On 20/12/2022 19:25, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>> 38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
>>
>> To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
>
> Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate
> timescale.

My full quote covered both instantaneous and longer timescales:

On 20/12/2022 14:19, Java Jive wrote:
>
> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf

>
> (p12 chart 5.2)
>
> Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand,
> have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two
> months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par
> with fossil fuel generation.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 20/12/2022 16:26, Spike wrote:
>
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> FALSE!
>>>
>>> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>>>
>>> Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand
>>
>> Right now, that's close enough to true.
>>
>> For yesterday and today, top two graphs, wind (cyan) and solar (yellow) dominate
>>
>> <https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent>
>>
>> but look at this whole year and last whole year, bottom two graphs
>> gas (light brown) dominates.
>
> A much better site, designed by a scientist/engineer,

.... who is also an abusive right-wing bigot and serial liar ...

> is
>
> <https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>
>
> Look at the Monthly graph for Nuclear/Coal/CCGT/Wind. You’ll see that from
> 27th Nov to 17th Dec, apart from a handful of hours, CCGT produced far more
> energy than Wind. A rough guess at the difference over that period suggests
> a 6TWh energy shortfall by Wind. That is hard to dismiss.

Exactly the same information is available at the site I linked.

> The blocking High, circa 1044mb or a little higher, that brought this about
> was centred on Central Russia. It was huge. If the North Sea was totally
> covered in windmills, the energy shortfall would still be there. No Wind =
> No Energy.

So we had to burn more gas, as we did.

> You can download raw data from the Templar site; it was specifically set up
> to deal with the dreamy, hand-waving claims of the Renewables believers by
> making available actual data rather than dreams or beliefs.

But, ironically enough, in recent times has been increasingly frequently
been used to disabuse its site owner of his bigotry by disproving his
own false claims!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 20/12/2022 18:33, Spike wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 20/12/2022 14:45, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
>>
>> This from the man who consistently accuses others of not being able to
>> do maths - including myself who has a 1st Class Honours in the subject
>> - but AFAICR whose own qualifications seem to be something to do with
>> contemporary dance?!
>
> Getting the ad homs in early is one of your ineffective tactics. It makes
> you look silly.

Hypocritically accusing others of ad hominems when you were the first to
employ them just makes you look the pathetic bigot you really are.

>>>> Let's not frighten the greenies, and therefore pretend that the CCGT is
>>>> now 40% efficient as a backup to the subsidy farm. It therefore uses
>>>> 0.64/0.4 GW of gas, or 1.6GW of gas to produce the missing 0.64GW of
>>>> electricity.
>>
>> Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of his actual calculations,
>> they become irrelevant, which is why I've snipped most of his post, when
>> the important factor that he has completely missed is added in, which is
>> that only a small minority of the fossil-fuel generating capacity has to
>> be kept on standby when it's not actually required to generate:
>>
>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094628/DUKES_2022_Chapter_5.pdf
>
>> https://www.ft.com/content/1a223fe5-379d-471a-8749-2e15c3d39e39
>
>> From 1st:
>> Total fossil fuel capacity = 42.5GW
>
> From the first:
>
> Generation from renewable sources decreased 9.3 per cent to 122.2 TWh in
> 2021. This was driven by less favourable weather conditions for wind, hydro
> and solar generation. In particular, wind generation dropped to 64.7 TWh in
> 2021, down 14 per cent despite increased capacity. This was because of
> unusually low average wind speeds across most of 2021.
>
> Fossil fuel generation increased 11.0 per cent in 2021 to 131.4 TWh.
> Increased demand for electricity and lower renewable generation increased
> the need for fossil fuel generation.
>
> The proportion of electricity generation coming from renewable sources fell
> in 2021

So? Wind is by definition a variable source of energy, and inevitably
some years will have more of it, others less.

>> From 2nd:
>> Standby capacity = 5GW
>
> That’s behind a paywall.

I could see it without paying anything.

> But you’re saying that my figures, taken from actual operation rather than
> wishful thinking, are wrong.

No, I'm saying that your figures are from wishful thinking, not actual
operation. The actual figures for standby generation capacity are 5GW,
not the entirety of the installed gas generating capacity, and, as
linked elsewhere in the thread, the total additional cost of bringing
variable renewables into the grid is about 1p per unit to the cost of
electricity to the consumer.

