In article <s82lgh$llc$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
scribeth thus
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I read somewhere the other day, a claim that Germany has 80% wind power.
>>> If true, what have they done for calm days?
>>
>> Not even close:
>>
>> The share of renewable energy in the amount of electricity generated and
>> fed to the grid in Germany reached a new record, rising from 42.3 percent
>> in 2019 to 47.0 percent last year, the Federal Office for Statistics
>> (Destatis).
>>
>> At 25.6 percent, wind power with wind turbines replaced coal as “the most
>> important energy source” in Germany last year. At the same time,
>> electricity fed to the grid from conventional power sources fell 13.6
>> percent year-on-year in Germany, according to Destatis.
>>
>> <https://www.evwind.es/2021/03/05/wind-energy-replaces-coal-as-germanys-
>biggest-energy-source-in-2020/79645>
>>
>>
>>
>
>The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>sources for *most* of the time.
>
>What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that renewables
>generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally ignores
>the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels used
>for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>

>To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we are.
>

Won't work..

If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
come from..

We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
what!...

Right now the wind is;,

Wind 0.53GW
(1.72%)

And its been that way for a few days now..
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 27/05/2021 21:34, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <s82lgh$llc$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> scribeth thus
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I read somewhere the other day, a claim that Germany has 80% wind power.
>>>> If true, what have they done for calm days?
>>>
>>> Not even close:
>>>
>>> The share of renewable energy in the amount of electricity generated and
>>> fed to the grid in Germany reached a new record, rising from 42.3 percent
>>> in 2019 to 47.0 percent last year, the Federal Office for Statistics
>>> (Destatis).
>>>
>>> At 25.6 percent, wind power with wind turbines replaced coal as “the most
>>> important energy source” in Germany last year. At the same time,
>>> electricity fed to the grid from conventional power sources fell 13.6
>>> percent year-on-year in Germany, according to Destatis.
>>>
>>> <https://www.evwind.es/2021/03/05/wind-energy-replaces-coal-as-germanys-
>> biggest-energy-source-in-2020/79645>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>
>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that renewables
>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally ignores
>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels used
>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>
>
>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we are.
>>
>
> Won't work..
>
> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
> come from..
>
>
> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
> what!...
>
> Right now the wind is;,
>
> Wind 0.53GW
> (1.72%)
>
>
> And its been that way for a few days now..
>

I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
shipping and air travel are far more difficult.

But, whatever the extra electricity we aim to generate and whatever the
fraction from wind, we do not need to have a contingency to replace wind
by gas (or whatever) GW for GW. If we have say 40GW maximum wind
capacity then the planning assumption is presumably that we expect on
average to get say 30% of that wind maximum, which would be 12GW. So we
need contingency measures for that 12GW, whether that contingency is
gas, biomass, grid-scale storage or whatever.

Also, it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
least say 10% of maximum output from wind.

That said, I'm very much in the camp that feels more comfortable with a
decent % of electricity generation as base load, whether that turns out
to be SMRs in 10-20 years' time or whatever. And also I don't believe
that National Grid and related engineers are all stupid and incapable of
planning a sensible generation strategy to cover most contingencies.

