On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 13:54:45 +0000, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

>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!..

The greeny braggards are keeping that quiet!

--
Brightside S9

In article <598fd91efdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>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"! :-)

Look up Blocking High systems they do happen and can be for several
days. There was one early march this year with contribution to the grid
was sub a GW. So scale that up and start to get dependant on that power
and what do you do when its not there Batteries will only deliver so
much this is GW's of power!..

>
>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.

Where are these remote wind gennies then Jim?..

>
>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.

As best i know most all are bi-directional!.

Mind you as we're all supposed to not be generating carbon and the
demand for electrical power is to or will rise home heating and cars
all counties unless they have large resources like Hydro and wind, where
it works, this isn't going the be that simple.

>
>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.

Like Small Modular Nuclear;)..

And lets hope they get a bloody chivvy on with it!...
>
>Jim
>

--
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 13:54, tony sayer wrote:

> 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

That's an interesting site. I changed the display to show WPD to give an
idea of the power output of the wind around the UK. Unfortunately, at
the sort of wind speeds we often see it's very much towards the
left-hand side of the scale, and the colour shown in the North Sea
didn't seem to match anything on the scale. Any idea if there's any way
of stretching the LH side of the scale?

--

Jeff

In article <sninmh$ep5$1@dont-email.me>, 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.

Better still to be in a position to employ 'both way' use of a resource
like an HVDC interconnector. Alas, I think the UK has drifted into
dependency already, so needs to get this dealt with.

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 <snionu$nms$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
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.

Well, the engineers seem happy to do it, and it makes sense as a two way
exchange. Indeed, given the sheer area Scotland or the UK have for it, we
have the potential (pun alert!) to do nicely out of it.

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 <snit45$n3n$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

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

Which may come with clear skies. :-)

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 <598ff05081noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <snit45$n3n$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

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

> Which may come with clear skies. :-)

Which here, at the moment, have 13 hours of darkness.

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

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <snionu$nms$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> 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.
>
> Well, the engineers seem happy to do it, and it makes sense as a two way
> exchange. Indeed, given the sheer area Scotland or the UK have for it, we
> have the potential (pun alert!) to do nicely out of it.
>
> Jim
>

I think a cheaper and better way to cope with the relatively small number
of windless days is to keep a reserve of gas or oil powered plant. You are
going to be paying for redundant plant whether it’s wind turbines and
transmission infrastructure, or thermal plant.

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <598ff05081noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <snit45$n3n$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> And of course windless periods very inconveniently often coincide with
>>> very cold weather!
>
>> Which may come with clear skies. :-)
>
> Which here, at the moment, have 13 hours of darkness.
>

And a low sun angle even at noon.

In article <28S+hLVtbXnhFwTN@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <598fd91efdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
> >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"! :-)

> Look up Blocking High systems they do happen and can be for several
> days.

Please give reference to stats on examples that cover most or all of the
area in the above map. This would also need to include the effect on wave
and flow powers levels to deal with the points I'm making.

> Where are these remote wind gennies then Jim?..

Can I suggest you look at back issues of IEEE Spectrum. Work has already
been done on wind generators that are placed in deep water. It is the next
step being planned by businesses.

> >
> >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.

> As best i know most all are bi-directional!.

....but the UK has been using them largely to import power, so single
direction in practice because we lack capacity in total.

> >
> >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.

> Like Small Modular Nuclear;)..

And fusion with small-scale commercial venture funding.

> And lets hope they get a bloody chivvy on with it!...

Yes, fusion has vastly more potential than fission.

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

On 24/11/2021 10:08, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <28S+hLVtbXnhFwTN@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
> <tony@bancom.co.uk>

>> And lets hope they get a bloody chivvy on with it!...
>
> Yes, fusion has vastly more potential than fission.
>

as was said by contemporaries who went off to work on fusion in the
early 1970s. I still don't know if they really meant "potential to give
us jobs for life".

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article <5990575b60noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <28S+hLVtbXnhFwTN@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
><tony@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In article <598fd91efdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> >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"! :-)
>
>> Look up Blocking High systems they do happen and can be for several
>> days.
>
>Please give reference to stats on examples that cover most or all of the
>area in the above map. This would also need to include the effect on wave
>and flow powers levels to deal with the points I'm making.

