https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/

On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
say it.

--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
> say it.

The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.

Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.

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

On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
> say it.
>
>
+1.

The explanation of RO, CfD, and FIT in the "electricity price" graphic
was a particularly helpful reminder.

On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>> say it.
>
> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>
> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>
Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable energy'...

Bless!

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>> say it.
>
> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>
> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.

What is criminal that the green tariffs don't attract the "Climate
Change Levy" in full. Then they would know how expensive green energy
really is.

It would then make Nuclear look cheap, even if a Nuclear Levy was placed
on non wind and power tariffs.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>>> say it.
>>
>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>
>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>
>Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable energy'...

I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
extremely destructive for everyone.

The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
put it mildly

>Bless!

Most appreciated.
--

Mike

On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>>>> say it.
>>>
>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>
>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>>
>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable energy'...
>
> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
> extremely destructive for everyone.
>
> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
> put it mildly
>

So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the future?
You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the current
solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?

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

On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>>>> say it.
>>>
>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>
>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>>
>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable energy'...
>
> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
> extremely destructive for everyone.
>
> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
> put it mildly
>
Whereas the idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to
do lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
environment with multiple windmills that don't even work reliably, is
apparently laudable?

>> Bless!
>
> Most appreciated.

Bless!

--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

On 11/04/2022 15:42, alan_m wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>>>>> say it.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>>
>>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no
>>>> more
>>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because
>>>> "wind
>>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>>>
>>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable
>>> energy'...
>>
>> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>> extremely destructive for everyone.
>>
>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>> put it mildly
>>
>
> So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the future?
> You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
> suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the current
> solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?
>
>
>
ArtStudents™ only have cat-belling solutions, if indeed they are
concerned with any more than attacking the status quo on moral or
ethical grounds.

If the Left had any solutions to the problems it raises, who would need
the Left any more?

--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

On 11/04/2022 15:42, alan_m wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>>>>> say it.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>>
>>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no
>>>> more
>>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because
>>>> "wind
>>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>>>
>>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable
>>> energy'...
>>
>> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>> extremely destructive for everyone.
>>
>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>> put it mildly
>>
>
> So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the future?
> You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
> suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the current
> solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?

Has Mr Halmarack ruled out nuclear?

On 11 Apr 2022 at 10:48:52 BST, "newshound" <sradcliffe544@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/

On one of the main sources used in that piece: ' . . . the only policies they
are interested in are what their corporate backers demand'.

https://abetterminnesota.org/2019/06/the-truth-about-the-center-of-the-american-experiment/

--
Cheers, Rob

On 11/04/2022 15:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 15:42, alan_m wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the
>>>>>> aptitude to
>>>>>> say it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no
>>>>> more
>>>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because
>>>>> "wind
>>>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>>>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>>>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable
>>>> energy'...
>>>
>>> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>>> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>>> extremely destructive for everyone.
>>>
>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>> put it mildly
>>>
>>
>> So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the future?
>> You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
>> suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the current
>> solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?
>>
>>
>>
> ArtStudents™ only have cat-belling solutions, if indeed they are
> concerned with any more than attacking the status quo  on moral or
> ethical grounds.
>
> If the Left had any solutions to the problems it raises, who would need
> the Left any more?

Yet I wouldn't call you a typical engineer. Engineers typically have
open minds to ideas and puts forward solutions rather than name-calling.
Name calling is out of ignorance I might expect from an Art Student.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:06:11 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 15:42, alan_m wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>>>>>> say it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no
>>>>> more
>>>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because
>>>>> "wind
>>>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>>>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>>>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable
>>>> energy'...
>>>
>>> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>>> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>>> extremely destructive for everyone.
>>>
>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>> put it mildly
>>>
>>
>> So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the future?
>> You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
>> suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the current
>> solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?
>
>Has Mr Halmarack ruled out nuclear?

Not where it was done as safely as possible.
Which under current circumstances it wouldn't be.
I don't think expensive placebos help much with radiation sickness.
--

Mike

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:48:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>>>>> say it.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>>
>>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
>>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
>>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>>>
>>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable energy'...
>>
>> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>> extremely destructive for everyone.
>>
>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>> put it mildly
>>
>Whereas the idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to
>do lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>environment with multiple windmills that don't even work reliably, is
>apparently laudable?

Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?
They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.
Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
unreliable. They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
windmills.

I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.
than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
precariously built nuclear reactors.

It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.
It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.

>>> Bless!
>>
>> Most appreciated.
>
>Bless!

--

Mike

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:42:14 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>>>>> say it.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>>
>>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
>>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
>>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>>>
>>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable energy'...
>>
>> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>> extremely destructive for everyone.
>>
>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>> put it mildly
>>
>
>So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the future?
>You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
>suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the current
>solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?

There are various storage and conversion+storage solutions.
I'm not an engineer but I do know when I'm being scammed and
bullshitted by the lovers of big bucks at any cost.
--

Mike

The Natural Philosopher expressed precisely :
> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been trying
> to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to say it.

+1

Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
> put it mildly

Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
adequate conventional power generation.

On 11/04/2022 16:19, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> Not where it was done as safely as possible.
> Which under current circumstances it wouldn't be.
> I don't think expensive placebos help much with radiation sickness.

Unless you are a stupid Russian conscript who dug trenches and
foxholes in the highly contaminated soil in the forests all around
Chernobyl, then radiation sickness is only an issue if you live in
Cornwall or somewhere where radon gas is a problem.

On 11/04/2022 16:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?
> They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.
> Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
> unreliable. They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
> windmills.
>

Ok, so what happens when the wind is too strong ?. The windmills are
feathered and the owners (including Camerons FIL) are paid to not
produce any power.

When there is a blocking high pressure over the arctic for days and days
blanketing the UK in freezing fog, there is no wind and no solar
either, then what ?

How much electricity does the NHS need 24/7 ?. I don't know, and I would
like to know. Are you prepared to manage without all those MRI scanners,
ITU hi-tech gear, and all the other paraphernalia that needs an
uninterrupted supply of power at 230V and 50 Hz between November and
April every year ?.

> I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.

How ?. Do the maths. NO such storage systems exist and unless the
laws of physics can be bent, there is unlikely to be one for the
foreseeable future. Dreaming about a 'solution' will not solve the
immediate problem that the UK is possibly facing power blackouts
and definitely facing massive energy cost increases. Ask a dairy
farmer how much his costs have gone up over the last year.

> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
> precariously built nuclear reactors.
>
we have already spent billions on the best reprocessing system for
nuclear waste that money can buy. It works, so we can use it.

> It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
> let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.

Nonsense. The people who build nuclear reactors (and subs) are the
best brains available, unlike your jobbing brickie, and apart from
decorative cladding, no brickwork will be found in any nuclear
power plant anyway, it's all reinforced concrete .

> It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.

The people who build nuclear power plants know what they are doing

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:52:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
<a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:

>Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>> put it mildly
>
>Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
>generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
>adequate conventional power generation.

The tide keeps going in and out even when the wind isn't blowing.
What about diverting shit into methane digesters to provide gas and
fertiliser instead of dumping it into the rivers and sea?
There are multiple ways of producing relatively clean energy. Saving
energy too. Use them in combination, then adapt to the limitations.
--

Mike

On 11/04/2022 16:46, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:42:14 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
>>>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
>>>>>> say it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
>>>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
>>>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
>>>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>>>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable energy'...
>>>
>>> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>>> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>>> extremely destructive for everyone.
>>>
>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>> put it mildly
>>>
>>
>> So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the future?
>> You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
>> suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the current
>> solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?
>
> There are various storage and conversion+storage solutions.

Now show us one that works at grid scale?

Remember if you are committed to wind power then you need enough storage
to survive the two or three extended (say 14 day) periods of zero
generation per winter when the whole continent is becalmed. That means
you also need enough generation capacity to supply base and peak load at
the same time as recharging your storage solution to cover that level of
interruption.

Tesla's newest "gigafactory" in Germany, should be able to produce up to
100 GWh of battery capacity per year when it starts production - with a
projected ramp up to perhaps 250 GWh/year.

