Well, as I said then. The issue is that the world is warming. What is
disputed is how much is our fault, and how much it is natural as far as the
earth is concerned. We have short lives measured on the long term Earth
climate scale, there were hothouse earths and Snowball Earths before we
were even here to affect things.
In my view, if we really want to make a difference we need to not only keep
on digging up carbon, but try to find a use for CO2 and remove it from the
air to keep the climate as it is, otherwise we are all doomed. The
broadcasters tend to not see this at all, they lurch from a load of bollox
to an almost evangelistic tone on the things we need to do.

Remember, Skylab? It came down five years too early because the sun had
warmed up and the atmosphere of the earth expanded.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:ivgie2Fpq95U1@mid.individual.net...
> Lou is borrowing my car tomorrow so I thought I'd better clear it out.
> Turns out I've been carting about half a ton of junk around. Ohh, bad for
> the planet, naughty naughty!
> The job took much longer than I envisaged, and as I filled the black sacks
> I had the radio on. The car hasn't got DAB, so much against my better
> judgement I settled for BBC Radio Four. I found myself listening to 'Any
> Answers', presented by Anita Anand. People were ringing in to discuss
> global warming. All seemed to be smoothly progressing along the lines of
> the usual agenda, with a number of callers more-or-less toeing the BBC's
> line, but then a Scottish lady joined in. At first she talked about the
> way greeny policies had damaged employment in Aberdeen, and although you
> could hear Anita's hackles rise this challenge to the universal consensus
> was just about tolerated, but then the Scottish woman went on to express
> doubts (just doubts) about the whole global warming hypothesis, in as much
> as it was affecting employment and prosperity. She might as well have
> declared that the moon was made of green cheese, that the Earth is flat,
> or that sex with goats was a jolly fine thing. She was cut off faster than
> was decent. So much for free speech.
> Next up a couple of blokes who were dead against nuclear power. Their
> views were welcomed warmly. One said that 'renewables provide 90% of our
> electricity needs already.' Anita did not challenge this absurd claim,
> although she must have known it was rubbish. At the moment of writing
> renewables are doing much better than usual because it's really windy:
> they are producing a massive 19% of demand!
> The other guy said that nuclear power stations weren't 'environmentally
> friendly', because of the amount of cement used when they are built. I can't
> dig out the figures right now but I know that the amount of cement per GWh
> of electricity produced by nuclear power stations is dwarfed by the same
> figure for wind turbines. Anita kept quiet, but then a caller came on and
> to Anita's palpable alarm cunningly changed tack without warning. He
> pointed out that not only do the windmills need a hell of a lot of cement
> because they have to have massive foundations to withstand the lateral
> forces from the wind, their construction releases large amounts of CO2
> that had been trapped in the peat. Wow! That man was disappeared mighty
> quick! Can't fault that Anita for her reflexes!
> The next programme was a short story by Travis Alabanza. Actually, it isn't
> accurate to call it a short story. Blatant propaganda is a better
> description. It was in the form of letters between a mother and her
> daughter. It was pure one-sided environmentalist claptrap from start to
> finish. No really, it was. It was incredible. I'm used to the BBC's lies
> but this really made me sit up. Even in the dark days of the Soviet Union
> and Radio Moscow there was no propaganda as naked and unashamed as this.
> Amongst much more (because they really crammed it in) we had Obama GOOD,
> Boris BAD, Greenpeace GOOD, Monbiot GOOD, Oil BAD, windmills GOOD, Greta a
> SAINT, and much much more. Needless to say a quick google confirms my
> suspicions about this Travis Alabanza person. She/he/it will have a fine
> future with the BBC.
> OK, if they want to make a 15 minute over-the-top advert for
> environmentalism that's one thing (and thus warned we could all avoid it),
> but for it to masquerade as an innocent short story is outrageously
> dishonest.
>
> Bill

In article <fgpepg5pbqqo13ns0tgf8mv27rfbqr4c1e@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:17:38 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> >Actually, in practice the best way seems to be that when the general
> >standard of living rises above a given level, people tend to have fewer
> >children. IIUC this has been shown in various countries around the
> >world as they got up to 'first world' levels.

