On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:30:03 +0100, John Rumm
<see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:

>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.

Thanks for the information.

We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
to the limitations.
--

Mike

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

Is that a no?

> I don't think expensive placebos help much with radiation sickness.

So many die through fossil fuels in one way or another I don't see your
point. Nuclear is safer.

There are no placebos when it comes to nuclear, so not sure what it is
you're trying to say here either.

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.

Lots, but none economically viable.

> 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.

Quite, like solar panels and wind?

On 11 Apr 2022 at 17:45:32 BST, "John Rumm" <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
wrote:

> 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.
>>

I don't think *anyone* is talking about 100% renewable right now. The issue is
providing a *combination* of renewables (not just wind, tidal, solar,dams
etc.) and other (nuclear, gas etc.) that will meet peak demand. With the tilt
towards renewables.

>> 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...
>

I thought tidal had a potential of around 20%.

>> 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!

Of course, figures are needed. But it's always going to be a tradeoff, with
some figures not known because of future events and non-measureable variables,
for example. Somebody just has to decide what the priorities are - and do it.
--
Cheers, Rob

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

Which is not reliable in terms of generation.

> 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 repeat, they are not reliable in terms of power generation.

> 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.

Many others would like the same, none are economic.

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

Quite, that is why there are generations of experience of how to build,
and how not to build nuclear power stations. Best keep that experience
ticking over while we can.

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

Or sending a man on the moon. You seem to be producing nonsense which
hardly assists your failing argument.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:45:32 +0100, John Rumm
<see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:

>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?

Of course not. Lets keep growing and reproducing faster and faster
until we go pop.

>Stop waving you hands in the air, and show us the sums!
I'd rather be waving than drowning.

Explain the problems in detail and I'll see if I can do the sums.
Though there are those better equipped and currently working at it.
--

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.

No it doesn't. I can assure you there are times when the water line
hardly budges, normally at the peaks of tides.

If you have a dislike to wildlife in the Severn Estuary then I can see
why you might like such a scheme.

> What about diverting shit into methane digesters to provide gas and
> fertiliser instead of dumping it into the rivers and sea?

That is done in some places. The intention is not to dump 'shit' into
the sea, as many water companies have found out.

> There are multiple ways of producing relatively clean energy. Saving
> energy too. Use them in combination, then adapt to the limitations.

Only a few, nuclear is perhaps the best.

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.

There are no viable tidal systems operating anywhere. Period.
The experimental systems simply cannot supply a reliable constant supply
of power and have an even worse problem than offshore windmills.
At least the latter are up in the air and not submerged in a very
aggressive corrosive medium making repair and servicing so difficult it
might be impossible.

Unless you are going to go the whole hog of course and dam the
Channel/La Manche and install turbines in the dam.
A road link on top means we could tell P&O to piss off completely, but
I think international shipping would be rather annoyed at having to go
via Scotland to reach Rotterdam etc though

There are also horrendous ecological side effects of dams.

The proposed Swansea bay lagoon would decimate local flora and fauna
that needs its mudflats exposed twice a day. The person behind it owns
the quarry in Cornwall that would 'supply' the stonework. Go figure.

The cost per megawatt/hr is higher than all other forms of 'green'
energy.

> 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.

Already being done all over the country, but if you had been listening
to the Archers in recent years, any planning application for a
biodigester system (or an incinerator) results in a storm of
objections from the local nimbys (the same idiots who have 'Vote
Green' or 'Lib Dumb' banners outside their house at election time),
who do not want HGVs full of other peoples shit travelling down their
local country lanes

On 11/04/2022 16:09, Fredxx wrote:
> 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.
>
>
You are right I am not a typical engineer.
I am a fucking good engineer.

I have an open mind to ideas, I always check them against the laws of
physics before condemning them out of court.

Its because I am a fucking good engineer that I can do this in about one
point five seconds, where it takes an ArtStudent twenty years and $5bn
of someone else's money to discover windmills and solar panels really
wont work properly.

