On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 00:47:13 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
<olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:

>Boots <news@millhouse-communications.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There's a scheme to generate power in Morocco and pipe it into Europe but the
>> the cables required are hideously expensive. It's also not panels as they lose
>> efficiency as the temperature goes up. IIRC Germany has already bailed out, can
>> generate more from panels in the Fatherland and way way cheaper. Ergo, after
>> generation there's political issues and then cost/efficiency ones. Again IIRC
>> Orkney generates way more power than it needs from wind and ends up dumping it.
>> There's no economical way to get the excess the few miles to the mainland.
>
>Obviously a systematic approach is necessary... Don't place excess
>generating capacity in places where the energy can't be economically
>transported to where the demand is. That's first order planning,
>not something that should come as a surprise to anyone.

Right, so you need to build huge tidal, wind and solar farms right in
the middle of big cities; yeah. that will work nicely.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

Mark Olson <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote in
news:spr86g$3ao$1@dont-email.me:

> Boots <news@millhouse-communications.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There's a scheme to generate power in Morocco and pipe it into Europe
>> but the the cables required are hideously expensive. It's also not
>> panels as they lose efficiency as the temperature goes up. IIRC
>> Germany has already bailed out, can generate more from panels in the
>> Fatherland and way way cheaper. Ergo, after generation there's
>> political issues and then cost/efficiency ones. Again IIRC Orkney
>> generates way more power than it needs from wind and ends up dumping
>> it. There's no economical way to get the excess the few miles to the
>> mainland.
>
> Obviously a systematic approach is necessary... Don't place excess
> generating capacity in places where the energy can't be economically
> transported to where the demand is. That's first order planning,
> not something that should come as a surprise to anyone.
>

Orkney will need enough generators to supply adequate peak power on a
lightly windy day or when maintenance happens. There might be an excess on
windier days or at night but they have to have some contingency in the
system. We have yet to find an efficient or cost effective storage solution
to meet peak demand so a few extra wind turbines has to be better than
firing up the peat burners.

Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in news:j2cmpsFg9miU1
@mid.individual.net:

> On 20/12/2021 22:15, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>>
>> It was pointed out recently that the amount the UK is spending on
>> renewables subsidy would buy a new nuclear power station every 2 years
>> so I suggest we should start doing that.
>
> How many Hinkley Point Cs would it build?
>
> There's also the minor point that just getting round to building them
> can take decades, let alone the actual construction.
>
> I do agree that we need more nuclear generation capacity, but there
> seems to be a determination to build it as slowly and expensively as
> possible.

mostly as UK plc is trying very hard not to pay for it up front, then bails
out when they realise the potential consequences of getting into huge debt
with China plc. All because of an aversion to working with the French.

wessie <willnotwork@tesco.net> wrote:
> Mark Olson <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote in
> news:spr86g$3ao$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Boots <news@millhouse-communications.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> There's a scheme to generate power in Morocco and pipe it into Europe
>>> but the the cables required are hideously expensive. It's also not
>>> panels as they lose efficiency as the temperature goes up. IIRC
>>> Germany has already bailed out, can generate more from panels in the
>>> Fatherland and way way cheaper. Ergo, after generation there's
>>> political issues and then cost/efficiency ones. Again IIRC Orkney
>>> generates way more power than it needs from wind and ends up dumping
>>> it. There's no economical way to get the excess the few miles to the
>>> mainland.
>>
>> Obviously a systematic approach is necessary... Don't place excess
>> generating capacity in places where the energy can't be economically
>> transported to where the demand is. That's first order planning,
>> not something that should come as a surprise to anyone.
>>
>
> Orkney will need enough generators to supply adequate peak power on a
> lightly windy day or when maintenance happens. There might be an excess on
> windier days or at night but they have to have some contingency in the
> system. We have yet to find an efficient or cost effective storage solution
> to meet peak demand so a few extra wind turbines has to be better than
> firing up the peat burners.

I don't think wind power alone, without storage, is a viable solution.
If you're willing to live with the chance that supply will fail to meet
demand, OK. But I think most people having grown up with a constant
supply of electricity won't be happy moving to a new paradigm of
having power most of the time.

Right now it makes some sense to use wind power to backfill a large
grid with lots of other base load sources. Once it becomes > a certain
percentage of the load, you have to have storage.

