Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/12/2022 12:59, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> But surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW or
>> more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we had
>> recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind power
>> from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation so what
>> happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..

> As we've already reached 20GW, this should *already* be a noticeable
> problem, so what happens now?

We fire up CCGT, OCGT, DSTOR, Coal, and strain the interconnectors, turn
the volts down, plead with the public to use less, and cross our fingers.

--
Spike

In article <147fe727-ed87-3949-bf33-3c6d535e1f02@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> doesn't feed "the grid" (as in the high voltage National Grid). They
> are by definition generators who feed in to one of the DNOs at a lower
> voltage. In passing this means DNOs have had to become active in
> balancing supply with demand.

Alas, because of a series of Tory[1] governments obsessed with
"privatisations" etc, we have a real mess of an Energy market. Almost as
crazy as what they've done to the railways! The result tends to be
obfuscory, confusing, and probably needlessly expensive.

Jim

[1] I include ye olde 'noo labour' in that.

--
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 <to1fae$1bvrf$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm a little bit against tidal schemes because although they appear
> attractive at first thought, the effect on the local ecology can be very
> negative. The engineering never quite works out either, the few schemes
> that have been built suffer from silting up etc.

I'm thinking more about 'Tidal *Flow* generation using underwater turbines
in the open water. Far lower initial build costs, etc. And don't 'silt up'.
Main proble is fouling. But big ships have now been switching away from
antifouling coatings to using drones that crawl over the ship's hull
cleaning it even when the ship is in transit.

> Offshore wind farms on the other hand seem to be providing sanctuary for
> marine life, especially as trawlers can't fish there.

Depends a bit on the cabling, etc, arrangements for the turbines, and how
the fishing boats operate. But the North Sea and North Atlantic are, erm,
'big' so I suspect there is room for many wind farms, tidal flow farms,
*and* fishing.

> Now, as to the unreliability of wind - it's not that unreliable. For the
> few days a year when there is a perfect calm at sea what is wrong with
> firing up thermal plant? Obviously plant that is not used all the time
> is more expensive but that is a price to pay. Completely ignoring the
> green arguments, from an economic point of view it is much better not to
> be spending foreign exchange on importing gas, and from a security point
> of view it is best to reduce reliance on supplies from some of the more
> unsavoury parts of the world. If the Ukraine war has taught us anything,
> it should be that being as self reliant on energy production as possible
> is important.

Also could use genuinely 'green' H2 generated by the wind farms, etc. So
even when "the wind doesn't blow" the wind energy would be available.

> TLDR: For renewables don't let perfection be the enemy of good.

Indeed. The point is that development already shows that there are workable
engineering methods for dealing for points like the above. Simply a matter
of enabling the engineers to get on with it and stop assuming the future
has to be like the past.

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 <u6eYgkFkIFpjFwo8@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> >Erm. The idea is the have a number of wind farms, etc, spread over a
> >wide area. One that extends well out to sea. Given that, the wind
> >essentially does blow in quite a few of those 'somewheres' at any given
> >time.

> Provided that there is sufficient wind blowing to meet demand needs!..

cf the points I've already made about the increase in reliability as we
spread more wind (and ocean/tidal flow) farms out acrosss our sectors of
the ocean, etc.

Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation and is
rising roughly exponentially over the years at a current rate of about
2GW/year. Also *very* profitable now - even before the effect of the Act of
War.

With proper provision, that can grow to more like 100% in a decade or so.
Then go on to give a higher margin. Add in storage via H2 or other methods,
Tidal flow, transnational interconnectors, etc. And we can be essentially
fossil fuel free for our gas and electric energy.

The basic hold-back isn't engineering. It is the political will to go for
it, and to stop assuming the future has to be like the past.

The other long-term repost to your question is, of course: What do we do
when the gas/oil runs out? Wind/Tidal aren't consumables which can deplete.

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 <k0jgc7F8gu2U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> There would seem to be about a 10GW difference over that period, or
> rather more than 4TWh.

> There are ~12000 wind turbines in the UK which over that period produced
> an average of about 7.5GW, suggesting we need another 16000 turbines to
> make up the shortfall.

> The actual number needed will be greater than that due to turbine
> failures and routine maintenance, say 25% more for a total of 24000
> extra turbines.

Erm, not quite. The reality is that as we go, newer turbine designs are
becoming bigger and generate more per turbine.

> These will need bases comprising 400 tons of concrete each, or around 10
> million tons in total.

Erm, not necessarity. Out in the ocean they can be tethered to the sea bed
even in fairly deep water.