> When you put forward a properly-worked counter, I’m sure we’ll be
> interested to read it.

I've already linked to the actual facts about standby generation, which
show that your claims were wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive wrote:

> Spike wrote:
>
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.ft.com/content/1a223fe5-379d-471a-8749-2e15c3d39e39
>>
>> That’s behind a paywall.
>
> I could see it without paying anything.

FT links are fussy, if *you* search for them (it presumably sets a cookie) that
lets *you* follow the link. But if you post the link to someone/somewhere else,
the chances are they'll see the paywall ...

So, do a google search for "1a223fe5-379d-471a-8749-2e15c3d39e39" and follow the
search result it will show without paywall.

On 20/12/2022 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 14:15:46 +0000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/12/2022 10:21, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>>> And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to one
>>>> of the solar panels results in a short circuit.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, petrol/diesel cars never catch fire in a collision....
>>> erm....
>>
>> Its not the solar panels that are necessarily the main risk in a major
>> crash of a EV.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQZ6lTefEYs
>
> Scary.
>
> It looks as though flaming battery cars have to be left where they are
> in a skip full of water for a long time until no longer considered
> dangerous, a bit like nuclear waste. Although the timescales are very
> different it must make the clearance of a road after such a mishap a
> lot more difficult.At least they deliberatelty choose lonely places
> for nuclear installations but there won't always be space to leave a
> great big skip full of water by the side of a busy road.

Even on a motorway the hard shoulder is probably the most dangerous
place to stop in a car and not a good position to leave a large skip. It
would probably necessitate lane closures and I've had personal
experience a few times in the last 6 months of how many hours that can
add to a journey.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/12/2022 16:26, Spike wrote:
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> Java Jive wrote:

>>>> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>>>>
>>>> Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand
>>>
>>> Right now, that's close enough to true.
>>>
>>> For yesterday and today, top two graphs, wind (cyan) and solar (yellow) dominate
>>>
>>> <https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent>
>>>
>>> but look at this whole year and last whole year, bottom two graphs
>>> gas (light brown) dominates.

>> A much better site, designed by a scientist/engineer

> ... who is also an abusive right-wing bigot and serial liar ...

So his science would be acceptable if he was a left-wing bigot and serial
liar?

>> <https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>
>>
>> Look at the Monthly graph for Nuclear/Coal/CCGT/Wind. You’ll see that from
>> 27th Nov to 17th Dec, apart from a handful of hours, CCGT produced far more
>> energy than Wind. A rough guess at the difference over that period suggests
>> a 6TWh energy shortfall by Wind. That is hard to dismiss.

> Exactly the same information is available at the site I linked.

Which link? You throw them about like confetti.

>> The blocking High, circa 1044mb or a little higher, that brought this about
>> was centred on Central Russia. It was huge. If the North Sea was totally
>> covered in windmills, the energy shortfall would still be there. No Wind =
>> No Energy.

> So we had to burn more gas, as we did.

That’s because if the intermittency of renewables.

>> You can download raw data from the Templar site; it was specifically set up
>> to deal with the dreamy, hand-waving claims of the Renewables believers by
>> making available actual data rather than dreams or beliefs.

> But, ironically enough, in recent times has been increasingly frequently
> been used to disabuse its site owner of his bigotry by disproving his
> own false claims!

You will need to justify that statement. Preferably not by putting up a
link and claiming “It’s all in there”.

--
Spike

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/12/2022 18:33, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/12/2022 14:45, Tweed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
>>>
>>> This from the man who consistently accuses others of not being able to
>>> do maths - including myself who has a 1st Class Honours in the subject
>>> - but AFAICR whose own qualifications seem to be something to do with
>>> contemporary dance?!
>>
>> Getting the ad homs in early is one of your ineffective tactics. It makes
>> you look silly.

> Hypocritically accusing others of ad hominems when you were the first to
> employ them just makes you look the pathetic bigot you really are.

I said you get the ad homs early.

And it’s not my fault you’re hypersensitive and have the issue of assuming
it’s always about you.

