On 12/04/2022 14:52, Andrew wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 13:42, williamwright wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
>>> to the limitations.
>> By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not
>> prepared to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I
>> must.
>>
>> Bill
>
> TBH, if people had limited themselves to <=2 kids since 1945, then
> we could have delayed 'man made global warming' for another 100
> years or so.

Red herring. We were all supposed to be starving by now anyway,
according to Ehrlich in 1968.

On 12/04/2022 14:54, Spike wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 15:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>
>> Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?
>> They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.
>> Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
>> unreliable. They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
>> windmills.
>
> Let's Do Some Sums.
>
> Take the case of a 1GW load initially supplied by a 1GW CCGT.
>
> The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums, then insist on saving the
> planet by adding a 1GW wind farm.
>
> Because they Can't Do Sums, they believe that 'the wind always blows
> somewhere' - refusing to believe that sometimes the wind doesn't blow on
> their subsidy farm.
>
> In the real world, wind-based subsidy farms produce 36% of plated capacity.
>
> [ 75,610GWh from 11018 windmills for 2020 = 35.9% of the plated
> capacity of 24GW]
>
> So when the wind doesn't blow, or isn't blowing strongly enough, or is
> blowing too hard, the CCGT has to cut in to supply the missing power.
>
> Now for the sums, using real-world figures:
>
> The CCGT running all the time, and therefore in its optimal
> configuration, might be 60% efficient. It therefore uses 1/0.6 = 1.67GW
> of gas per GW produced.
>
> But with the subsidy farm now in operation, the CCGT now has to supply
> 0.64GW of electricity, in a variable-power regime in which it is not
> efficient. The actual efficiency can vary from 0% at start-up, and 25%
> to when the combined cycle kicks in, to 40% in the throttled-back case.
>
> Let's not frighten the greenies, and therefore pretend that the CCGT is
> now 40% efficient as a backup to the subsidy farm. It therefore uses
> 0.64/0.4 GW of gas, or 1.6GW of gas to produce the missing 0.64GW of
> electricity.
>
> So, the planet-saving subsidy farm has saved, at great expense and a lot
> of concrete, un-recyclable plastics, and dead birds, very little gas at
> all, under the best circumstances. Rather different than the greenies
> hand-waving claims. The net effect of operating the subsidy farm is to
> INCREASE emissions.
>
> Most of us would regard that as LUDICROUS.
>
> Solar is even worse. Some 12% efficient overall.
>
> These real-world problems, that those that Can't Do Sums shut their eyes
> to, are caused by the Achilles Heel of renewables: INTERMITTENCY.
>
Without actually checking the sums, that sounds pretty plausible to me.

On 12/04/2022 15:33, Andrew wrote:

>
> The GP  situation is complex. After being given a massive pay increase
> by NuLab in 2003/4 the effect on their NHS final salary pension was to
> push them up to, and over Gordon Browns pensions Lifetime allowance.
>
> Ditto hospital consultants. There are penalties for doing this, like a
> potential 55% tax on the excess. These penalties apply to *everyone*.
> If my SIPP exceeds £1,073,000 I have to pay that tax, even if I managed
> to get it up to that amount by virtue of clever or lucky investments
> and *not* because my employer/client made huge contributions as part of
> 'salary'.
>
> The GP OTOH (even though self employed !) just watches the largesse of
> his taxpayer-funded pension roll in at zero investment risk to him, and
> is so annoyed at the tax implicatins that he/she retires then early, and
> then works as a locum for a couple of days a week.
>
> His replacement is almost certainly a part-time female with kids, who
> froths at length on the GP website about 'work life balance'
> (translation: I come in 2 days a week and probably only see patients
> for half of one of those days). This is why a GP appointment is like
> gold dust these days.
>
> Also add on 12 million pensioners, 560,000 over age 85 who are now
> highly dependent on modern medicine to keep them alive. Naturally all
> this needs constant assessment and 'review', which occupies a huge
> amount of a GPs time.
>
>
>
It's seemed to me in recent years that these were behind some of the
current NHS problems. I'm happy that Brown's tax and pensions policies
were well-intentioned, but unforseen consequences and all that.
Personally, I'd have no problem giving both GPs and Hospital Consultants
some better tax breaks, given that they are extremely stressful jobs, as
well as being highly necessary in a civilised society.

