on 11/04/2022, Mike Halmarack supposed :
> then adapt
> to the limitations.

What, turn all the lights out, switching the heating off and stopping
most factories producing - not really practical is it.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:07:52 +0100, Andrew
<Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> 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.

Err...I live in Cornwall, have done most of my life. We don't get
radiation sickness down here, and radon gas is not a problem - its
dangers are grossly exaggerated anyway.

--
Chris

On 11/04/2022 18:33, Tim Streater wrote:
> 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.
>

Many times more people have died as a result of accidents on farms
or building sites than have died as a direct result of a nuclear
accident.

The Natural Philosopher has brought this to us :
> So that's 100% nuclear power then. Except where it isn't suitable, and then
> its gas an oil.

+1

On 11/04/2022 17:56, RJH wrote:
> 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.
>

Well they are, but they are making more noises about 'interim solutions'
They still think that some magical storage - hydrogen, or batteries or
unicorn dung - will turn up and save the plan.

It wont of course.
But they dont know that and importantly the people who vote for them and
provide money dont know it.

>>> 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%.

20% of what? a Giga unicornfart?

>
>>> 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,

Bollocks. Just about everything in the energy arena is known,
predictable and measurable.

> for example. Somebody just has to decide what the priorities are - and do it.
But not you, apparently.

I know what the priorities are, I even know how to do it. but would
anyone let me?
Not a chance in hell

The only thing that is going to secure this countries energy supply,
without which it will grind to a halt, stop working and millions will
die, is a here and now wartime scale program of nuclear power with
unfortunately a somewhat wartime approach to safety.

Any further expansion of renewables is a pointless and extremely
dangerous waste of public money.

--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

Mike Halmarack was thinking very hard :
> 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.

So you would call a car, that would start and run when it felt
inclined, reliable? Reliable is something which works, when >YOU< need
it to work. What might be an appropriate sort of load, for when the
wind generators do work?

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:02:26 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> 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.
>
>No it doesn't. I can assure you there are times when the water line
>hardly budges, normally at the peaks of tides.

Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.

--
Chris

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

The problem has been explained in detail many times. You have hand waved
it away.

--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Mike Halmarack used his keyboard to write :
> If the production of the energy it needs is going to be destructive of
> health, reduce the paraphernalia.

You are an idiot, with the ideas of an idiot. You need to get real and
study the problems before spouting such silliness.

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

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

Go to the grid watch site and look at the monthly graph to see how well
wind has done. You may notice 8 consecutive days with wind producing
practically nothing.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

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

People who go on "green" tarrifs should be forced to have
a smart meter that switches them off when there is
insufficient green electricity available. After all, they are
saying with their money that they don't want non-green
leccy, take take them at their word.

On 11/04/2022 18:16, Tim Streater wrote:
> 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.
>
You see its so easy for a stupid cunt to mislead other stupid cunts.
They wave their hands and dsay 'storage solutions'

Now a proper general engineer will know that there are only so many
generic storage solutions.

Mechanical energy storage
=================
- water up a hill, or a lump of concrete up a hill. Or wound spring or
compressed air, or a spinning flywheel. or a pendulum.
For every given amount of energy you want to store, its a simple back of
an envelope calculation to determine how big a system you need, get a
rough idea of cost, and a fairly clear idea as to how many people will
be killed if it all lets go at once - if it breaks. You don't need to
spend billions trying it out to find its a crock of shit.

Chemical energy storage
===============
Basically you take stable compounds and by adding energy, turn them into
unstable compounds. Water to hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water to
diesel fuel etc etc. Since the optimal fuel for mobile use is
hydrocarbon fuel, that's probably what you want. Because you don't
really need to store energy for static on grid needs. I'll explain why
later. At any level this will be less efficient that running directly
from electricity, but if that is the price of portable power, and there
is no alternative, so be it. Once again all the potential parameters of
chemical fuel are absolutely well known - there are no hidden pots of
gold, only basic chemistry and physics.
All that can be possibly improved are better ways to manufacture
synthetic fuels, that's all. improve efficiency a few percent.

Heat energy storage
=============
E.g. an olympic swimming pool full of molten salt .Of all the
engineering physics the thermodynamics of heat and heat engines is the
oldest. Fundamentally stoiring energy in hot things is extremely
inefficient, but if you start with a hot thing anyway, like a molten
salt cooled nuclear power station it doesn't matter so much, so one
technology that does pass the back of enevelope test is to couple a
molten salt reservoirs to a nuclear power station in order to have
access to a short term peak power in excess of the reactor itself - a
sort of heat bank. Also if the desired output is low grade heat, then a
sodding great tank of hot ware under your house, heated in summer by
solar energy, could actually take you through a winter. The ultimate
storage heater really. Back of envelope calculations show these things
are possible and not far off economic.
As with all energy storage, the safety aspect is crucial. The thought of
a hundred thousand tonnes of red hot salt hitting a nearby cooling pond
is not attractive.