>>>>> Let's not frighten the greenies, and therefore pretend that the CCGT is
>>>>> now 40% efficient as a backup to the subsidy farm. It therefore uses
>>>>> 0.64/0.4 GW of gas, or 1.6GW of gas to produce the missing 0.64GW of
>>>>> electricity.
>>>
>>> Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of his actual calculations,
>>> they become irrelevant, which is why I've snipped most of his post, when
>>> the important factor that he has completely missed is added in, which is
>>> that only a small minority of the fossil-fuel generating capacity has to
>>> be kept on standby when it's not actually required to generate:
>>>
>>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094628/DUKES_2022_Chapter_5.pdf
>>
>>> https://www.ft.com/content/1a223fe5-379d-471a-8749-2e15c3d39e39
>>
>>> From 1st:
>>> Total fossil fuel capacity = 42.5GW
>>
>> From the first:
>>
>> Generation from renewable sources decreased 9.3 per cent to 122.2 TWh in
>> 2021. This was driven by less favourable weather conditions for wind, hydro
>> and solar generation. In particular, wind generation dropped to 64.7 TWh in
>> 2021, down 14 per cent despite increased capacity. This was because of
>> unusually low average wind speeds across most of 2021.
>>
>> Fossil fuel generation increased 11.0 per cent in 2021 to 131.4 TWh.
>> Increased demand for electricity and lower renewable generation increased
>> the need for fossil fuel generation.
>>
>> The proportion of electricity generation coming from renewable sources fell
>> in 2021
>
> So? Wind is by definition a variable source of energy, and inevitably
> some years will have more of it, others less.
>
>>> From 2nd:
>>> Standby capacity = 5GW
>>
>> That’s behind a paywall.
>
> I could see it without paying anything.
>
>> But you’re saying that my figures, taken from actual operation rather than
>> wishful thinking, are wrong.
>
> No, I'm saying that your figures are from wishful thinking, not actual
> operation. The actual figures for standby generation capacity are 5GW,
> not the entirety of the installed gas generating capacity, and, as
> linked elsewhere in the thread, the total additional cost of bringing
> variable renewables into the grid is about 1p per unit to the cost of
> electricity to the consumer.
>
>> When you put forward a properly-worked counter, I’m sure we’ll be
>> interested to read it.
>
> I've already linked to the actual facts about standby generation, which
> show that your claims were wrong.
>

--
Spike

In article <k0b922Ff4mU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> MB wrote:

> > I thought it was just a development model and not going into
> > production.

> They're building 200, at ¤/£/$/? 250,000 each. How many problems will
> theydiscover in such a small run?

Well, they've already discovered one problem from the program when the
presenter got to drive 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 <tnppmj$b7ab$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 18/12/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > It should be no surprise that early examples of a tchnology should be
> > costly and have limited performance. But as time passes, things get
> > improved in performance and tend to fall in cost as their market size
> > expands. This is now starting to happen.

> I thought it was just a development model and not going into production.

IIUC That's the case for the specific example in the TV prog. However the
plural in my comment is more general.

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 <k0bmopF2h77U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> I still don't see much point in carting small PV panels around, they're
> poor enough efficency in this country without parking them under trees,
> or in multi-storey car parks

That view may be in the rear view mirror, but discounts improvement in
panel efficiency, etc, that are likely to arrive.

> The sort of people who can spend 1/4 million on a car, don't tend to
> drive under 6,000 miles a year.

Did you see the bit of the program about performance?...

Again, early adopters will pay a lot because it is usual and 'advanced'.
That then finds lower cost + better performance later versions that can
sell more examples at a lower price.

Not really any different to when the first IC cars appeared.

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 <tnqje3$ees7$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 19/12/2022 14:32, alan_m wrote:
> >
> > If it is already known that mining of lithium involves unfair
> > exploitation of the workers could all the EV companies be guilty of
> > breaking modern slavery legislation if they sell EVs in the UK?

> Why single out EVs? Lithium batteries are in all sorts of things
> besides EVs, this laptop I'm typing on, for example. Yes, we need to
> prevent modern slavery, but equally across the board.

This also assumes improved batteries *must* use Lithium.

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 <tnpcmh$89i6$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> But you mentioned replacing your boiler, hence why I went down the heat
> pump route. If you want to use a battery to provide daytime electrical
> heating, charged overnight, you will need a very high capacity battery
> and possible strengthening of your incoming supply. Even Economy 7 night
> rates are still more expensive than gas. It's probably at least another
> decade before economic alternatives to gas domestic heating appear, if
> then.