That said, the BMA has also done a pretty good job of controlling entry
to the profession, as did the dockers and print workers in the 50's and
60's. I suspect that a more "centrally planned" approach that put more
paramedics and well-trained nurses in the front line might also be more
cost-effective. I'd be more than happy to have my minor complaints and
ailments filtered by a good nurse.

On 11/04/2022 20:04, Jonathan Harston wrote:
> People who go on "green" tarrifs should be forced to have
> a smart meter that switches them off when there is
> insufficient green electricity available. After all, they are
> saying with their money that they don't want non-green
> leccy, take take them at their word.

I, long ago, before nuclear came back into fashion, said that we should
have a referendum on nuclear power and those that voted against it
should be the first to be cut off when there was insufficient power
available.

On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:02:26 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2022 17:25, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:52:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
>>> <a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
>>>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>>>> put it mildly
>>>>
>>>> Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
>>>> generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
>>>> adequate conventional power generation.
>>>
>>> The tide keeps going in and out even when the wind isn't blowing.
>>
>> No it doesn't. I can assure you there are times when the water line
>> hardly budges, normally at the peaks of tides.
>
> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.

It is however "slightly" better than the other renewables, as is it is a
least highly predictable.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:14:16 +0100, Steve Walker
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:02:26 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 17:25, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:52:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
>>>> <a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
>>>>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>>>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>>>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>>>>> put it mildly
>>>>>
>>>>> Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
>>>>> generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
>>>>> adequate conventional power generation.
>>>>
>>>> The tide keeps going in and out even when the wind isn't blowing.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. I can assure you there are times when the water line
>>> hardly budges, normally at the peaks of tides.
>>
>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>
>It is however "slightly" better than the other renewables, as is it is a
>least highly predictable.

Predictability has nothing to do with it. You still have to provide
backup, whether you can predict it or not. Predictability is
irrelevant.

--
Chris

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 17:35:03 +1000, 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?

Makes a lot more sense to use nukes instead.

On 12/04/2022 18:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:14:16 +0100, Steve Walker
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:02:26 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2022 17:25, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:52:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
>>>>> <a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
>>>>>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>>>>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>>>>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>>>>>> put it mildly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
>>>>>> generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
>>>>>> adequate conventional power generation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tide keeps going in and out even when the wind isn't blowing.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. I can assure you there are times when the water line
>>>> hardly budges, normally at the peaks of tides.
>>>
>>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>>
>> It is however "slightly" better than the other renewables, as is it is a
>> least highly predictable.
>
> Predictability has nothing to do with it. You still have to provide
> backup, whether you can predict it or not. Predictability is
> irrelevant.

Not at all irrelevant. With known times, that backup can be up and
spinning when needed, without having to be available 24/7 and some large
industrial users may even be able to schedule their demand around the
known availability - not that that is of much use for domestic users.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 21:11:51 +1000, Algernon Goss-Custard
<Ben@nowhere.com> wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>> On 12/04/2022 08:35, Algernon Goss-Custard 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?
>>
>> You didn't read my other post where I classified solutions from non
>> working to ecomicially viable.
>
> I did, actually, and kept a copy. But I'm not sure you read mine, which
> was about using solar arrays to synthesise hydrocarbons, whereas the
> idea you then criticised was using them to generate electricity
> directly. I don't know whether my suggestion is any good, which is why I
> phrased it as a question.
>>
>> Of course you could, but it is simply WAY cheaper to use a nuke instead.
>>
>
> Is it easy to use nuclear power to synthesise hydrocarbons?

Much easier in fact than using solar arrays, because there is
much more energy available and much higher temperatures
too and you can have the nukes where the synthesised
hydrocarbons will be used.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 20:10:05 +0100, Steve Walker
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

>On 12/04/2022 18:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:14:16 +0100, Steve Walker
>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:02:26 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 17:25, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:52:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
>>>>>> <a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
>>>>>>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>>>>>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>>>>>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>>>>>>> put it mildly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
>>>>>>> generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
>>>>>>> adequate conventional power generation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tide keeps going in and out even when the wind isn't blowing.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't. I can assure you there are times when the water line
>>>>> hardly budges, normally at the peaks of tides.
>>>>
>>>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>>>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>>>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>>>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>>>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>>>
>>> It is however "slightly" better than the other renewables, as is it is a
>>> least highly predictable.
>>
>> Predictability has nothing to do with it. You still have to provide
>> backup, whether you can predict it or not. Predictability is
>> irrelevant.
>
>Not at all irrelevant. With known times, that backup can be up and
>spinning when needed, without having to be available 24/7 and some large
>industrial users may even be able to schedule their demand around the
>known availability - not that that is of much use for domestic users.

