than other sources of energy, industry says

> <https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406>

Real-life data strongly suggests that building more solar subsidy farms
wil lresult in even more Russian gas being needed.

I gave you an example of how this works a little while ago.

--
Spike

On 17/04/2022 08:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
> themselves obsolete.

In the 1830s (approximately) Wohler, a chemist, synthesised the compound
urea, up to that point known as 'microcosmic salt'.

At one stroke this ended the believed distinction between the macrocosm
and the microcosm (look them up).

No chemists were put out of a job, but religion took a bit of a knock.

--
Spike

On 17 Apr 2022 at 09:02:46 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 20:58:41 +0100, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 16 Apr 2022 17:51:23 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 18:38:33 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:46:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sky News:
>>>>> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>>>>> than other sources of energy, industry says
>>>>>
>>>>> https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I know:
>>>>> Woke
>>>>> Fart Student
>>>>> Handy-Wavey
>>>>> PutinBot
>>>>> Jeremy Corbyn
>>>>> Marketist
>>>>
>>>> 7GW - and as that's being claimed by this "Cam Witten, head of policy
>>>> at Solar Energy UK" chap, it's probably the boilerplate figure because
>>>> making that sort of claim is what they do. Optimistically, in the UK
>>>> you can expect between 10 and 15% of the boilerplate figure, so about
>>>> 1GW in reality. Is it worth despoiling the countryside, sterilising
>>>> good farming land, ruining open landscape views for that? A matter of
>>>> opinion, I suppose, but not mine. We have plenty of them in Cornwall.
>>>> They look horrible. Build another nuke.
>>>
>>> And if you did - guess what: it'd run 7x24 and not a few hours a day. Oh - and
>>> you'd need the nuke anyway, for night and bad weather.
>>
>> If this Cam Witten has done the right thing and his 7GW is actual
>> output, and assuming an optimistic capacity factor of 15%, that means
>> he's got a boilerplate figure of 46.7GW worth of panels available
>> (7,000,000,000/0.15). At 300 watts per panel (a fairly typical figure,
>> it seems), that's around 156 million panels stashed away somewhere
>> looking for homes (46,700,000,000/300 = 156 million). Really??!! But
>> somehow I don't believe any of it. I'm sure Mike Halmarack believes it
>> all, but then he doesn't do sums.
>>
>> E&OE :-)
>
> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
> themselves obsolete.

To what new science do you refer?

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

On 17/04/2022 09:13, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2022 20:09:47 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> If this Cam Witten has done the right thing and his 7GW is actual
>>> output, and assuming an optimistic capacity factor of 15%, that means
>>> he's got a boilerplate figure of 46.7GW worth of panels available
>>> (7,000,000,000/0.15). At 300 watts per panel (a fairly typical figure,
>>> it seems), that's around 156 million panels stashed away somewhere
>>> looking for homes (46,700,000,000/300 = 156 million). Really??!! But
>>> somehow I don't believe any of it. I'm sure Mike Halmarack believes it
>>> all, but then he doesn't do sums.
>>
>> Faith is all that matters.
>
> Faith that science will come up with solutions to problems despite the
> dogged resistance of the scientific status quo.

Cue Donald Rumsfeld. "It's the unknown unknowns ...."

Dream on for that 'scientific breakthrough' (meanwhile carry on breeding
the planet to extinction) because unless the laws of physics that you
simply don't seem to understand or accept, are broken or bent, then
there the only solution to the planets problems would be a global
pandemic to remove 2/3rd of the human race. Hmmm, what happened ?,
did you get your 'free' Pfizer vaccinations and boosters ?.

The so-called 'dogged resistance' is based on existing scientific and
technical knowledge and not airy-fairy blue sky thinking.

On 17/04/2022 09:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
> themselves obsolete.

You really don't understand basic physics or sums do you ?.

There is nothing 'specialist' about energy density, battery
capacity or the absolute need that the world has for a
constant, reliable and affordable supply of electricity.

Wind and solar fail on all three counts.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:06:59 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Mike Halmarack wrote:
>
>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>> themselves obsolete.
>
>Engineering and materials may have changed, physics not so much.