On 28/05/2021 13:30, JGD wrote:
> On 27/05/2021 21:34, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <s82lgh$llc$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> scribeth thus
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I read somewhere the other day, a claim that Germany has 80% wind
>>>>> power.
>>>>> If true, what have they done for calm days?
>>>>
>>>> Not even close:
>>>>
>>>> The share of renewable energy in the amount of electricity generated
>>>> and
>>>> fed to the grid in Germany reached a new record, rising from 42.3
>>>> percent
>>>> in 2019 to 47.0 percent last year, the Federal Office for Statistics
>>>> (Destatis).
>>>>
>>>> At 25.6 percent, wind power with wind turbines replaced coal as “the
>>>> most
>>>> important energy source” in Germany last year. At the same time,
>>>> electricity fed to the grid from conventional power sources fell 13.6
>>>> percent year-on-year in Germany, according to Destatis.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.evwind.es/2021/03/05/wind-energy-replaces-coal-as-germanys-
>>>>
>>> biggest-energy-source-in-2020/79645>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>>
>>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that
>>> renewables
>>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally
>>> ignores
>>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels
>>> used
>>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>>
>>
>>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we
>>> are.
>>>
>>
>> Won't work..
>>
>> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
>> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
>> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
>> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
>> come from..
>>
>>
>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>> what!...
>>
>> Right now the wind is;,
>>
>> Wind 0.53GW
>> (1.72%)
>>
>>
>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>
>
> I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
> we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
> completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
> shipping and air travel are far more difficult.
>
> But, whatever the extra electricity we aim to generate and whatever the
> fraction from wind, we do not need to have a contingency to replace wind
> by gas (or whatever) GW for GW. If we have say 40GW maximum wind
> capacity then the planning assumption is presumably that we expect on
> average to get say 30% of that wind maximum, which would be 12GW. So we
> need contingency measures for that 12GW, whether that contingency is
> gas, biomass, grid-scale storage or whatever.
>
> Also, it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
> height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
> geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
> least say 10% of maximum output from wind.
>
> That said, I'm very much in the camp that feels more comfortable with a
> decent % of electricity generation as base load, whether that turns out
> to be SMRs in 10-20 years' time or whatever. And also I don't believe
> that National Grid and related engineers are all stupid and incapable of
> planning a sensible generation strategy to cover most contingencies.

The problem is not the National Grid engineers but the politicians who
hold the purse strings.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 28/05/2021 13:33, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 28/05/2021 13:30, JGD wrote:
>> On 27/05/2021 21:34, tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <s82lgh$llc$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>> scribeth thus
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read somewhere the other day, a claim that Germany has 80% wind
>>>>>> power.
>>>>>> If true, what have they done for calm days?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even close:
>>>>>
>>>>> The share of renewable energy in the amount of electricity
>>>>> generated and
>>>>> fed to the grid in Germany reached a new record, rising from 42.3
>>>>> percent
>>>>> in 2019 to 47.0 percent last year, the Federal Office for Statistics
>>>>> (Destatis).
>>>>>
>>>>> At 25.6 percent, wind power with wind turbines replaced coal as
>>>>> “the most
>>>>> important energy source” in Germany last year. At the same time,
>>>>> electricity fed to the grid from conventional power sources fell 13.6
>>>>> percent year-on-year in Germany, according to Destatis.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.evwind.es/2021/03/05/wind-energy-replaces-coal-as-germanys-
>>>>>
>>>> biggest-energy-source-in-2020/79645>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>>>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>>>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from
>>>> renewable
>>>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>>>
>>>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that
>>>> renewables
>>>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally
>>>> ignores
>>>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>>>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil
>>>> fuels used
>>>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase
>>>> existing
>>>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we
>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Won't work..
>>>
>>> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
>>> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
>>> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
>>> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
>>> come from..
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>>> what!...
>>>
>>> Right now the wind is;,
>>>
>>> Wind 0.53GW
>>> (1.72%)
>>>
>>>
>>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>>
>>
>> I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
>> we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
>> completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
>> shipping and air travel are far more difficult.
>>
>> But, whatever the extra electricity we aim to generate and whatever
>> the fraction from wind, we do not need to have a contingency to
>> replace wind by gas (or whatever) GW for GW. If we have say 40GW
>> maximum wind capacity then the planning assumption is presumably that
>> we expect on average to get say 30% of that wind maximum, which would
>> be 12GW. So we need contingency measures for that 12GW, whether that
>> contingency is gas, biomass, grid-scale storage or whatever.
>>
>> Also, it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
>> height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
>> geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
>> least say 10% of maximum output from wind.
>>
>> That said, I'm very much in the camp that feels more comfortable with
>> a decent % of electricity generation as base load, whether that turns
>> out to be SMRs in 10-20 years' time or whatever. And also I don't
>> believe that National Grid and related engineers are all stupid and
>> incapable of planning a sensible generation strategy to cover most
>> contingencies.
>
> The problem is not the National Grid engineers but the politicians who
> hold the purse strings.
>

People often write as if it were the engineers and that's the point I
was seeking to make.

But yes of course finance, budget constraints etc etc are a major factor
to. To what extent it's fair to blame the politicians for that is
debatable. What the politicans have available to spend is largely
limited by the tax take and whatever else they might do, they do by and
large look to balance the budget. COVID of course has blown a huge hole
in that endeavour but it is nonetheless the usual aim in normal times.