But the backup would have to be available four times a day, so
continuously spinning. If it was once a month, or even once a week,
then maybe being predictable would help with scheduling, but not four
times a day.

--
Chris

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 21:50:36 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/04/2022 12:11, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>> On 12/04/2022 08:35, Algernon Goss-Custard 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?
>>>
>>> You didn't read my other post where I classified solutions from non
>>> working to ecomicially viable.
>> I did, actually, and kept a copy. But I'm not sure you read mine,
>> which was about using solar arrays to synthesise hydrocarbons, whereas
>> the idea you then criticised was using them to generate electricity
>> directly. I don't know whether my suggestion is any good, which is why
>> I phrased it as a question.
>>>
>>> Of course you could, but it is simply WAY cheaper to use a nuke
>>> instead.
>>>
>> Is it easy to use nuclear power to synthesise hydrocarbons?

> Probably no harder than to use solar power.,

In fact much easier with nukes because there is much
more energy available in one place and much higher
temperatures than with a solar array.

> In both cases you either have a lot of heat, or a lot of electricity as
> the starting point. Hydrogen is easy. The world is awash with water,
> though less so in a 'heavily insolated desert'

> The real problem is carbon.

No.

> There simply are no easy sources of it that are not suitable as fossil
> or biofuel in their own right.

That is overstated with crop waste.

> It's such a small percentage of the air and the sea that getting CO2
> from there is not very easy, and of course if you get it from say
> limestone, that becomes just another fossil fuel source.

But very easy with crop waste.

> One very inefficient way is to have massive LED panels and use
> photosynthesis...algae or similar - to pull CO2 and water out of the air
> and hydroponic tanks.

Or just grow quick growing crops.

> Anyway the synthesis of 4.H2O + CO2=>CH4 + 3 O2, is not simple or
> efficient, but then no one has bothered to attempt it,

Some have, but only on a small scale.

> there being plenty of fossil fuel...petrol and diesel from coal have
> been done commercially when access to oil was limited (Germany in WWII
> and S Africa under embargo) . So its an unknown. My guess is it will
> happen and will in the end be the (expensive) solution for all the
> places where electricity or nuclear power in a more native form doesn't
> do the job but methane or avjet or gasoline does. Think fighting a war
> without diesel....
>
> I suspect that high temperatures and pressures and the right catalyst
> would allow direct synthesis of hydrocarbons and alcohols from water and
> carbon dioxide.

Even better with crop waste or grown crops for the carbon.

> And that once fossil fuel prices rise to 5-10 times that of nuclear
> power, that will be the answer to off-grid mobile power.
>
> (interestingly one thing that hasn't been talked about - presumably
> because it would actually work , is the use of the completely currently
> pointless rail network to move freight off the roads and on to railways
> using proper huighh tech automatic freight forwarding. Standard sized
> packages, bar coded, sorted automatically by the mechanical equivalent
> of an internet backbone router :

That already happens in plenty of countries using standard shipping
containers.

> 'the next hop destination for a final destination of Little Podlington
> on Marsh, is in fact Milton Keynes' ...Once at Milton Keynes if the next
> hop was little Podlington itself, well then onto an automatic driverless
> BEV for the last 15 miles.

But the rail lines don't have anything like that capacity of the road
network.

> So freight transport could, by converting huge swathes of the motorways
> to rail tracks, and possibly huge swathes of rural roads to trolley
> tracks, be electrified.

Can't see that being viable myself.

> And its entirely possible that drive on car carrying trains that charge
> the BEVs could allow a sort of private motoring without IC engines, but
> there isnt enough lithium cobalt neodymium etc etc in the world to make
> it a universal solution.
>
> But it could work for freight, and railway extension could work to
> reduce costs of freight as well.
>
> As always the bugbear is storage that doesn't exist. Right now we have
> pre existent storage as coal natural gas, oil, uranium and the like,
> but the machinery to turn these into stuff that works cheaply is really
> limited to oil and natural gas for transport applications.
>
> Ships can be nuclear powered 0- that works. But not bicycles, Yet.