However, the battery is to be used with a mix of electric and *gas* (fire)
heating. Not all our heating is electric *or* all gas. Thus the hopes for
the batteries are:

1) May lower the overall cost of the electric energy involved.

2) Keep us OK during any power cuts. (Central heating will go off because
it needs electric control.)

3) Will be useful if/when we decide solar may be a handy suppliment. Or
if/when a community wind farm crops up locally etc.

4) Make changes one step at a time. Depending on circumstances. (e.g. if,
say, 'green' hydrogen becomes the replacement for methane gas.

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

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tnpcmh$89i6$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But you mentioned replacing your boiler, hence why I went down the heat
>> pump route. If you want to use a battery to provide daytime electrical
>> heating, charged overnight, you will need a very high capacity battery
>> and possible strengthening of your incoming supply. Even Economy 7 night
>> rates are still more expensive than gas. It's probably at least another
>> decade before economic alternatives to gas domestic heating appear, if
>> then.
>
> However, the battery is to be used with a mix of electric and *gas* (fire)
> heating. Not all our heating is electric *or* all gas. Thus the hopes for
> the batteries are:
>
> 1) May lower the overall cost of the electric energy involved.
>
> 2) Keep us OK during any power cuts. (Central heating will go off because
> it needs electric control.)
>
> 3) Will be useful if/when we decide solar may be a handy suppliment. Or
> if/when a community wind farm crops up locally etc.
>
> 4) Make changes one step at a time. Depending on circumstances. (e.g. if,
> say, 'green' hydrogen becomes the replacement for methane gas.
>
> Jim
>

A battery certainly allows you to move Economy 7 rates into the daytime,
this is what I do. But again, if you want it to provide power for heating,
even a couple of kW, you will need a substantial battery. My 9kWhr battery,
with no solar input, can just about run the house during the peak period,
and that’s with us being careful to run the dishwasher and washing machine
at night so as not to drain the battery. Remember that cheap off peak rates
have compensating more expensive peak rates. So if you flatten you battery
during peak time and start pulling grid power it will start to destroy the
economics of cheap night charging.

On 20/12/2022 23:11, Spike wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 20/12/2022 18:33, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20/12/2022 14:45, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
>>>>
>>>> This from the man who consistently accuses others of not being able to
>>>> do maths - including myself who has a 1st Class Honours in the subject
>>>> - but AFAICR whose own qualifications seem to be something to do with
>>>> contemporary dance?!
>>>
>>> Getting the ad homs in early is one of your ineffective tactics. It makes
>>> you look silly.
>
>> Hypocritically accusing others of ad hominems when you were the first to
>> employ them just makes you look the pathetic bigot you really are.
>
> I said you get the ad homs early.

Whereas you were the *first* to employ them, so your accusations against
me are completely hypocritical.

> And it’s not my fault you’re hypersensitive and have the issue of assuming
> it’s always about you.

I wasn't assuming it was about me, I was pointing out more generally
your hypocrisy in accusing others of not being able to do maths when you
have no relevant SciTech qualifications of your own.

How's "Denialism By Dance" coming along, found a theatre yet?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 20/12/2022 23:11, Spike wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 20/12/2022 16:26, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> A much better site, designed by a scientist/engineer
>>
>> ... who is also an abusive right-wing bigot and serial liar ...
>
> So his science would be acceptable if he was a left-wing bigot and serial
> liar?

His science is acceptable where it isn't based on lies, but
unfortunately many/most of his claims are, as I have proved many times
in the past.

>> Exactly the same information is available at the site I linked.
>
> Which link? You throw them about like confetti.

I can't help it if you haven't the mental ability to follow a thread.

>>> The blocking High, circa 1044mb or a little higher, that brought this about
>>> was centred on Central Russia. It was huge. If the North Sea was totally
>>> covered in windmills, the energy shortfall would still be there. No Wind =
>>> No Energy.
>
>> So we had to burn more gas, as we did.
>
> That’s because if the intermittency of renewables.

Exactly, but nevertheless we burnt less gas overall by using renewables
when we could, which is the very simple point that you seem unable to grasp.

