https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5a55a55a62bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he's means solar panels
that have a storage battery, so the daytime sun charges the
storage battery that then charges the car overnight. That allows
the car to be charged at a time when there is no sun.
On 12/12/2022 13:12, Bob Latham wrote:
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
He's Australian. When it's night there it's day here. All they need in a cable through the centre of the Earth.
(Hardly much less absurd than the idea we could get our electricity from solar panels and wind turbines in Morocco: https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-03/how-cables-2500-miles-long-could-bring-solar-power-from-morocco-to-uk-homes )
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:tn7f9d$27u7m$7@dont-email.me...
On 12/12/2022 13:12, Bob Latham wrote:
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
He's Australian. When it's night there it's day here. All they need in
a cable through the centre of the Earth.
(Hardly much less absurd than the idea we could get our electricity
from solar panels and wind turbines in Morocco:
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-03/how-cables-2500-miles-long-could-bring-solar-power-from-morocco-to-uk-homes )
Nah. Cables are old technology. Do it by wireless these days ;-)
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:12:45 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8I posted it to some contacts. First reply wants to know how to
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
connect the panel to the vehicle.
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
Scott wrote:
I posted it to some contacts. First reply wants to know how to
connect the panel to the vehicle.
No need. This one is covered with the blighters: <https://www.drive.com.au/news/solar-powered-electric-car-that-can-be-driven-for-months-without-charging-goes-on-sale>
Max Demian wrote:
Scott wrote:
I posted it to some contacts. First reply wants to know how to
connect the panel to the vehicle.
No need. This one is covered with the blighters:
<https://www.drive.com.au/news/solar-powered-electric-car-that-can-be-driven-for-months-without-charging-goes-on-sale>
Dave from EEVblog, who is pretty pro-solar (helps to live in Oz) is sceptical, calls it marketing wank.
<https://youtu.be/xIokNnjuam8>
On 12/12/2022 15:41, NY wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:tn7f9d$27u7m$7@dont-email.me...
On 12/12/2022 13:12, Bob Latham wrote:
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
He's Australian. When it's night there it's day here. All they need
in a cable through the centre of the Earth.
(Hardly much less absurd than the idea we could get our electricity
from solar panels and wind turbines in Morocco:
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-03/how-cables-2500-miles-long-could-bring-solar-power-from-morocco-to-uk-homes )
Nah. Cables are old technology. Do it by wireless these days ;-)
That was Tesla's idea. Didn't quite work out.
an EV would cost £3,752 a year over the course of its life, compared to £3,858
for an ICE car, resulting in an annual savings of £106 ($132) per year."
... etc, etc. Like it or not, they're here to stay, and probably will become
the norm.
Java Jive wrote:
an EV would cost £3,752 a year over the course of its life, compared
to £3,858 for an ICE car, resulting in an annual savings of £106
($132) per year."
Wow, a saving of just over one tank of petrol, and how much do you
calculate the cost of the range anxiety?
... etc, etc. Like it or not, they're here to stay, and probably will
become the norm.
They probably are, certainly not for me yet.
As I said, dave likes EVs generally, he has one and "fills it" from his
solar panels at home, just that he shows it doesn't really make sense so
try and drag the solar panels around with you.
"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message >news:5a55a55a62bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he's means solar panels that have >a storage battery, so the daytime sun charges the storage battery that then >charges the car overnight. That allows the car to be charged at a time when >there is no sun.
On 12/12/2022 16:21, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:12:45 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8I posted it to some contacts. First reply wants to know how to
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
connect the panel to the vehicle.
No need. This one is covered with the blighters: >https://www.drive.com.au/news/solar-powered-electric-car-that-can-be-driven-for-months-without-charging-goes-on-sale/
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:52:52 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5a55a55a62bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he's means solar panels that have >> a storage battery, so the daytime sun charges the storage battery that then >> charges the car overnight. That allows the car to be charged at a time when >> there is no sun.
For that you'd need another battery with at least the same capacity as
the battery in your car.
It would presumably also have a similar cost, and like everything else
it would not be 100% efficient. Electric cars look more expensive the
closer you look at the details.
Rod.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:52:52 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
For that you'd need another battery with at least the same capacity as
the battery in your car.
It would presumably also have a similar cost, and like everything else
it would not be 100% efficient. Electric cars look more expensive the
closer you look at the details.
Java Jive wrote:
an EV would cost £3,752 a year over the course of its life, compared
to £3,858 for an ICE car, resulting in an annual savings of £106
($132) per year."
Wow, a saving of just over one tank of petrol, and how much do you
calculate the cost of the range anxiety?
People tend to over estimate what solar panels can produce. We have 10
large panels covering a fair chunk of our house roof. In winter they
produce nowhere near enough energy to cover our house demands and in summer probably produce double the domestic requirement. The idea that there’s a huge surplus to power a car seems unlikely, unless you don’t use that car very much.
My installation also has a 9kWhr battery. Over winter it’s main use is to charge up on cheap Economy 7 electricity at night and to power the house
off this charge during the day. That battery alone costs £4500, so you can see why electric cars are so expensive. It also weighs 110 kg.
People tend to over estimate what solar panels can produce.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 18:17:48 +0000, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 12/12/2022 16:21, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:12:45 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8I posted it to some contacts. First reply wants to know how to
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
connect the panel to the vehicle.
No need. This one is covered with the blighters: >https://www.drive.com.au/news/solar-powered-electric-car-that-can-be-driven-for-months-without-charging-goes-on-sale/
A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is
rreckoned to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun
over an area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an
area of 1 suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),
and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge. If any of
these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They really ought
to do the science before the marketing.
On 13/12/2022 08:37, Tweed wrote:
People tend to over estimate what solar panels can produce. We have 10
large panels covering a fair chunk of our house roof. In winter they
produce nowhere near enough energy to cover our house demands and in summer >> probably produce double the domestic requirement. The idea that there’s a >> huge surplus to power a car seems unlikely, unless you don’t use that car >> very much.
My installation also has a 9kWhr battery. Over winter it’s main use is to >> charge up on cheap Economy 7 electricity at night and to power the house
off this charge during the day. That battery alone costs £4500, so you can >> see why electric cars are so expensive. It also weighs 110 kg.
Have you done all the calculations to give you a pay-back time? If so,
how long will it take before it has been worthwhile?
And what is the expected lifespan of the battery?
On 13/12/2022 09:07, charles wrote:
In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is
rreckoned to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun
over an area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an
area of 1 suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),
and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge. If any of
these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They really ought
to do the science before the marketing.
basic arithmetic more like
IIRC, solar panels were integrated into more or less the entire outer surfaces of the car, and its light weight and aero-dynamic styling means
that it can go a long way on not much electricity.
Perhaps you ought to watch the programme before claiming to have done
the science?
In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is
rreckoned to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun
over an area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an
area of 1 suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),
and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge. If any of
these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They really ought
to do the science before the marketing.
basic arithmetic more like
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, solar panels were integrated into more or less the entire outer
surfaces of the car, and its light weight and aero-dynamic styling means
that it can go a long way on not much electricity.
Perhaps you ought to watch the programme before claiming to have done
the science?
Short day lengths and clouds are killers for solar power. I know from
direct experience of my 10 panels on my roof.
On 13/12/2022 13:41, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, solar panels were integrated into more or less the entire outer
surfaces of the car, and its light weight and aero-dynamic styling means >>> that it can go a long way on not much electricity.
Perhaps you ought to watch the programme before claiming to have done
the science?
Short day lengths and clouds are killers for solar power. I know from
direct experience of my 10 panels on my roof.
But how long ago were yours installed? Solar panels are a still an
evolving and improving technology, and, though I can't remember details
now, I know that I have heard programmes over the last year or so
concerning significant improvements to it, and this is borne out by the
fact that a quick count of references to it in my download history finds about 15 science programmes.
On 13/12/2022 14:09, Java Jive wrote:
But how long ago were yours installed? Solar panels are a still an
evolving and improving technology, and, though I can't remember
Day lengths and cloud cover are multipliers. Efficiency may have
improved, but the ability to extract energy when there is no solar input hasn't.
I think current efficiencies are around 25% for silicon cells (which incidentally means the maximum output is around 250 watts/square metre,
not 1kW).
You can get a bit better by using two layers, with different materials,
to extract energy from a wider range of wavelengths, but even silicon is within about a factor of four of the conservation of energy limit, and
there may be thermodynamic or other considerations, that mean total conversion is impossible.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211401048X> suggests (in the conclusion) that single layer systems cannot go better
than 33.3% at room temperature. This is also backed up by <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit>, which
notes that even an ideal multi-layer device is limited to 68.7%. Both assume the capture area is the same as the array area.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency#/media/File:Best-research-cell-efficiencies-rev220126_pages-to-jpg-0001.jpg>
gives efficiencies over time and technology. Silicon cells have roughly doubled in efficiency since first introduced.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 13/12/2022 13:41, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, solar panels were integrated into more or less the entire outer
surfaces of the car, and its light weight and aero-dynamic styling means >>>> that it can go a long way on not much electricity.
Perhaps you ought to watch the programme before claiming to have done
the science?
Short day lengths and clouds are killers for solar power. I know from
direct experience of my 10 panels on my roof.
But how long ago were yours installed? Solar panels are a still an
evolving and improving technology, and, though I can't remember details
now, I know that I have heard programmes over the last year or so
concerning significant improvements to it, and this is borne out by the
fact that a quick count of references to it in my download history finds
about 15 science programmes.
They were installed in October this year.
You can’t really improve over
short days, low sun angle and clouds.
In article <tn7bn9$282bc$1@dont-email.me>,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5a55a55a62bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he's means solar panels
that have a storage battery, so the daytime sun charges the
storage battery that then charges the car overnight. That allows
the car to be charged at a time when there is no sun.
I love optimists. ;-)
Bob.
On 13/12/2022 16:14, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 13/12/2022 13:41, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, solar panels were integrated into more or less the entire outer >>>>> surfaces of the car, and its light weight and aero-dynamic styling means >>>>> that it can go a long way on not much electricity.
Perhaps you ought to watch the programme before claiming to have done >>>>> the science?
Short day lengths and clouds are killers for solar power. I know from
direct experience of my 10 panels on my roof.
But how long ago were yours installed? Solar panels are a still an
evolving and improving technology, and, though I can't remember details
now, I know that I have heard programmes over the last year or so
concerning significant improvements to it, and this is borne out by the
fact that a quick count of references to it in my download history finds >>> about 15 science programmes.
They were installed in October this year.
Hopefully then they are higher efficiency than they might have been if installed, say, five or more years ago, though, of course, they could
still be of an older and less efficient design. Nevertheless, I'm happy
to accept your opinion based on them.
You can’t really improve over
short days, low sun angle and clouds.
No.
Perhaps when I have time I'll try to see if I can find out any hard
figures on the car's performance.
BTW, if you didn't watch it, the program I linked is still worth
watching, aside from this debating point.
On 13/12/2022 09:07, charles wrote:
In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is
rreckoned to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun
over an area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an
area of 1 suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),
and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge. If any of
these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They really ought
to do the science before the marketing.
basic arithmetic more like
IIRC, solar panels were integrated into more or less the entire outer >surfaces of the car, and its light weight and aero-dynamic styling means
that it can go a long way on not much electricity.
Perhaps you ought to watch the programme before claiming to have done
the science?
On 12/12/2022 13:12, Bob Latham wrote:
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
He's Australian. When it's night there it's day here. All they need in a cable through the centre of the Earth.
(Hardly much less absurd than the idea we could get our electricity from solar panels and wind turbines in Morocco: https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-03/how-cables-2500-miles-long-could-bring-solar-power-from-morocco-to-uk-homes
)
On 12/12/2022 20:00, Java Jive wrote:
I had the same anxiety with a petrol car in Scotland in the 80s when
doing the North Coast Route on a Sunday.
Very specific set of circumstances there!
And you could have put a jerry
can full in the boot.
I had the same anxiety with a petrol car in Scotland in the 80s when
doing the North Coast Route on a Sunday.
NY wrote:
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he's means solar panels that have >> a storage battery, so the daytime sun charges the storage battery that then >> charges the car overnight. That allows the car to be charged at a time when >> there is no sun.
For that you'd need another battery with at least the same capacity as
the battery in your car.
I know hat we need a clockwork car.
Brian
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known
that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and
bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably
wouldn't have been enough anyway.
Roderick Stewart wrote:
For that you'd need another battery with at least the same
capacity as the battery in your car.
Can't see it'd need to be that big, why have a house battery bigger
than the kWh your panels can generate on their best day, if you're
just dumping it into the car after sundown?