As to the other comment about needing to build renewables in the
middle of cities because transport is uneconomical... has that person
never heard of transmission lines? They do exist and it is possible
to transport power economically over hundreds of miles.

I am not all that knowledgeable about undersea transmission lines. But
they do exist, at a higher cost.

The problems associated with renewables are definitely solvable. Not
all of those problems are technical ones. Never say never.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

On 20/12/2021 22:15, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 12:18, ChrisND @UKRM wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 10:18, Ace wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:16:09 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/12/2021 18:39, WUN wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>>>>>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck with that. "Renewables" managed an amazing 6.8% of UK demand
>>>>> today. Wind and solar don't work so well in fog, it turns out.
>>>
>>>> Good job not everyone is a naysayer.
>>>
>>> Good job some people try to retain a grasp on reality.
>>>
>>> You exhibit a blind optimism about the future of energy production,
>>> but refuse to address those who point out obstacles; obstacles which
>>> are real and will need to be overcome to achieve your vision. Simply
>>> ignoring them and insulting those folk who remind you about them
>>> doesn't magic them away.
>>>
>> Going off on a tangent - but an important and relevant one.
>> The point is that regardless of how power is made, there are too many
>> people using too much of it.
>> Actually that is two tangents...
>> Discuss
>
> Well, on the subject of pointing out obstacles... there may well be too
> many people using too much but there's nothing that can reasonably be
> done about that in the same time frame as global warming. The world is
> heading for a stable population of 10bn. That *could* come down to 5bn
> but realistically would need at least 500 years if it is to be done via
> a consensus.
>
> In the meantime, however, there is global warming to worry about and
> that has to be solved in a way that allows for a global population of 10bn.
>
> It was pointed out recently that the amount the UK is spending on
> renewables subsidy would buy a new nuclear power station every 2 years
> so I suggest we should start doing that.
>
> On a slight tangent, I was amused by the Rolls Royce proposal for small
> modular reactors: seems like they propose to address the "not in my
> back-yard" problem by ensuring that everyone has one in their back yard.
>
> PS: if 15 miles away counts as "back-yard" then I already have one in my
> back yard.
>

All interesting ideas are good :-)

By the way, where did this 10bn maximum come from?
How on earth is that going to come about?
Mass starvation? Plague? - or something more acceptable?
Something unforseen?
Optimism?

Chris

--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

Mark Olson <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote in
news:spstau$o03$1@dont-email.me:

> I am not all that knowledgeable about undersea transmission lines. But
> they do exist, at a higher cost.
>

they are very viable if paid for by the French or Norwegians if they have
the financial incentive to sell surplus power to the UK. There are a number
of cables under the English Channel and one being constructed across the
North Sea

> The problems associated with renewables are definitely solvable. Not
> all of those problems are technical ones. Never say never.
>

as mentioned in another post, the barriers are often cost. The UK likes to
defer costs to later generations by signing contracts with nation states or
private enterprise to build stuff. Then pay through the nose for the
electricity when the project comes on stream. Then be left with the legacy
brown site when the contract expires and the generator is no longer viable.

On 21/12/2021 16:33, ChrisND @UKRM wrote:

>
> By the way, where did this 10bn maximum come from?
> How on earth is that going to come about?
> Mass starvation? Plague? - or something more acceptable?
> Something unforseen?
> Optimism?
>
> Chris
>

Because that guy <googles> Hans Rosling said so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E Though he's dead now iirc.

--
/Simon

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 16:33:21 +0000, "ChrisND @UKRM"
<chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:

>By the way, where did this 10bn maximum come from?

It's the standard understanding now. Avg live births per woman is
less than 2.5 already, across the globe. We just need to wait for the
2~3 generations who haven't *yet* had children to procreate, while
their parents and grandparents live longer, and then it'll stabilise
around 10bn...maybe 11bn

This link, from about the 4 minute mark, explains how the population
will grow from ~7bn to 10~11bn, *with a completely stable replacement
birth rate"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On 21/12/2021 17:24, siwilson wrote:
> Because that guy <googles> Hans Rosling said so.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E Though he's dead now iirc.