>>> You can download raw data from the Templar site; it was specifically set up
>>> to deal with the dreamy, hand-waving claims of the Renewables believers by
>>> making available actual data rather than dreams or beliefs.
>
>> But, ironically enough, in recent times has been increasingly frequently
>> been used to disabuse its site owner of his bigotry by disproving his
>> own false claims!
>
> You will need to justify that statement. Preferably not by putting up a
> link and claiming “It’s all in there”.

I have rather relished doing it myself in previous threads!

Still, you're not arguing about anything substantive, so back in the
plonk folder for you!

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/12/2022 23:11, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/12/2022 16:26, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A much better site, designed by a scientist/engineer
>>>
>>> ... who is also an abusive right-wing bigot and serial liar ...
>>
>> So his science would be acceptable if he was a left-wing bigot and serial
>> liar?
>
> His science is acceptable where it isn't based on lies, but
> unfortunately many/most of his claims are, as I have proved many times
> in the past.

That’s an interesting comment, because TNP set up that web site
specifically to provide real-world data on UK energy generation that could
be used to counter the ArtStudent mindset regarding if not worshipping
‘renewables’.

That being the case, it’s difficult to see where your alleged ‘lies’ spring
from.

Perhaps you mean ‘lies’ about the way that Germany pressured the Commissars
into imposing a Renewables Obligation on the EU. Note that such an
undertaking is not generation-performance driven, but only insists on
nameplate targets - neither of which had levels of CO2 reduction as a
mandated target. It was merely coincidence that the major benefit of this
program went to Siemens.

>>> Exactly the same information is available at the site I linked.
>>
>> Which link? You throw them about like confetti.
>
> I can't help it if you haven't the mental ability to follow a thread.

Putting links behind paywalls is rather silly of you, suggesting you don’t
quite know what your doing.

>>>> The blocking High, circa 1044mb or a little higher, that brought this about
>>>> was centred on Central Russia. It was huge. If the North Sea was totally
>>>> covered in windmills, the energy shortfall would still be there. No Wind =
>>>> No Energy.
>>
>>> So we had to burn more gas, as we did.
>>
>> That’s because if the intermittency of renewables.
>
> Exactly, but nevertheless we burnt less gas overall by using renewables
> when we could, which is the very simple point that you seem unable to grasp.
>
>>>> You can download raw data from the Templar site; it was specifically set up
>>>> to deal with the dreamy, hand-waving claims of the Renewables believers by
>>>> making available actual data rather than dreams or beliefs.

>>> But, ironically enough, in recent times has been increasingly frequently
>>> been used to disabuse its site owner of his bigotry by disproving his
>>> own false claims!

>> You will need to justify that statement. Preferably not by putting up a
>> link and claiming “It’s all in there”.

> I have rather relished doing it myself in previous threads!

There you go again, with your ArtStudent wavy-hand approach.

> Still, you're not arguing about anything substantive, so back in the
> plonk folder for you!

The last refuge of the ArtStudent.

--
Spike

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/12/2022 23:11, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/12/2022 18:33, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/12/2022 14:45, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
>>>>>
>>>>> This from the man who consistently accuses others of not being able to
>>>>> do maths - including myself who has a 1st Class Honours in the subject
>>>>> - but AFAICR whose own qualifications seem to be something to do with
>>>>> contemporary dance?!
>>>>
>>>> Getting the ad homs in early is one of your ineffective tactics. It makes
>>>> you look silly.
>>
>>> Hypocritically accusing others of ad hominems when you were the first to
>>> employ them just makes you look the pathetic bigot you really are.
>>
>> I said you get the ad homs early.
>
> Whereas you were the *first* to employ them, so your accusations against
> me are completely hypocritical.

You seem to have difficulty with written English.

>> And it’s not my fault you’re hypersensitive and have the issue of assuming
>> it’s always about you.
>
> I wasn't assuming it was about me, I was pointing out more generally
> your hypocrisy in accusing others of not being able to do maths when you
> have no relevant SciTech qualifications of your own.

Someone with a Musical Appreciation qualification who believes that
school-science rote lab work counts as scientific research has a long, long
way to go in understanding science.

> How's "Denialism By Dance" coming along, found a theatre yet?