There is no point in having a house battery that has a storage
capacity greater than what can be charged from the panels in 24 hours
if that is the fixed pattern of usage. However, it may be that using
the weekend (or similar) to give a once a week extra charge might
help if the battery was large enough.
The cost of this though would be very high. Second hand electric cars
are a dodgy buy due to the battery replacement cost which many think
are unviable.
Then how do you transfer the energy from one battery to another?
I presume the house battery would need to be a higher voltage than
the car battery. then some sort of regulator.
Imagine being in a electric car stuck on a motorway in snow and ice.
How are people going to keep warm?
We don't yet know how many people will die due to the cost of heating
their homes this year. We may never know, it will be hidden by
the 700+ excess none covid deaths we have every month now which the
media ignore. It doesn't match a narrative.
On 14/12/2022 08:58, Bob Latham wrote:
There is no point in having a house battery that has a storage
capacity greater than what can be charged from the panels in 24 hours
if that is the fixed pattern of usage. However, it may be that using
the weekend (or similar) to give a once a week extra charge might
help if the battery was large enough.
I suppose you need to calculate whether the cost of the extra storage
would be less than just taking peak demand from the grid.
It could be said that with the lack of resilience of the grid because of
its dependence on wind, it would be useful to have some independence but
it is likely to be needed at times when you might not be getting much
from solar.
On 12/12/2022 01:12 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
https://youtu.be/vyS9uqRLbB8
I'd not seen this until today, I think it was a while back but...
Heaven help us all. :-(
:-)
"Solar panels, on the roof, charging your vehicle overnight. That's what
[the future] looks like".
Utterly brilliant. Why didn't anyone else think of it?
On 13/12/2022 16:48, Brian Gaff wrote:
I know hat we need a clockwork car.
I saw something yesterday that seemed to be as small as C5, don't think
it was but wondered what it might be?
Yes brilliant, It rates with the Irish suggestion of to stop the traffic problems associated to road works, they propose to start doing them from underneath.
The Helicopter ejector seat was down to a similar out of the box thinking individual.
I guess in the US the Irish are replaced by Poles and although this suggestion is politically incorrect apparently, why is it that its the Irish who seem to tell them?
On 14/12/2022 08:58, Bob Latham wrote:
Then how do you transfer the energy from one battery to another?
I presume the house battery would need to be a higher voltage than
the car battery. then some sort of regulator.
The voltages can go either way, and that is also what you will get
in a mobile phone power bank. In the latter, typically a nominal
3.6V battery will be boost regulated up to 5V (or even more), in
the power bank, then buck regulated down to the current charging
battery voltage (which can vary from the low 3s, to about 4.2V
during the course of the charge.
The second regulation step is necessary for efficiency, as just
dumping the excess as heat would be wasteful.
In language I understand, you mean you would use an inverter to get
to a higher voltage as part of a DC to DC converter?
How the would we know?
Yes brilliant, It rates with the Irish suggestion of to stop the traffic problems associated to road works, they propose to start doing them from underneath.
As I said, dave likes EVs generally, he has one and "fills it" from his
solar panels at home, just that he shows it doesn't really make sense
so try and drag the solar panels around with you.
A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is rreckoned
to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun over an
area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an area of 1
suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),
and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge.
If any of these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They
really ought to do the science before the marketing.
It featured on a recent issue of 'The Secret Genius of Modern Life' ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001f7y1
... which is worth watching, not least because Hannah Fry managed to hit
the kerb while driving it! IIRC, the designer compared his strategy to Tesla's - make a high-end expensive sporty model first, then use the profits from that and economies of scale to produce a mainstream car.
But how long ago were yours installed? Solar panels are a still an
evolving and improving technology, and, though I can't remember details
now, I know that I have heard programmes over the last year or so
concerning significant improvements to it, and this is borne out by the
fact that a quick count of references to it in my download history finds about 15 science programmes.
In article <jvpekuF6tgoU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
As I said, dave likes EVs generally, he has one and "fills it" from his
solar panels at home, just that he shows it doesn't really make sense
so try and drag the solar panels around with you.
You seem to be assuming the panels will always be bulky, costly, etc. They won't. In effect they'll simply develop into having a dual role as part of the 'skin' of the car and add no real weight or drag. Conversion efficiency will also rise as new cell tech gets developed.
In essence they will be the skin of the surface. And the point of having
it there is that it will enable longer trips/times between static rechargings. Because, when driving or parked on the street, it may be able
to do some recharging from available light.
Simply a matter of time.
Jim
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-03/how-cables-2500-miles-long-could-bring-solar-power-from-morocco-to-uk-homes
)
Silly idea. Much better to charge a load of batteries in Morocco and transport them to the UK.
Electric ships could use the same batteries to
power the engines.
In article <jvs0nuFivgfU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
For that you'd need another battery with at least the same capacity
as the battery in your car.
Can't see it'd need to be that big, why have a house battery bigger
than the kWh your panels can generate on their best day, if you're
just dumping it into the car after sundown?
There is no point in having a house battery that has a storage capacity greater than what can be charged from the panels in 24 hours if that is
the fixed pattern of usage. However, it may be that using the weekend
(or similar) to give a once a week extra charge might help if the
battery was large enough.
We don't yet know how many people will die due to the cost of heating
their homes this year. We may never know,
I have a solar and battery system. In winter any solar generation is a
bonus. I fill my battery up over night on Economy 7 and then use it
during the day. This removes my house from any of the peak demand
periods that the grid appears to worry about satisfying. It also
effectively gives me half price day time electricity. There's some sun
out right now, first time for days, so my battery is being topped up at
the moment. If it becomes full I'll start to export to the grid. Happily
my export rate just about matches my E7 import rate, so it all sorts
itself out to give me the minimum cost without much thought or
intervention.
Short day lengths and clouds are killers for solar power. I know from
direct experience of my 10 panels on my roof.
In article <tncfq5$2pspj$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a solar and battery system. In winter any solar generation is a
bonus. I fill my battery up over night on Economy 7 and then use it
during the day. This removes my house from any of the peak demand
periods that the grid appears to worry about satisfying. It also
effectively gives me half price day time electricity. There's some sun
out right now, first time for days, so my battery is being topped up at
the moment. If it becomes full I'll start to export to the grid. Happily
my export rate just about matches my E7 import rate, so it all sorts
itself out to give me the minimum cost without much thought or
intervention.
What is the capacity, size, etc of your system?
I've been wondering about a house battery and switching to taking in the energy in a similar way. I need to change out heating system sometime soon, and suspect it makes sense in the long term to go electric, not just dupe gas.
Jim
Interconnectors going long distances are now a routine part of of how we shift energy from place to place.
On 14/12/2022 13:07, Max Demian wrote:
How the would we know?
Some here seem to consider themselves experts on everything (usually an indication someone is drunk).
I thought someone sober might have seen something matching my
description that could explain what on earth it was.
I saw something yesterday that seemed to be as small as C5, don't think it was
but wondered what it might be?
Clive's nephew is trying to reincarnate the idea
That may well be. Shame the UK Gov is preferring to 'loan' us some ('discounts' on paying for energy rather than deploying a serious
'windfall tax' to claw back the money.*
This may turn out to be the coldest December for decades and we have
people unable to afford their heating because some religious people
with a very unproven theory, say we're burning up. Those same people
insist we get our energy only from sources that don't work when we
need them most.
No Putin isn't the cause, he's just a catalyst. We don't have a
climate crisis, we have a common sense crisis. All civilisations
eventually die by their own decadent, self indulgent hand we're well
on the way..
In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is rreckoned
to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun over an
area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an area of 1
suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),
You are also assuming only a patch on the roof will become solar panel.
Makes more sense to use far more of the surface. That also means some can
be tilted so catch more sun when that isn't high in the sky.
and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge.
cf the above. :->
If any of these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They
really ought to do the science before the marketing.
You might also look more into this before making unereliable assumptions.
:-)
And the point isn't to totally replace fixed-point recharging. It is to
give longer use times/distances between them - sometimes quite significant >ones.
Jim
MB wrote:
I saw something yesterday that seemed to be as small as C5, don't think it was
but wondered what it might be?
Clive's nephew is trying to reincarnate the idea
<https://www.grantsinclair.com/product-page/iris-etrike-electric-vehicle>
Given that we'll be moving over to vehicles that use electric motors and >store energy in a battery it seems obvious that it makes sense to also have >solar panels on the surfaces. Simply because they give when they can and
are just part of the surface when they don't.[...]
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:12:31 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is
rreckoned to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun
over an area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an
area of 1 suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),
You are also assuming only a patch on the roof will become solar panel. >Makes more sense to use far more of the surface. That also means some
can be tilted so catch more sun when that isn't high in the sky.
and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge.
cf the above. :->
If any of these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They
really ought to do the science before the marketing.
You might also look more into this before making unereliable assumptions. >:-)
And the point isn't to totally replace fixed-point recharging. It is to >give longer use times/distances between them - sometimes quite
significant ones.
Jim
It's not an assumption at all, unreliable or otherwise. It's a simple observation that even if we cover our cars with solar panels there is an absolute maximum energy rate that we could ever theoretically attain, and because it's related to the size of the car (or to be precise the area
that it presents to the Sun), no amount of technological development will ever exceed it.
Attainable levels of solar power might might one day be capable of enough assistance that the fuel saving exceeds the extra cost, but will never be sufficient to be the sole energy source to drive a car anywhere in the UK
in all weathers as we can with combustible fuel. Efficiency only goes up
to 100% (and asymptotically at best) but after that there is no magic.
Rod.
In article <m4cophpvjtonb9ukgpja5ejlrm75cqshjf@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:12:31 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
If any of these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They
really ought to do the science before the marketing.
You might also look more into this before making unereliable assumptions. >>> :-)
And the point isn't to totally replace fixed-point recharging. It is to
give longer use times/distances between them - sometimes quite
significant ones.
It's not an assumption at all, unreliable or otherwise. It's a simple
observation that even if we cover our cars with solar panels there is an
absolute maximum energy rate that we could ever theoretically attain, and
because it's related to the size of the car (or to be precise the area
that it presents to the Sun), no amount of technological development will
ever exceed it.
but, convenience usually haa a cost. I you can get an extra 100 miles of range in summer, it could well be worth paying for. Certainly my longer dstance driving tends to be done in summer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001f7y1
... and I really don't see why people didn't bother to watch it before making exaggerated claims for or against.
Andy Burns wrote:
Clive's nephew is trying to reincarnate the idea
<https://www.grantsinclair.com/product-page/iris-etrike-electric-vehicle>
If he is, he clearly hasn't learnt anything from the public response
to the original.
Then how do you transfer the energy from one battery to another?
In language I understand, you mean you would use an inverter to get
to a higher voltage as part of a DC to DC converter?
Given that we'll be moving over to vehicles that use electric motors and store energy in a battery it seems obvious that it makes sense to also have solar panels on the surfaces. Simply because they give when they can and
are just part of the surface when they don't.
In the immediate future, most people will be using electric cars for
short commuting travel, so by definition they shouldn't be getting stuck
in the snow miles from anywhere.
In article <tn9vdq$2h8j0$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
Short day lengths and clouds are killers for solar power. I know from
direct experience of my 10 panels on my roof.
I assume the world market for such cars may extent to a few places outwith the UK.
And the point of the solar panels on the car is to 'enhance' range, etc.
Not to always entirely replace static recharging.
Jim
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known
that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and
bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably
wouldn't have been enough anyway.
In article <jvrr0lFhvvsU1@mid.individual.net>, William Wright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-03/how-cables-2500-miles-long-could-bring-solar-power-from-morocco-to-uk-homes
)
Silly idea. Much better to charge a load of batteries in Morocco and
transport them to the UK.
The advantage of a cable is that once in place it goes on supplying with little in the way of running costs compared to carrying large batteries
about over the seas. Also someone quicker in responding to variations in demand or supply.
Interconnectors going long distances are now a routine part of of how we shift energy from place to place.
Electric ships could use the same batteries to
power the engines.
...thus eating up what they might wish to sell. But, yes, in principle. However I suspect the losses of HVDC interconnections are rather lower.
Jim
On 13/12/2022 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known
that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and
bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably
wouldn't have been enough anyway.
Jerry cans hold five gallons.
On 14/12/2022 12:11, Java Jive wrote:
In the immediate future, most people will be using electric cars for
short commuting travel, so by definition they shouldn't be getting
stuck in the snow miles from anywhere.
Many short journeys are by motorway, and people do get stuck. It seems
to happen quite a lot round here. A lot of people commute into Sheffield
via Parkway/M1/M18 and in my personal experience they can get stuck.