So it's not possible for physics to change significantly in the
context of energy production and use?
Are the laws of physics and the understanding of them complete, fixed
and unchangeable? If so, that will be very reassuring for some.
--

Mike

On 17 Apr 2022 08:56:52 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
wrote:

>On 17 Apr 2022 at 09:02:46 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 20:58:41 +0100, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 Apr 2022 17:51:23 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 18:38:33 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:46:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sky News:
>>>>>> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>>>>>> than other sources of energy, industry says
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, I know:
>>>>>> Woke
>>>>>> Fart Student
>>>>>> Handy-Wavey
>>>>>> PutinBot
>>>>>> Jeremy Corbyn
>>>>>> Marketist
>>>>>
>>>>> 7GW - and as that's being claimed by this "Cam Witten, head of policy
>>>>> at Solar Energy UK" chap, it's probably the boilerplate figure because
>>>>> making that sort of claim is what they do. Optimistically, in the UK
>>>>> you can expect between 10 and 15% of the boilerplate figure, so about
>>>>> 1GW in reality. Is it worth despoiling the countryside, sterilising
>>>>> good farming land, ruining open landscape views for that? A matter of
>>>>> opinion, I suppose, but not mine. We have plenty of them in Cornwall.
>>>>> They look horrible. Build another nuke.
>>>>
>>>> And if you did - guess what: it'd run 7x24 and not a few hours a day. Oh - and
>>>> you'd need the nuke anyway, for night and bad weather.
>>>
>>> If this Cam Witten has done the right thing and his 7GW is actual
>>> output, and assuming an optimistic capacity factor of 15%, that means
>>> he's got a boilerplate figure of 46.7GW worth of panels available
>>> (7,000,000,000/0.15). At 300 watts per panel (a fairly typical figure,
>>> it seems), that's around 156 million panels stashed away somewhere
>>> looking for homes (46,700,000,000/300 = 156 million). Really??!! But
>>> somehow I don't believe any of it. I'm sure Mike Halmarack believes it
>>> all, but then he doesn't do sums.
>>>
>>> E&OE :-)
>>
>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>> themselves obsolete.
>
>To what new science do you refer?

On 17 Apr 2022 08:56:52 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
wrote:

>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>> themselves obsolete.
>
>To what new science do you refer?
The science that will supercede the science which claims that fossil
fuel and nuclear power are the only realistic way to produce adequate
amounts of energy.
--

Mike

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 18:48:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 16/04/2022 18:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:46:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sky News:
>>> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>>> than other sources of energy, industry says
>>>
>>> https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know:
>>> Woke
>>> Fart Student
>>> Handy-Wavey
>>> PutinBot
>>> Jeremy Corbyn
>>> Marketist
>>
>> 7GW - and as that's being claimed by this "Cam Witten, head of policy
>> at Solar Energy UK" chap, it's probably the boilerplate figure because
>> making that sort of claim is what they do. Optimistically, in the UK
>> you can expect between 10 and 15% of the boilerplate figure, so about
>> 1GW in reality. Is it worth despoiling the countryside, sterilising
>> good farming land, ruining open landscape views for that? A matter of
>> opinion, I suppose, but not mine. We have plenty of them in Cornwall.
>> They look horrible. Build another nuke.
>>
>And it will need 7GW of gas backup. So its just more marketing shyte anyway

https://www.oxfordpv.com/

https://theoxfordmagazine.com/news/new-world-record-for-solar-cell-set-by-oxford-pv/
--

Mike

On 17/04/2022 15:31, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:06:59 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>
>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>> themselves obsolete.
>>
>> Engineering and materials may have changed, physics not so much.
>
> So it's not possible for physics to change significantly in the
> context of energy production and use?
> Are the laws of physics and the understanding of them complete, fixed
> and unchangeable? If so, that will be very reassuring for some.

Laws are that simply because they have either stood the test of time or
been calculated to be correct. Theories change as new evidence is found.

You cannot change the laws of physics and therefore there are absolute
limits of efficiencies, outputs, storage, etc.

You can find better ways of, for instance, storing energy, but when you
have already selected the materials with the best properties, you cannot
improve their effectiveness beyond the limit that physics sets upon
them. So you might be able to improve a battery's capacity or a PV
cell's output to closer to the absolute limit, but you can't improve
that limit.

On 17/04/2022 09:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:

>
> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
> themselves obsolete.

But not *good* scientists and engineers.