Name calling is not out of ignorance, it is out of wisdom. Don't be such
a whiny ArtStudent™ .

You are the one that espouses technology that you are in utter ignorance
of, not me, that is taken in by every glossy press release from a greedy
GreenMachine™ that doesn't give a fuck about anything except profit.

Normally I'd just roll my eyes and pass on, but when people like you and
they start bending government policy to the point of ruining the
country, I feel duty bound to speak out.

ArtStudents™ are whiny ignorant hand waving stupid dangerous CUNTS. They
should be kicked repeatedly until they go back to expressing themselves
on bits of paper with nursery crayons. They have no business having any
opinion on anything technical or scientific whatsoever, because the most
dangerous thing is how little they know of how little they know.

When people are ignorant of the level of their ignorance, they become
completely manipulable.

And democratically very very dangerous.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

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

So he has in fact ruled out nuclear out of utter ignorance. He says the
words, but he has no idea of the meaning.

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
> to the limitations.

We do, using a mix of uber-reliable fossil fuels and safe-as-houses
nuclear, and intermittent (i.e. not reliable) wind and solar.

On 11 Apr 2022 at 16:38:57 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.

A power generator's job is to produce power when it is required, not when it
happens to feel like it.

> 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.

Now you're just belling the cat. And reactors are not build hastily or
precariously.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.

On 11/04/2022 16:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> 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.
>
Precisely. They are marvellous in the context of a kid playing in a
beach with one in his hand.

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

Good luck with that. Its been the goal of chemists phyisicists and
engineers for over a hundred years. We know all the half baked answers
and they have all been found wanting

Its only your total ignorance and bigotry that insists that there are
ways we haven't tried,

> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
> precariously built nuclear reactors.

The world is built out of nuclear waste. there are 4 billion tonnes of
radioactive wastes in the sea left over from the time it was formed, and
if the core wasn't full of radioactive waste we would die of global
freezing - the decay heat keeps us warm.
The only place there is a problem with 'nuclear waste' is in what passes
for your mind...

>ard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
Its not very hard, but hey, its good that nuclear reactors are not built
out of bricks.,
- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 11 Apr 2022 at 16:46:24 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
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.
> 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.

What storage solutions would those be, then? Do tell, I'm keen to know.

--
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know what the evidence shows." -- Richard Dawkins

On 11/04/2022 17:43, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> 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.

Oh dear. more utter ignorance on display, it happens regularly all the time

>
>> 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 think we are dealing with a mental case here.

>
>>> 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.
>
Tell me about it. In a democracy its the most low IQ ignorant useless
uneducated total ArtStudents™ that 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.

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On 11 Apr 2022 at 17:25:33 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
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.

This is another marvellous idea. Are you aware that a tidal barrage produces
zero power four times a day? And I mean zero. At those times, another power
station must produce the power instead. So now you've built two power stations
to get the output of one. That sounds like sound economics, eh? You sure
you're not one of the snouters you were complaining about upthread? Sounds to
me that far from being an astute person who can detect bullshit from miles
away, you're a bullshitter yourself.

--
What you must understand is that, for today's left intellectuals, education is useful only to the extent that it endorses their prejudices. Beyond that, they refuse to go.

Roger Scruton

On 11/04/2022 17:43, Mike Halmarack wrote:

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

'It' happens every at least once between November and April. Perhaps
you live in a pleasant western coastal location where you rarely if
ever get frost. Ask Adam how cold it can get in Donny in winter.

And throwing the word 'adapt' in shows that you cannot graps how
much electricity the NHS *needs* 24/7 regardless of weather conditions.

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

So no more MRI scanners ?. No more emergency clot removals to fix
a stroke ?. No more emergency surgery at any time ?. Don't have any
accidents if that's what you want.

Better to reduce that segment of the population that creates much
of the winder demand on the NHS, the 560,000 over age 85. If you
had your way and all electricity generation by nuclear and fossil
fuels was terminated, then those 560,000 would very soon reduce
in numbers dramatically without nanny NHS to keep them alive.