There's nothing obvious that I can see from where money could be taken
in order to spend more on electricity generation. NHS, no. Social
Security, no. Defence, no. etc etc. So the only other solution is to
raise taxes, but the politicians are in mortal fear of doing that
because, rightly or wrongly, they see it as electoral suicide.

Personally, of course I wouldn't look forwards to paying a bit more tax,
but I can see it as being broadly in the public good. We can't carry on
forever aspiring to be a modern Western demoocracy but not then being
prepared to pay for it.

We do get the politicians we deserve.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/05/2021 13:30, JGD wrote:
>> On 27/05/2021 21:34, tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <s82lgh$llc$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>> scribeth thus
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read somewhere the other day, a claim that Germany has 80% wind
>>>>>> power.
>>>>>> If true, what have they done for calm days?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even close:
>>>>>
>>>>> The share of renewable energy in the amount of electricity generated
>>>>> and
>>>>> fed to the grid in Germany reached a new record, rising from 42.3
>>>>> percent
>>>>> in 2019 to 47.0 percent last year, the Federal Office for Statistics
>>>>> (Destatis).
>>>>>
>>>>> At 25.6 percent, wind power with wind turbines replaced coal as “the
>>>>> most
>>>>> important energy source” in Germany last year. At the same time,
>>>>> electricity fed to the grid from conventional power sources fell 13.6
>>>>> percent year-on-year in Germany, according to Destatis.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.evwind.es/2021/03/05/wind-energy-replaces-coal-as-germanys-
>>>>>
>>>> biggest-energy-source-in-2020/79645>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>>>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>>>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>>>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>>>
>>>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that
>>>> renewables
>>>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally
>>>> ignores
>>>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>>>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels
>>>> used
>>>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>>>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we
>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Won't work..
>>>
>>> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
>>> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
>>> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
>>> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
>>> come from..
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>>> what!...
>>>
>>> Right now the wind is;,
>>>
>>> Wind 0.53GW
>>> (1.72%)
>>>
>>>
>>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>>
>>
>> I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
>> we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
>> completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
>> shipping and air travel are far more difficult.
>>
>> But, whatever the extra electricity we aim to generate and whatever the
>> fraction from wind, we do not need to have a contingency to replace wind
>> by gas (or whatever) GW for GW. If we have say 40GW maximum wind
>> capacity then the planning assumption is presumably that we expect on
>> average to get say 30% of that wind maximum, which would be 12GW. So we
>> need contingency measures for that 12GW, whether that contingency is
>> gas, biomass, grid-scale storage or whatever.
>>
>> Also, it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
>> height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
>> geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
>> least say 10% of maximum output from wind.
>>
>> That said, I'm very much in the camp that feels more comfortable with a
>> decent % of electricity generation as base load, whether that turns out
>> to be SMRs in 10-20 years' time or whatever. And also I don't believe
>> that National Grid and related engineers are all stupid and incapable of
>> planning a sensible generation strategy to cover most contingencies.
>
> The problem is not the National Grid engineers but the politicians who
> hold the purse strings.
>

Not really. The funding will come from surcharges on current electricity
bills, as has already happened with renewable and nuclear electricity, both
of which cost more than gas. The government just has to issue an edict
that the grid must have, say, 20% nuclear base load capacity, in the 2030s.
The necessary SMRs will then be purchased based on such a surcharge.

The government may just have to fund the initial prototype SMR and perhaps
the first production batch.