So even if we were allowed to, and could afford to buy the entire annual
output, that could in theory store enough to keep the UK grid running
from batteries for under three hours! Two orders of magnitude short of
the minimum we would require.

All our pumped hydro added together can generate a peak of 3GW, and keep
it going for a few hours (just under 30 GWh storage in total).

Our base load exceeds 30 GW all year round - that is 720 GWh per *day*
in the summer - and probably closer to 1TWh/day in the winter. That is
before we shift any significant portion of transport, or space heating
to energy demand to electric power.

> I'm not an engineer

And that is the challenge with many promoting "solutions" to this
problem. Yes energy storage is easy at small scale, and doable at the
small to medium (i.e. individual power station) scale, but rapidly
becomes a massively more intractable problem at grid scale.

Run the numbers, most proposed "solutions" don't come anywhere close.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:25:20 +0100, Andrew
<Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 16:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>
>> Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?
>> They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.
>> Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
>> unreliable. They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
>> windmills.
>>
>
>Ok, so what happens when the wind is too strong ?.

The windmills stop working?

>The windmills are
>feathered and the owners (including Camerons FIL) are paid to not
>produce any power.

>>When there is a blocking high pressure over the arctic for days and days
>blanketing the UK in freezing fog, there is no wind and no solar
>either, then what ?

If it happens and I don't remember when it last did, adapt.

>How much electricity does the NHS need 24/7 ?. I don't know, and I would
>like to know. Are you prepared to manage without all those MRI scanners,
>ITU hi-tech gear, and all the other paraphernalia that needs an
>uninterrupted supply of power at 230V and 50 Hz between November and
>April every year ?.

If the production of the energy it needs is going to be destructive of
health, reduce the paraphernalia.

>> I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.
>
>How ?. Do the maths. NO such storage systems exist and unless the
>laws of physics can be bent, there is unlikely to be one for the
>foreseeable future. Dreaming about a 'solution' will not solve the
>immediate problem that the UK is possibly facing power blackouts
>and definitely facing massive energy cost increases. Ask a dairy
>farmer how much his costs have gone up over the last year.

I don't know how farmers put up with the abuse.

>> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
>> precariously built nuclear reactors.
>>
>we have already spent billions on the best reprocessing system for
>nuclear waste that money can buy. It works, so we can use it.

It does work and we can use it but should we, considering the history
of disasters and modern methods of testing?

>>> It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
>> let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.
>
>Nonsense. The people who build nuclear reactors (and subs) are the
>best brains available,

The best brains available don't always get their way.

>unlike your jobbing brickie, and apart from
>decorative cladding, no brickwork will be found in any nuclear
>power plant anyway, it's all reinforced concrete .
>
>> It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.
>
>The people who build nuclear power plants know what they are doing
We'd absolutely need to think so, in order to sleep at night.
--

Mike

On 11/04/2022 17:25, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:52:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
> <a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>> put it mildly
>>
>> Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
>> generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
>> adequate conventional power generation.
>
> The tide keeps going in and out even when the wind isn't blowing.
> What about diverting shit into methane digesters to provide gas and
> fertiliser instead of dumping it into the rivers and sea?
> There are multiple ways of producing relatively clean energy. Saving
> energy too. Use them in combination,

ok that takes care of 0.5% of our energy needs...

> then adapt to the limitations.

Reduce the population to 5m, and go back to the stone age?

Stop waving you hands in the air, and show us the sums!

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 11/04/2022 17:07, Andrew wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 16:19, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>
>> Not where it was done as safely as possible.
>> Which under current circumstances it wouldn't be.
>> I don't think expensive placebos help much with radiation sickness.
>
> Unless you are a stupid Russian conscript who dug trenches and
> foxholes in the highly contaminated soil in the forests all around
> Chernobyl, then radiation sickness is only an issue if you live in
> Cornwall or somewhere where radon gas is a problem.

That seems a bit unfair on the Russian conscripts, who were not told of
the risks, and were two young and poorly educated to know any of the
history of the Chernobyl disaster.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/