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

They are giving up droves. Pig farmers have had to kill porkers
on the farm and burn them because Brexit means the slaughter houses
cannot get the staff. Dairy farmers are getting 36p/litre when the
cost of production is 40p/litre. Lots of them are just going to
pack it in.

>> 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?
>

Please name a nuclear disaster that has occurred in the UK ?.

On 11/04/2022 16:46, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> 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.

Er no, the exact opposite is true. You patently do NOT know when you are
being scammed and bullshitted by the lovers of big bucks at any cost.

In fact you sing their fucking praises.

As I remarked earlier you are so fucking stupid you don't have a clue
how stupid you are.

And the thing that stops you finding out, is your 'Billericay Dicky '
insistence that you are not a little thicky, and you are doing very well..

Every time you have been challenged on your decisions you have revealed
utter and total ignorance of the facts. And a depth of prejudice and
bigotry that is utterly staggering

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> Thanks for the information.
>
> We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
> to the limitations.

So that's 100% nuclear power then. Except where it isn't suitable, and
then its gas an oil.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 11 Apr 2022 at 17:43:03 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.

Freeze, you mean. The first couple of weeks of last December saw no wind for
10 days or so and it was very cold, but sunny. Solar output peaked nicely, but
only for about 3 hours around mid-day. Little or zero for the rest of the
time. We get at least one session like this every winter. Sometimes with fog
too, but not always.

We've had a couple of periods of 2 to 3 days of no wind since then.

--
If socialism helps the poor, why are the poor in socialist countries so much poorer than the poor in capitalist countries?

Mark

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.

Well no, it doesn't. At high tide and a t low tide, it isn't going out
or coming in

> What about diverting shit into methane digesters to provide gas and
> fertiliser instead of dumping it into the rivers and sea?
Can you count beyond ten without taking your socks off?
Do you really think people haven't thought of this, and rune the numbers
to see if it makes sense?

> There are multiple ways of producing relatively clean energy. Saving
> energy too. Use them in combination, then adapt to the limitations.

Typical meaningless word salad of an innumerate ArtStudent™'s mental
masturbation.

Full of ideas of what other people should do, never raised a finger to
do anything itself and find out why it wont work.

When I was eight years old I designed a perpetual motion machine, I was
going to change the world.

Then I built it out of Meccano.

It took me several says to figure out why it wouldn't work.

You haven't even got to the Meccano stage.

Its easy to solve the energy crisis. Invent a machine that generates
unlimited energy, that can be build for a fiver, and runs on water.

Off you go, Einstein. I'm sick of your idiocy.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 11/04/2022 18:00, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> Explain the problems in detail and I'll see if I can do the sums.
> Though there are those better equipped and currently working at it.

You *have* been given the detail.

Renewables are by nature intermittent while demand is constant
(and increasing) and there is no technology available to 'store'
or convert sufficient 'green' energy and power the UKs *massive*
power demands for days and days (which could be required during
an extended blocking high pressure over the arctic between November
and April).

The laws of physics and elementary maths cannot be denied (unless
you are Limp Dumb or a Greenie)

On 11 Apr 2022 at 17:43:03 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

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

>> 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?

Modern methods of testing what, exactly?

Again, you talk hand-wavy bollocks:

1) Three mile island, 1979. No one killed or injured.

2) Chernobyl 1986, less than 100 killed according to UN and WHO reports.

3) Fukushima, 2011. No one killed or injured.

And at Chernobyl, the operators had to work very hard to make the reactor
fail. Including removing all the control rods and disabling all the safety
equipment.

Many more people have been killed in other industrial accidents than all the
nuclear incidents put together.

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

Mike Halmarack formulated the question :
> 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.

Nothing even close enough to be big enough to store the amounts and
duration of power we need, for anything but a temporary lull in the
wind.

John Rumm formulated the question :
> 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.

+1