On 28/05/2021 17:13, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/05/2021 13:30, JGD wrote:
>>> On 27/05/2021 21:34, tony sayer wrote:
>>>> In article <s82lgh$llc$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>> scribeth thus
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read somewhere the other day, a claim that Germany has 80% wind
>>>>>>> power.
>>>>>>> If true, what have they done for calm days?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even close:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The share of renewable energy in the amount of electricity generated
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> fed to the grid in Germany reached a new record, rising from 42.3
>>>>>> percent
>>>>>> in 2019 to 47.0 percent last year, the Federal Office for Statistics
>>>>>> (Destatis).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 25.6 percent, wind power with wind turbines replaced coal as “the
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> important energy source” in Germany last year. At the same time,
>>>>>> electricity fed to the grid from conventional power sources fell 13.6
>>>>>> percent year-on-year in Germany, according to Destatis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.evwind.es/2021/03/05/wind-energy-replaces-coal-as-germanys-
>>>>>>
>>>>> biggest-energy-source-in-2020/79645>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>>>>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>>>>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>>>>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that
>>>>> renewables
>>>>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally
>>>>> ignores
>>>>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>>>>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels
>>>>> used
>>>>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>>>>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we
>>>>> are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Won't work..
>>>>
>>>> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
>>>> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
>>>> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
>>>> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
>>>> come from..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>>>> what!...
>>>>
>>>> Right now the wind is;,
>>>>
>>>> Wind 0.53GW
>>>> (1.72%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
>>> we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
>>> completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
>>> shipping and air travel are far more difficult.
>>>
>>> But, whatever the extra electricity we aim to generate and whatever the
>>> fraction from wind, we do not need to have a contingency to replace wind
>>> by gas (or whatever) GW for GW. If we have say 40GW maximum wind
>>> capacity then the planning assumption is presumably that we expect on
>>> average to get say 30% of that wind maximum, which would be 12GW. So we
>>> need contingency measures for that 12GW, whether that contingency is
>>> gas, biomass, grid-scale storage or whatever.
>>>
>>> Also, it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
>>> height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
>>> geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
>>> least say 10% of maximum output from wind.
>>>
>>> That said, I'm very much in the camp that feels more comfortable with a
>>> decent % of electricity generation as base load, whether that turns out
>>> to be SMRs in 10-20 years' time or whatever. And also I don't believe
>>> that National Grid and related engineers are all stupid and incapable of
>>> planning a sensible generation strategy to cover most contingencies.
>>
>> The problem is not the National Grid engineers but the politicians who
>> hold the purse strings.
>>
>
> Not really. The funding will come from surcharges on current electricity
> bills, as has already happened with renewable and nuclear electricity, both
> of which cost more than gas. The government just has to issue an edict
> that the grid must have, say, 20% nuclear base load capacity, in the 2030s.
> The necessary SMRs will then be purchased based on such a surcharge.
>
> The government may just have to fund the initial prototype SMR and perhaps
> the first production batch.
>

So, as I said, it is up to those who hold the purse strings, ie the
politicians.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <s8qnov$rb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:30:22 on Fri, 28 May
2021, JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> remarked:

>it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
>height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
>geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
>least say 10% of maximum output from wind.

There are numerous postings here along the lines of "look - no wind".

If you want another: as I type [13:30 on the 29th) it's 0.875GW, 2.96%,
and was much the same all of yesterday.
--
Roland Perry

In message <s8qqsp$1e0i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:23:36 on Fri, 28 May
2021, JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> remarked:

>> The problem is not the National Grid engineers but the politicians
>>who hold the purse strings.
>
>People often write as if it were the engineers and that's the point I
>was seeking to make.

Really? I don't recall engineers being blamed much, apart from that day
the lightning tripped out Little Barford, and it rippled over to Hornsea
Offshore.

ObRail: and took out the 700's, which was the fault of a different set
of engineers.
--
Roland Perry

In article <Brqp7HL0JksgFAJ8@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
<roland@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In message <s8qnov$rb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:30:22 on Fri, 28 May
>2021, JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
>>height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
>>geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
>>least say 10% of maximum output from wind.
>
>There are numerous postings here along the lines of "look - no wind".
>
>If you want another: as I type [13:30 on the 29th) it's 0.875GW, 2.96%,
>and was much the same all of yesterday.

Indeed here's the wind..

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic
=-0.73,50.04,1792/loc=-0.158,52.085

Wow! Almost a Gigawatt now!!!

Wind 0.99GW
(3.33%)
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

>>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>>
>>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that renewables
>>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally ignores
>>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels used
>>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>>
>>
>>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we are.
>>>
>>
>> Won't work..
>>
>> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
>> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
>> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
>> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
>> come from..
>>
>>
>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>> what!...
>>
>> Right now the wind is;,
>>
>> Wind 0.53GW
>> (1.72%)
>>
>>
>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>
>
>I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
>we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
>completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
>shipping and air travel are far more difficult.