It's 14 miles from my village to Sheff centre. That's quite a reasonable commute, and lots do it, using the Parkway/M1/M18 route.
On 15/12/2022 10:13, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tn9vdq$2h8j0$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
Short day lengths and clouds are killers for solar power. I know from
direct experience of my 10 panels on my roof.
I assume the world market for such cars may extent to a few places
outwith
the UK.
And the point of the solar panels on the car is to 'enhance' range, etc.
Not to always entirely replace static recharging.
A better idea would be to mount windmills on the car roof. There's
always a lot of air going past when you drive fast.
On 13/12/2022 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known
that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and
bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably wouldn't have been enough anyway.
Jerry cans hold five gallons.
Bill
On 13/12/2022 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known
that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and
bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably wouldn't have been enough anyway.
Jerry cans hold five gallons.
William Wright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 13/12/2022 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known
that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably wouldn't have been enough anyway.
Jerry cans hold five gallons.
Jerry cans come in all sorts of different sizes, I have both 10 litre
and 20 litre ones. I think 20 litre ones are the commonest and that's
not five gallons, it's somewhat less.
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to carry that much petrol in cans in a
car, I think the maximum is two 5 litre cans. It's OK for diesel
though.
In article <3le07j-5s0k1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>,
Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
William Wright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 13/12/2022 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably wouldn't have been enough anyway.
Jerry cans hold five gallons.
Jerry cans come in all sorts of different sizes, I have both 10 litre
and 20 litre ones. I think 20 litre ones are the commonest and that's
not five gallons, it's somewhat less.
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to carry that much petrol in cans in a
car, I think the maximum is two 5 litre cans. It's OK for diesel
though.
I think that limit only applies to plastic cans. Metal cans can be bigger.
On 15/12/2022 10:13, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tn9vdq$2h8j0$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
Short day lengths and clouds are killers for solar power. I know from
direct experience of my 10 panels on my roof.
I assume the world market for such cars may extent to a few places
outwith
the UK.
And the point of the solar panels on the car is to 'enhance' range, etc.
Not to always entirely replace static recharging.
A better idea would be to mount windmills on the car roof. There's
always a lot of air going past when you drive fast.
On 16/12/2022 22:41, William Wright wrote:
On 13/12/2022 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known
that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and
bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably
wouldn't have been enough anyway.
Jerry cans hold five gallons.The sort of 'can' (of plastic) you can buy in filling station forecourts holds 1 gallon.
On 16/12/2022 22:45, William Wright wrote:
A better idea would be to mount windmills on the car roof. There'sA better idea still would be to put you on the car roof, and drive it by
always a lot of air going past when you drive fast.
jet propulsion from all that hot air ...
On 16/12/2022 23:06, William Wright wrote:
On 14/12/2022 12:11, Java Jive wrote:
In the immediate future, most people will be using electric cars for
short commuting travel, so by definition they shouldn't be getting
stuck in the snow miles from anywhere.
Many short journeys are by motorway, and people do get stuck. It seems
to happen quite a lot round here. A lot of people commute into Sheffield via Parkway/M1/M18 and in my personal experience they can get stuck.
It's 14 miles from my village to Sheff centre. That's quite a reasonable commute, and lots do it, using the Parkway/M1/M18 route.So by definition they shouldn't be getting stuck in the snow miles from anywhere.
Getting stuck in the snow means you're stuck in the snow. You can't walk far.
On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:12:35 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
On 16/12/2022 23:06, William Wright wrote:
It's 14 miles from my village to Sheff centre. That's quite a reasonable >>> commute, and lots do it, using the Parkway/M1/M18 route.
So by definition they shouldn't be getting stuck in the snow miles from
anywhere.
Getting stuck in the snow means you're stuck in the snow. You can't walk far. It can be dangerous to set off.
On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:14:29 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
On 16/12/2022 22:41, William Wright wrote:
On 13/12/2022 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known
that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and
bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably
wouldn't have been enough anyway.
Jerry cans hold five gallons.The sort of 'can' (of plastic) you can buy in filling station forecourts holds 1 gallon.
Jerry cans (which is what you mentioned) hold five gallons. They fit nicely in the boot.
On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:14:29 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
On 16/12/2022 22:41, William Wright wrote:
The sort of 'can' (of plastic) you can buy in filling station forecourts
On 13/12/2022 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
That's like saying that I could also have been clairvoyant and known
that all the filling stations would have been closed on Sunday, and
bought a jerry can before setting out, when a single gallon probably
wouldn't have been enough anyway.
Jerry cans hold five gallons.
holds 1 gallon.
Jerry cans (which is what you mentioned)
On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:11 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
On 16/12/2022 22:45, William Wright wrote:
A better idea would be to mount windmills on the car roof. There's
always a lot of air going past when you drive fast.
A better idea still would be to put you on the car roof, and drive it by
jet propulsion from all that hot air ...
Do you mean my farts? If so lighting them might add a bit of thrust.
**Some** jerry cans hold 20 litres, which is somewhat less than 5
gallons. Not all jerry cans hold that much.
What are "Americans" and "Blitz cans" - "Container, liquid, 5-gallon, Specification No. TAC ES-No, 772B"?
No, *you* mentioned jerry cans first of all, I've only ever had a spare gallon in a car.
* Also shameful that they seem *still* to have not changed the Balancing Mechanism which causes the price of electric energy to be far higher than
it need be in the UK at present.
A lot of people commute into Sheffield via Parkway/M1/M18
The excess profits it now gives renewables have been tackled by Contracts for Difference for newer plant. They make generators to pay if prices are high. But you can't impose CfD's on non-CfD plant. At least, you can't if you intend
to work within the law.
The excess profits it now gives renewables have been tackled by
Contracts for Difference for newer plant.
Robin wrote:
The excess profits it now gives renewables have been tackled by
Contracts for Difference for newer plant. They make generators to pay
if prices are high. But you can't impose CfD's on non-CfD plant. At
least, you can't if you intend to work within the law.
If you're .gov.uk, you could if you wanted to surely? ...
Java Jive wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001f7y1 ... and I really don't see
why people didn't bother to watch it before making exaggerated claims
for or against.
It's not an earth-shattering programme is it? Schoolboy physics, plus inventions that we've all been aware of as they came along over the last 20-odd years, plus a clever/fanciable presenter ...
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <tncfq5$2pspj$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
4kWp panel installation. 9.5kWhr battery. kWp seems to be akin to music
power as a unit of measurement. The best I've seen so far is 3kW in the sunniest day, but they've only been in since October so I've yet to see
the effect of higher sun angles.
Note when the battery is supplying the house the best it can manage is
2.6kW, so if you have the oven and washing machine (for example) on at
once power will be taken from the grid to make up the short fall. Once
you have more panels than this you need a more complex process to get authorisation from the local electricity supplier, which may or may not
be given. Up to this level there appears to be an assumption that the distribution network can cope with you sending power to it.
Beyond that they need to make sure you don't cause over voltage
conditions for your neighbours. I'm not convinced that solar PV panels
are a viable way of providing heating though. You'd need a heat pump,
and of course you have little solar power and low external temperatures
just when heat is needed. Air source heat pumps fall to an efficiency of
just 200% once it gets cold outside. The 400% figures quoted need it to
be warmer outside, again another music power figure.
In article <5a5721d2e5noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
That may well be. Shame the UK Gov is preferring to 'loan' us some ('discounts' on paying for energy rather than deploying a serious
'windfall tax' to claw back the money.*
Oh I can of course see that argument but it will mean that private
investors in the energy market will be reluctant to invest when they
learn that if they make a good profit on their investment along will
come the tax man with a new "one off" tax.
Bob.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:00:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
Given that we'll be moving over to vehicles that use electric motors
and store energy in a battery it seems obvious that it makes sense to
also have solar panels on the surfaces. Simply because they give when
they can and are just part of the surface when they don't.[...]
And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to one
of the solar panels results in a short circuit.
A better idea would be to mount windmills on the car roof. There's
always a lot of air going past when you drive fast.
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Given that we'll be moving over to vehicles that use electric motors
and store energy in a battery it seems obvious that it makes sense to
also have solar panels on the surfaces. Simply because they give when
they can and are just part of the surface when they don't.
But not when the car with panels costs 200,000 more than one without
The world can probably do without another Elon Musk-alike
On 15/12/2022 10:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Interconnectors going long distances are now a routine part of of how
we shift energy from place to place.
And, in Ukraine, a routine target for Russian guided weapons, not that
ships would be much easier to defend now they can be tracked by
satellites.
In article <tnev96$32sm4$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <tncfq5$2pspj$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
4kWp panel installation. 9.5kWhr battery. kWp seems to be akin to music
power as a unit of measurement. The best I've seen so far is 3kW in the
sunniest day, but they've only been in since October so I've yet to see
the effect of higher sun angles.
I'd assume the 4kW is in optimum conditions, so the peak. Given that 3kW seems reasonable for in-practice 'on occasion' I guess. No surprise that a 'capacity' value should be somewhat more than 'typical'. However for myself I'm not thinking of solar panels soon, but having a house battery to get (some) cheaper electric at off-peak/night and a buffer against power cuts.
Note when the battery is supplying the house the best it can manage is
2.6kW, so if you have the oven and washing machine (for example) on at
once power will be taken from the grid to make up the short fall. Once
you have more panels than this you need a more complex process to get
authorisation from the local electricity supplier, which may or may not
be given. Up to this level there appears to be an assumption that the
distribution network can cope with you sending power to it.
Again, I'm not really thinking of 'exporting' again. I would hope that any 'export' value can be set at a level of, say, 2.6kW, and this be quite separate from being able to charge or be used in-house at higher powers. Which would avoid the implied extra malarky above.
Beyond that they need to make sure you don't cause over voltage
conditions for your neighbours. I'm not convinced that solar PV panels
are a viable way of providing heating though. You'd need a heat pump,
and of course you have little solar power and low external temperatures
just when heat is needed. Air source heat pumps fall to an efficiency of
just 200% once it gets cold outside. The 400% figures quoted need it to
be warmer outside, again another music power figure.
I'd agree. That's why at present I'm not thinking of panels or a heat pump. One step at a time...
Jim
I can assure you companies /do/ have rights under the ECHR and HRA.
Robin wrote:
I can assure you companies /do/ have rights under the ECHR and HRA.
Companies are "Legal Persons" rather than "Natural
Persons", aren't they? So in what way are they "Human"?
In article <dpbophlq3k2rg5bautod8j2qalei8nsj5g@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:00:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
Given that we'll be moving over to vehicles that use electric motors
and store energy in a battery it seems obvious that it makes sense to
also have solar panels on the surfaces. Simply because they give when
they can and are just part of the surface when they don't.[...]
And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to one
of the solar panels results in a short circuit.
Fortunately, petrol/diesel cars never catch fire in a collision....
erm....
Jim
I think you need quite a serious collision to make a vehicle catch
fire, whereas a vehicle covered with solar panels would effectively
have electrical connections all over its surface, where a slight dent
could cause a short circuit.
It should be no surprise that early examples of a tchnology should be
costly and have limited performance. But as time passes, things get
improved in performance and tend to fall in cost as their market size expands. This is now starting to happen.
Yes. One possible advantage of HVDC cable is that it can be buried underground. Which makes it a harder target for drone/missile attack. As
well as leaving the surface area useable for other purposes. Cost more to install, of course.
On 18/12/2022 10:12, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Yes. One possible advantage of HVDC cable is that it can be buried
underground. Which makes it a harder target for drone/missile attack. As
well as leaving the surface area useable for other purposes. Cost more to
install, of course.
I can't remember the figures but on a HV course we were told the
equivalent in tons TNT to a HV cable. There is potentially going to be
big bang!
The route of the cables are clearly marked and probably not difficult to detect from the air. I don't theink they ae buried very deep though in ducts.
But it costs so much to run HV cable underground that most of the run
will be overhead.
I thought it was just a development model and not going into production.
And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to one
of the solar panels results in a short circuit.
Fortunately, petrol/diesel cars never catch fire in a collision....
erm....
It should be no surprise that early examples of a tchnology should be
costly and have limited performance. But as time passes, things get
improved in performance and tend to fall in cost as their market size expands. This is now starting to happen.
Andy Burns wrote:
The world can probably do without another Elon Musk-alike
Indeed. Have you watched the programme?
It should be no surprise that early examples of a tchnology should be
costly and have limited performance. But as time passes, things get
improved in performance and tend to fall in cost as their market size expands. This is now starting to happen.
The sort of people who can spend 1/4 million on a car, don't tend to drive under
6,000 miles a year.