> Professor Dawkins describes it slightly differently. He suggests the
> most significant factor is that it is those cultures in which women have
> control over their own reproductive systems that have the lowest birth
> rates. I think he makes a fair point.

Yes, agreed. That may then correlate to some extent with standard of
living... which may then combine these things into a positive feedback.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Overall there isn't really a 'dispute' about that in science any more.
Although there is amingst those who would prefer the science not to be
representing the reality. In terms of science any uncertainty is wrt
details and trying to decide what changes humans may or may not make in the
future that affect the outcome. i.e. what we as species now do is the main
variable. The other is probably the uncertainty of the 'tipping point' that
goes into runaway changes due to things like feedback methane release from
non-human activity.

Can you give a reference for saying the Skylab came down early because the
Sun had "warmed up"? I recall it being because of a change due to
upper-atmosphere expansion for non-thermal reasons, but can't recall
details. e.g. the flux of the Solar (particles) wind varies with the state
of the Solar 'surface' but doesn't mean the Sun is 'warming' overall in its
output.

Jim

In article <sn7tha$735$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, as I said then. The issue is that the world is warming. What is
> disputed is how much is our fault, and how much it is natural as far as
> the earth is concerned.

> Remember, Skylab? It came down five years too early because the sun had
> warmed up and the atmosphere of the earth expanded.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Rubbish.
All satellite orbits slowly decay unless they can be boosted, using
onboard thrusters for the normal size ones. Skylab needed an external
rocket boost and a whole host of repairs ("reactivation") to return to
manned operation. It was intended to increase its operational life by 5
years but with the last operational Saturn and Atlas rockets used that
depended on the shuttle. Unable to be re-boosted in time by the shuttle,
which was not ready until 1981, Skylab's orbit decayed, and it
disintegrated in the atmosphere on July 11, 1979, scattering debris
across the Indian Ocean and Western Australia.

On 19/11/2021 10:16, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>
> Remember, Skylab? It came down five years too early because the sun had
> warmed up and the atmosphere of the earth expanded.
> Brian
>

On 19/11/2021 10:16, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Remember, Skylab? It came down five years too early because the sun had
> warmed up and the atmosphere of the earth expanded.

I remember reading an article in the New Scientist in the early 1960s
where the increased radiation from the sun was predicted because it
would be emerging from an interstellar dust cloud as its orbit moved its
position in the spiral arm of the galaxy.

I was too young then to take in the nuances in the article, though I
appreciated that the solar system does have a motion relative to the
spiral arm, so the basis for the prediction made sense. Since then, I
have discovered that the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere is
roughly coincidental with the number of sunspots, which suggests an
11-year cycle.

Jim

In article <sn8im4$9rv$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> I was too young then to take in the nuances in the article, though I
> appreciated that the solar system does have a motion relative to the
> spiral arm, so the basis for the prediction made sense. Since then, I
> have discovered that the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere is
> roughly coincidental with the number of sunspots, which suggests an
> 11-year cycle.

That agrees with what I tentatively recall. IIRC the high atmosphere
essentially passes visible and near visible light but absorbs UV - Xrays
etc. This tends to come from the corona or flares, etc. And thus varies
with the Solar activity cycle (like sunspots), mass ejections, etc.

What those studying thes things may call 'space weather' or 'solar
weather'.

Has little or no correlation with the temperature of the lower atmosphere,
but can mean damaged spacecraft or - for serious mass ejections - disrupt
power distribution of comms.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <598cc1c96bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <598cb44761bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
>> decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone back
>> to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought with it
>> a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors much
>> safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that failed due
>> to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that self cooling
>> can be designed in now.
>
>...and that failure was because of a tidal wave that didn't fit what the
>designers assumed would occur, etc.
>
>And 'learning' by such accidents means taking any design and bulding very
>slowly. It typically takes the order of a decade to design and build a new
>'nuclear' station. Add in commissioning (bug fixing), etc, and it tends to
>take multiple decades. ... erm, or dear, that gets expensive and may take
>too long.
>
>...and then the hazard you didn't allow for manifests.
>
>Whereas wind power is expanding rapidly and the cost per kWh is falling as
>this happens. NOW. It is already a good commercial proposition, and getting
>better. From our POV the multiple owners of wind farms also then compete,
>helping push down prices.
>
>Personally I prefer that to heavily subsidised fission stations from non-UK
>sources.
>
>Jim
>
Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
quite some time earlier this year?...

