Euan Mearns discussed the pros and cons of the scheme back in 2018
here
http://euanmearns.com/coire-glas-the-raging-best-of-pumped-hydro-storage/

It would be slightly smaller than Dinorwig (1500MW vs. 1800MW) but a
big improvement on the original Coire Glas scheme of 600MW.

--
Chris

On 21/03/2023 23:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
> Euan Mearns discussed the pros and cons of the scheme back in 2018
> here
> http://euanmearns.com/coire-glas-the-raging-best-of-pumped-hydro-storage/
>
> It would be slightly smaller than Dinorwig (1500MW vs. 1800MW) but a
> big improvement on the original Coire Glas scheme of 600MW.
>

There was a short news item this morning that the decision to go forward
has been postponed until the Government further clarify their energy policy.

Does this mean:
It's not viable without a massive subsidy?
It's not viable if more nuclear is built?
They want a guaranteed (high) price for the electricity it produces?
Something else?

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

On 22/03/2023 00:20, alan_m wrote:
> On 21/03/2023 23:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> Euan Mearns discussed the pros and cons of the scheme back in 2018
>> here
>> http://euanmearns.com/coire-glas-the-raging-best-of-pumped-hydro-storage/
>>
>> It would be slightly smaller than Dinorwig (1500MW vs. 1800MW) but a
>> big improvement on the original Coire Glas scheme of 600MW.
>>
>
> There was a short news item this morning that the decision to go forward
> has been postponed until the Government further clarify their energy
> policy.
>
> Does this mean:
> It's not viable without a massive subsidy?
> It's not viable if more nuclear is built?
> They want a guaranteed (high) price for the electricity it produces?
> Something else?
>

SSE say they don't need a "subsidy" but do need assurances on "revenue
stabilisation" :)

To be fair, it's a /regulated/ energy market so what the regulator will
do does matter a lot for investments.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 22/03/2023 07:07, Robin wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 00:20, alan_m wrote:
>> On 21/03/2023 23:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> Euan Mearns discussed the pros and cons of the scheme back in 2018
>>> here
>>> http://euanmearns.com/coire-glas-the-raging-best-of-pumped-hydro-storage/
>>>
>>> It would be slightly smaller than Dinorwig (1500MW vs. 1800MW) but a
>>> big improvement on the original Coire Glas scheme of 600MW.
>>>
>>
>> There was a short news item this morning that the decision to go
>> forward has been postponed until the Government further clarify their
>> energy policy.
>>
>> Does this mean:
>> It's not viable without a massive subsidy?
>> It's not viable if more nuclear is built?
>> They want a guaranteed (high) price for the electricity it produces?
>> Something else?
>>
>
> SSE say they don't need a "subsidy" but do need assurances on "revenue
> stabilisation" :)

Depending on which report you read, I think the clue may be it's not
viable unless the electricity it sells is at a premium price and the
electricity it buys is at near zero cost.
In this context I wonder if the word subsidy is different to the word
grant as they have only provisionally committed to 6.5% of the estimated
cost of building?

It's very much like the hype a couple of years back about a solar farm
with a large amount of battery backup. The economics of that
installation wasn't that solar would supply the grid when the sun was
shining but to first charge the batteries and provide a near
instantaneous feed in when when there was a shortfall.

>
> To be fair, it's a /regulated/ energy market so what the regulator will
> do does matter a lot for investments.
>
>

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

On 22/03/2023 08:05, alan_m wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 07:07, Robin wrote:

>>
>> SSE say they don't need a "subsidy" but do need assurances on "revenue
>> stabilisation" :)
>
> Depending on which report you read, I think the clue may be it's not
> viable unless the electricity it sells is at a premium price and the
> electricity it buys is at near zero cost.

FWIW my source was SSE's own report

https://www.sse.com/news-and-views/2023/03/britain-s-largest-pumped-hydro-scheme-in-40-years-gets-100m-investment-boost/

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 22/03/2023 00:20, alan_m wrote:
> On 21/03/2023 23:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> Euan Mearns discussed the pros and cons of the scheme back in 2018
>> here
>> http://euanmearns.com/coire-glas-the-raging-best-of-pumped-hydro-storage/
>>
>> It would be slightly smaller than Dinorwig (1500MW vs. 1800MW) but a
>> big improvement on the original Coire Glas scheme of 600MW.
>>
>
> There was a short news item this morning that the decision to go forward
> has been postponed until the Government further clarify their energy
> policy.
>
> Does this mean:
> It's not viable without a massive subsidy?
> It's not viable if more nuclear is built?