If it is already known that mining of lithium involves unfair
exploitation of the workers could all the EV companies be guilty of
breaking modern slavery legislation if they sell EVs in the UK?
On 18/12/2022 16:14, Andy Burns wrote:
Robin wrote:
The excess profits it now gives renewables have been tackled by
Contracts for Difference for newer plant. They make generators to
pay if prices are high. But you can't impose CfD's on non-CfD plant.
At least, you can't if you intend to work within the law.
If you're .gov.uk, you could if you wanted to surely? ...
Jim in past posts has indicated he thinks so. I think I've indicated
before that I'd like to see the legal advice that companies would not
win a legal challenge. (And for any who doubt it, I can assure you
companies /do/ have rights under the ECHR and HRA.)
What the government has pursued are changes to the market as a whole.
The Energy Prices Act 2022 (Royal Assent on 25/10/22) provided for HMG
to /offer/ CfD to existing generators and to charge generators getting "supernormal" profits. Jim et al may think that too little too late but
it's notable that the EU struggled to revise its energy market which similarly relied on marginal pricing. -
I think you probably have in mind marginal pricing under which, broadly speaking, the most expensive supply sets the price for the whole market.
That is the approach that was adopted by most electricity markets in
Europe as efficiency, transparent and a way to encourage low-cost
generation. Ed the bacon-eater was all for it to encourage renewables.
The excess profits it now gives renewables have been tackled by
Contracts for Difference for newer plant. They make generators to pay
if prices are high. But you can't impose CfD's on non-CfD plant. At
least, you can't if you intend to work within the law.
On 18/12/2022 10:21, Jim Lesurf wrote:
And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to one >>> of the solar panels results in a short circuit.
Fortunately, petrol/diesel cars never catch fire in a collision....
erm....
Its not the solar panels that are necessarily the main risk in a major
crash of a EV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQZ6lTefEYs
The point is that contracts on a level that impact on the National
level like this may need to have arrangements for when there is an
Act of War. Or be pre-empted by Gov on that basis.
In article <5a592d5eadnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The point is that contracts on a level that impact on the National
level like this may need to have arrangements for when there is an
Act of War. Or be pre-empted by Gov on that basis.
I presume the war you're referring to is Putin? Putin is/was a
predictable issue and Trump did just that, he told the Germans what
would happen, he was right.
The act of war was really pressure groups and activists getting our
own energy sources and storage destroyed to the serious detriment of
the country.
We now have the insane situation where not only wood chip but now
fracked gas is transported by CO2 producing ships across the
Atlantic. The last two weeks we've seen yet again how unreliables are
useless when you need them most.
We have a shortage of gas that people need for 23 million gas boilers
in people's homes and our generators need for electricity. The cost
of energy is so high people are cold in their homes with no heating.
A monument to utter and pointless stupidity.
Under these conditions Sunak's decision not to frack is for me
criminal. Perhaps he's not happy they've killed enough people with
lockdowns.
Bob.
FALSE!
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand
I also don’t understand the hostility to renewables. Setting the eco arguments to one side for a moment, what is wrong with using renewables
when they are available and just firing up your thermal plant for those relatively short periods when renewables can’t provide?
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
I also don’t understand the hostility to renewables. Setting the eco
arguments to one side for a moment, what is wrong with using renewables
when they are available and just firing up your thermal plant for those
relatively short periods when renewables can’t provide?
What is wrong with renewables?
Let's Do Some Sums.
Take the case of a 1GW load initially supplied by a 1GW CCGT.
The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums, then insist on saving the planet by adding a 1GW wind farm.
Because they Can't Do Sums, they believe that 'the wind always blows somewhere' - refusing to believe that sometimes the wind doesn't blow on their subsidy farm.
In the real world, wind-based subsidy farms produce 36% of plated capacity.
[ 75,610GWh from 11018 windmills for 2020 = 35.9% of the plated
capacity of 24GW]
So when the wind doesn't blow, or isn't blowing strongly enough, or is blowing too hard, the CCGT has to cut in to supply the missing power.
Now for the sums, using real-world figures:
The CCGT running all the time, and therefore in its optimal
configuration, might be 60% efficient. It therefore uses 1/0.6 = 1.67GW
of gas per GW produced.
But with the subsidy farm now in operation, the CCGT now has to supply
0.64GW of electricity, in a variable-power regime in which it is not efficient. The actual efficiency can vary from 0% at start-up, and 25%
to when the combined cycle kicks in, to 40% in the throttled-back case.
Let's not frighten the greenies, and therefore pretend that the CCGT is
now 40% efficient as a backup to the subsidy farm. It therefore uses
0.64/0.4 GW of gas, or 1.6GW of gas to produce the missing 0.64GW of electricity.
So, the planet-saving subsidy farm has saved, at great expense and a lot
of concrete, un-recyclable plastics, and dead birds, very little gas at
all, under the best circumstances. Rather different than the greenies hand-waving claims.
Most of us would regard that as LUDICROUS.
Solar is even worse. Some 12% efficient overall.
These real-world problems, that those that Can't Do Sums shut their eyes
to, are caused by the Achilles Heel of renewables: INTERMITTENCY.
In article <5a592d5eadnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The point is that contracts on a level that impact on the National
level like this may need to have arrangements for when there is an
Act of War. Or be pre-empted by Gov on that basis.
I presume the war you're referring to is Putin? Putin is/was a
predictable issue and Trump did just that, he told the Germans what
would happen, he was right.
The act of war was really pressure groups and activists getting our
own energy sources and storage destroyed to the serious detriment of
the country.
We now have the insane situation where not only wood chip but now
fracked gas is transported by CO2 producing ships across the
Atlantic. The last two weeks we've seen yet again how unreliables are
useless when you need them most.
We have a shortage of gas that people need for 23 million gas boilers
in people's homes and our generators need for electricity. The cost
of energy is so high people are cold in their homes with no heating.
A monument to utter and pointless stupidity.
Under these conditions Sunak's decision not to frack is for me
criminal. Perhaps he's not happy they've killed enough people with
lockdowns.
Java Jive wrote:
FALSE!
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand
Right now, that's close enough to true.
For yesterday and today, top two graphs, wind (cyan) and solar (yellow) dominate
<https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent>
but look at this whole year and last whole year, bottom two graphs
gas (light brown) dominates.
That's effectively the same link as I gave above, but the monthly and yearly averages are difficult to quantify by eye because they are split into their individual components
Java Jive wrote:
FALSE!
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand
Right now, that's close enough to true.
For yesterday and today, top two graphs, wind (cyan) and solar (yellow) dominate
<https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent>
but look at this whole year and last whole year, bottom two graphs
gas (light brown) dominates.
Fracking may not be the nivirna you hope it is. Note the section
about energy bills.
I also dont understand the hostility to renewables. Setting the
eco arguments to one side for a moment,
what is wrong with using renewables when they are available and
just firing up your thermal plant for those relatively short
periods when renewables cant provide? Sure it costs more in
capital costs,
but not burning fossil fuels for electricity
generation saves an awful lot of foreign exchange payments.
The simple fact is we dont have enough UK gas, even if we did
frack.
Its best to burn as little of it as possible on simple
economic grounds.
Nuclear might be a longer term help, but weve
neglected building plant and its going to be more than a decade
before any significant extra capacity becomes available.
Java Jive wrote:
That's effectively the same link as I gave above, but the monthly and
yearly averages are difficult to quantify by eye because they are
split into their individual components
Ok, a site that does the integration for you, rather than by eye
<https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?period=1-year&start=2021-12-20&&_k=as0f46>
look in the supply box on the left
next question, who counts what as
renewable?
On 19/12/2022 14:32, alan_m wrote:
If it is already known that mining of lithium involves unfair
exploitation of the workers could all the EV companies be guilty of
breaking modern slavery legislation if they sell EVs in the UK?
Why single out EVs? Lithium batteries are in all sorts of things
besides EVs, this laptop I'm typing on, for example. Yes, we need to prevent modern slavery, but equally across the board.
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
Let's not frighten the greenies, and therefore pretend that the CCGT is
now 40% efficient as a backup to the subsidy farm. It therefore uses
0.64/0.4 GW of gas, or 1.6GW of gas to produce the missing 0.64GW of
electricity.
But your sums are based on
Because they Can't Do Sums, they believe that 'the wind always blows somewhere' - refusing to believe that sometimes the wind doesn't blow on their subsidy farm.
On 20/12/2022 14:16, Spike wrote:
Because they Can't Do Sums, they believe that 'the wind always blows
somewhere' - refusing to believe that sometimes the wind doesn't blow on
their subsidy farm.
And there is a tendency for periods with no wind to coincide with very
cold weather in the Winter i.e. often short days and sometimes mist to
reduce light levels slightly.
In article <tnseqr$mudt$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Fracking may not be the nivirna you hope it is. Note the section
about energy bills.
Nothing is Nirvana, nothing at all. We do though need gas and will do
for years ahead.
I also don‘t understand the hostility to renewables. Setting the
eco arguments to one side for a moment,
That certainly would be sensible as there's nothing eco about the
creation of wind turbines and ..
Very rough CO2 figures but
0.042% x 5% FF-burning x 1% UK = 0.000021%
And that's being very, very generous.
Especially when you consider the rate of increase of CO2 from China,
India, etc. if anyone thinks 0.000021% will have any effect at all
they're nuts.
To cause the poverty and the suffering in the UK for
NetZero as we are doing is beyond my vocabulary to describe.
Suffering that the privileged elite will not suffer of course.
what is wrong with using renewables when they are available and
just firing up your thermal plant for those relatively short
periods when renewables can‘t provide? Sure it costs more in
capital costs,
A huge cost difference is the operating costs of plant that still has
all the overheads but now has to be fired up and shut down and cannot
run at optimum efficiency.
but not burning fossil fuels for electricity
generation saves an awful lot of foreign exchange payments.
Yet we refuse to develop the north sea or frack.
The simple fact is we don‘t have enough UK gas, even if we did
frack.
That's not a universally held opinion. Oh I'm quite sure that's part
of the narrative but many don't agree
and people who I trust far more
than the government and institutions. I don't trust narratives any
longer, I look to see what's the reason behind them.
It‘s best to burn as little of it as possible on simple
economic grounds.
Right. Cheaper to get the USA to frack it, buy it off them at their
profit and ship it across the Atlantic.
Nuclear might be a longer term help, but we‘ve
neglected building plant and it‘s going to be more than a decade
before any significant extra capacity becomes available.
Indeed so we need the gas now!
On 20/12/2022 14:45, Tweed wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
This from the man who consistently accuses others of not being able to
do maths - including myself who has a 1st Class Honours in the subject
- but AFAICR whose own qualifications seem to be something to do with contemporary dance?!
Let's not frighten the greenies, and therefore pretend that the CCGT is
now 40% efficient as a backup to the subsidy farm. It therefore uses
0.64/0.4 GW of gas, or 1.6GW of gas to produce the missing 0.64GW of
electricity.
Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of his actual calculations,
they become irrelevant, which is why I've snipped most of his post, when
the important factor that he has completely missed is added in, which is
that only a small minority of the fossil-fuel generating capacity has to
be kept on standby when it's not actually required to generate:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094628/DUKES_2022_Chapter_5.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/1a223fe5-379d-471a-8749-2e15c3d39e39
From 1st:
Total fossil fuel capacity = 42.5GW
From 2nd:
Standby capacity = 5GW
So his calculations are out by a factor of 8.
But your sums are based on
... the usual anti-green bigotry leading to gross misrepresentation of
the facts.
Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
That's effectively the same link as I gave above, but the monthly and yearly
averages are difficult to quantify by eye because they are split into their >>> individual components
Ok, a site that does the integration for you, rather than by eye
<https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?period=1-year&start=2021-12-20&&_k=as0f46>
look in the supply box on the left
Agrees well with the government source I linked above:
Total fossil fuels: 40.38%
Total renewables: 38.52%
next question, who counts what as renewable?
Solar + Wind + Hydro + Pumped Storage + Biomass
What's your problem?
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
And there is a tendency for periods with no wind to coincide with very
cold weather in the Winter i.e. often short days and sometimes mist to
reduce light levels slightly.
We’ve just enjoyed ~20 days like that, with an enormous 6TWh of energy shortfall from wind over gas. More periods like this have been suggested
for early next year
Someone with an OU Science Foundation course will be along soon to explain why this isn’t real, and to calculate the size of the battery farms needed to power the gap. Sixty million car batteries take a lot of finding and a
lot of space.