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <598cc05e03noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <kPyKtbMndClhFwTT@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
><tony@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> >100% this.
>> >
>> >That is the only sensible way to have reliable energy and reduce CO2
>> >output. Strangely though, many argue against nuclear maybe because CO2
>> >isn't really their target, it's capitalism.
>> >
>> >Bob.
>
>> Its fear of them going BANG!
>
>In the mind of the general public, yes. But in the mind of engineers it is
>"what we didn't expect", or as SuperMac put it: "Events, dear boy, events!"
>
>e.g. The first gens didn't assume someone might *deliberately* fly a 747
>into one at full speed for 'terror' reasons. But they now have to worry
>about that, and if we need to shut or massively modify older stations.
>
>e.g. Fukashima. They were confident it was safe... oops.
>
>Then in 'third world' countries and ones with poor governments we get
>examples like... Chenobyl.
>
>How many of the 'flat pack' Fisson stations would you be happy to see
>scatterred around, say, Africa? Would they even contain a 747-strike?
>
>And aren't those subs still at Faslane awaiting 'decomissioning'... ?
>
>Jim
>

Heres a very interesting site on good old King Coal over the years;!(

Http://www.dmm.org.uk/mindex.htm

And what we used to do back then, poor little children:((

http://www.dmm.org.uk/educate/huskar.htm
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <598cc106fcnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <sn292l$k30$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> The good thing about the current crop of low wind high pressure systems
>> whilst we are short of gas is to illustrate to the non scientific
>> decision makers that wind turbines cannot be our only source of power.
>
>Yes. we also need solar, hydro, etc, as well.

Theres only so much sunshine we can collect and on overcast winter days
its not much cop..

Like Hydro, we just don't have the terrain for the rain;!

Have a look at France -v- England compared and see how the French got
their power right a long time ago...

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic
=-0.73,50.04,1792

>
>Not put all our ergs in one gasket. :-)
>
>Jim
>

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <sn39g2$usi$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
scribeth thus
>Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <sn0s53$nrr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>
>>>> On 16/11/2021 16:37, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that
>>>>> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if
>>>>> we are to phase out fossil.
>>>>
>>>> Sigh! What hopelessly short memories people have! This subject has
>>>> been flogged to death in this ng multiple times over the last decade or
>>>> so, and nothing has changed since to make it worthwhile flogging it to
>>>> death all over again. Once again, let me remind you that:
>>>>
>>>> - The world doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph: without
>>>> 'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means something
>>>> like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' = significant
>>>> uncertainty, total current world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference
>>>> Scenario = predicted demand) ...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-
>cycle/uranium-
>>>> resources/uranium-markets.aspx
>>>>
>>>> - The UK has bugger all!

Never mind our Oz mates are thinking in the right direction;)...

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/push-for-small-modular-nuclear-
reactors-goes-into-overdrive-with-rolls-royce/video/d456da4f36135f28c4d8
2d85b1bfebf9

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <sn37vl$g9j$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> In article <sn0s53$nrr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>
>>> On 16/11/2021 16:37, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that
>>>> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if
>>>> we are to phase out fossil.
>>>
>>> Sigh! What hopelessly short memories people have! This subject has
>>> been flogged to death in this ng multiple times over the last decade or
>>> so, and nothing has changed since to make it worthwhile flogging it to
>>> death all over again. Once again, let me remind you that:
>>>
>>> - The world doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph: without
>>> 'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means something
>>> like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' = significant
>>> uncertainty, total current world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference
>>> Scenario = predicted demand) ...
>>>
>>> https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-
>>> resources/uranium-markets.aspx
>>>
>>> - The UK has bugger all!
>>>
>>> - That currently nuclear is by far the most expensive means of
>>> generation by source in the UK:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732
>>>
>>> "When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn.
>>> Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn."
>>>
>>> So half-way through the build it's £5bn over budget, can we assume that
>>> means it will be £10bn over budget by completion? I don't know, but I
>>> won't be surprised if it is. Meanwhile from the same report:
>>
>> Lets forget Hinckley and the large reactors these are the new small
>> modular ones that can be factory built such as Rolls Royce have now got
>> the support to make them as have other firms in the USA even bill gates
>> is behind the idea, suppose their all wrong;?.
>>
>> They can be factory built then stack as many of they as you need and
>> where you need ..
>>
>> And yes we don't have the stuff we will have to get it from elsewhere
>> but where does our gas now come from I wonder?..
>
>Blue sky, years away, and how much fissile fuel will be left by the time
>they're ready to start work?