You have missed out:
It's not viable UNLESS more nuclear is built?
It's not viable UNLESS more wind/solar/tidal is built?

It stores electricity, so a good supply of off-peak very cheap
electricity is exactly what it needs.

> They want a guaranteed (high) price for the electricity it produces?
> Something else?
>
>

On 22/03/2023 08:05, alan_m wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 07:07, Robin wrote:
>> On 22/03/2023 00:20, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2023 23:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>> Euan Mearns discussed the pros and cons of the scheme back in 2018
>>>> here
>>>> http://euanmearns.com/coire-glas-the-raging-best-of-pumped-hydro-storage/
>>>>
>>>> It would be slightly smaller than Dinorwig (1500MW vs. 1800MW) but a
>>>> big improvement on the original Coire Glas scheme of 600MW.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There was a short news item this morning that the decision to go
>>> forward has been postponed until the Government further clarify their
>>> energy policy.
>>>
>>> Does this mean:
>>> It's not viable without a massive subsidy?
>>> It's not viable if more nuclear is built?
>>> They want a guaranteed (high) price for the electricity it produces?
>>> Something else?
>>>
>>
>> SSE say they don't need a "subsidy" but do need assurances on "revenue
>> stabilisation" :)
>
> Depending on which report you read, I think the clue may be it's not
> viable unless the electricity it sells is at a premium price and the
> electricity it buys is at near zero cost.
> In this context I wonder if the word subsidy is different to the word
> grant as they have only provisionally committed to 6.5% of the estimated
> cost of building?
>
> It's very much like the hype a couple of years back about a solar farm
> with a large amount of battery backup. The economics of that
> installation wasn't that solar would supply the grid when the sun was
> shining but to first charge the batteries and provide a near
> instantaneous feed in when when there was a shortfall.

No one is going to invest in anything unless there is some certainty
over being repaid, with profit.

Long term and risky projects can only be funded by the government.

On 22/03/2023 00:20, alan_m wrote:
> On 21/03/2023 23:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> Euan Mearns discussed the pros and cons of the scheme back in 2018
>> here
>> http://euanmearns.com/coire-glas-the-raging-best-of-pumped-hydro-storage/
>>
>> It would be slightly smaller than Dinorwig (1500MW vs. 1800MW) but a
>> big improvement on the original Coire Glas scheme of 600MW.
>>
>
> There was a short news item this morning that the decision to go forward
> has been postponed until the Government further clarify their energy
> policy.
>
> Does this mean:
> It's not viable without a massive subsidy?
No

> It's not viable if more nuclear is built?
No
> They want a guaranteed (high) price for the electricity it produces?
No

> Something else?

The rapists are all in the renewable energy game. Anything that diverts
money to something sensible is attacked by powerful lobbies

This is a reasonable scheme - haven't got costings for it so dunno how
reasonable.
Pumped storage goes well with nuclear, as then you only need short term
peak load following.
Its pretty useless with wind/solar, but then, what isn't?

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 22/03/2023 08:05, alan_m wrote:
> It's very much like the hype a couple of years back about a solar farm
> with a large amount of battery backup. The economics of that
> installation wasn't that solar would supply the grid when the sun was
> shining but to first charge the batteries and provide a near
> instantaneous feed in when when there was a shortfall.

Batteries have never been viable for intermittency. They are not big
enough. Their use is to replace at huge expense the spinning mass of
conventional generation.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:49:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 22/03/2023 08:05, alan_m wrote:
>> It's very much like the hype a couple of years back about a solar farm
>> with a large amount of battery backup. The economics of that
>> installation wasn't that solar would supply the grid when the sun was
>> shining but to first charge the batteries and provide a near
>> instantaneous feed in when when there was a shortfall.
>
> Batteries have never been viable for intermittency. They are not big
> enough. Their use is to replace at huge expense the spinning mass of
> conventional generation.