> The production of the unrecyclable blades is also carbon intensive, as
> are the metal components and connecting cables. Maintenance also has a
> carbon cost.

Again, you look in your rear-view mirror as assume it shows the future. :-)
The point you keep missing is that the designs and engineering are swiftly
developing and improving.

> When the wind does blow on this turbine behemoth, we will have to pay
> people to take the vast surplus of electricity.

Nope. We can store what we need, and feather away what we don't need to use
or store.

The future isn't the past - unless people are deterimed to make the same
*old* mistakes over and over again...

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 <k0jhbdF8lelU2@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Actions speak louder than words, and the Achilles Heel of Wind and other
> renewables is their intermittency.

> Having more of them doesn't necessarily deal with that problem.

Actually, it does, when you put them over a wider geographic area. Then
also add in storage and interconnectors to an even wider area.

And some 'other' renewables like Tidal flows are completely predictable.

(If you use 'lagoon' tidal then of course wind turbines could also store
energy 'pumping up' the lagoons.)

> The sun goes down every evening and Solar output drops to zero, meaning
> something else has to be brought in to make up the shortfall. Wind is
> far less predictable than Solar.

In the Sahara, yes. However it does seem to get cloudy occasionally where I
live - despite it once being claimed as the sunniest place in Scotland! :-)

And of course, with interconnectors across many countries, Solar become
available in some when it comes from the sun via another country. In
exchange for transfer the other way at other times.

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 <OqUQEKGNTFpjFwNG@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> But surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW or
> more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we had
> recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind power
> from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation so what
> happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..

Over the next 5-10 years we are stuck with some need for gas, etc. But that
can be ramped down to about zero over a decade or so *if* the political
will for it is there. Tidal flows are very reliable. We can use methods
like H2 generation and storage along with traditional methods like water
pump stations to store as well. Wing generators could use their own
batteries of H2 store or reversable fuel cells.

The countries and companies that get into this are going to make a lot of
profits from exporting these. At the moment that looks more like being
Norway than the UK. But its a question of when we, politically, realise
that its a choice we can make, and then benefit from... if we extract
digits soon.

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 <oazZ4zFSLFpjFwLn@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> So this embedded wind is connected to and feeds the grid but whoever
> owns that wind farm gets paid a fixed amount or they just get paid?.

> So how do they get paid is it just a flat rate or what?..

The price is set by an arrangement which sets a new price regularly. I
think is every 15 mins. The same price is then paid for all taken input
AIUI.

However it operates such as to pay them all the price set by the *most
costly* part that is chosen at that time. As a result it is a sort of
'uplifred competition' where one source can shove up the price for them
*all* if all the cheaper bits don't meet demand.

In present circumtances, that's crazy. It was meant to encourage people to
enter the market but now is a millstone around all our necks. Only good
point is that it may cause a much bigger interest in fanance for more wind
farms, etc, which could make treasure-trove returns! But that's not much
comfort at present.

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 <vqOYkYFlGFpjFwpq@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

> So who is this deity who can magick up tempests Jim;?..

No need for magic, just engineers. :-)

I don't know to what extent IEEE 'Spectrum' mag is on the web as I get the
printed issues. But it often has articles in it which show what is being
developed and planned - and often already in use. Recommended reading.

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:

> Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation

Iamkate states 28.3% of generation for the last year, which is quite a long
way from ‘around half’. ‘Just over a quarter’ would be much nearer the
mark.

> and is
> rising roughly exponentially over the years at a current rate of about
> 2GW/year.

As your generation generalisation is suspect in its accuracy, your claims
of exponential growth and growth rate must be viewed in that light.

> With proper provision, that can grow to more like 100% in a decade or so.
> Then go on to give a higher margin. Add in storage via H2 or other methods,
> Tidal flow, transnational interconnectors, etc. And we can be essentially
> fossil fuel free for our gas and electric energy.

> The basic hold-back isn't engineering. It is the political will to go for
> it, and to stop assuming the future has to be like the past.

> The other long-term repost to your question is, of course: What do we do
> when the gas/oil runs out? Wind/Tidal aren't consumables which can deplete.

You may have already answered your own question, when you said above that
“The basic hold-back isn't engineering. It is the political will to go for
it, and to stop assuming the future has to be like the past”: ‘it’, of
course, being the chosen alternative to subsidy farms.