I suspect it will be around after all what are the French going to do as
they and a bit of Europe, inc us, they supply depends on it;!....

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 22/11/2021 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>
> https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/push-for-small-modular-nuclear-
> reactors-goes-into-overdrive-with-rolls-royce/video/d456da4f36135f28c4d8
> 2d85b1bfebf9

I'm not going to bother to read or watch the link because every other
link to them I've followed has been appallingly biased and often
factually incorrect, so much so that my name for them is Lie News Australia.

And as has already been explained to you, these much hyped mine reactors
are blue sky, years away, and how much fuel for them will be left by the
time they're ready, particularly for us in the UK without any indigenous
supplies of our own? We have to use what nature has given us, which is
fossil-fuels, which means we have to burn those and capture the carbon.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/11/2021 23:07, tony sayer wrote:
>
> In article <sn37vl$g9j$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>
>> On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>> And yes we don't have the stuff we will have to get it from elsewhere
>>> but where does our gas now come from I wonder?..

But we do have supplies of our own we could burn instead if our
suppliers start to play dirty.

>> Blue sky, years away, and how much fissile fuel will be left by the time
>> they're ready to start work?
>
> I suspect it will be around after all what are the French going to do as
> they and a bit of Europe, inc us, they supply depends on it;!....

You've been given a link to the World Nuclear Association's, the trades
body for the nuclear industry, projected supply page, and I've been
watching it for over a decade now, and it's barely altered over that
time in predicting a shortfall. We have bugger all indigenous supplies
of our own, therefore for us to base our future on nuclear fission is
strategic suicide.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/11/2021 22:51, tony sayer wrote:
> Theres only so much sunshine we can collect and on overcast winter days
> its not much cop..
>
> Like Hydro, we just don't have the terrain for the rain;!
>
> Have a look at France -v- England compared and see how the French got
> their power right a long time ago...

I think I read that one difference is that in the UK any large project
like that can be delayed for many years by public inquiries and then
inquiries into the result of the first one and objections to planning
applications.

I understand these have much less power in France so they can build
things much easier.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 22:38:20 +0000, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <598cc1c96bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>In article <598cb44761bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
>><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
>>> decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone back
>>> to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought with it
>>> a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors much
>>> safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that failed due
>>> to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that self cooling
>>> can be designed in now.
>>
>>...and that failure was because of a tidal wave that didn't fit what the
>>designers assumed would occur, etc.
>>
>>And 'learning' by such accidents means taking any design and bulding very
>>slowly. It typically takes the order of a decade to design and build a new
>>'nuclear' station. Add in commissioning (bug fixing), etc, and it tends to
>>take multiple decades. ... erm, or dear, that gets expensive and may take
>>too long.
>>
>>...and then the hazard you didn't allow for manifests.
>>
>>Whereas wind power is expanding rapidly and the cost per kWh is falling as
>>this happens. NOW. It is already a good commercial proposition, and getting
>>better. From our POV the multiple owners of wind farms also then compete,
>>helping push down prices.
>>
>>Personally I prefer that to heavily subsidised fission stations from non-UK
>>sources.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
>quite some time earlier this year?...

You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is
blowing.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 23/11/2021 09:23, MB wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 22:51, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> Theres only so much sunshine we can collect and on overcast winter days
>> its not much cop..
>>
>> Like Hydro, we just don't have the terrain for the rain;!
>>
>> Have a look at France -v- England compared and see how the French got
>> their power right a long time ago...
>
> I think I read that one difference is that in the UK any large project
> like that can be delayed for many years by public inquiries and then
> inquiries into the result of the first one and objections to planning
> applications.
>
> I understand these have much less power in France so they can build
> things much easier.