Yes and this strikes me as a very good reason we should continue foreign
aid, especially education and especially girls.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:36:13 +0100, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 22:15:28 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
><07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>
>>On a slight tangent, I was amused by the Rolls Royce proposal for small
>>modular reactors: seems like they propose to address the "not in my
>>back-yard" problem by ensuring that everyone has one in their back yard.
>
>Reminds me of (and I think I've mentioned this before) the "Derby, a
>nuclear-free zone" signposts erected by the city council in the early
>1980s. I used to drive past one on the A52 at Spondon on my way in
>from Long Eaton to the RR offices at Moor Lane.
>
>Via Raynesway, the base of RR Nuclear and RR&A, who shared a small
>experimental nuclear Reactor...

Grenwich, too. Home of the Royal Navy training college. Which has, or
had, a reactor.

--

-Pip

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
<olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:

>I am not all that knowledgeable about undersea transmission lines. But
>they do exist, at a higher cost.

Yes, apparently the windfarms off the UK transmit by DC to avoid
losses to the rather conductive surroundings, according to an
instructor on my electrical course.

I guess there might be a good ecological reason to avoid stray eddy
currents o the seabed, too.

--

-Pip

On 21/12/2021 21:03 wessie penned these words:
> Mark Olson <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote in
> news:spr86g$3ao$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Boots <news@millhouse-communications.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> There's a scheme to generate power in Morocco and pipe it into Europe
>>> but the the cables required are hideously expensive. It's also not
>>> panels as they lose efficiency as the temperature goes up. IIRC
>>> Germany has already bailed out, can generate more from panels in the
>>> Fatherland and way way cheaper. Ergo, after generation there's
>>> political issues and then cost/efficiency ones. Again IIRC Orkney
>>> generates way more power than it needs from wind and ends up dumping
>>> it. There's no economical way to get the excess the few miles to the
>>> mainland.
>>
>> Obviously a systematic approach is necessary... Don't place excess
>> generating capacity in places where the energy can't be economically
>> transported to where the demand is. That's first order planning,
>> not something that should come as a surprise to anyone.
>>
>
> Orkney will need enough generators to supply adequate peak power on a
> lightly windy day or when maintenance happens. There might be an excess on
> windier days or at night but they have to have some contingency in the
> system. We have yet to find an efficient or cost effective storage solution
> to meet peak demand so a few extra wind turbines has to be better than
> firing up the peat burners.

I recall also there's new tech tidal generation being trailed there. The
Pentland Firth is particularly suitable for such usage. Tat and the various
storage solutions should more than solve the light/no wind/maintenance days
issue, albeit spending some time on Orkney it is always windy.

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

On 21/12/2021 13:06, wessie wrote:
> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in news:j2cmpsFg9miU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 20/12/2021 22:15, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>>>
>>> It was pointed out recently that the amount the UK is spending on
>>> renewables subsidy would buy a new nuclear power station every 2 years
>>> so I suggest we should start doing that.
>>
>> How many Hinkley Point Cs would it build?
>>
>> There's also the minor point that just getting round to building them
>> can take decades, let alone the actual construction.
>>
>> I do agree that we need more nuclear generation capacity, but there
>> seems to be a determination to build it as slowly and expensively as
>> possible.
>
> mostly as UK plc is trying very hard not to pay for it up front, then bails
> out when they realise the potential consequences of getting into huge debt
> with China plc. All because of an aversion to working with the French.

I think the aversion to working with the French might have stemmed from
EDF demanding that they be paid about two and a half times the going
rate for their electricity, yet still we're doing it.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant

On 12/21/2021 2:38 AM, Ace wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 00:47:13 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
> <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Obviously a systematic approach is necessary... Don't place excess
>> generating capacity in places where the energy can't be economically
>> transported to where the demand is. That's first order planning,
>> not something that should come as a surprise to anyone.
>
> Right, so you need to build huge tidal, wind and solar farms right in
> the middle of big cities; yeah. that will work nicely.
>

I have 8 solar panels on my roof (and so do many other homes here.)
That's enough to zero out my electric use for the year. I'll add some
more when I get an electric car and/or get rid of my gas appliances.

California has for 2 years required all new homes to have solar panels
and is considering requiring them for commercial buildings, too. Of
course, you probably live where the sun doesn't shine, but I'm sure
there's something you can do.