--
Spike

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Spike wrote:
>
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>> Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation
>>
>> Iamkate states 28.3% of generation for the last year, which is quite a long
>> way from ‘around half’. ‘Just over a quarter’ would be much nearer the
>> mark.
>
> Surely the point of the nice-looking pie/ring chart, should be an easy glance
> gives you the correct info?
>
> At the moment the inner ring of the pie, shows "renewables" occupying greater
> than a 180° segment, "other" occupying slightly more than 90° segment and
> "fossil" between than 45° and 60° segment
>
> so with just a glance, you'd assume renewables was greater than half, buth the
> actual numbers
>
> 14.4/26.9 = 43.3% [appears more that 50% on pie]
> 7.4/26.9 = 22.2% [appears more than 25% on pie]
> 5.1/26.9 = 15.1% [remainder of pie]
>
> so the three generation categories add up to the total generated ok, I'd expect
> the slices to show more accurate proportions than that ...

Don’t forget the subliminal suggestion inherent in putting Renewables in
the outer ring tending to make things look greater than they are.

Though that’s not as good as ‘hiding the decline’ shown by tree-ring data,
by ending the graphed downslope under another, differently-coloured line.

Can’t let the facts get in the way of the beliefs…

--
Spike

Spike wrote:

> Don’t forget the subliminal suggestion inherent in putting Renewables in
> the outer ring tending to make things look greater than they are.

I don't think that's going on, the inner ring is broad category (renewable,
fossil, other) with the outer ring being more specific (wind, solar, gas, coal,
nuclear, hydro, biomass)

I don't see any problem with that.

On 23/12/2022 10:19, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <u6eYgkFkIFpjFwo8@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
> <tony@bancom.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>> Erm. The idea is the have a number of wind farms, etc, spread over a
>>> wide area. One that extends well out to sea. Given that, the wind
>>> essentially does blow in quite a few of those 'somewheres' at any given
>>> time.
>
>
>> Provided that there is sufficient wind blowing to meet demand needs!..
>
> cf the points I've already made about the increase in reliability as we
> spread more wind (and ocean/tidal flow) farms out acrosss our sectors of
> the ocean, etc.
>
> Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation and is
> rising roughly exponentially over the years at a current rate of about
> 2GW/year. Also *very* profitable now - even before the effect of the Act of
> War.

The UK's installed capacity has increased at about 2 GW/year *linearly*
for over 10 years. The figures are readily available in Table 6.1 of
Energy Trends. But I'll draw a picture for you to underline why I was
gobsmacked by your "exponentially":

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmmVYDBG474bgXGU0oiWOdzo9JYa?e=eAJXfT

The government wants to increase the rate of growth but they are as yet
plans, not results.

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

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <k0jgc7F8gu2U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>> There would seem to be about a 10GW difference over that period, or
>> rather more than 4TWh.

>> There are ~12000 wind turbines in the UK which over that period produced
>> an average of about 7.5GW, suggesting we need another 16000 turbines to
>> make up the shortfall.

>> The actual number needed will be greater than that due to turbine
>> failures and routine maintenance, say 25% more for a total of 24000
>> extra turbines.

> Erm, not quite. The reality is that as we go, newer turbine designs are
> becoming bigger and generate more per turbine.

But still subject to their Achilles Heel of ‘No Wind, No Juice’.

>> These will need bases comprising 400 tons of concrete each, or around 10
>> million tons in total.

> Erm, not necessarity. Out in the ocean they can be tethered to the sea bed
> even in fairly deep water.

And how much concrete does this tethering use?

Plus the larger windmills you mention will require improved tethers.

>> The production of the unrecyclable blades is also carbon intensive, as
>> are the metal components and connecting cables. Maintenance also has a
>> carbon cost.

> Again, you look in your rear-view mirror as assume it shows the future. :-)

There are only two ways to recycle carbon composites: burn them to release
the carbon, or bury them in pits to rot over a gigantic timescale. Unless
your vision reveals a suitable future technology?

The sea-based, maintenance-free, failure-free, hostile-action-free turbine
has yet to be developed.

> The point you keep missing is that the designs and engineering are swiftly
> developing and improving.

So? When your world-wide fleet of gigantic, developed, improved turbines is
established, what do you expect its efficiency to be, defined as (actual
output/nominal output)?

The point you keep avoiding is that all the developments and improvements
rely on unreliable wind.

>> When the wind does blow on this turbine behemoth, we will have to pay
>> people to take the vast surplus of electricity.

> Nope. We can store what we need, and feather away what we don't need to use
> or store.

Store in what way? Hand-waving vagueness is a solution to no problem, let
alone the enormous engineering, development, and financial costs of these
unmentioned technologies.

> The future isn't the past - unless people are deterimed to make the same
> *old* mistakes over and over again...

The big mistake is to view the problems through rose-tinted glasses, while
waving a dismissive hand at real-world issues.