Who but an ArtStudent could say that?

--
Spike

In article <tnt4uf$pcga$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 20/12/2022 19:25, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
>>>
>>> To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
>>
>> Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate
>> timescale.
>
>My full quote covered both instantaneous and longer timescales:
>
>On 20/12/2022 14:19, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>>
>https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
>hment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
>
>>
>> (p12 chart 5.2)
>>
>> Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand,
>> have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two
>> months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par
>> with fossil fuel generation.
>
>

Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two
sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

https://grid.iamkate.com/
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 21/12/2022 15:37, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <tnt4uf$pcga$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>> On 20/12/2022 19:25, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
>>>>
>>>> To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
>>>
>>> Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate
>>> timescale.
>>
>> My full quote covered both instantaneous and longer timescales:
>>
>> On 20/12/2022 14:19, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>>>
>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
>> hment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
>>
>>>
>>> (p12 chart 5.2)
>>>
>>> Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand,
>>> have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two
>>> months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par
>>> with fossil fuel generation.
>>
>>
>
> Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two
> sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
>
>
> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>
> https://grid.iamkate.com/

You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it
doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says
"Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
implies it does.

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

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 21/12/2022 15:37, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <tnt4uf$pcga$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>> On 20/12/2022 19:25, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
>>>>>
>>>>> To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
>>>>
>>>> Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate
>>>> timescale.
>>>
>>> My full quote covered both instantaneous and longer timescales:
>>>
>>> On 20/12/2022 14:19, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>>>>
>>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
>>> hment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (p12 chart 5.2)
>>>>
>>>> Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand,
>>>> have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two
>>>> months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par
>>>> with fossil fuel generation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two
>> sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
>>
>>
>> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>>
>> https://grid.iamkate.com/
>
> You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it
> doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says
> "Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
> implies it does.

Small correction…

TNP’s website is actually

<https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>

--
Spike

On 21/12/2022 16:48, Spike wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 21/12/2022 15:37, tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <tnt4uf$pcga$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>> On 20/12/2022 19:25, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
>>>>>
>>>>> Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate
>>>>> timescale.
>>>>
>>>> My full quote covered both instantaneous and longer timescales:
>>>>
>>>> On 20/12/2022 14:19, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>>>>>
>>>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
>>>> hment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (p12 chart 5.2)
>>>>>
>>>>> Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand,
>>>>> have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two
>>>>> months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par
>>>>> with fossil fuel generation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two
>>> sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
>>>
>>>
>>> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
>>>
>>> https://grid.iamkate.com/
>>
>> You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it
>> doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says
>> "Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
>> implies it does.
>
> Small correction…
>
> TNP’s website is actually
>
> <https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>
>

Thanks. I've no excuse as I even thought "it looks different".

And it may be I was vaguely remembering the text that comes if you hover
over the wind note there: "Wind contributes about another 30% from
embedded (or unmetered) ..."

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

In article <tnsgab$n331$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> https://gridwatch.co.uk/
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
> (p12 chart 5.2)

Thanks for adding those. :-)

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 <k0dvgkFd3i2U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> <https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent>

> but look at this whole year and last whole year, bottom two graphs gas
> (light brown) dominates.

You need to consider all-time (i.e. many years) to smooth out the annual
cycle of demand, etc. That shows the (continuing) rise in wind power, etc.

In round figures, wind capacity is about 20GW at present and rising at
about 2GW per year. That will tend to be exponentlal in the future as the
area, take/turbine and importance increase.

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 <k0etdhFhg62U2@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
<junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> Even on a motorway the hard shoulder is probably the most dangerous
> place to stop in a car and not a good position to leave a large skip. It
> would probably necessitate lane closures and I've had personal
> experience a few times in the last 6 months of how many hours that can
> add to a journey.

Particularly true on what UK Gov calls 'smart' motorways IIUC. I don't have
a car, though, so am going on comments made elsewhere.

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 <k0e62gFe2ocU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> The blocking High, circa 1044mb or a little higher, that brought this
> about was centred on Central Russia. It was huge. If the North Sea was
> totally covered in windmills, the energy shortfall would still be there.
> No Wind = No Energy.

The area allocated for the UK is far bigger than the North Sea.

Interconectors also exist and continue to be added to or upgraded.

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