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS, ST1100 (in memoriam)

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 1:11:19 AM UTC, Turby wrote:
> On 12/21/2021 2:38 AM, Ace wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 00:47:13 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
> > <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Obviously a systematic approach is necessary... Don't place excess
> >> generating capacity in places where the energy can't be economically
> >> transported to where the demand is. That's first order planning,
> >> not something that should come as a surprise to anyone.
> >
> > Right, so you need to build huge tidal, wind and solar farms right in
> > the middle of big cities; yeah. that will work nicely.
> >
> I have 8 solar panels on my roof (and so do many other homes here.)
> That's enough to zero out my electric use for the year. I'll add some
> more when I get an electric car and/or get rid of my gas appliances.
>
> California has for 2 years required all new homes to have solar panels
> and is considering requiring them for commercial buildings, too. Of
> course, you probably live where the sun doesn't shine, but I'm sure
> there's something you can do.
>
> --

I think the UK equivalent would be some hydro-electric affair powered by rainfall through the guttering, with a little bit of wind turbine thrown in for good measure.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:11:17 -0800, Turby <xsurf@xmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/21/2021 2:38 AM, Ace wrote:

>> Right, so you need to build huge tidal, wind and solar farms right in
>> the middle of big cities; yeah. that will work nicely.
>>
>
>I have 8 solar panels on my roof (and so do many other homes here.)
>That's enough to zero out my electric use for the year. I'll add some
>more when I get an electric car and/or get rid of my gas appliances.
>
>California has for 2 years required all new homes to have solar panels
>and is considering requiring them for commercial buildings, too. Of
>course, you probably live where the sun doesn't shine, but I'm sure
>there's something you can do.

Actually we get quite a lot of sun through most of the year, being
well above the normal winter cloud/fog layer that darkens the main
cities and valleys much of the time, but conversely solar panels are
not much use when they're buried under a metre of snow. Probably only
50cm now after a week of sunshine and the temperature is forecast to
rise above freezing in a few days time.

But this is a fundamental issue with domestic solar power - when you
need it, you can't have it; when you can get it nobody needs it.

Switzerland gets 60% of its electricity from hydroelectric generation,
and this is set to rise in the next 30 years as thet phase out the
Nuclear plants which currently give another 33%.

--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:44:22 +0100, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:

>But this is a fundamental issue with domestic solar power - when you
>need it, you can't have it; when you can get it nobody needs it.

Would agree with the first part of that sentiment - we don't get much
out of the panels at night. But on sunny days (300 or so per year)
the power company clearly thinks someone needs it - they pay me
considerably more for what I export compared against what it would
cost me to consume their power even at peak times, making battery
storage a rather pointless luxury.

--

Pete
Garage vacancy now filled, N+1 incremented accordingly
F800R

Le 16 Dec 2021 08:17:40 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
écrivait :

>
> Bordeaux trams are quite clever in this regard. They have an exposed
> contact rail that is only live when the tram is over it.
>
> https://invisiblebordeaux.blogspot.com/2011/12/bordeaux-trams-underground-power.html
>

What could go wrong?
https://www.lesechos.fr/2004/04/nouveau-contretemps-pour-le-tramway-bordelais-635084

--
Francis Chartier
Bisounours Asocial #0

Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in
news:j2f98fFu89U1@mid.individual.net:

> On 21/12/2021 13:06, wessie wrote:

>> mostly as UK plc is trying very hard not to pay for it up front, then
>> bails out when they realise the potential consequences of getting
>> into huge debt with China plc. All because of an aversion to working
>> with the French.
>
> I think the aversion to working with the French might have stemmed
> from EDF demanding that they be paid about two and a half times the
> going rate for their electricity, yet still we're doing it.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-d
> eal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant
>

yes, UK plc is so good at negotiating international trade deals from the
position of strength we obviously hold. We have such a bright future as a
loan pimple irritating global commerce.

Dave Brown <browniebrownz@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:bd88b25d-649a-45f2-afd8-1f7fac8150a5n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 1:11:19 AM UTC, Turby wrote:
>> California has for 2 years required all new homes to have solar
>> panels and is considering requiring them for commercial buildings,
>> too. Of course, you probably live where the sun doesn't shine, but
>> I'm sure there's something you can do.
>>
>> --
>
> I think the UK equivalent would be some hydro-electric affair powered
> by rainfall through the guttering, with a little bit of wind turbine
> thrown in for good measure.

we could ceertainly do better with more localised hydro plants as would be
used for milling, mining etc in the days before electricity.

we could also do better using larger rivers to produce electricity. We
build massive weirs for flood alleviation schemes but unlike the French &
Germans, we aren't fitting hydro plants into those weirs.