Andy Burns wrote:
38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
Java Jive wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
That's effectively the same link as I gave above, but the monthly
and yearly averages are difficult to quantify by eye because they
are split into their individual components
Ok, a site that does the integration for you, rather than by eye
<https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?period=1-year&start=2021-12-20&&_k=as0f46>
look in the supply box on the left
Agrees well with the government source I linked above:
Total fossil fuels: 40.38%
Total renewables: 38.52%
38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
next question, who counts what as renewable?
Solar + Wind + Hydro + Pumped Storage + Biomass
What's your problem?
It's tiny but I wouldn't include pumped storage it gives back what it
has taken in, minus efficiency losses
Presumably biomass includes drax, is it as promised, it it really green/sustainable? I have no problem with it running, but should it be getting subsidies for burning wood from elsewhere?
On 20/12/2022 17:32, Spike wrote:
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
And there is a tendency for periods with no wind to coincide with very
cold weather in the Winter i.e. often short days and sometimes mist to
reduce light levels slightly.
We’ve just enjoyed ~20 days like that, with an enormous 6TWh of energy
shortfall from wind over gas. More periods like this have been suggested
for early next year
Someone with an OU Science Foundation course will be along soon to explain >> why this isn’t real, and to calculate the size of the battery farms needed >> to power the gap. Sixty million car batteries take a lot of finding and a
lot of space.
This person with a 1st Class Honours Degree in Mathematics and Computing
will tell you that currently at such times we have to burn fossil-fuels, because we haven't implemented any alternatives to doing so, nor any ameliorating technologies such as carbon capture.
How's "Denialism By Dance" coming along? Found a theatre yet?
Java Jive wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate timescale.
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
(p12 chart 5.2)
Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand,
have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two
months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par
with fossil fuel generation.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
FALSE!
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand
Right now, that's close enough to true.
For yesterday and today, top two graphs, wind (cyan) and solar (yellow) dominate
<https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent>
but look at this whole year and last whole year, bottom two graphs
gas (light brown) dominates.
A much better site, designed by a scientist/engineer,
is
<https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>
Look at the Monthly graph for Nuclear/Coal/CCGT/Wind. You’ll see that from 27th Nov to 17th Dec, apart from a handful of hours, CCGT produced far more energy than Wind. A rough guess at the difference over that period suggests
a 6TWh energy shortfall by Wind. That is hard to dismiss.
The blocking High, circa 1044mb or a little higher, that brought this about was centred on Central Russia. It was huge. If the North Sea was totally covered in windmills, the energy shortfall would still be there. No Wind =
No Energy.
You can download raw data from the Templar site; it was specifically set up to deal with the dreamy, hand-waving claims of the Renewables believers by making available actual data rather than dreams or beliefs.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/12/2022 14:45, Tweed wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
This from the man who consistently accuses others of not being able to
do maths - including myself who has a 1st Class Honours in the subject
- but AFAICR whose own qualifications seem to be something to do with
contemporary dance?!
Getting the ad homs in early is one of your ineffective tactics. It makes
you look silly.
Let's not frighten the greenies, and therefore pretend that the CCGT is >>>> now 40% efficient as a backup to the subsidy farm. It therefore uses
0.64/0.4 GW of gas, or 1.6GW of gas to produce the missing 0.64GW of
electricity.
Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of his actual calculations,
they become irrelevant, which is why I've snipped most of his post, when
the important factor that he has completely missed is added in, which is
that only a small minority of the fossil-fuel generating capacity has to
be kept on standby when it's not actually required to generate:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094628/DUKES_2022_Chapter_5.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/1a223fe5-379d-471a-8749-2e15c3d39e39
From 1st:
Total fossil fuel capacity = 42.5GW
From the first:
Generation from renewable sources decreased 9.3 per cent to 122.2 TWh in 2021. This was driven by less favourable weather conditions for wind, hydro and solar generation. In particular, wind generation dropped to 64.7 TWh in 2021, down 14 per cent despite increased capacity. This was because of unusually low average wind speeds across most of 2021.
Fossil fuel generation increased 11.0 per cent in 2021 to 131.4 TWh. Increased demand for electricity and lower renewable generation increased
the need for fossil fuel generation.
The proportion of electricity generation coming from renewable sources fell in 2021
From 2nd:
Standby capacity = 5GW
That’s behind a paywall.
But you’re saying that my figures, taken from actual operation rather than wishful thinking, are wrong.
When you put forward a properly-worked counter, I’m sure we’ll be interested to read it.
Spike wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/1a223fe5-379d-471a-8749-2e15c3d39e39
That’s behind a paywall.
I could see it without paying anything.
On 20/12/2022 18:33, Spike wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/12/2022 14:45, Tweed wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
This from the man who consistently accuses others of not being able to
do maths - including myself who has a 1st Class Honours in the subject >>> - but AFAICR whose own qualifications seem to be something to do with
contemporary dance?!
Getting the ad homs in early is one of your ineffective tactics. It makes
you look silly.
Hypocritically accusing others of ad hominems when you were the first to employ them just makes you look the pathetic bigot you really are.
Let's not frighten the greenies, and therefore pretend that the CCGT is >>>>> now 40% efficient as a backup to the subsidy farm. It therefore uses >>>>> 0.64/0.4 GW of gas, or 1.6GW of gas to produce the missing 0.64GW of >>>>> electricity.
Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of his actual calculations,
they become irrelevant, which is why I've snipped most of his post, when >>> the important factor that he has completely missed is added in, which is >>> that only a small minority of the fossil-fuel generating capacity has to >>> be kept on standby when it's not actually required to generate:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094628/DUKES_2022_Chapter_5.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/1a223fe5-379d-471a-8749-2e15c3d39e39
From 1st:
Total fossil fuel capacity = 42.5GW
From the first:
Generation from renewable sources decreased 9.3 per cent to 122.2 TWh in
2021. This was driven by less favourable weather conditions for wind, hydro >> and solar generation. In particular, wind generation dropped to 64.7 TWh in >> 2021, down 14 per cent despite increased capacity. This was because of
unusually low average wind speeds across most of 2021.
Fossil fuel generation increased 11.0 per cent in 2021 to 131.4 TWh.
Increased demand for electricity and lower renewable generation increased
the need for fossil fuel generation.
The proportion of electricity generation coming from renewable sources fell >> in 2021
So? Wind is by definition a variable source of energy, and inevitably
some years will have more of it, others less.
From 2nd:
Standby capacity = 5GW
That’s behind a paywall.
I could see it without paying anything.
But you’re saying that my figures, taken from actual operation rather than >> wishful thinking, are wrong.
No, I'm saying that your figures are from wishful thinking, not actual operation. The actual figures for standby generation capacity are 5GW,
not the entirety of the installed gas generating capacity, and, as
linked elsewhere in the thread, the total additional cost of bringing variable renewables into the grid is about 1p per unit to the cost of electricity to the consumer.
When you put forward a properly-worked counter, I’m sure we’ll be
interested to read it.
I've already linked to the actual facts about standby generation, which
show that your claims were wrong.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 14:15:46 +0000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:
On 18/12/2022 10:21, Jim Lesurf wrote:
And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to one >>>> of the solar panels results in a short circuit.
Fortunately, petrol/diesel cars never catch fire in a collision....
erm....
Its not the solar panels that are necessarily the main risk in a major
crash of a EV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQZ6lTefEYs
Scary.
It looks as though flaming battery cars have to be left where they are
in a skip full of water for a long time until no longer considered
dangerous, a bit like nuclear waste. Although the timescales are very different it must make the clearance of a road after such a mishap a
lot more difficult.At least they deliberatelty choose lonely places
for nuclear installations but there won't always be space to leave a
great big skip full of water by the side of a busy road.
On 18/12/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
It should be no surprise that early examples of a tchnology should be costly and have limited performance. But as time passes, things get improved in performance and tend to fall in cost as their market size expands. This is now starting to happen.
I thought it was just a development model and not going into production.
I still don't see much point in carting small PV panels around, they're
poor enough efficency in this country without parking them under trees,
or in multi-storey car parks
The sort of people who can spend 1/4 million on a car, don't tend to
drive under 6,000 miles a year.
On 19/12/2022 14:32, alan_m wrote:
If it is already known that mining of lithium involves unfair
exploitation of the workers could all the EV companies be guilty of breaking modern slavery legislation if they sell EVs in the UK?
Why single out EVs? Lithium batteries are in all sorts of things
besides EVs, this laptop I'm typing on, for example. Yes, we need to
prevent modern slavery, but equally across the board.
MB wrote:
I thought it was just a development model and not going into
production.
They're building 200, at //$/? 250,000 each. How many problems will theydiscover in such a small run?
But you mentioned replacing your boiler, hence why I went down the heat
pump route. If you want to use a battery to provide daytime electrical heating, charged overnight, you will need a very high capacity battery
and possible strengthening of your incoming supply. Even Economy 7 night rates are still more expensive than gas. It's probably at least another decade before economic alternatives to gas domestic heating appear, if
then.
In article <tnpcmh$89i6$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
But you mentioned replacing your boiler, hence why I went down the heat
pump route. If you want to use a battery to provide daytime electrical
heating, charged overnight, you will need a very high capacity battery
and possible strengthening of your incoming supply. Even Economy 7 night
rates are still more expensive than gas. It's probably at least another
decade before economic alternatives to gas domestic heating appear, if
then.
However, the battery is to be used with a mix of electric and *gas* (fire) heating. Not all our heating is electric *or* all gas. Thus the hopes for
the batteries are:
1) May lower the overall cost of the electric energy involved.
2) Keep us OK during any power cuts. (Central heating will go off because
it needs electric control.)
3) Will be useful if/when we decide solar may be a handy suppliment. Or if/when a community wind farm crops up locally etc.
4) Make changes one step at a time. Depending on circumstances. (e.g. if, say, 'green' hydrogen becomes the replacement for methane gas.
Jim
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/12/2022 18:33, Spike wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/12/2022 14:45, Tweed wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
This from the man who consistently accuses others of not being able to >>>> do maths - including myself who has a 1st Class Honours in the subject >>>> - but AFAICR whose own qualifications seem to be something to do with >>>> contemporary dance?!
Getting the ad homs in early is one of your ineffective tactics. It makes >>> you look silly.
Hypocritically accusing others of ad hominems when you were the first to
employ them just makes you look the pathetic bigot you really are.
I said you get the ad homs early.
And it’s not my fault you’re hypersensitive and have the issue of assuming
it’s always about you.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/12/2022 16:26, Spike wrote:
A much better site, designed by a scientist/engineer
... who is also an abusive right-wing bigot and serial liar ...
So his science would be acceptable if he was a left-wing bigot and serial liar?
Exactly the same information is available at the site I linked.
Which link? You throw them about like confetti.
The blocking High, circa 1044mb or a little higher, that brought this about >>> was centred on Central Russia. It was huge. If the North Sea was totally >>> covered in windmills, the energy shortfall would still be there. No Wind = >>> No Energy.
So we had to burn more gas, as we did.
That’s because if the intermittency of renewables.
You can download raw data from the Templar site; it was specifically set up >>> to deal with the dreamy, hand-waving claims of the Renewables believers by >>> making available actual data rather than dreams or beliefs.
But, ironically enough, in recent times has been increasingly frequently
been used to disabuse its site owner of his bigotry by disproving his
own false claims!
You will need to justify that statement. Preferably not by putting up a
link and claiming “It’s all in there”.
On 20/12/2022 23:11, Spike wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/12/2022 18:33, Spike wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/12/2022 14:45, Tweed wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums
This from the man who consistently accuses others of not being able to >>>>> do maths - including myself who has a 1st Class Honours in the subject >>>>> - but AFAICR whose own qualifications seem to be something to do with >>>>> contemporary dance?!
Getting the ad homs in early is one of your ineffective tactics. It makes >>>> you look silly.
Hypocritically accusing others of ad hominems when you were the first to >>> employ them just makes you look the pathetic bigot you really are.
I said you get the ad homs early.
Whereas you were the *first* to employ them, so your accusations against
me are completely hypocritical.
And it’s not my fault you’re hypersensitive and have the issue of assuming
it’s always about you.
I wasn't assuming it was about me, I was pointing out more generally
your hypocrisy in accusing others of not being able to do maths when you
have no relevant SciTech qualifications of your own.
How's "Denialism By Dance" coming along, found a theatre yet?
On 20/12/2022 19:25, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate
timescale.
My full quote covered both instantaneous and longer timescales:
On 20/12/2022 14:19, Java Jive wrote:
hment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
(p12 chart 5.2)
Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand,
have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two
months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par
with fossil fuel generation.
On 21/12/2022 15:37, tony sayer wrote:
In article <tnt4uf$pcga$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
On 20/12/2022 19:25, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate >>>> timescale.