Yes they will be but maybe one day something will replace them air that
is. Shipping nuke powered perhaps?...

>
>But, whatever the extra electricity we aim to generate and whatever the
>fraction from wind, we do not need to have a contingency to replace wind
>by gas (or whatever) GW for GW. If we have say 40GW maximum wind
>capacity then the planning assumption is presumably that we expect on
>average to get say 30% of that wind maximum, which would be 12GW. So we
>need contingency measures for that 12GW, whether that contingency is
>gas, biomass, grid-scale storage or whatever.

Well indeed your right.. But at the moment the wind goes up the Gas goes
down it see-saws around if t you think thats OK then fine, but i don't.
>
>Also, it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
>height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
>geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
>least say 10% of maximum output from wind.

Well look at the wind on the link i gave in Reply to Roland, there are
days when it is calm around the UK coast in fact it does seem that the
UK is the windiest area in Europe.

>
>That said, I'm very much in the camp that feels more comfortable with a
>decent % of electricity generation as base load, whether that turns out
>to be SMRs in 10-20 years' time or whatever. And also I don't believe
>that National Grid and related engineers are all stupid and incapable of
>planning a sensible generation strategy to cover most contingencies.

No i don't think they are at all, I'll trust Engineers any day over
Politicos who have fuck all idea about the whole subject!...

Whilst on the subject on Gas were now supposed to do away with home
heating Gas boilers soon, what is to replace them anyone?.

I've got a 30 yes thirty year old Gloworm thats now kettling like a
good un what shall i do?, got nowhere to put a heat pump:(.....
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

>>>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>>>> what!...
>>>>
>>>> Right now the wind is;,
>>>>
>>>> Wind 0.53GW
>>>> (1.72%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
>>> we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
>>> completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
>>> shipping and air travel are far more difficult.
>>>
>>> But, whatever the extra electricity we aim to generate and whatever the
>>> fraction from wind, we do not need to have a contingency to replace wind
>>> by gas (or whatever) GW for GW. If we have say 40GW maximum wind
>>> capacity then the planning assumption is presumably that we expect on
>>> average to get say 30% of that wind maximum, which would be 12GW. So we
>>> need contingency measures for that 12GW, whether that contingency is
>>> gas, biomass, grid-scale storage or whatever.
>>>
>>> Also, it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
>>> height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
>>> geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
>>> least say 10% of maximum output from wind.
>>>
>>> That said, I'm very much in the camp that feels more comfortable with a
>>> decent % of electricity generation as base load, whether that turns out
>>> to be SMRs in 10-20 years' time or whatever. And also I don't believe
>>> that National Grid and related engineers are all stupid and incapable of
>>> planning a sensible generation strategy to cover most contingencies.
>>
>> The problem is not the National Grid engineers but the politicians who
>> hold the purse strings.
>>
>
>Not really. The funding will come from surcharges on current electricity
>bills, as has already happened with renewable and nuclear electricity, both
>of which cost more than gas. The government just has to issue an edict
>that the grid must have, say, 20% nuclear base load capacity, in the 2030s.
>The necessary SMRs will then be purchased based on such a surcharge.
>

>The government may just have to fund the initial prototype SMR and perhaps
>the first production batch.
>

Couldn't agree more with the Hon member;)...

France got the Nuke part right power house of Europe..

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 29/05/2021 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <s8qnov$rb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:30:22 on Fri, 28 May
> 2021, JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> it's rarely completely calm, especially at 300-400ft (ie turbine
>> height) out to sea. And the larger the wind fleet and the greater its
>> geographical spread then the greater the probability of generating at
>> least say 10% of maximum output from wind.
>
> There are numerous postings here along the lines of "look - no wind".
>
> If you want another: as I type [13:30 on the 29th) it's 0.875GW, 2.96%,
> and was much the same all of yesterday.

And even if there is wind it is not always useable. My nearest windfarm
is at Burradale and "per unit of installed capacity .. is the most
productive in the world." This is "Since opening in 2000, the turbines
at this windfarm have had an average capacity factor of 52%, and in 2005
averaged an incredible world record 57.9%."

Or to put it another way, at least 42.1% of the time it is producing
nothing useable. And this is the most efficient!! What a joke wind power is.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/wordpress/wind/burradale-wind-farm-shetland-islands/

What a waste of resources when tidal power is predictable and reliable.