On 22/12/2021 15:36, wessie wrote:
> we could also do better using larger rivers to produce electricity. We
> build massive weirs for flood alleviation schemes but unlike the French &
> Germans, we aren't fitting hydro plants into those weirs.

I think you are mostly right but there are a few archimedes screw type
unis that have been put in at some weirs, notably one to offset Windsor
Castle's footprint installed at Eton.

The National trust decline to answer why they abandoned plans for
similar devices at recent rebuilding of weirs on the river Wey, I
imagine it was an issue of capital cost.

AJH <news@loampitsfarm.co.uk> wrote in
news:j2h47sFblbmU1@mid.individual.net:

> On 22/12/2021 15:36, wessie wrote:
>> we could also do better using larger rivers to produce electricity.
>> We build massive weirs for flood alleviation schemes but unlike the
>> French & Germans, we aren't fitting hydro plants into those weirs.
>
>
> I think you are mostly right but there are a few archimedes screw type
> unis that have been put in at some weirs, notably one to offset
> Windsor Castle's footprint installed at Eton.
>
> The National trust decline to answer why they abandoned plans for
> similar devices at recent rebuilding of weirs on the river Wey, I
> imagine it was an issue of capital cost.
>

it's always capital cost and a short term view. This is rather ironic in
the NT's case when you consider the age of their estate and its potential
to underwrite massive loans for infrastructure projects to protect the
estate for many more generations.

On 22/12/2021 17:33, wessie wrote:
> AJH <news@loampitsfarm.co.uk> wrote in
> news:j2h47sFblbmU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 22/12/2021 15:36, wessie wrote:
>>> we could also do better using larger rivers to produce electricity.
>>> We build massive weirs for flood alleviation schemes but unlike the
>>> French & Germans, we aren't fitting hydro plants into those weirs.
>>
>>
>> I think you are mostly right but there are a few archimedes screw type
>> unis that have been put in at some weirs, notably one to offset
>> Windsor Castle's footprint installed at Eton.
>>
>> The National trust decline to answer why they abandoned plans for
>> similar devices at recent rebuilding of weirs on the river Wey, I
>> imagine it was an issue of capital cost.
>>
>
> it's always capital cost and a short term view. This is rather ironic in
> the NT's case when you consider the age of their estate and its potential
> to underwrite massive loans for infrastructure projects to protect the
> estate for many more generations.
>
With wholesale rates for elctricty today hitting 40p/kWh I think the ROI
would be more attractive short term but my feeling it the purpose of the
NT is mostly to pay senior management wages.

On 22/12/2021 17:06, AJH wrote:
> On 22/12/2021 15:36, wessie wrote:
>> we could also do better using larger rivers to produce electricity. We
>> build massive weirs for flood alleviation schemes but unlike the French &
>> Germans, we aren't fitting hydro plants into those weirs.
>
>
> I think you are mostly right but there are a few archimedes screw type
> unis that have been put in  at some weirs, notably one to offset Windsor
> Castle's footprint  installed at Eton.
>
> The National trust decline to answer why they abandoned plans for
> similar devices at recent rebuilding of weirs on the river Wey, I
> imagine it was an issue of capital cost.

There is one of those at Stourton Castle on , unsurprisingly, the river
(Worcestershire) Stour.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4624725,-2.2078648,34m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

--
Moto Morini 2C/375, Moto Morini 2C/350
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
1937 Sunbeam Model 14 250 Sports
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 21/12/2021 10:36, Ace wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 22:15:28 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
> <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>
>> On a slight tangent, I was amused by the Rolls Royce proposal for small
>> modular reactors: seems like they propose to address the "not in my
>> back-yard" problem by ensuring that everyone has one in their back yard.
>
> Reminds me of (and I think I've mentioned this before) the "Derby, a
> nuclear-free zone" signposts erected by the city council in the early
> 1980s. I used to drive past one on the A52 at Spondon on my way in
> from Long Eaton to the RR offices at Moor Lane.
>
So, are you still in Long Eaton?
If so , we cannot be far apart....
And I used to have a GF who was a canteen manageress at RR in the 1980s..
C

--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk