On 01/01/2023 14:06, Spike wrote:
> 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.

And of course

"EDF warns it may be forced to shut two nuclear power stations, which
supply 4pc of the UK's energy, early "

On 01/01/2023 14:53, Spike wrote:
> Or planting wind farms where they can’t be defended.
>
> Getting Solar from N Africa has the same drawbacks.

The Greenies tend to be as thick as the proverbial short planks. I
wonder how difficult it would be to convince one that you could feed the
solar power along optical fibre!

In article <tosehj$1f505$2@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 01/01/2023 14:53, Spike wrote:
> > Or planting wind farms where they can‘t be defended.
> >
> > Getting Solar from N Africa has the same drawbacks.

> The Greenies tend to be as thick as the proverbial short planks. I
> wonder how difficult it would be to convince one that you could feed the
> solar power along optical fibre!

There was the Greenie councillor who wanted to ban all electromagnetic
radiation from his village. I wonder how he'd stop sunlight

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 15:38:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

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

It does if the technology costs more than it delivers, or can't
deliver at all when it's most needed.

Rod.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 01/01/2023 14:06, Spike wrote:
>> 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.

> And of course

> "EDF warns it may be forced to shut two nuclear power stations, which
> supply 4pc of the UK's energy, early "

Crikey! That’s the equivalent of a whole year’s (intermittent) Solar
output!

--
Spike

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 01/01/2023 14:53, Spike wrote:
>> Or planting wind farms where they can’t be defended.
>>
>> Getting Solar from N Africa has the same drawbacks.

> The Greenies tend to be as thick as the proverbial short planks. I
> wonder how difficult it would be to convince one that you could feed the
> solar power along optical fibre!

Well, it’s all light, innit! 🙄

--
Spike

On 02/01/2023 11:34, Spike wrote:
> Well, it’s all light, innit!

Just get the Guardian to print it and they will believe it. :-)

In article <k1d9mjF6qarU1@mid.individual.net>, 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.

Yes, because as yet we've got no-where near the potential capacity the UK
has for wind energy. To a significant extent due to Westminster
foot-dragging and NIMBY.

> 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.

Again, to a large extent because we still lack a wide enough geographical
spread and number of turbines, etc,

One interesting aspect of this is that there seem to be more 'collective'
co-ops on a local level who are getting together having their own wind
turbine and getting cheaper energy and a profit from it. That may well mean
more people welcome them on-shore rather than NIMBY. But I agree that we
need a much wider geograpical range and number of turbines and
interconnectors and storage. (BTW Nice item on improved H2 generation from
green sources in the recent IEEE Spectrum BTW. I get the printed copy, but
others may find the article on the web. I recommend Spectrum if you want to
know about advances and developments in these areas by the engineers who
are making the tools we'll need. H2 is useful for storage and more
generally. e,g, transport via means other than electric interconnector.)

People perhaps need to stop looking in their rear view mirror and assuming
it shows what they are moving towards. :-)

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 <tosehj$1f505$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> The Greenies tend to be as thick as the proverbial short planks. I
> wonder how difficult it would be to convince one that you could feed the
> solar power along optical fibre!

Actually, that's quite an interesting idea. :-)

The long-range optical fibres tend to have a *very* low loss/km. So I
wonder how much light power they can cope with and stay OK? I guess the
main problems would be the efficiencies of the convertions at either end
and what to do when the RX wants more or less. 8-]

.... and someone who put a spade though the fibe by accident might have an
interesting day. 8-]]

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 <5a600b69e3charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> There was the Greenie councillor who wanted to ban all electromagnetic
> radiation from his village. I wonder how he'd stop sunlight

How fortunate we are that no politician of any other party is clueless
about science or engineering! :-)

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 <tortev$1d63b$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.

Particularly when you have built enough wind/tidal/etc capacity to generate
a significant amount of 'gas' (H2) which can be stored, tankered, or piped
*in addition* to the wind/tidal/etc sources supplying electric power
directly.

The point here is that the potential wind/etc capacity within the UKs area
(inc sea) is far bigger than our total need - or present take. Our problem
is that as yet we've not built anything like the number of turbines, etc,
that we need. The current limit is due to what we've built so far, not what
we can build and use. To a fair extent, this poor level of exploitation is
due to flawed political choices, not engineering or the real amount of
energy which could be taken.

The above also means we can become a big net exporter of energy from such
green sources *if* we get our act together and don't just flog it off to
non-UK 'private enterprise' that creams the profits from *limited*
extraction to their HQs abroad.

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 <5a606690e1noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tortev$1d63b$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> > 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.

> Particularly when you have built enough wind/tidal/etc capacity to
> generate a significant amount of 'gas' (H2) which can be stored,
> tankered, or piped *in addition* to the wind/tidal/etc sources supplying
> electric power directly.

> The point here is that the potential wind/etc capacity within the UKs
> area (inc sea) is far bigger than our total need - or present take. Our
> problem is that as yet we've not built anything like the number of
> turbines, etc, that we need. The current limit is due to what we've built
> so far, not what we can build and use. To a fair extent, this poor level
> of exploitation is due to flawed political choices, not engineering or
> the real amount of energy which could be taken.

> The above also means we can become a big net exporter of energy from such
> green sources *if* we get our act together and don't just flog it off to
> non-UK 'private enterprise' that creams the profits from *limited*
> extraction to their HQs abroad.

This is all well and good, BUT - there are times when there is no wind
anywhere in the UK; these times can last for days and usually occur at
times of peak demand,

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <5a60672fc0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5a600b69e3charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> > There was the Greenie councillor who wanted to ban all electromagnetic
> > radiation from his village. I wonder how he'd stop sunlight

> How fortunate we are that no politician of any other party is clueless
> about science or engineering! :-)

> Jim

indeed?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/01/2023 10:18, charles wrote:
> This is all well and good, BUT - there are times when there is no wind
> anywhere in the UK; these times can last for days and usually occur at
> times of peak demand,

And combined with very cold weather.

On 02/01/2023 10:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The point here is that the potential wind/etc capacity within the UKs area
> (inc sea) is far bigger than our total need - or present take. Our problem
> is that as yet we've not built anything like the number of turbines, etc,
> that we need. The current limit is due to what we've built so far, not what
> we can build and use. To a fair extent, this poor level of exploitation is
> due to flawed political choices, not engineering or the real amount of
> energy which could be taken.

Being a cynic, I am just waiting for large ship, perhaps carrying
something nasty, to plough into one of the offshore wind power stations.

Ships regularly hit natural features that have been in the same place
for millennia and marked on all charts.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 03/01/2023 10:18, charles wrote:
>> This is all well and good, BUT - there are times when there is no wind
>> anywhere in the UK; these times can last for days and usually occur at
>> times of peak demand,
>
>
> And combined with very cold weather.
>

So operate gas/oil fired plant during those periods.

On 02/01/2023 10:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Yes, because as yet we've got no-where near the potential capacity the UK
> has for wind energy. To a significant extent due to Westminster
> foot-dragging and NIMBY.

I presume you do not have any near you?

I was amused a few months ago to read that a grid line was being put
underground in North Wales to placate the Greenies. It was replacing a
couple of 100 ft pylons, but the Greenies are happy with the hills being
despoiled by wind turbine towers two or three times higher than that.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 02/01/2023 10:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> The point here is that the potential wind/etc capacity within the UKs area
>> (inc sea) is far bigger than our total need - or present take. Our problem
>> is that as yet we've not built anything like the number of turbines, etc,
>> that we need. The current limit is due to what we've built so far, not what
>> we can build and use. To a fair extent, this poor level of exploitation is
>> due to flawed political choices, not engineering or the real amount of
>> energy which could be taken.
>
>
> Being a cynic, I am just waiting for large ship, perhaps carrying
> something nasty, to plough into one of the offshore wind power stations.
>
> Ships regularly hit natural features that have been in the same place
> for millennia and marked on all charts.
>

So maybe it will happen, but it will only strike a few turbines at the edge
of the field. You might equally worry about an LNG tanker ship setting
ablaze. In other news, aircraft fall out of the sky occasionally. Doesn’t
stop most folk from using them. We’ve also has oil and gas rigs at sea, and
to the best of my knowledge nothing has struck one (badly).

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 02/01/2023 10:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> Yes, because as yet we've got no-where near the potential capacity the UK
>> has for wind energy. To a significant extent due to Westminster
>> foot-dragging and NIMBY.
>
>
>
> I presume you do not have any near you?
>
>
> I was amused a few months ago to read that a grid line was being put
> underground in North Wales to placate the Greenies. It was replacing a
> couple of 100 ft pylons, but the Greenies are happy with the hills being
> despoiled by wind turbine towers two or three times higher than that.
>
>
You sure it was the Greens that objected to the pylons rather than the
heritage mob? They are distinct groups of objectors.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 03/01/2023 10:18, charles wrote:
>>> This is all well and good, BUT - there are times when there is no wind
>>> anywhere in the UK; these times can last for days and usually occur at
>>> times of peak demand,

>> And combined with very cold weather.

> So operate gas/oil fired plant during those periods.

