Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

I used the words significant quantity.

On 26/12/2022 11:26, Tweed wrote:
> 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.

So, they didn't like the work but liked the money.

Life's a bitch.

Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 26/12/2022 11:26, Tweed wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So, they didn't like the work but liked the money.
>
> Life's a bitch.
>
>
>

No need to wish those circumstances on your children though. Anyway, back
to the original point, it would probably be very difficult to re-establish
the domestic coal industry at the necessary scale to support electricity
generation, even if it got political backing.

On 26/12/2022 14:24, Tweed wrote:
> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 26/12/2022 11:26, Tweed wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> So, they didn't like the work but liked the money.
>>
>> Life's a bitch.
>
> No need to wish those circumstances on your children though.

Well, they seem to have managed. Perhaps they got themselves educated
so they had better prospects, and had somewhat broader horizons than
their parents.

> Anyway, back
> to the original point, it would probably be very difficult to re-establish
> the domestic coal industry at the necessary scale to support electricity
> generation, even if it got political backing.

Difficult maybe, but not impossible.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> 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.

You’re looking in your rear-view mirror. Technology probably already exists
to robotise the mining of coal.

--
Spike

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 11:18:13 UTC, 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

They would if the price was right. Instead of pouring money into greeny schemes the govt should be subsidising the coal industry.
> and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners.
You are joking! Tell that to the people of Maltby and Edlington, Rossington, Stainforth!

> Probably next to
> impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
> gear.
That's no problem. It's the norm.
Bill (sitting on 200 years' worth of coal)

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 16:06:17 UTC, Spike wrote:

> You’re looking in your rear-view mirror. Technology probably already exists
> to robotise the mining of coal.

Modern coal mining is largely automated.

Speaking as someone who lives amongst the ex-mining communities I'm finding this discussion to be full of ignorance, prejudice, and total bullshit.

Bill

wrightsaerials@aol.com <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 16:06:17 UTC, Spike wrote:
>
>> You’re looking in your rear-view mirror. Technology probably already exists
>> to robotise the mining of coal.
>
> Modern coal mining is largely automated.
>
> Speaking as someone who lives amongst the ex-mining communities I'm
> finding this discussion to be full of ignorance, prejudice, and total bullshit.

Well, you would, wouldn’t you? It suits the agenda to say these things,
something to do with a post-truth world.

--
Spike

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 20:52:06 UTC, Spike wrote:

> > Speaking as someone who lives amongst the ex-mining communities I'm
> > finding this discussion to be full of ignorance, prejudice, and total bullshit.
> Well, you would, wouldn’t you? It suits the agenda to say these things,
> something to do with a post-truth world.

There are three thrusts in your reply. Not one of them constitutes a rational argument.

Bill

On 26/12/2022 16:06, Spike wrote:
> You’re looking in your rear-view mirror. Technology probably already exists
> to robotise the mining of coal.

Have you been down a coal mine?

On 26/12/2022 20:19, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
> You are joking! Tell that to the people of Maltby and Edlington, Rossington, Stainforth!
>

How many Labour MPs or union leaders sent their own children to work
down a coal mine?

Don't forget that Labour closed most coal mines, not the Conservative party.

On 26/12/2022 20:22, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
> Modern coal mining is largely automated.

Once it is installed.

wrightsaerials@aol.com <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 20:52:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
>
>>> Speaking as someone who lives amongst the ex-mining communities I'm
>>> finding this discussion to be full of ignorance, prejudice, and total bullshit.
>> Well, you would, wouldn’t you? It suits the agenda to say these things,
>> something to do with a post-truth world.
>
> There are three thrusts in your reply. Not one of them constitutes a rational argument.
>
> Bill

I was agreeing with your remarks by commenting on the approach used by
those you were referring to!

--
Spike

In article <5a5b3fa6f9noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>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
>

Well as long as the interconnections aren't susceptible to interruption
by some rouge state then that may be fine.

I don't know quite how big ifs your proposed catchment area but it does
seem to be very large!

Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.

And they get on with those dependable SMR's if the government could
give Rolls Royce a bung to get on with them;)..