--
Spike

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <k0jhbdF8lelU2@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>> Actions speak louder than words, and the Achilles Heel of Wind and other
>> renewables is their intermittency.

>> Having more of them doesn't necessarily deal with that problem.

> Actually, it does, when you put them over a wider geographic area. Then
> also add in storage and interconnectors to an even wider area.

You must be speaking of hemisphere-wide systems, which if course have their
own problems.

> And some 'other' renewables like Tidal flows are completely predictable.

So is the sun, and that doesn’t work well. iamkate suggests generation from
solar is 4.6% of the total.

> (If you use 'lagoon' tidal then of course wind turbines could also store
> energy 'pumping up' the lagoons.)

Schemes like that have environmental issues.

>> The sun goes down every evening and Solar output drops to zero, meaning
>> something else has to be brought in to make up the shortfall. Wind is
>> far less predictable than Solar.

> In the Sahara, yes. However it does seem to get cloudy occasionally where I
> live - despite it once being claimed as the sunniest place in Scotland! :-)

> And of course, with interconnectors across many countries, Solar become
> available in some when it comes from the sun via another country. In
> exchange for transfer the other way at other times.

They once said something very similar about pipeline networks for gas. That
didn’t work out well either.

--
Spike

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Spike wrote:
>
>> Don’t forget the subliminal suggestion inherent in putting Renewables in
>> the outer ring tending to make things look greater than they are.
>
> I don't think that's going on, the inner ring is broad category (renewable,
> fossil, other) with the outer ring being more specific (wind, solar, gas, coal,
> nuclear, hydro, biomass)

> I don't see any problem with that.

The problem is that the unsophisticated viewer sees the outer arc having a
greatly increased area over the inner arc even though they subtend the same
angle and have the same depth. It’s merely a misleading form of
presentation.

--
Spike

On 24/12/2022 15:52, Robin wrote:
> I'll draw a picture for you to underline why I was gobsmacked by your
> "exponentially":

It was a politician's exponential, not a mathematician's. I think it is
now just a vague superlative. At most it implies monotonic. It's,
unfortunately, a word that has lost its meaning since Covid. I did
wonder when he said exponential, but didn't quote the increase as a ratio.

In article <k0lm31FijrhU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > On 22/12/2022 12:59, tony sayer wrote:
> >>
> >> But surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW
> >> or more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we
> >> had recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind
> >> power from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation
> >> so what happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..

> > As we've already reached 20GW, this should *already* be a noticeable
> > problem, so what happens now?

> We fire up CCGT, OCGT, DSTOR, Coal, and strain the interconnectors, turn
> the volts down, plead with the public to use less, and cross our fingers.

Yes. Our Government (Westminster) have taken for granted that gas would go
on being cheap and easily available. And have hindered - not encouraged -
the expansion of Wind, etc, assuming that we could rely on cheap,
plentiful, gas. Despite it being a finite consumable. They have also sold
off the rights to companies that can sell on the world market, not have to
sell to us at a price we agreed as part of giving them the right to
extract. And set up a pricing mechanism that fails us badly.

However an Act of War has reduced the supply and driven up the price quite
dramatically. Throwing a stark light on the above and the fact that 'North
Sea' (sic) Oil is a finite resource.

The roots of our current situation are in politics, not engineering.

However we can learn the lessons. One is that we have to avoid mistakes
equivalent to the above. The other is that the diversity and scope of
*renewable* sources is a better way to go from both a financial and a
national security/social standards of living POV. Alas, not a lesson our
(Westminster) mob seem willing to accept.

The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy. It is now
urgent that we get on with making best use 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

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <k0lm31FijrhU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 22/12/2022 12:59, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW
>>>> or more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we
>>>> had recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind
>>>> power from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation
>>>> so what happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..
>
>>> As we've already reached 20GW, this should *already* be a noticeable
>>> problem, so what happens now?
>
>> We fire up CCGT, OCGT, DSTOR, Coal, and strain the interconnectors, turn
>> the volts down, plead with the public to use less, and cross our fingers.
>
> Yes. Our Government (Westminster) have taken for granted that gas would go
> on being cheap and easily available. And have hindered - not encouraged -
> the expansion of Wind, etc, assuming that we could rely on cheap,
> plentiful, gas. Despite it being a finite consumable. They have also sold
> off the rights to companies that can sell on the world market, not have to
> sell to us at a price we agreed as part of giving them the right to
> extract. And set up a pricing mechanism that fails us badly.
>
> However an Act of War has reduced the supply and driven up the price quite
> dramatically. Throwing a stark light on the above and the fact that 'North
> Sea' (sic) Oil is a finite resource.
>
> The roots of our current situation are in politics, not engineering.
>
> However we can learn the lessons. One is that we have to avoid mistakes
> equivalent to the above. The other is that the diversity and scope of
> *renewable* sources is a better way to go from both a financial and a
> national security/social standards of living POV. Alas, not a lesson our
> (Westminster) mob seem willing to accept.
>
> The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy. It is now
> urgent that we get on with making best use of it.
>
> Jim
>

I’d agree with you, but I don’t share your faith in interconnectors. These
are the first things to go down when the nation at the other end is
protecting its own interests. This is usually when we are all short of
generation for whatever reason.