It's the French who are building Hinckley C 'for us', as they would have
us believe:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732

"When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn.
Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn."

So half-way through the build it's £5bn, just under a third of its
initial projected cost, over budget, can we assume that means it will be
£10bn over budget by completion? I don't know, but I won't be surprised
if it is.

See also Flamanville:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant

"A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007
with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the
project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule.
Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the
steel used in the reactor.[1] In July 2019, further delays were
announced, pushing back the commercial date to the end 2022.[2][3]"

The French don't seem to be any better at this than we are.

Neither do the Finnish:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/finlands-olkiluoto-3-nuclear-reactor-faces-another-delay-2021-08-23/

"A general view of the unfinished Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor in
Eurajoki, Finland August 17, 2017. REUTERS/Lefteris Karagiannopoulos

A general view of the unfinished Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor in
Eurajoki, Finland August 17, 2017. REUTERS/Lefteris Karagiannopoulos
Register now for FREE unlimited access to reuters.com

OSLO, Aug 23 (Reuters) - The start of Finland's much-delayed Olkiluoto 3
nuclear reactor has been pushed back by a further three months, with
full power production now scheduled for June 2022, operator TVO said in
a statement late on Friday.

"Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) has received additional information from
the plant supplier Areva-Siemens consortium that the regular electricity
production of the OL3 EPR plant unit will be further postponed for three
months due to extended turbine overhaul and inspection works," TVO said.

First electricity production from the reactor, which has a capacity of
1.6 gigawatts (GW), is now scheduled for February, with regular
electricity production to start in June next year.

Olkiluoto 3 was meant to be finished in 2009 but the project has been
beset by a series of setbacks.

The Finnish Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) in March this year gave a
permit to start loading fuel, supporting a plan to begin electricity
production in October.

But TVO in late July pushed back the date to November to allow for extra
work on overhauling and inspecting turbines, and now points to February
as the expected startup."

White elephants all round.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/11/2021 11:27, Martin wrote:
> You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is
> blowing.

Apart from transmission losses and costs, you are back to dependence on
unreliable countries like Russia and France.

Much better to be able to generate your own electricity.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 23/11/2021 11:27, Martin wrote:
>> You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is
>> blowing.
>
>
> Apart from transmission losses and costs, you are back to dependence on
> unreliable countries like Russia and France.
>
> Much better to be able to generate your own electricity.
>
>
>

The other problem is if the continental grid is short of power (which it
chronically is at the moment) countries sitting on the end of inter
connectors are going to be at the back of the queue. You would also have to
have an order of magnitude more interconnector capacity to be able to
provide the bulk of the UK demand on a windless day, and you’d have to have
that transmission capacity to multiple distant points to where you hope the
wind might be blowing. Basically you need huge amounts of surplus
generation and transmission capacity to cover for one large geographic area
losing wind generation capacity due to a still day. I don’t see that
happening.

In article <uqjppg5rj3ur3gqo7c9735a7h8m2rokp69@4ax.com>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> scribeth thus
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 22:38:20 +0000, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <598cc1c96bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>In article <598cb44761bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
>>><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
>>>> decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone back
>>>> to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought with it
>>>> a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors much
>>>> safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that failed due
>>>> to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that self cooling
>>>> can be designed in now.
>>>
>>>...and that failure was because of a tidal wave that didn't fit what the
>>>designers assumed would occur, etc.
>>>
>>>And 'learning' by such accidents means taking any design and bulding very
>>>slowly. It typically takes the order of a decade to design and build a new
>>>'nuclear' station. Add in commissioning (bug fixing), etc, and it tends to
>>>take multiple decades. ... erm, or dear, that gets expensive and may take
>>>too long.
>>>
>>>...and then the hazard you didn't allow for manifests.
>>>
>>>Whereas wind power is expanding rapidly and the cost per kWh is falling as
>>>this happens. NOW. It is already a good commercial proposition, and getting
>>>better. From our POV the multiple owners of wind farms also then compete,
>>>helping push down prices.
>>>
>>>Personally I prefer that to heavily subsidised fission stations from non-UK
>>>sources.
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
>>quite some time earlier this year?...
>
>You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is
>blowing.

Good luck with that one then!, Britain and its surrounds is about the
most windiest place in Europe!..