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <147fe727-ed87-3949-bf33-3c6d535e1f02@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> scribeth thus
>On 22/12/2022 12:51, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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) ..."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> So this embedded wind is connected to and feeds the grid
>
>PS
>

>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.
>

Well that must be fun then!..

Hope the medium and high voltage entities know what's going on;)..
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 30/12/2022 13:36, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <5a5b3fa6f9noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> 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
>>
>
> Well as long as the interconnections aren't susceptible to interruption
> by some rouge state then that may be fine.
>

bear in mind States which are not rogue are capable of becoming a bit peeved

https://news.sky.com/story/france-threatens-to-cut-off-uks-energy-again-in-new-fishing-row-12426857

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

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 30/12/2022 13:36, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <5a5b3fa6f9noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Well as long as the interconnections aren't susceptible to interruption
>> by some rouge state then that may be fine.
>>
>
> bear in mind States which are not rogue are capable of becoming a bit peeved
>
> https://news.sky.com/story/france-threatens-to-cut-off-uks-energy-again-in-new-fishing-row-12426857
>

Any country at the other end of an inter connector is going to prioritise
its own citizens in the event of a power shortage.

It’s been stated that recently we’ve been sending more power than usual to
France, for well known reasons. It was further stated that the flow went
this way because France was prepared to pay a lot. I don’t understand the
workings of the market, but would this also push up the cost of electricity
to UK consumers, or does the extra generation dispatched in UK to power
France not affect the UK domestic price?

In article <Ug52W5AzlurjFwv5@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

> Well as long as the interconnections aren't susceptible to interruption
> by some rouge state then that may be fine.

Do they have to wear makeup? 8-]

The reality is that any infrastructure can become a target for war. So,
yes, you need a geographic diversity of sources and a lot of
interconnectors in a 'web' if you want resiliance. That's often the case
now from a much smaller set of sources of 'traditional' kinds.

> I don't know quite how big ifs your proposed catchment area but it does
> seem to be very large!

I'm assuming all of Europe and the Nordic countries initially. But there is
no engineering reason for it not to also be extended down into Africa. Nor
indeed to the east for times when that has sane leaders. Also Africa.
Given diversity and redundancy you can probably get a level of reliability
higher than at present. For the UK also because we have an abundant
potential given the area of the Atlantic, etc. we 'own'. Provided we do
things sensibly.

> Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
> consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.

Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
need gas for.

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 <4c3ded59-624e-b6ac-16d9-91cbdcbd5f67@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> bear in mind States which are not rogue are capable of becoming a bit
> peeved

> https://news.sky.com/story/france-threatens-to-cut-off-uks-energy-again-in-new-fishing-row-12426857

Yes. Against that, of course, is the awareness any Government needs to have
that there may be a time when you need help from a neighbour, so rhetoric
against them may be contra-indicated in the long run.

Particularly when the French nukes aren't in a good state. Despite past
promises and boasts.

--
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 wrote:
> tony sayer wrote:

>> Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
>> consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.

> Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
> need gas for.

And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for
20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas.

This dismal data can be seen on the website at
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and
extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also
ineffective.

Solar output over that time was trivial.

--
Spike

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> tony sayer wrote:
>
>>> Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
>>> consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
>
>> Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
>> need gas for.
>
> And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for
> 20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas.
>
> This dismal data can be seen on the website at
> https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
>
> The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and
> extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also
> ineffective.
>
> Solar output over that time was trivial.
>

So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to provide
all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce
ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy
increases our energy security.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>
>>>> Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
>>>> consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
>>
>>> Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
>>> need gas for.
>>
>> And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for
>> 20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas.
>>
>> This dismal data can be seen on the website at
>> https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
>>
>> The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and
>> extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also
>> ineffective.
>>
>> Solar output over that time was trivial.
>>
>
> So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to provide
> all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce
> ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy
> increases our energy security.

That’s effectively what happens now; once the wind started blowing again
after its long absence, gas generation was down to 1 to 2 GW.