Electrochemical energy storage
=-==================
Batteries. We know almost all there is to know about batteries and what
we know that really matters is that they are not quite good enough for
cars lorries, almost useless for boats and aeroplanes, and totally
useless for storing storing grid scale energy. And they are fucking
dangerous under fault conditions. We also know from back of envelope
calculations how could they might possibly become, and the answer is
'possibly good enough for cars and aircraft and small boats, just' but
the likely timescales are decades away. Certainly not by 2030. They will
never be suitable for grid scale usage.

Electrostatic energy storage
=================
Supercapacitors. Do the sums. and give up. Its amazing they are as good
as they are., Some people have managed to get as much as a 30 second
engine run out of ultra light model aircraft. About the same as a rubber
band. You can do better with compressed carbon dioxide in a tank.

I wont say there might not have a breakthrough in insulators, but no one
is even talking about it, let alone has anything in te lab, or within 20
years of a product., Forget capacitors., Not enough storage per unit cost.

Nuclear fission storage
==============

Well it is by far and away the most energy dense way to store energy,
but short of a supernova, no one has any idea how to create fissionable
nuclear materials . So for now a primary energy source.

Nuclear fusion storage
==============
See above. Until we know how to add helium and energy to get deiterium a
primary energy source only.,

Quantum level energy storage
===================
This is the only area where any breakthroughs might in fact be possible.
We simply do not know enough about the quantum world to say there will
or will not be some way to utilise that level of matter to store and
release energy.

No one is working on it, either. Because they don't even know where to
start.

Now as far as I can recall that is it, for 'energy storage' The best
stores - like coal oil and fissionable uranium and thorium, come 'pre
loaded' and dont need charging up. They are, along with nuclear fusion,
the only primary energy sources we have (renewable energy is really just
totally fucked and stupid use of nuclear fusion at an incredible
distance and uber low efficiency) .

None of them cut the mustard. All of them are well understood and well
able to be calculated at least to an order of magnitude whether they are
remotely feasible in a real world engineering situation. None of them
really are. Even the ones we are using already - like pumped storage -
cannot be improved much or made cheaper.

And the reason 'new technology' will not comes along and save the day is
because these storage solutions are not bounded by technological
limitations, but by the actual physics of the solution.

So whilst better materials - aluminium and carbon fibre and even
titanium - have enabled aircraft to grow from a bleriot monoplane to an
Airbus, the power required to make them fly in BHP per ton, has barely
shifted. Because that's physics.

What held back aircraft development for 500 years was bhp per ton - no
engined before a petrol engine was capable of the power to weight.
In short, there is no room for 'new technology' breakthroughs in
storage. Unlkes its some quantum process.

Power generation is not new, its old hat, and it has all been trued and
calculated and what we have left that isn't propped up by
SomeoneElsesMoney™ is the residue that hasn't died from total lack of
commercial viability or government suppression.

On 11/04/2022 18:21, Tim Streater wrote:
> 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.
>
I don't think he is clever enough to be in on te scam. He is just a
UsefulIdiot™. He has bought the green emotional narrative and swallowed
the koolaid, and will be sacrificed on the altar of profitable
expediency when his usefulness is past it's sell by date

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 11/04/2022 18:46, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:07:52 +0100, Andrew
> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> 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.
>
> Err...I live in Cornwall, have done most of my life. We don't get
> radiation sickness down here, and radon gas is not a problem - its
> dangers are grossly exaggerated anyway.
>
Mike Halmarack doesn't even know what radiation sickness is. You need a
massive dose to get that - and that is not the danger outside the
sarcophagus at chernobyl. The danger might be a raised chance of cancer
if you handled some fairly large lump of actual reactor core, but
mostly its just a mildly elevated radiation level incapable of creating
acute sickness.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 11/04/2022 18:54, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
> Mike Halmarack was thinking very hard :
>> 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.
>
> So you would call a car, that would start and run when it felt inclined,
> reliable? Reliable is something which works, when >YOU< need it to work.
> What might be an appropriate sort of load, for when the wind generators
> do work?
They don't even work reliably even in the context of windmills. The MTBF
is measured in weeks, not months, and certainly not years.
If I wanted to make a reliable windmill, I wouldnt stick it in the salt
spray of the North sea, or the wind and rain of a scottish hillside,
spray birds and bats and insects at Mach 0.3 at its blades, run its
bearings in the presence of uber strong magnetic fields and salt water
and have its blades chop through the boundary layer, past a monopole
mounting tower, and operate in the wake turbulence of other windmills
and I certainly wouldn't mount the heavy turbine blades on a
cantilevered shaft.
The typical wind turbine after the gurantee runs out spends 40% of its
time feathered in need of repairs, and of course that means someone
burns diesel to get out to it.