--
Colin

On 29/05/2021 16:59, tony sayer wrote:
>>>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>>>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>>>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>>>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>>>
>>>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that renewables
>>>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally ignores
>>>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>>>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels used
>>>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>>>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Won't work..
>>>
>>> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
>>> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
>>> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
>>> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
>>> come from..
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>>> what!...
>>>
>>> Right now the wind is;,
>>>
>>> Wind 0.53GW
>>> (1.72%)
>>>
>>>
>>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>>
>>
>> I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
>> we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
>> completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
>> shipping and air travel are far more difficult.
>
> Yes they will be but maybe one day something will replace them air that
> is. Shipping nuke powered perhaps?...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah>

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/05/2021 16:59, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>>>>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>>>>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>>>>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that renewables
>>>>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally ignores
>>>>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>>>>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels used
>>>>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>>>>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Won't work..
>>>>
>>>> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
>>>> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
>>>> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
>>>> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
>>>> come from..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>>>> what!...
>>>>
>>>> Right now the wind is;,
>>>>
>>>> Wind 0.53GW
>>>> (1.72%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
>>> we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
>>> completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
>>> shipping and air travel are far more difficult.
>>
>> Yes they will be but maybe one day something will replace them air that
>> is. Shipping nuke powered perhaps?...
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah>

Hopefully modern day disposal would be more thoughtful than with the
reactors of the icebreaker Lenin:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/05/2021 16:59, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>>>>>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>>>>>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>>>>>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that renewables
>>>>>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally ignores
>>>>>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>>>>>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels used
>>>>>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>>>>>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Won't work..
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
>>>>> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
>>>>> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
>>>>> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
>>>>> come from..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>>>>> what!...
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now the wind is;,
>>>>>
>>>>> Wind 0.53GW
>>>>> (1.72%)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
>>>> we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
>>>> completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
>>>> shipping and air travel are far more difficult.
>>>
>>> Yes they will be but maybe one day something will replace them air that
>>> is. Shipping nuke powered perhaps?...
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah>
>
> Hopefully modern day disposal would be more thoughtful than with the
> reactors of the icebreaker Lenin:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)>
>

Even by Soviet standards, that's a gruesome tale!

On 30/05/2021 00:35, Recliner wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2021 16:59, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>>> The “calm days” argument needs putting to bed. It’s always possible to
>>>>>>> maintain fossil fuel (mainly gas) backup generation. Yes. It will be
>>>>>>> expensive, but it is no reason not to attempt to generate from renewable
>>>>>>> sources for *most* of the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What *does* need highlighting though are the green PR puffs that renewables
>>>>>>> generated huge amounts of power on a particular day. This totally ignores
>>>>>>> the fact that existing electricity demand is only about a third of our
>>>>>>> energy use. The other two thirds being mainly liquid/gas fossil fuels used
>>>>>>> for transport, heating, industrial processes etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To replace fossil fuels completely we probably need to increase existing
>>>>>>> renewable energy production by a factor of six or more from where we are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Won't work..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have say 40 GW wind capacity we need to back that with 40 GW of
>>>>>> Fossil which rather defeats the point of a no or very low carbon power
>>>>>> system. Remember also someone has got it in mind that domestic heating
>>>>>> gas boilers need chucking out before lone so where is all this power to
>>>>>> come from..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to get a effing big wiggle on with modular nuclear thats
>>>>>> what!...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now the wind is;,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wind 0.53GW
>>>>>> (1.72%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And its been that way for a few days now..
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really understand the logic there. In the foreseeable future,
>>>>> we're not in practice going to be able to replace fossil fuels
>>>>> completely. Some aspects like cars are low-hanging fruit. Others like
>>>>> shipping and air travel are far more difficult.
>>>>
>>>> Yes they will be but maybe one day something will replace them air that
>>>> is. Shipping nuke powered perhaps?...
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah>
>>
>> Hopefully modern day disposal would be more thoughtful than with the
>> reactors of the icebreaker Lenin:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)>
>>
>
> Even by Soviet standards, that's a gruesome tale!
>

You don't want to hear about their decommissioned submarines if you
think that is gruesome.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.