It’s just that to cover nearly three weeks of very little wind, you need a
/lot/ of backup. Battery farms, tidal, solar and the rest are essentially
useless at this level of requirement.

--
Spike

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
>>>>> consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
>>>
>>>> Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
>>>> need gas for.
>>>
>>> And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for
>>> 20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas.
>>>
>>> This dismal data can be seen on the website at
>>> https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
>>>
>>> The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and
>>> extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also
>>> ineffective.
>>>
>>> Solar output over that time was trivial.
>>>
>>
>> So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to provide
>> all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce
>> ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy
>> increases our energy security.
>
> That’s effectively what happens now; once the wind started blowing again
> after its long absence, gas generation was down to 1 to 2 GW.
>
> It’s just that to cover nearly three weeks of very little wind, you need a
> /lot/ of backup. Battery farms, tidal, solar and the rest are essentially
> useless at this level of requirement.
>

Indeed, and we will have to pay the price of underused gas backup plant.
What I don’t understand are the folk that claim wind farms are useless
because they don’t have 100% availability. The green arguments seem to
upset a number of people. Put those to one side and consider the energy
security and economic issues of being dependent on overseas gas suppliers.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
>>>>>> consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
>>>>> need gas for.
>>>>
>>>> And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for
>>>> 20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas.
>>>>
>>>> This dismal data can be seen on the website at
>>>> https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
>>>>
>>>> The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and
>>>> extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also
>>>> ineffective.
>>>>
>>>> Solar output over that time was trivial.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to provide
>>> all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce
>>> ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy
>>> increases our energy security.
>>
>> That’s effectively what happens now; once the wind started blowing again
>> after its long absence, gas generation was down to 1 to 2 GW.
>>
>> It’s just that to cover nearly three weeks of very little wind, you need a
>> /lot/ of backup. Battery farms, tidal, solar and the rest are essentially
>> useless at this level of requirement.
>>
>
> Indeed, and we will have to pay the price of underused gas backup plant.

That’s the result of the inherent intermittency of renewables.

The situation of no wind and no sun has to be catered for.

> What I don’t understand are the folk that claim wind farms are useless
> because they don’t have 100% availability.

The real issue is their intermittency that needs backup.

> The green arguments seem to
> upset a number of people. Put those to one side and consider the energy
> security and economic issues of being dependent on overseas gas suppliers.

Or planting wind farms where they can’t be defended.

Getting Solar from N Africa has the same drawbacks.

--
Spike

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
>>>>>>> consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
>>>>>> need gas for.
>>>>>
>>>>> And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for
>>>>> 20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas.
>>>>>
>>>>> This dismal data can be seen on the website at
>>>>> https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
>>>>>
>>>>> The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and
>>>>> extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also
>>>>> ineffective.
>>>>>
>>>>> Solar output over that time was trivial.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to provide
>>>> all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce
>>>> ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy
>>>> increases our energy security.
>>>
>>> That’s effectively what happens now; once the wind started blowing again
>>> after its long absence, gas generation was down to 1 to 2 GW.
>>>
>>> It’s just that to cover nearly three weeks of very little wind, you need a
>>> /lot/ of backup. Battery farms, tidal, solar and the rest are essentially
>>> useless at this level of requirement.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, and we will have to pay the price of underused gas backup plant.
>
> That’s the result of the inherent intermittency of renewables.
>
> The situation of no wind and no sun has to be catered for.
>
>> What I don’t understand are the folk that claim wind farms are useless
>> because they don’t have 100% availability.
>
> The real issue is their intermittency that needs backup.
>
>> The green arguments seem to
>> upset a number of people. Put those to one side and consider the energy
>> security and economic issues of being dependent on overseas gas suppliers.
>
> Or planting wind farms where they can’t be defended.
>
> Getting Solar from N Africa has the same drawbacks.
>

No domestic energy infrastructure can be defended against a determined
attack, not even gas plants. (And LNG gas tankers are as susceptible to
enemy action as an offshore wind farm)

Solar from N Africa seems unlikely for a while yet……

There is no perfect solution for domestic energy needs, but lack of
perfection doesn’t rule out a technology.