Have a look at this site over time...

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic
=-0.73,50.04,1792/loc=5.752,48.142

And right now Wind is 8% of UK demand...

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Even got the Coal and Oil on the go!..
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <sninmh$ep5$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> scribeth
thus
>On 23/11/2021 11:27, Martin wrote:
>> You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is
>> blowing.
>
>
>Apart from transmission losses and costs, you are back to dependence on
>unreliable countries like Russia and France.
>
>Much better to be able to generate your own electricity.
>
>

Ha! We do rely on France usually its a couple of GW the same as a decent
large power station but that fire they had a while ago has cut that back
in fact France often powers other bits of Europe!...

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <snibtm$tqf$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> scribeth
thus
>On 22/11/2021 22:51, tony sayer wrote:
>> Theres only so much sunshine we can collect and on overcast winter days
>> its not much cop..
>>
>> Like Hydro, we just don't have the terrain for the rain;!
>>
>> Have a look at France -v- England compared and see how the French got
>> their power right a long time ago...
>
>
>I think I read that one difference is that in the UK any large project
>like that can be delayed for many years by public inquiries and then
>inquiries into the result of the first one and objections to planning
>applications.
>
>I understand these have much less power in France so they can build
>things much easier.
>
>
>

Yes very much the case like the TGV high speed rail and i remember first
going there with a mobile phone and the coverage was excellent!.

Want mobile coverage?, then just build the effing tower for it!

Job done...

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 23/11/2021 13:01, Tweed wrote:
> The other problem is if the continental grid is short of power (which it
> chronically is at the moment) countries sitting on the end of inter
> connectors are going to be at the back of the queue. You would also have to
> have an order of magnitude more interconnector capacity to be able to
> provide the bulk of the UK demand on a windless day, and you’d have to have
> that transmission capacity to multiple distant points to where you hope the
> wind might be blowing. Basically you need huge amounts of surplus
> generation and transmission capacity to cover for one large geographic area
> losing wind generation capacity due to a still day. I don’t see that
> happening.

And of course windless periods very inconveniently often coincide with
very cold weather!

On 23/11/2021 14:00, tony sayer wrote:
> Yes very much the case like the TGV high speed rail and i remember first
> going there with a mobile phone and the coverage was excellent!.
>
> Want mobile coverage?, then just build the effing tower for it!
>
> Job done...

The Frogs make a lot about "For the People" but the state comes first
and the People very much second.

In article <h7uLgETcvBnhFwwL@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
> quite some time earlier this year?...

I thought I'd already answered that. However:

1) http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png

The above shows the area legally available for Scotland to have economic
control over the placing and use of wind/wave/tidal/flow/solar power. It is
almost 10 times the area of Scotland's mainland. How often is that area
devoid of all such power sources for, say, 24hours? I'd suspect the answer
is beween 'very rarely' and 'never'. Note that the western approaches
aren't well known as places where the "wind doesn't blow"! :-)

2) Storage of energy via electric batteries, hydro, hydrogen, etc. The UK
used to have storage for many days worth of gas BTW but recent goverment
allowed it to be destroyed. Similar can be rebuilt, though, and in the
future, homes may have 'power walls' and cars store energy which can be
used by the grid in exchange for payments to the owner. Remote wind/etc
generators may be economic via storing their power as generated hydrogen to
be picked up with a tanker. So not all may need to be on an electricity
grid.

The future isn't the past. The engineering we can already expect shows that
"when the wind doesn't blow" really isn't a practical problem. BTW you can
also add in

3) Long distance HVDC interconnectors between countries *and continents*.
Just as we already have some of these and long oil/gas pipes. The big
difference here is the possibity of *two way* transfers. Not just the 'one
way' of oil and gas. Scotland could end up selling a lot of energy, not
just bringing it in, via HVDC and/or hydrogen. And the first ones to
develop better wind turbines, etc, can also sell them to other
countries.

I'm pointing out the aims of work *already beeing done* by engineers as I
read about in 'Spectrum', etc. So if you want to find out more then maybe
the web editions of IEEE Spectrum may help. A lot more development is
happening than most people realise, backed by commercial support.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Java Jive wrote:

> Really?  Where is your provenance for this claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#History