Soz Jim haven't got time to look that up now, work needs doing!...
>
>> Where are these remote wind gennies then Jim?..
>
>Can I suggest you look at back issues of IEEE Spectrum. Work has already
>been done on wind generators that are placed in deep water. It is the next
>step being planned by businesses.
>
>> >
>> >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.

Well there may be a bit more of a breeze out in the wider Atlantic!

Going to need a lot of it so it seems..
>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.
>
>> As best i know most all are bi-directional!.
>
>...but the UK has been using them largely to import power, so single
>direction in practice because we lack capacity in total.

Well some say otherwise odd as it seems!..
>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>> Like Small Modular Nuclear;)..
>
>And fusion with small-scale commercial venture funding.
>
>> And lets hope they get a bloody chivvy on with it!...
>
>Yes, fusion has vastly more potential than fission.

Eventually!..
>
>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 <598ff02b2bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <snionu$nms$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>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.
>
>Well, the engineers seem happy to do it, and it makes sense as a two way
>exchange. Indeed, given the sheer area Scotland or the UK have for it, we
>have the potential (pun alert!) to do nicely out of it.
>
>Jim
>
Just hope your right!, the UK never mind England or Scotland's power
supplies borked! I see Coal and Oil are being burnt today!..

If Boris and co have any sense they'll do well to keep the coal stations
operable for a while yet as unfashionable as that that may be!

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <snin9u$db3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>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:
>

Yes guv! The whole things fecked up badly managed and engineered it
seems.

Pity they didn't get on with the small modular ones, can be factory
built not so much extra infrastructure around and they will as you say
be some way off regulations and all that Not good.

Still other countries now think its a good idea!..

Still carbon captures going ok isn't it???...

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <598cbef463noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <ohypm7Ki59khFwov@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
><tony@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below enough of
>> the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long enough either.
>
>> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
>> system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
>> output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
>> storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.
>
>Your concern for the 'UK' may hinge on if Scotland becomes independent or
>not.* :-) cf my previous posting about the error of assuming wind power is
>land based. It is *already* significantly sea based, and it does tend to be
>a tad windy in some of those places.

Surly good olde Bonnie Scotland doesn't want to go back to pre union
times now does it;?,....

>
>BTW There is also the detail that quite often when the 'surface' winds are
>low, at modest altitudes the wind is still blowing. And yes, engineers are
>already working on this.

Just how high are they talking about?...

>
>IEEE Spectrum in recent years has had a number of articles on the progress
>in these topics. Am I the only IEEE member here? I don't know which of the
>items is openly on the web. But a fair bit of 'Spectrum' is I think.
>However I just read the printed copies they send me.
>
>Jim
>
>* England's western extent of Ocean is limited by the presence of Ireland.
>Scotland largely bypasses that.
>

Scottish navy being formed then ;?...

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <598def1600noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>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
>

Yes what would we do with another good Carrington event these days?...

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <snh9tn$dnb$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>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.
>

Carbon capture isn't looking very promising at the moment!

https://tinyurl.com/y8b2cu5m and
https://tinyurl.com/cu8u3c59

--
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 24/11/2021 21:15, tony sayer wrote:
> Surly good olde Bonnie Scotland doesn't want to go back to pre union
> times now does it;?,....

I am always amused by Fort William using the "Outdoor Capital of the UK"
brand. I have asked lots of people but never had answer to what would
happen if Scotland got partition.

I do wonder if some other are / town has registered the name in case.

Of course there would be nothing to stop England continuing to use the
"United Kingdom" name whatever they think in Edinburgh.

On 24/11/2021 21:11, tony sayer wrote:
>
> In article <snin9u$db3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>
>> It's the French who are building Hinckley C 'for us', as they would have
>> us believe:
>
> Yes guv! The whole things fecked up badly managed and engineered it
> seems.
>
> Pity they didn't get on with the small modular ones, can be factory
> built not so much extra infrastructure around and they will as you say
> be some way off regulations and all that Not good.
>
> Still other countries now think its a good idea!..