Yup, also a waste of resources better used elsewhere.
Hydrogen-bromine flow batteries seem to be viable and scaleable no - bit big
and heavy but should be durable and only in-out is electricity.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/08/31/hydrogen-bromide-flow-battery-for-large-scale-renewables-storage/
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 22/03/2023 17:29, PeterC wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:49:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2023 08:05, alan_m wrote:
>>> It's very much like the hype a couple of years back about a solar farm
>>> with a large amount of battery backup. The economics of that
>>> installation wasn't that solar would supply the grid when the sun was
>>> shining but to first charge the batteries and provide a near
>>> instantaneous feed in when when there was a shortfall.
>>
>> Batteries have never been viable for intermittency. They are not big
>> enough. Their use is to replace at huge expense the spinning mass of
>> conventional generation.
>
> Yup, also a waste of resources better used elsewhere.
> Hydrogen-bromine flow batteries seem to be viable and scaleable no - bit big
> and heavy but should be durable and only in-out is electricity.
> https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/08/31/hydrogen-bromide-flow-battery-for-large-scale-renewables-storage/

According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
electrical demand.

On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:

> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
> electrical demand.

That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".

On 22/03/2023 19:29, GB wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>
>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>> electrical demand.
>
> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>
>

But for how long?

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

GB wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
>
>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>> electrical demand.
>
> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".

But how many elephant•wales per cubic fortnight is that?

On 22/03/2023 19:47, Andy Burns wrote:
> GB wrote:
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>> electrical demand.
>>
>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>
> But how many elephant•wales per cubic fortnight is that?

Back in school days we had physics text book (published by Mills & Boon
no less!) that had a section on a real production process. I can't
remember the details (presumably about a certain torque being applied to
give a certain rate of production), but it had the wonderful unit of a
foot-pound-per-pennyweight-fortnight.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 21:28:40 +0000, SteveW wrote:

> Back in school days we had physics text book (published by Mills & Boon
> no less!)

I still have a book published by them: "Microcircuit Learming Computes".
Early 1970s.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article <tvfru8$poij$2@dont-email.me>,
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 19:47, Andy Burns wrote:
> > GB wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
> >>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
> >>> electrical demand.
> >>
> >> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
> >
> > But how many elephantwales per cubic fortnight is that?

> Back in school days we had physics text book (published by Mills & Boon
> no less!) that had a section on a real production process. I can't
> remember the details (presumably about a certain torque being applied to
> give a certain rate of production), but it had the wonderful unit of a
> foot-pound-per-pennyweight-fortnight.

It was suggested, in our university fluid mechanics leactures that
viscosity could be measured in acres-per-year

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

On Wednesday, 22 March 2023 at 08:05:40 UTC, alan_m wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 07:07, Robin wrote:
> > On 22/03/2023 00:20, alan_m wrote:
> >> On 21/03/2023 23:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
> >>> Euan Mearns discussed the pros and cons of the scheme back in 2018
> >>> here
> >>> http://euanmearns.com/coire-glas-the-raging-best-of-pumped-hydro-storage/
> >>>
> >>> It would be slightly smaller than Dinorwig (1500MW vs. 1800MW) but a
> >>> big improvement on the original Coire Glas scheme of 600MW.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There was a short news item this morning that the decision to go
> >> forward has been postponed until the Government further clarify their
> >> energy policy.
> >>
> >> Does this mean:
> >> It's not viable without a massive subsidy?
> >> It's not viable if more nuclear is built?
> >> They want a guaranteed (high) price for the electricity it produces?
> >> Something else?
> >>
> >
> > SSE say they don't need a "subsidy" but do need assurances on "revenue
> > stabilisation" :)
> Depending on which report you read, I think the clue may be it's not
> viable unless the electricity it sells is at a premium price and the
> electricity it buys is at near zero cost.

the whole point of such schemes is to buy electricity at near zero & resell it at peak times at peak prices.
As far as it helping the grid deal with peaks, it will a little but it's too small to make any great difference. We just don't have the necessary land available to do it on the scale that some countries have.