On Sunday, 25 December 2022 at 10:00:09 UTC, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Yes. Our Government (Westminster) have taken for granted that gas would go
> on being cheap and easily available. And have hindered - not encouraged -
> the expansion of Wind, etc, assuming that we could rely on cheap,
> plentiful, gas. Despite it being a finite consumable.
The last sentence is why gas should never be used for electricity generation. The latter is inherently wasteful because of distribution losses. Our electricity should be made from coal primarily.

> However an Act of War has reduced the supply and driven up the price quite
> dramatically.
The price has gone up because Putin has caused shortages. He couldn't have done that if we were burning coal. The reason my electricity bill has tripled is that the greenys have conned the government into relying too much on gas and renewables.

Bill

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy.

Does it?

For most of November Wind produced so little that CCGT was working very
hard, probably for more than 20 days. You can see the graphs on the
Templar.Gridwatch web site.

Your claim of ‘huge’ tidal/wave needs to be substantiated. Wind has already
failed. Even with the ‘exponential’ (in fact: linear) growth in turbine
provision.

> It is now
> urgent that we get on with making best use of it.

It is urgent that we make the best use of our own resources. We need 30GW
of nuclear, and we should follow the ‘green’ lead of Germany in opening
coal-fired power stations. Self-sufficiency in energy will decouple the UK
from wild swings in international prices and give energy security.
Windmills in the mid and western Atlantic won’t do neither.

--
Spike

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy.
>
> Does it?
>
> For most of November Wind produced so little that CCGT was working very
> hard, probably for more than 20 days. You can see the graphs on the
> Templar.Gridwatch web site.
>
> Your claim of ‘huge’ tidal/wave needs to be substantiated. Wind has already
> failed. Even with the ‘exponential’ (in fact: linear) growth in turbine
> provision.
>
>> It is now
>> urgent that we get on with making best use of it.
>
> It is urgent that we make the best use of our own resources. We need 30GW
> of nuclear, and we should follow the ‘green’ lead of Germany in opening
> coal-fired power stations. Self-sufficiency in energy will decouple the UK
> from wild swings in international prices and give energy security.
> Windmills in the mid and western Atlantic won’t do neither.
>

Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining
and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to
impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an
alternative. We don’t have that much in the way of open cast mines.

On 26/12/2022 11:18, Tweed wrote:

> Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
> significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining
> and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to
> impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
> gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
> their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an
> alternative.

Makes you wonder why they made so much fuss about it at the time then,
doesn't it?

Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 26/12/2022 11:18, Tweed wrote:
>
>> Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
>> significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining
>> and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to
>> impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
>> gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
>> their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an
>> alternative.
>
> Makes you wonder why they made so much fuss about it at the time then,
> doesn't it?
>
Lots of folk with no prospect of alternative reasonably well paid
employment.

On 26/12/2022 11:18, Tweed wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy.
>>
>> Does it?
>>
>> For most of November Wind produced so little that CCGT was working very
>> hard, probably for more than 20 days. You can see the graphs on the
>> Templar.Gridwatch web site.
>>
>> Your claim of ‘huge’ tidal/wave needs to be substantiated. Wind has already
>> failed. Even with the ‘exponential’ (in fact: linear) growth in turbine
>> provision.
>>
>>> It is now
>>> urgent that we get on with making best use of it.
>>
>> It is urgent that we make the best use of our own resources. We need 30GW
>> of nuclear, and we should follow the ‘green’ lead of Germany in opening
>> coal-fired power stations. Self-sufficiency in energy will decouple the UK
>> from wild swings in international prices and give energy security.
>> Windmills in the mid and western Atlantic won’t do neither.
>>
>
> Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
> significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining
> and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to
> impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
> gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
> their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an
> alternative. We don’t have that much in the way of open cast mines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodhouse_Colliery is proposed; a deep mine.

Admittedly the coal is mainly to be used to make steel, where it's the
chemical properties of the carbon that is used as much as the energy
produced.

--
Max Demian