Which means more competition for a globally limited supply of fuel that
we don't have within our shores.

> Still carbon captures going ok isn't it???...

No, because people keep funding it and then pulling the funding before
it's had time to get anywhere, but that doesn't alter the fact that what
nature has given us are fossil not nuclear fuels, so we'll have to learn
to capture the carbon from burning them sooner or later, and sooner is
always better than later.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 24/11/2021 21:18, tony sayer wrote:
>
> Carbon capture isn't looking very promising at the moment!
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y8b2cu5m and
> https://tinyurl.com/cu8u3c59

I hate to be saying this after their appalling environmental and
disinformation record, but the people to ask are Exxon, because they've
known how to do it for 50 years or so.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 24/11/2021 21:15, tony sayer wrote:
>
> In article <598cbef463noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>
>> Your concern for the 'UK' may hinge on if Scotland becomes independent or
>> not.* :-) cf my previous posting about the error of assuming wind power is
>> land based. It is *already* significantly sea based, and it does tend to be
>> a tad windy in some of those places.
>
> Surly good olde Bonnie Scotland doesn't want to go back to pre union
> times now does it;?,....

Probably, most polls that I've seen recently seem to hover around
somewhere over 50% in favour.

>> * England's western extent of Ocean is limited by the presence of Ireland.
>> Scotland largely bypasses that.
>
> Scottish navy being formed then ;?...

We already seemed to have acquired some nuclear submarines and warheads
from somewhere, which we could flog off to buy something more practical
and useful.

--

Fake news kills!

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

tony sayer wrote:

> If Boris and co have any sense they'll do well to keep the coal stations
> operable for a while yet as unfashionable as that that may be!

The UK has already "phased down coal" haven't we?

Let the rest of the world catch-up to that COP goal before we continue to "phase
out coal"

On 25/11/2021 09:01, Andy Burns wrote:
> tony sayer wrote:
>
>> If Boris and co have any sense they'll do well to keep the coal stations
>> operable for a while yet as unfashionable as that that may be!
>
> The UK has already "phased down coal" haven't we?

Depends how you measure it. We've exported the manufacture of most of
the things we use to places like China. But that requires energy, and
that means coal in the places with the industry.

Do we include our share of that in any calculations? Pah! Of course we
don't. If we did, we wouldn't be very green at all, and we wouldn't be
able to say such fatuous things as:

> Let the rest of the world catch-up to that COP goal before we continue
> to "phase out coal"

In article <snl51g$l2e$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think a cheaper and better way to cope with the relatively small
> number of windless days is to keep a reserve of gas or oil powered
> plant. You are going to be paying for redundant plant whether it's wind
> turbines and transmission infrastructure, or thermal plant.

Depends on two factors;

1) Distnguish between 'totally redundant and never needed' and
'contingency' requirements. Diversity is useful for meeting with 'events'.

2) Makes more sense to use 'redundant' (sic) energy generation from wind,
wave, etc, to generate stored energy - e.g. hydrogen as well as battery -
which you then use when your primary generators are slacker than demand.

(1) has been a classic error recenty in the UK where Westminster allowed a
large gas storage facility to be dismantled, but which now would be very
useful given the hike in price for fossil gas supplies.

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 <5990583941charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > > And of course windless periods very inconveniently often coincide
> > > with very cold weather!

> > Which may come with clear skies. :-)

> Which here, at the moment, have 13 hours of darkness.

Alas, you're just atomising the points made earlier.

We have a *range* of sources - wind, solar, wave, hydro, etc. We also have
ways to store energy and transport it over long distances. All of these
aspects are set to expand during the next decade or two, driven by need and
enabled by improved commercial engineering.

The point I made above is true, though. Static highs over Scotland tend to
mean a clear sky during the daytime. The effect in our house is quite
noticable as we have slate tiles on the roof.

In fact, our central heating has been off-line for some time due to a pump
failure. So we've been using a combination of gas fire and electric
convectors. This makes it easier to be aware of the effects of the weather
not always being simple. e.g. when cold and clear we need *less* heating
than when cloudy with modest wind. Clear means colder at night but
distinctly warmer during the day and evening when we're up and about.

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