Add in wind fluctuation, and what you have is a power source that is
large, but totally useless.

It isn't where you want it - needs massive long cables.
It isn't when you want it - you have to maintain full cover for when its
fails to show up.
It isn't what you want - you cant turn it up, only down. It adds no grid
stability whatsoever.

It is in the end as ucking fuseless as the ArtStudents who believe in it

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 11/04/2022 18:46, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
> on 11/04/2022, Mike Halmarack supposed :
>> then adapt
>> to the limitations.
>
> What, turn all the lights out, switching the heating off and stopping
> most factories producing - not really practical is it.

Yeah, why NOT have your whole work force idle, your billion pound car
plant idle while you wait for the wind to blow,.

Wind blows, but windpower sucks

--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

The Natural Philosopher submitted this idea :
> If God were to design the perfect fuel that would be it.
>
> And we are sitting on ten thousand years of it.
>
> Why aren't we using it?
>
> Because a lot of people sitting on billions or trillions of dollars of oil
> and gas don't want their reserves to become worthless overnight.
> We don't need storage, beyond maybe molten salt heat banks, at all, and we
> don't need pointless windmills, at all, we can do everything grid wise and
> have access to cheap reliable energy by using nuclear power.
>
> In short as an engineer what I see is a mess, a disater of heath robinson
> unreliable intermittent sources of non renewable nuclear energy from the
> sun, backed up by the very fossil fuels they were supposed to replace,
> compromised in stability security and cost, reliant on the development of
> blue sky storage that not only does not exist, but *cannot* exist, because it
> would violate the laws of physics and chemistry. Or cost so much in energy
> terms to build and make safe as to be completely counter productive, versus a
> simple solution of a couple of hundred nuclear plant, nicely placed near
> where their energy is needed, running into a simple grid sized just big
> enough to need the peak demand over the short distances it will have to flow.
> And nothing else.

+1 Really that simple!

The Natural Philosopher has brought this to us :
> Yeah, why NOT have your whole work force idle, your billion pound car plant
> idle while you wait for the wind to blow,.
>
> Wind blows, but windpower sucks

Some continuous processes just cannot be stopped, without incurring
stupidly high losses, such as glass works, bakeries, steel production
etc.. They need a guaranteed, always on source of power.

John Rumm explained on 11/04/2022 :
> Reduce the population to 5m, and go back to the stone age?
>
> Stop waving you hands in the air, and show us the sums!

He doesn't do sums, he doesn't do technical - he can though wave his
hands in the air making generally useless statements of the impossible.

The Natural Philosopher wrote on 11/04/2022 :
> The only thing that is going to secure this countries energy supply, without
> which it will grind to a halt, stop working and millions will die, is a here
> and now wartime scale program of nuclear power with unfortunately a somewhat
> wartime approach to safety.

+1
>
> Any further expansion of renewables is a pointless and extremely dangerous
> waste of public money.

+1

On 11/04/2022 18:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 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.

You condemn climate change, deny that CO2 levels are rising, and oceans
are becoming acidic.

This is one instance where you are in the pay of fossil fuel interests.

Some of us have children and rather not risk damaging their future. You
appear to have none, so not surprising you choose to be blind to certain
scientific facts.

> Its because I am a fucking good engineer

That's a lie. And only in your dreams.

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

So since nuclear has proven to be the safest by far over the years
(total deaths per TWh generated, below all other sources including
wind), that would be the way to go.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:54:16 +1000, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> 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,

I don't buy that. It is advantageous for most in that
it allows a very quick fill of the vehicle with energy.

And is very advantageous if you need to fly and
even with shipping.

> and extremely destructive for everyone.

Don't buy that either.

> 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.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:06:11 +1000, 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?

He was too vague in his rant to be clear about that.

On 11/04/2022 18:00, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:45:32 +0100, John Rumm
> <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:

>> 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.

Ok, here is a one:

provide an outline of a plan for storage of 35 TWh of energy, with an
output power of at least 70 GW, distributed all around the UK.

You can use whatever storage mechanisms you like. Include a rough cost
of capital costs, construction time, and land use.

--
Cheers,

John.

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