On 12 Apr 2022 at 21:14:37 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 21:50:36 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2022 12:11, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>>> On 12/04/2022 08:35, Algernon Goss-Custard 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?
>>>>
>>>> You didn't read my other post where I classified solutions from non
>>>> working to ecomicially viable.
>>> I did, actually, and kept a copy. But I'm not sure you read mine,
>>> which was about using solar arrays to synthesise hydrocarbons, whereas
>>> the idea you then criticised was using them to generate electricity
>>> directly. I don't know whether my suggestion is any good, which is why
>>> I phrased it as a question.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you could, but it is simply WAY cheaper to use a nuke
>>>> instead.
>>>>
>>> Is it easy to use nuclear power to synthesise hydrocarbons?
>
>> Probably no harder than to use solar power.,
>
> In fact much easier with nukes because there is much
> more energy available in one place and much higher
> temperatures than with a solar array.
>
>> In both cases you either have a lot of heat, or a lot of electricity as
>> the starting point. Hydrogen is easy. The world is awash with water,
>> though less so in a 'heavily insolated desert'
>
>> The real problem is carbon.
>
> No.
>
>> There simply are no easy sources of it that are not suitable as fossil
>> or biofuel in their own right.
>
> That is overstated with crop waste.
>
>> It's such a small percentage of the air and the sea that getting CO2
>> from there is not very easy, and of course if you get it from say
>> limestone, that becomes just another fossil fuel source.
>
> But very easy with crop waste.
>
>> One very inefficient way is to have massive LED panels and use
>> photosynthesis...algae or similar - to pull CO2 and water out of the air
>> and hydroponic tanks.
>
> Or just grow quick growing crops.

Yeah, we have a million acres to spare for the crops, sure.

--
When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Reuters 31st May 2013.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:52:00 +1000, Andrew
<Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

> On 12/04/2022 13:42, williamwright wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
>>> to the limitations.
>> By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not prepared
>> to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I must.
>> Bill

> TBH, if people had limited themselves to <=2 kids since 1945,

The UK basically did, 2.08 in 1950

then
> we could have delayed 'man made global warming' for another 100
> years or so.

Easy to claim...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:42:49 PM UTC+1, wrights...@f2s.com wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> > We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
>> > to the limitations.
>> By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not prepared
>> to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I must.

> Your lifestyle and wealth is already in the process of being degraded in
> a big way.

Bullshit.

> The only saving grace for you Bill is that you can blame Jeremy Corbyn.#
>
> The Fossil Fuel Roadshow and their +1ers are mob handed in this thread,
> so I'm not going to respond to every poke.
>
> There are scientists, engineers and economists who are not in thrall to
> the fossil fuel industry, working on developing and optimising
> renewable energy systems.

But can't get anything even remotely like as good a result that way as
with nukes.

> Are they doing so in the knowledge that it's impractical and bound to
> fail?

> No, they believe in what they're doing.

They actually find that it provides a job.

> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
> engineers and economists are fallible?

No, that they prefer to work than not work.

> You wouldn't believe this was possible reading the posts of the self
> proclaimed professionals writing here .

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:33:45 +1000, Andrew
<Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

> On 12/04/2022 09:26, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> The amount of personal insult and vitriol in this thread is indicative
>> of hysterical uncertainty.
>>
>
> We don't need to resort to insults. we just suffer fools badly.
>
>> I believe that renewable energy should be combined and maximised.
>> Safe and sensible nuclear reactors should fill the gaps, which means
>> avaricious tory politicians and greedy financiers should be kept out
>> of the mix as much as possible. Nationalisation is the answer to
>> that.

> Nationalisation will massively extend the development of anything.

It didn't with the french nukes.

On 12/04/2022 21:56, Jock wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:33:45 +1000, Andrew
> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2022 09:26, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> The amount of personal insult and vitriol in this thread is indicative
>>> of hysterical uncertainty.
>>>
>>
>> We don't need to resort to insults. we just suffer fools badly.
>>
>>> I believe that renewable energy should be combined and maximised.
>>> Safe and sensible nuclear reactors should fill the gaps, which means
>>> avaricious tory politicians and greedy financiers should be kept out
>>> of the mix as much as possible.  Nationalisation is the answer to
>>> that.
>
>> Nationalisation will massively extend the development of anything.
>
> It didn't with the french nukes.