If you run the gas/oil-fired plants all the time, there are two benefits:

1) they can be run in the most efficient mode, rather than at a very
inefficient part throttle and having considerable fire-up costs and wasted
heat at shutdown, and

2) fabulous amounts of money and resources need not be spent commissioning,
maintaining, replacing, and disposing of the wind turbine fleet.

--
Spike

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <k1d9mjF6qarU1@mid.individual.net>, 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.
>
> Yes, because as yet we've got no-where near the potential capacity the UK
> has for wind energy. To a significant extent due to Westminster
> foot-dragging and NIMBY.

>> 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.
>
> Again, to a large extent because we still lack a wide enough geographical
> spread and number of turbines, etc,

If there is to be ‘a wide enough geographical spread and number of
turbines, etc,’ as you claim, then the question has to be asked as to why
it is believed that these fall into your category of the UK’s ‘wind
capacity’, when it was a 3000-mile wide high pressure area that caused the
20-day dearth of wind generation, and the suggested enlarged turbine fleet
will not be located within UK-controlled territory.

> One interesting aspect of this is that there seem to be more 'collective'
> co-ops on a local level who are getting together having their own wind
> turbine and getting cheaper energy and a profit from it. That may well mean
> more people welcome them on-shore rather than NIMBY. But I agree that we
> need a much wider geograpical range and number of turbines and
> interconnectors and storage. (BTW Nice item on improved H2 generation from
> green sources in the recent IEEE Spectrum BTW. I get the printed copy, but
> others may find the article on the web. I recommend Spectrum if you want to
> know about advances and developments in these areas by the engineers who
> are making the tools we'll need. H2 is useful for storage and more
> generally. e,g, transport via means other than electric interconnector.)

Hydrogen is a pipe dream. I have no doubt that the current enforced
conversion of a couple of villages
to hydrogen will be hailed as a success, even if two houses blow up. The
same happened in the days of the conversion to North Sea gas, and it was
hidden in a small graph tucked among a cluster of larger ones in a 96-page
report saying how successful it had all been.

> People perhaps need to stop looking in their rear view mirror and assuming
> it shows what they are moving towards. :-)

Perhaps people should refrain from looking to the future through
green-tinted spectacles?

--
Spike

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tortev$1d63b$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Particularly when you have built enough wind/tidal/etc capacity to generate
> a significant amount of 'gas' (H2) which can be stored, tankered, or piped
> *in addition* to the wind/tidal/etc sources supplying electric power
> directly.
>
> The point here is that the potential wind/etc capacity within the UKs area
> (inc sea) is far bigger than our total need - or present take. Our problem
> is that as yet we've not built anything like the number of turbines, etc,
> that we need. The current limit is due to what we've built so far, not what
> we can build and use. To a fair extent, this poor level of exploitation is
> due to flawed political choices, not engineering or the real amount of
> energy which could be taken.
>
> The above also means we can become a big net exporter of energy from such
> green sources *if* we get our act together and don't just flog it off to
> non-UK 'private enterprise' that creams the profits from *limited*
> extraction to their HQs abroad.

A pipe dream compounded by dismissive hand-waving and a total lack of any
real-world data or calculation suggests your claims are built on something
other than realistic assessments.

--
Spike

On 03/01/2023 11:00, Tweed wrote:
> So maybe it will happen, but it will only strike a few turbines at the edge
> of the field. You might equally worry about an LNG tanker ship setting
> ablaze. In other news, aircraft fall out of the sky occasionally. Doesn’t
> stop most folk from using them. We’ve also has oil and gas rigs at sea, and
> to the best of my knowledge nothing has struck one (badly).

But do not restrict the erection of high towers near airports where the
aircraft fly at that height and any essential ones are clearly lit up at
night.

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> MB wrote:
>
>> The Greenies tend to be as thick as the proverbial short planks. I
>> wonder how difficult it would be to convince one that you could feed the
>> solar power along optical fibre!
>
> Actually, that's quite an interesting idea. :-)
>
> The long-range optical fibres tend to have a *very* low loss/km. So I
> wonder how much light power they can cope with and stay OK? I guess the
> main problems would be the efficiencies of the convertions at either end
> and what to do when the RX wants more or less. 8-]

There are power-over-fibre solutions available, but they're not very high power,
single digit watts I think.

On 03/01/2023 11:09, Spike wrote:
> If you run the gas/oil-fired plants all the time, there are two benefits:
>
> 1) they can be run in the most efficient mode, rather than at a very
> inefficient part throttle and having considerable fire-up costs and wasted
> heat at shutdown,

My understanding is that gas based plant is used precisely because it
can be run up and down quickly. It's too expensive for base load use.
One is typically talking about gas turbine, where the main useful heat
content is in the gas itself, not in large quantities of water and heat
exchangers.