On 22 Mar 2023 at 22:20:34 GMT, "Animal" <tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 22 March 2023 at 08:05:40 UTC, alan_m wrote:
>> On 22/03/2023 07:07, Robin wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2023 00:20, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2023 23:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>>> Euan Mearns discussed the pros and cons of the scheme back in 2018
>>>>> here
>>>>> http://euanmearns.com/coire-glas-the-raging-best-of-pumped-hydro-storage/
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be slightly smaller than Dinorwig (1500MW vs. 1800MW) but a
>>>>> big improvement on the original Coire Glas scheme of 600MW.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was a short news item this morning that the decision to go
>>>> forward has been postponed until the Government further clarify their
>>>> energy policy.
>>>>
>>>> Does this mean:
>>>> It's not viable without a massive subsidy?
>>>> It's not viable if more nuclear is built?
>>>> They want a guaranteed (high) price for the electricity it produces?
>>>> Something else?
>>>>
>>>
>>> SSE say they don't need a "subsidy" but do need assurances on "revenue
>>> stabilisation" :)
>> Depending on which report you read, I think the clue may be it's not
>> viable unless the electricity it sells is at a premium price and the
>> electricity it buys is at near zero cost.
>
> the whole point of such schemes is to buy electricity at near zero & resell it
> at peak times at peak prices.
> As far as it helping the grid deal with peaks, it will a little but it's too
> small to make any great difference. We just don't have the necessary land
> available to do it on the scale that some countries have.

Likewise for biofuel.

--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network.

-- Tim Berners-Lee

On 3/22/2023 3:42 PM, alan_m wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 19:29, GB wrote:
>> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>> electrical demand.
>>
>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>>
>>
>
> But for how long?
>
>

The Saturn V output is 160,000,000 horsepower or 120,000,000 kilowatts.
Or 120GW or 120 nuclear reactors of 1GW output each.

The Saturn V probably does not run for an entire hour, so we
can't work out the total output in kilowatt*hours.

Using the Hoover dam as a metric, is a bit silly, because
the output has varied a bit over its history. Lake Meade is
low on water now, and apparently, they've even changed out
a few of the generators and changed the generator type.
At one time, Hoover may have had a nameplate rating of 2GW.

Paul

In message <tvfkvk$ok62$1@dont-email.me>, GB
<NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> writes
>On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>
>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>> electrical demand.
>
>That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>
I bet that caused a fair bit of global warming!
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

On 23/03/2023 00:38, Paul wrote:
> On 3/22/2023 3:42 PM, alan_m wrote:
>> On 22/03/2023 19:29, GB wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>>> electrical demand.
>>>
>>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But for how long?
>>
>>
>
> The Saturn V output is 160,000,000 horsepower or 120,000,000 kilowatts.
> Or 120GW or 120 nuclear reactors of 1GW output each.

>
> The Saturn V probably does not run for an entire hour, so we
> can't work out the total output in kilowatt*hours.

The three stage burn is approximately 11 minutes, but the first stage
with the lift engines are discarded at around 2.5 minutes.

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

Ian Jackson wrote:

> GB writes
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>> electrical demand.

The SpaceX Starship has about 1/3 the propellant of a SaturnV, and
they're hoping to launch three per day to fly stuff to Mars.

>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>
> I bet that caused a fair bit of global warming!

Do Tesla's reductions make up for SpaceX's increases?

On 23/03/2023 00:38, Paul wrote:
> On 3/22/2023 3:42 PM, alan_m wrote:
>> On 22/03/2023 19:29, GB wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>>> electrical demand.
>>>
>>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But for how long?
>>
>>
>
> The Saturn V output is 160,000,000 horsepower or 120,000,000 kilowatts.
> Or 120GW or 120 nuclear reactors of 1GW output each.
>
> The Saturn V probably does not run for an entire hour, so we
> can't work out the total output in kilowatt*hours.
>
> Using the Hoover dam as a metric, is a bit silly, because
> the output has varied a bit over its history. Lake Meade is
> low on water now, and apparently, they've even changed out
> a few of the generators and changed the generator type.
> At one time, Hoover may have had a nameplate rating of 2GW.
>
>    Paul
It still does.
BUT it cant be used very often on account of low water levels.

Interestingly people in the USA are stupid enough to believe that water
that is used to generate electricity cannot then be used for irrigation.

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

Dennis Miller

On 23/03/2023 07:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <tvfkvk$ok62$1@dont-email.me>, GB
> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> writes
>> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>> electrical demand.
>>
>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>>
> I bet that caused a fair bit of global warming!

Why would it?

It's just adding water to a saturated atmosphere. It will just rain.

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.