Indeed.

"When you drain ze swamp, you do not consult ze frogs".

Actual quote from a French minister involved in their initial programme
in the 1970's (with added "Allo Allo" embellishments).

On 12/04/2022 15:04, Andrew 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
>
>
That's a handy site, nice bit of design and functionality too.

Not in any way to denigrate Gridwatch.

One thing I liked was the display of price, and with the "Explore the
data" option you can see, for example, that for virtually the whole day
the system price was well above even the inflation-corrected strike
price for Hinkley Point C.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:30:56 +1000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> On 12 Apr 2022 at 21:14:37 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 21:50:36 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2022 12:11, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>>>> On 12/04/2022 08:35, Algernon Goss-Custard 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't read my other post where I classified solutions from non
>>>>> working to ecomicially viable.
>>>> I did, actually, and kept a copy. But I'm not sure you read mine,
>>>> which was about using solar arrays to synthesise hydrocarbons, whereas
>>>> the idea you then criticised was using them to generate electricity
>>>> directly. I don't know whether my suggestion is any good, which is why
>>>> I phrased it as a question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you could, but it is simply WAY cheaper to use a nuke
>>>>> instead.
>>>>>
>>>> Is it easy to use nuclear power to synthesise hydrocarbons?
>>
>>> Probably no harder than to use solar power.,
>>
>> In fact much easier with nukes because there is much
>> more energy available in one place and much higher
>> temperatures than with a solar array.
>>
>>> In both cases you either have a lot of heat, or a lot of electricity as
>>> the starting point. Hydrogen is easy. The world is awash with water,
>>> though less so in a 'heavily insolated desert'
>>
>>> The real problem is carbon.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> There simply are no easy sources of it that are not suitable as fossil
>>> or biofuel in their own right.
>>
>> That is overstated with crop waste.
>>
>>> It's such a small percentage of the air and the sea that getting CO2
>>> from there is not very easy, and of course if you get it from say
>>> limestone, that becomes just another fossil fuel source.
>>
>> But very easy with crop waste.
>>
>>> One very inefficient way is to have massive LED panels and use
>>> photosynthesis...algae or similar - to pull CO2 and water out of the
>>> air
>>> and hydroponic tanks.
>>
>> Or just grow quick growing crops.
>
> Yeah, we have a million acres to spare for the crops, sure.

Don't need anything special land wise for that sort of crop.

On 12/04/2022 18:14, Steve Walker wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:02:26 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 17:25, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:52:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
>>>> <a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
>>>>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>>>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>>>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>>>>> put it mildly
>>>>>
>>>>> Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
>>>>> generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
>>>>> adequate conventional power generation.
>>>>
>>>> The tide keeps going in and out even when the wind isn't blowing.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. I can assure you there are times when the water line
>>> hardly budges, normally at the peaks of tides.
>>
>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>
> It is however "slightly" better than the other renewables, as is it is a
> least highly predictable.

I think you will find the sunrise is pretty predictable

Doesnt make solar better.

The problem is not and never has been predictability, the problem is
having enough kit to cover the complete absence of solar, the almost
total absence of wind and tidal, and the expense of tidal and its
terrifying environmental and maintenance implications.

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 12/04/2022 20:10, Steve Walker wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 18:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:14:16 +0100, Steve Walker
>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:02:26 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 17:25, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:52:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
>>>>>> <a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
>>>>>>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>>>>>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>>>>>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very
>>>>>>>> disturbing to
>>>>>>>> put it mildly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
>>>>>>> generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
>>>>>>> adequate conventional power generation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tide keeps going in and out even when the wind isn't blowing.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't. I can assure you there are times when the water line
>>>>> hardly budges, normally at the peaks of tides.
>>>>
>>>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>>>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>>>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>>>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>>>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>>>
>>> It is however "slightly" better than the other renewables, as is it is a
>>> least highly predictable.
>>
>> Predictability has nothing to do with it. You still have to provide
>> backup, whether you can predict it or not. Predictability is
>> irrelevant.
>
> Not at all irrelevant. With known times, that backup can be up and
> spinning when needed, without having to be available 24/7 and some large
> industrial users may even be able to schedule their demand around the
> known availability - not that that is of much use for domestic users.

Oh don't be stupid, Really. Do you really think that the grid does not
have wind forecasts and solar forecasts in place at least 24 hours ahead?
BMreports even has data comparing the forecast with the outturn. Its
usually pretty close.

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=generation/windforcast/out-turn

Knowing when you are going to crash doesn't mean you can leave the
airbags off.
And you will also find that there is a forecast for demand as well. The
grid is never caught out except by unexpected failures

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 12/04/2022 21:30, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2022 at 21:14:37 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> Or just grow quick growing crops.
>
> Yeah, we have a million acres to spare for the crops, sure.
>

IT is staggering - as with remoaners - how little the advocates of
renewable energy actually know or understand about what they are advocating.

If you could grow biofuel in sufficient quantity you would just build
another ten Draxes.

Once again the ArtStudent™ mind that has no concept of number
whatsoever, is there passing judgement on technology it simply doesn't
understand.

--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:00:16 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/04/2022 21:30, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2022 at 21:14:37 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Or just grow quick growing crops.
>> Yeah, we have a million acres to spare for the crops, sure.
>>
>
> IT is staggering - as with remoaners - how little the advocates of
> renewable energy actually know or understand about what they are
> advocating.

We'll see...

> If you could grow biofuel

We aren't talking about growing bio fuel, fool.

We are discussing a SOURCE OF CARBON
when synthesising hydrocarbons using nuke.

> in sufficient quantity you would just build another ten Draxes.

> Once again the ArtStudent™ mind that has no concept of number
> whatsoever, is there passing judgement on technology it simply doesn't
> understand.

You are so fucking stupid that you can't actually manage
to comprehend what is actually being discussed.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:25:43 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:00:16 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2022 21:30, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 12 Apr 2022 at 21:14:37 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Or just grow quick growing crops.
>>> Yeah, we have a million acres to spare for the crops, sure.
>>>
>>
>> IT is staggering - as with remoaners - how little the advocates of
>> renewable energy actually know or understand about what they are
>> advocating.
>
> We'll see...
>
>> If you could grow biofuel
>
> We aren't talking about growing bio fuel, fool.
>
> We are discussing a SOURCE OF CARBON
> when synthesising hydrocarbons using nuke.

You were stupidly rabitting on about how hard it is to
get carbon atoms out of the air or sea when in fact it
is trivial to use plants to do that and use that as a
source of carbon atoms if you want to synthesise
hydrocarbons using nukes.

>> in sufficient quantity you would just build another ten Draxes.
>
>> Once again the ArtStudent™ mind that has no concept of number
>> whatsoever, is there passing judgement on technology it simply doesn't
>> understand.
>
> You are so fucking stupid that you can't actually manage
> to comprehend what is actually being discussed.

newshound wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
>
>> https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=3lpbsv
>
> That's a handy site, nice bit of design and functionality too.
> Not in any way to denigrate Gridwatch.

It doesn't report as frequently as gridwatch though, e.g. the 10 minutes
disruption at 10pm over the weekend clearly showed up on gridwatch, but not at
all on drax insights.

On 13 Apr 2022 at 11:25:43 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:00:16 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2022 21:30, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 12 Apr 2022 at 21:14:37 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Or just grow quick growing crops.

>>> Yeah, we have a million acres to spare for the crops, sure.
>>
>> IT is staggering - as with remoaners - how little the advocates of
>> renewable energy actually know or understand about what they are
>> advocating.
>
> We'll see...
>
>> If you could grow biofuel
>
> We aren't talking about growing bio fuel, fool.

Funny, I could have sworn you said, upthread: "Or just grow quick growing
crops."

Ooh look, it's even quoted above.

Biofuel works for the Brazilians, overlooking that their land area is over 3
million sq miles (UK is less that 100,000 sq miles), and population around
three times UK.

--
The reason you think government is the solution is because you think freedom is the problem. But the truth is that government ensures that the most evil, ruthless people end up in control, because the state is a single point of failure, and a high-value target of corruption.

Alan Lovejoy