My full quote covered both instantaneous and longer timescales:
On 20/12/2022 14:19, Java Jive wrote:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
hment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
(p12 chart 5.2)
Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand,
have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two
months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par
with fossil fuel generation.
Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two
sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://grid.iamkate.com/
You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says "Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
implies it does.
In article <tnt4uf$pcga$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
On 20/12/2022 19:25, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate
timescale.
My full quote covered both instantaneous and longer timescales:
On 20/12/2022 14:19, Java Jive wrote:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
hment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
(p12 chart 5.2)
Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand,
have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two
months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par
with fossil fuel generation.
Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two
sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/12/2022 15:37, tony sayer wrote:
In article <tnt4uf$pcga$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
On 20/12/2022 19:25, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
38% isn't "half the UK's electricity demand"
To which you replied: "Right now, that's close enough to true."
Two days or two weeks v.s. a year, which feels like a more appropriate >>>>> timescale.
My full quote covered both instantaneous and longer timescales:
On 20/12/2022 14:19, Java Jive wrote:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
hment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
(p12 chart 5.2)
Renewables are currently generating half the UK's electricity demand, >>>>> have made a significant contribution to generation over the past two >>>>> months, and over the last four years have been approximately on a par >>>>> with fossil fuel generation.
Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two
sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://grid.iamkate.com/
You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it
doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says
"Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
implies it does.
Small correction…
TNP’s website is actually
<https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>
https://gridwatch.co.uk/ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1107502/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdf
(p12 chart 5.2)
Even on a motorway the hard shoulder is probably the most dangerous
place to stop in a car and not a good position to leave a large skip. It would probably necessitate lane closures and I've had personal
experience a few times in the last 6 months of how many hours that can
add to a journey.
<https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent>
but look at this whole year and last whole year, bottom two graphs gas
(light brown) dominates.
The blocking High, circa 1044mb or a little higher, that brought this
about was centred on Central Russia. It was huge. If the North Sea was totally covered in windmills, the energy shortfall would still be there.
No Wind = No Energy.
So we had to burn more gas, as we did.
That's because if the intermittency of renewables.
Generation from renewable sources decreased 9.3 per cent to 122.2 TWh in 2021. This was driven by less favourable weather conditions for wind,
hydro and solar generation. In particular, wind generation dropped to
64.7 TWh in 2021, down 14 per cent despite increased capacity. This was because of unusually low average wind speeds across most of 2021.
Weve just enjoyed ~20 days like that, with an enormous 6TWh of energy shortfall from wind over gas. More periods like this have been suggested
for early next year
Someone with an OU Science Foundation course will be along soon to
explain why this isnt real, and to calculate the size of the battery
farms needed to power the gap. Sixty million car batteries take a lot of finding and a lot of space.
Because they Can't Do Sums, they believe that 'the wind always blows somewhere' - refusing to believe that sometimes the wind doesn't blow on their subsidy farm.
next question, who counts what as renewable?
Solar + Wind + Hydro + Pumped Storage + Biomass
What's your problem?
It's tiny but I wouldn't include pumped storage it gives back what it
has taken in, minus efficiency losses
In article <k0etpsFhjp0U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
So we had to burn more gas, as we did.
That's because if the intermittency of renewables.
Erm Tidal and sea flow is predictable and regular. And due to the UKs sitaution and costline the flows/heights vary to give peaks spread out
around the day/night. The energy density is also very high compared with typical wind. Main challenge is engineering to cope with fouling, etc. But ships have developed methods to deal with this, and they can be transferred to tidal/flow machines.
WRT wind have a look at
https://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/WhenTheWindDoesntBlow.jpeg
It shows a fairly typical example of "when the wind doesn't blow" *on the
UK mainland*. But it also shows the extent of the area allocated just to Scotland for economic use. This is much bigger than the UK mainland, and covers area which are world-known for, erm, quite a lot of high winds,
wave, and tidal flows. Add in the areas for the rUK and it is even bigger.
And yes, commercial companies are developing systems to harvest this as
they can see profit in doing so. The levels and 'reliability' of current UK wind farms have a lot of growth potential.
Jim
I've been wondering if the 'Solar' value actually includes the generation
by all the panels on people's roofs that they use 'internally' and isnt exported back into the grid. Does it?#
In article <k0edf8Ff6dgU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike ><Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Generation from renewable sources decreased 9.3 per cent to 122.2 TWh in
2021. This was driven by less favourable weather conditions for wind,
hydro and solar generation. In particular, wind generation dropped to
64.7 TWh in 2021, down 14 per cent despite increased capacity. This was
because of unusually low average wind speeds across most of 2021.
Interesting use of cherry-picking one data point from a much longer series. >:-)
Note that the geographical extent of wind farm locations will rise,
reducing the worries about "when the wind doesn't blow". Add in the
offshore potential. Then add in tidal, flow, etc.
Basically, these sectors have only just got started compared with where we >could be in a few years time. Yet they already displace quite large amounts >of (more costly) gas burning.
Jim
In article <k0dudvFctthU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike ><Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Because they Can't Do Sums, they believe that 'the wind always blows
somewhere' - refusing to believe that sometimes the wind doesn't blow on
their subsidy farm.
Erm. The idea is the have a number of wind farms, etc, spread over a wide >area. One that extends well out to sea. Given that, the wind essentially
does blow in quite a few of those 'somewheres' at any given time.
Plus, of course, developing other sources like tidal which is perfectly >predictable and reliable.
And unlike fossil source locations those places don't become depleted >eventually by the extraction of the finite consumable being taken.
I suggest you and others regularly check the pages I referenced up-thread. >They show the potential and that it is pretty preliable once properly >untilised. The reality doesn't agree with your narrow POV.
Jim
Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two >>>> sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://grid.iamkate.com/
You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it
doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says
"Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
implies it does.
Small correction…
TNP’s website is actually
<https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>
Thanks. I've no excuse as I even thought "it looks different".
And it may be I was vaguely remembering the text that comes if you hover
over the wind note there: "Wind contributes about another 30% from
embedded (or unmetered) ..."
In article <k0eerhFfcdlU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns ><usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
next question, who counts what as renewable?
Solar + Wind + Hydro + Pumped Storage + Biomass
What's your problem?
It's tiny but I wouldn't include pumped storage it gives back what it
has taken in, minus efficiency losses
I've been wondering if the 'Solar' value actually includes the generation
by all the panels on people's roofs that they use 'internally' and isnt >exported back into the grid. Does it?
Jim
In article <k0dvgkFd3i2U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns ><usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent>
but look at this whole year and last whole year, bottom two graphs gas
(light brown) dominates.
You need to consider all-time (i.e. many years) to smooth out the annual >cycle of demand, etc. That shows the (continuing) rise in wind power, etc.
In round figures, wind capacity is about 20GW at present and rising at
about 2GW per year. That will tend to be exponentlal in the future as the >area, take/turbine and importance increase.
Jim
In article <5a5a558098noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <k0eerhFfcdlU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
next question, who counts what as renewable?
Solar + Wind + Hydro + Pumped Storage + Biomass
What's your problem?
It's tiny but I wouldn't include pumped storage it gives back what it
has taken in, minus efficiency losses
I've been wondering if the 'Solar' value actually includes the generation
by all the panels on people's roofs that they use 'internally' and isnt
exported back into the grid. Does it?
Jim
How can they measure that?, is there some sort of GSM link in the inverters?..
Jim Lesurf wrote:
I've been wondering if the 'Solar' value actually includes the generation
by all the panels on people's roofs that they use 'internally' and isnt
exported back into the grid. Does it?
How can they measure that?, is there some sort of GSM link in the inverters?..
tony sayer wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
I've been wondering if the 'Solar' value actually includes the generation >>> by all the panels on people's roofs that they use 'internally' and isnt
exported back into the grid. Does it?
How can they measure that?, is there some sort of GSM link in the
inverters?..
Most PV installations are installed under some govt scheme or another, I'm sure
a close approximation of the total installed capacity is known, and an average
value for insolation worked out daily ... so an estimated generation can be arrived at.
In article <5a5a3a58cfnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <k0dvgkFd3i2U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy BurnsBut surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW or
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent>
but look at this whole year and last whole year, bottom two graphs gas
(light brown) dominates.
You need to consider all-time (i.e. many years) to smooth out the annual
cycle of demand, etc. That shows the (continuing) rise in wind power, etc. >>
In round figures, wind capacity is about 20GW at present and rising at
about 2GW per year. That will tend to be exponentlal in the future as the
area, take/turbine and importance increase.
Jim
more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we had
recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind power
from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation so what happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..
But surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW or
more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we had
recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind power
from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation so what happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..
In article <k0e9spFelc9U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Weve just enjoyed ~20 days like that, with an enormous 6TWh of energy
shortfall from wind over gas. More periods like this have been suggested
for early next year
Someone with an OU Science Foundation course will be along soon to
explain why this isnt real, and to calculate the size of the battery
farms needed to power the gap. Sixty million car batteries take a lot of
finding and a lot of space.
Afraid I never went to the OU. Had to make do with teaching and doing research at other Unis.
The current limitations of wind power are to a fair extent due to political inertia and vested interests. However when you consider that wind power now already often gives 20GW (thus saving burning the gas that displaces) and that the existing farms are just a tiny fraction of the wind capacity we could choose to build over the next decade the real problem is elsewhere.
It is the politicians who have hampered the expansion and development of
wind turbines.
However, given how profitable they are now we can expect a rapid expansion
- offshore to a significant extent - during the next decade or so. If
nothing else the Scots Gov is keen even if Westminster isn't.
Jim
In article <k0dudvFctthU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Because they Can't Do Sums, they believe that 'the wind always blows
somewhere' - refusing to believe that sometimes the wind doesn't blow on
their subsidy farm.
Erm. The idea is the have a number of wind farms, etc, spread over a wide area. One that extends well out to sea. Given that, the wind essentially
does blow in quite a few of those 'somewheres' at any given time.
Plus, of course, developing other sources like tidal which is perfectly predictable and reliable.
And unlike fossil source locations those places don't become depleted eventually by the extraction of the finite consumable being taken.
I suggest you and others regularly check the pages I referenced up-thread. They show the potential and that it is pretty preliable once properly untilised. The reality doesn't agree with your narrow POV.
Jim
So this embedded wind is connected to and feeds the grid
Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two >>>>> sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://grid.iamkate.com/
You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it >>>> doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says
"Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
implies it does.
Small correction…
TNP’s website is actually
<https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>
Thanks. I've no excuse as I even thought "it looks different".
And it may be I was vaguely remembering the text that comes if you hover
over the wind note there: "Wind contributes about another 30% from
embedded (or unmetered) ..."
So this embedded wind is connected to and feeds the grid but whoever
Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two >>>>> sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://grid.iamkate.com/
You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it >>>> doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says
"Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
implies it does.
Small correction…
TNP’s website is actually
<https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>
Thanks. I've no excuse as I even thought "it looks different".
And it may be I was vaguely remembering the text that comes if you hover
over the wind note there: "Wind contributes about another 30% from
embedded (or unmetered) ..."
owns that wind farm gets paid a fixed amount or they just get paid?.
So how do they get paid is it just a flat rate or what?..
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://grid.iamkate.com/
You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says "Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
implies it does.
Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two
sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://grid.iamkate.com/
tony sayer wrote:
https://grid.iamkate.com
AIUI Kate bases her automated update on data fetched from
the National Grid data that has a granularity of 15 mins.
On 22/12/2022 12:59, tony sayer wrote:
But surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW or
more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we had
recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind power
from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation so what
happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..
As we've already reached 20GW, this should *already* be a noticeable
problem, so what happens now?
Erm. The idea is the have a number of wind farms, etc, spread over a
wide area. One that extends well out to sea. Given that, the wind >essentially does blow in quite a few of those 'somewheres' at any given >time.
Provided that there is sufficient wind blowing to meet demand needs!..
doesn't feed "the grid" (as in the high voltage National Grid). They
are by definition generators who feed in to one of the DNOs at a lower voltage. In passing this means DNOs have had to become active in
balancing supply with demand.
Actions speak louder than words, and the Achilles Heel of Wind and other renewables is their intermittency.
Having more of them doesn't necessarily deal with that problem.
The sun goes down every evening and Solar output drops to zero, meaning something else has to be brought in to make up the shortfall. Wind is
far less predictable than Solar.
I'm a little bit against tidal schemes because although they appear attractive at first thought, the effect on the local ecology can be very negative. The engineering never quite works out either, the few schemes
that have been built suffer from silting up etc.
Offshore wind farms on the other hand seem to be providing sanctuary for marine life, especially as trawlers can't fish there.
Now, as to the unreliability of wind - it's not that unreliable. For the
few days a year when there is a perfect calm at sea what is wrong with
firing up thermal plant? Obviously plant that is not used all the time
is more expensive but that is a price to pay. Completely ignoring the
green arguments, from an economic point of view it is much better not to
be spending foreign exchange on importing gas, and from a security point
of view it is best to reduce reliance on supplies from some of the more unsavoury parts of the world. If the Ukraine war has taught us anything,
it should be that being as self reliant on energy production as possible
is important.
TLDR: For renewables don't let perfection be the enemy of good.
But surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW or
more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we had
recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind power
from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation so what happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..
So this embedded wind is connected to and feeds the grid but whoever
owns that wind farm gets paid a fixed amount or they just get paid?.
So how do they get paid is it just a flat rate or what?..
So who is this deity who can magick up tempests Jim;?..
There would seem to be about a 10GW difference over that period, or
rather more than 4TWh.
There are ~12000 wind turbines in the UK which over that period produced
an average of about 7.5GW, suggesting we need another 16000 turbines to
make up the shortfall.
The actual number needed will be greater than that due to turbine
failures and routine maintenance, say 25% more for a total of 24000
extra turbines.
These will need bases comprising 400 tons of concrete each, or around 10 million tons in total.
The production of the unrecyclable blades is also carbon intensive, as
are the metal components and connecting cables. Maintenance also has a
carbon cost.
When the wind does blow on this turbine behemoth, we will have to pay
people to take the vast surplus of electricity.
Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation
and is
rising roughly exponentially over the years at a current rate of about 2GW/year.
With proper provision, that can grow to more like 100% in a decade or so. Then go on to give a higher margin. Add in storage via H2 or other methods, Tidal flow, transnational interconnectors, etc. And we can be essentially fossil fuel free for our gas and electric energy.
The basic hold-back isn't engineering. It is the political will to go for
it, and to stop assuming the future has to be like the past.
The other long-term repost to your question is, of course: What do we do
when the gas/oil runs out? Wind/Tidal aren't consumables which can deplete.
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation
Iamkate states 28.3% of generation for the last year, which is quite a long way from ‘around half’. ‘Just over a quarter’ would be much nearer the
mark.
Spike wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation
Iamkate states 28.3% of generation for the last year, which is quite a long >> way from ‘around half’. ‘Just over a quarter’ would be much nearer the
mark.
Surely the point of the nice-looking pie/ring chart, should be an easy glance gives you the correct info?
At the moment the inner ring of the pie, shows "renewables" occupying greater than a 180° segment, "other" occupying slightly more than 90° segment and "fossil" between than 45° and 60° segment
so with just a glance, you'd assume renewables was greater than half, buth the
actual numbers
14.4/26.9 = 43.3% [appears more that 50% on pie]
7.4/26.9 = 22.2% [appears more than 25% on pie]
5.1/26.9 = 15.1% [remainder of pie]
so the three generation categories add up to the total generated ok, I'd expect
the slices to show more accurate proportions than that ...
Don’t forget the subliminal suggestion inherent in putting Renewables in the outer ring tending to make things look greater than they are.
In article <u6eYgkFkIFpjFwo8@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
Erm. The idea is the have a number of wind farms, etc, spread over a
wide area. One that extends well out to sea. Given that, the wind
essentially does blow in quite a few of those 'somewheres' at any given
time.
Provided that there is sufficient wind blowing to meet demand needs!..
cf the points I've already made about the increase in reliability as we spread more wind (and ocean/tidal flow) farms out acrosss our sectors of
the ocean, etc.
Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation and is
rising roughly exponentially over the years at a current rate of about 2GW/year. Also *very* profitable now - even before the effect of the Act of War.
In article <k0jhbdF8lelU2@mid.individual.net>, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Actions speak louder than words, and the Achilles Heel of Wind and other
renewables is their intermittency.
Having more of them doesn't necessarily deal with that problem.
Actually, it does, when you put them over a wider geographic area. Then
also add in storage and interconnectors to an even wider area.
And some 'other' renewables like Tidal flows are completely predictable.
(If you use 'lagoon' tidal then of course wind turbines could also store energy 'pumping up' the lagoons.)
The sun goes down every evening and Solar output drops to zero, meaning
something else has to be brought in to make up the shortfall. Wind is
far less predictable than Solar.
In the Sahara, yes. However it does seem to get cloudy occasionally where I live - despite it once being claimed as the sunniest place in Scotland! :-)
And of course, with interconnectors across many countries, Solar become available in some when it comes from the sun via another country. In
exchange for transfer the other way at other times.
In article <k0jgc7F8gu2U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
There would seem to be about a 10GW difference over that period, or
rather more than 4TWh.
There are ~12000 wind turbines in the UK which over that period produced
an average of about 7.5GW, suggesting we need another 16000 turbines to
make up the shortfall.
The actual number needed will be greater than that due to turbine
failures and routine maintenance, say 25% more for a total of 24000
extra turbines.
Erm, not quite. The reality is that as we go, newer turbine designs are becoming bigger and generate more per turbine.
These will need bases comprising 400 tons of concrete each, or around 10
million tons in total.
Erm, not necessarity. Out in the ocean they can be tethered to the sea bed even in fairly deep water.
The production of the unrecyclable blades is also carbon intensive, as
are the metal components and connecting cables. Maintenance also has a
carbon cost.
Again, you look in your rear-view mirror as assume it shows the future. :-)
The point you keep missing is that the designs and engineering are swiftly developing and improving.
When the wind does blow on this turbine behemoth, we will have to pay
people to take the vast surplus of electricity.
Nope. We can store what we need, and feather away what we don't need to use or store.
The future isn't the past - unless people are deterimed to make the same *old* mistakes over and over again...
Spike wrote:
Don’t forget the subliminal suggestion inherent in putting Renewables in >> the outer ring tending to make things look greater than they are.
I don't think that's going on, the inner ring is broad category (renewable, fossil, other) with the outer ring being more specific (wind, solar, gas, coal,
nuclear, hydro, biomass)
I don't see any problem with that.
I'll draw a picture for you to underline why I was gobsmacked by your "exponentially":
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/12/2022 12:59, tony sayer wrote:
But surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW
or more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we
had recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind
power from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation
so what happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..
As we've already reached 20GW, this should *already* be a noticeable problem, so what happens now?
We fire up CCGT, OCGT, DSTOR, Coal, and strain the interconnectors, turn
the volts down, plead with the public to use less, and cross our fingers.
In article <k0lm31FijrhU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/12/2022 12:59, tony sayer wrote:
But surely Jim suppose we shall we say get used to a possible 30 GW
or more, wind capacity and then one of these blocking highs that we
had recently comes along so where do we make up the missing wind
power from?, theres only so much Gas Nuclear and Hydro etc generation
so what happens when the say 30 GW comes just a few GW?..
As we've already reached 20GW, this should *already* be a noticeable
problem, so what happens now?
We fire up CCGT, OCGT, DSTOR, Coal, and strain the interconnectors, turn
the volts down, plead with the public to use less, and cross our fingers.
Yes. Our Government (Westminster) have taken for granted that gas would go
on being cheap and easily available. And have hindered - not encouraged -
the expansion of Wind, etc, assuming that we could rely on cheap,
plentiful, gas. Despite it being a finite consumable. They have also sold
off the rights to companies that can sell on the world market, not have to sell to us at a price we agreed as part of giving them the right to
extract. And set up a pricing mechanism that fails us badly.
However an Act of War has reduced the supply and driven up the price quite dramatically. Throwing a stark light on the above and the fact that 'North Sea' (sic) Oil is a finite resource.
The roots of our current situation are in politics, not engineering.
However we can learn the lessons. One is that we have to avoid mistakes equivalent to the above. The other is that the diversity and scope of *renewable* sources is a better way to go from both a financial and a national security/social standards of living POV. Alas, not a lesson our (Westminster) mob seem willing to accept.
The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy. It is now urgent that we get on with making best use of it.
Jim
Yes. Our Government (Westminster) have taken for granted that gas would goThe last sentence is why gas should never be used for electricity generation. The latter is inherently wasteful because of distribution losses. Our electricity should be made from coal primarily.
on being cheap and easily available. And have hindered - not encouraged -
the expansion of Wind, etc, assuming that we could rely on cheap,
plentiful, gas. Despite it being a finite consumable.
However an Act of War has reduced the supply and driven up the price quite dramatically.The price has gone up because Putin has caused shortages. He couldn't have done that if we were burning coal. The reason my electricity bill has tripled is that the greenys have conned the government into relying too much on gas and renewables.
The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy.
It is now
urgent that we get on with making best use of it.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy.
Does it?
For most of November Wind produced so little that CCGT was working very
hard, probably for more than 20 days. You can see the graphs on the Templar.Gridwatch web site.
Your claim of ‘huge’ tidal/wave needs to be substantiated. Wind has already
failed. Even with the ‘exponential’ (in fact: linear) growth in turbine provision.
It is now
urgent that we get on with making best use of it.
It is urgent that we make the best use of our own resources. We need 30GW
of nuclear, and we should follow the ‘green’ lead of Germany in opening coal-fired power stations. Self-sufficiency in energy will decouple the UK from wild swings in international prices and give energy security.
Windmills in the mid and western Atlantic won’t do neither.
Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an alternative.
On 26/12/2022 11:18, Tweed wrote:
Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining >> and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to >> impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an
alternative.
Makes you wonder why they made so much fuss about it at the time then, doesn't it?
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy.
Does it?
For most of November Wind produced so little that CCGT was working very
hard, probably for more than 20 days. You can see the graphs on the
Templar.Gridwatch web site.
Your claim of ‘huge’ tidal/wave needs to be substantiated. Wind has already
failed. Even with the ‘exponential’ (in fact: linear) growth in turbine >> provision.
It is now
urgent that we get on with making best use of it.
It is urgent that we make the best use of our own resources. We need 30GW
of nuclear, and we should follow the ‘green’ lead of Germany in opening >> coal-fired power stations. Self-sufficiency in energy will decouple the UK >> from wild swings in international prices and give energy security.
Windmills in the mid and western Atlantic won’t do neither.
Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an alternative. We don’t have that much in the way of open cast mines.
On 26/12/2022 11:18, Tweed wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy.
Does it?
For most of November Wind produced so little that CCGT was working very
hard, probably for more than 20 days. You can see the graphs on the
Templar.Gridwatch web site.
Your claim of ‘huge’ tidal/wave needs to be substantiated. Wind has already
failed. Even with the ‘exponential’ (in fact: linear) growth in turbine >>> provision.
It is now
urgent that we get on with making best use of it.
It is urgent that we make the best use of our own resources. We need 30GW >>> of nuclear, and we should follow the ‘green’ lead of Germany in opening >>> coal-fired power stations. Self-sufficiency in energy will decouple the UK >>> from wild swings in international prices and give energy security.
Windmills in the mid and western Atlantic won’t do neither.
Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining >> and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to >> impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an
alternative. We don’t have that much in the way of open cast mines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodhouse_Colliery is proposed; a deep mine.
Admittedly the coal is mainly to be used to make steel, where it's the chemical properties of the carbon that is used as much as the energy produced.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/12/2022 11:18, Tweed wrote:Lots of folk with no prospect of alternative reasonably well paid
Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining >>> and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to
impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an
alternative.
Makes you wonder why they made so much fuss about it at the time then,
doesn't it?
employment.
On 26/12/2022 11:26, Tweed wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/12/2022 11:18, Tweed wrote:Lots of folk with no prospect of alternative reasonably well paid
Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining
and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to
impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator >>>> gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted >>>> their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an
alternative.
Makes you wonder why they made so much fuss about it at the time then,
doesn't it?
employment.
So, they didn't like the work but liked the money.
Life's a bitch.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/12/2022 11:26, Tweed wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/12/2022 11:18, Tweed wrote:Lots of folk with no prospect of alternative reasonably well paid
Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining
and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to
impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator >>>>> gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted >>>>> their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an
alternative.
Makes you wonder why they made so much fuss about it at the time then, >>>> doesn't it?
employment.
So, they didn't like the work but liked the money.
Life's a bitch.
No need to wish those circumstances on your children though.
Anyway, back
to the original point, it would probably be very difficult to re-establish the domestic coal industry at the necessary scale to support electricity generation, even if it got political backing.
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The UK has huge potential for offshore wind/tidal/wave energy.
Does it?
For most of November Wind produced so little that CCGT was working very
hard, probably for more than 20 days. You can see the graphs on the
Templar.Gridwatch web site.
Your claim of ‘huge’ tidal/wave needs to be substantiated. Wind has already
failed. Even with the ‘exponential’ (in fact: linear) growth in turbine >> provision.
It is now
urgent that we get on with making best use of it.
It is urgent that we make the best use of our own resources. We need 30GW
of nuclear, and we should follow the ‘green’ lead of Germany in opening >> coal-fired power stations. Self-sufficiency in energy will decouple the UK >> from wild swings in international prices and give energy security.
Windmills in the mid and western Atlantic won’t do neither.
Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any
significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners. Probably next to impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator
gear. Despite all the community around the old pits, few miners wanted
their children to go down the pit when they grew up if there was an alternative. We don’t have that much in the way of open cast mines.
You’re looking in your rear-view mirror. Technology probably already exists
to robotise the mining of coal.
Where are you going to get domestically produced coal from in any significant quantity? Nobody is going to finance reopening deep coal mining
and you won’t find many people willing to be coal miners.You are joking! Tell that to the people of Maltby and Edlington, Rossington, Stainforth!
Probably next toThat's no problem. It's the norm.
impossible to legally be an underground miner unless in full respirator gear.
On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 16:06:17 UTC, Spike wrote:
You’re looking in your rear-view mirror. Technology probably already exists
to robotise the mining of coal.
Modern coal mining is largely automated.
Speaking as someone who lives amongst the ex-mining communities I'm
finding this discussion to be full of ignorance, prejudice, and total bullshit.
Speaking as someone who lives amongst the ex-mining communities I'm finding this discussion to be full of ignorance, prejudice, and total bullshit.Well, you would, wouldn’t you? It suits the agenda to say these things, something to do with a post-truth world.
Modern coal mining is largely automated.
You are joking! Tell that to the people of Maltby and Edlington, Rossington, Stainforth!
You’re looking in your rear-view mirror. Technology probably already exists to robotise the mining of coal.
On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 20:52:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
Speaking as someone who lives amongst the ex-mining communities I'mWell, you would, wouldn’t you? It suits the agenda to say these things,
finding this discussion to be full of ignorance, prejudice, and total bullshit.
something to do with a post-truth world.
There are three thrusts in your reply. Not one of them constitutes a rational argument.
Bill
On 22/12/2022 12:51, tony sayer wrote:
So this embedded wind is connected to and feeds the grid
Anyone care to explain the WIND generation difference between these two >>>>>> sites please?, sometimes 3 odd GW apart for wind!..
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
https://grid.iamkate.com/
You could ping TNP for an explanation but I know that Gridwatch says it >>>>> doesn't include embedded wind (see under "Key") whereas IamKate says >>>>> "Embedded solar and wind data comes from National Grid ESO" which
implies it does.
Small correction…
TNP’s website is actually
<https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/>
Thanks. I've no excuse as I even thought "it looks different".
And it may be I was vaguely remembering the text that comes if you hover >>> over the wind note there: "Wind contributes about another 30% from
embedded (or unmetered) ..."
PS
doesn't feed "the grid" (as in the high voltage National Grid). They
are by definition generators who feed in to one of the DNOs at a lower >voltage. In passing this means DNOs have had to become active in
balancing supply with demand.
In article <u6eYgkFkIFpjFwo8@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
Erm. The idea is the have a number of wind farms, etc, spread over a
wide area. One that extends well out to sea. Given that, the wind
essentially does blow in quite a few of those 'somewheres' at any given
time.
Provided that there is sufficient wind blowing to meet demand needs!..
cf the points I've already made about the increase in reliability as we >spread more wind (and ocean/tidal flow) farms out acrosss our sectors of
the ocean, etc.
Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation and is
rising roughly exponentially over the years at a current rate of about >2GW/year. Also *very* profitable now - even before the effect of the Act of >War.
With proper provision, that can grow to more like 100% in a decade or so. >Then go on to give a higher margin. Add in storage via H2 or other methods, >Tidal flow, transnational interconnectors, etc. And we can be essentially >fossil fuel free for our gas and electric energy.
The basic hold-back isn't engineering. It is the political will to go for
it, and to stop assuming the future has to be like the past.
The other long-term repost to your question is, of course: What do we do
when the gas/oil runs out? Wind/Tidal aren't consumables which can deplete.
Jim
On 30/12/2022 13:36, tony sayer wrote:
In article <5a5b3fa6f9noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <u6eYgkFkIFpjFwo8@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
Erm. The idea is the have a number of wind farms, etc, spread over a >>>>> wide area. One that extends well out to sea. Given that, the wind
essentially does blow in quite a few of those 'somewheres' at any given >>>>> time.
Provided that there is sufficient wind blowing to meet demand needs!..
cf the points I've already made about the increase in reliability as we
spread more wind (and ocean/tidal flow) farms out acrosss our sectors of >>> the ocean, etc.
Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation and is
rising roughly exponentially over the years at a current rate of about
2GW/year. Also *very* profitable now - even before the effect of the Act of >>> War.
With proper provision, that can grow to more like 100% in a decade or so. >>> Then go on to give a higher margin. Add in storage via H2 or other methods, >>> Tidal flow, transnational interconnectors, etc. And we can be essentially >>> fossil fuel free for our gas and electric energy.
The basic hold-back isn't engineering. It is the political will to go for >>> it, and to stop assuming the future has to be like the past.
The other long-term repost to your question is, of course: What do we do >>> when the gas/oil runs out? Wind/Tidal aren't consumables which can deplete. >>>
Jim
Well as long as the interconnections aren't susceptible to interruption
by some rouge state then that may be fine.
bear in mind States which are not rogue are capable of becoming a bit peeved
https://news.sky.com/story/france-threatens-to-cut-off-uks-energy-again-in-new-fishing-row-12426857
In article <5a5b3fa6f9noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <u6eYgkFkIFpjFwo8@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
Erm. The idea is the have a number of wind farms, etc, spread over a
wide area. One that extends well out to sea. Given that, the wind
essentially does blow in quite a few of those 'somewheres' at any given >>>> time.
Provided that there is sufficient wind blowing to meet demand needs!..
cf the points I've already made about the increase in reliability as we
spread more wind (and ocean/tidal flow) farms out acrosss our sectors of
the ocean, etc.
Wind already often provides around half our Electric generation and is
rising roughly exponentially over the years at a current rate of about
2GW/year. Also *very* profitable now - even before the effect of the Act of >> War.
With proper provision, that can grow to more like 100% in a decade or so.
Then go on to give a higher margin. Add in storage via H2 or other methods, >> Tidal flow, transnational interconnectors, etc. And we can be essentially
fossil fuel free for our gas and electric energy.
The basic hold-back isn't engineering. It is the political will to go for
it, and to stop assuming the future has to be like the past.
The other long-term repost to your question is, of course: What do we do
when the gas/oil runs out? Wind/Tidal aren't consumables which can deplete. >>
Jim
Well as long as the interconnections aren't susceptible to interruption
by some rouge state then that may be fine.
Well as long as the interconnections aren't susceptible to interruption
by some rouge state then that may be fine.
I don't know quite how big ifs your proposed catchment area but it does
seem to be very large!
Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
bear in mind States which are not rogue are capable of becoming a bit
peeved
https://news.sky.com/story/france-threatens-to-cut-off-uks-energy-again-in-new-fishing-row-12426857
tony sayer wrote:
Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
need gas for.
Jim Lesurf wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
need gas for.
And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for
20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas.
This dismal data can be seen on the website at https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also ineffective.
Solar output over that time was trivial.
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't >>> need gas for.
And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for
20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas.
This dismal data can be seen on the website at
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and >> extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also
ineffective.
Solar output over that time was trivial.
So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to provide all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy increases our energy security.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't >>>> need gas for.
And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for >>> 20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas. >>>
This dismal data can be seen on the website at
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and >>> extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also
ineffective.
Solar output over that time was trivial.
So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to provide >> all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce
ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy >> increases our energy security.
That’s effectively what happens now; once the wind started blowing again after its long absence, gas generation was down to 1 to 2 GW.
It’s just that to cover nearly three weeks of very little wind, you need a /lot/ of backup. Battery farms, tidal, solar and the rest are essentially useless at this level of requirement.
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't >>>>> need gas for.
And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for >>>> 20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas. >>>>
This dismal data can be seen on the website at
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and
extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also
ineffective.
Solar output over that time was trivial.
So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to provide >>> all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce
ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy >>> increases our energy security.
That’s effectively what happens now; once the wind started blowing again >> after its long absence, gas generation was down to 1 to 2 GW.
It’s just that to cover nearly three weeks of very little wind, you need a >> /lot/ of backup. Battery farms, tidal, solar and the rest are essentially
useless at this level of requirement.
Indeed, and we will have to pay the price of underused gas backup plant.
What I don’t understand are the folk that claim wind farms are useless because they don’t have 100% availability.
The green arguments seem to
upset a number of people. Put those to one side and consider the energy security and economic issues of being dependent on overseas gas suppliers.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't >>>>>> need gas for.
And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for >>>>> 20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas. >>>>>
This dismal data can be seen on the website at
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia and
extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also >>>>> ineffective.
Solar output over that time was trivial.
So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to provide
all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce >>>> ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy
increases our energy security.
That’s effectively what happens now; once the wind started blowing again >>> after its long absence, gas generation was down to 1 to 2 GW.
It’s just that to cover nearly three weeks of very little wind, you need a
/lot/ of backup. Battery farms, tidal, solar and the rest are essentially >>> useless at this level of requirement.
Indeed, and we will have to pay the price of underused gas backup plant.
That’s the result of the inherent intermittency of renewables.
The situation of no wind and no sun has to be catered for.
What I don’t understand are the folk that claim wind farms are useless
because they don’t have 100% availability.
The real issue is their intermittency that needs backup.
The green arguments seem to
upset a number of people. Put those to one side and consider the energy
security and economic issues of being dependent on overseas gas suppliers.
Or planting wind farms where they can’t be defended.
Getting Solar from N Africa has the same drawbacks.
That’s effectively what happens now; once the wind started blowing again after its long absence, gas generation was down to 1 to 2 GW.
It’s just that to cover nearly three weeks of very little wind, you need a /lot/ of backup. Battery farms, tidal, solar and the rest are essentially useless at this level of requirement.
Or planting wind farms where they can’t be defended.
Getting Solar from N Africa has the same drawbacks.
On 01/01/2023 14:53, Spike wrote:
Or planting wind farms where they cant be defended.
Getting Solar from N Africa has the same drawbacks.
The Greenies tend to be as thick as the proverbial short planks. I
wonder how difficult it would be to convince one that you could feed the solar power along optical fibre!
There is no perfect solution for domestic energy needs, but lack of >perfection doesnt rule out a technology.
On 01/01/2023 14:06, Spike wrote:
That’s effectively what happens now; once the wind started blowing again >> after its long absence, gas generation was down to 1 to 2 GW.
It’s just that to cover nearly three weeks of very little wind, you need a >> /lot/ of backup. Battery farms, tidal, solar and the rest are essentially >> useless at this level of requirement.
And of course
"EDF warns it may be forced to shut two nuclear power stations, which
supply 4pc of the UK's energy, early "
Well, it’s all light, innit!
Jim Lesurf wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gas
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
Yes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we
didn't need gas for.
And every kWh that wind fails to supply, such as the ~15GW shortfall for
20+ days in November and early December, has to be made up for with gas.
This dismal data can be seen on the website at https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The high pressure area that caused this was located over Central Russia
and extended out into the Atlantic. So European wind generation was also ineffective.
The Greenies tend to be as thick as the proverbial short planks. I
wonder how difficult it would be to convince one that you could feed the solar power along optical fibre!
There was the Greenie councillor who wanted to ban all electromagnetic radiation from his village. I wonder how he'd stop sunlight
So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to
provide all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home
produced energy increases our energy security.
In article <tortev$1d63b$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to
provide all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do produce ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home produced energy increases our energy security.
Particularly when you have built enough wind/tidal/etc capacity to
generate a significant amount of 'gas' (H2) which can be stored,
tankered, or piped *in addition* to the wind/tidal/etc sources supplying electric power directly.
The point here is that the potential wind/etc capacity within the UKs
area (inc sea) is far bigger than our total need - or present take. Our problem is that as yet we've not built anything like the number of
turbines, etc, that we need. The current limit is due to what we've built
so far, not what we can build and use. To a fair extent, this poor level
of exploitation is due to flawed political choices, not engineering or
the real amount of energy which could be taken.
The above also means we can become a big net exporter of energy from such green sources *if* we get our act together and don't just flog it off to non-UK 'private enterprise' that creams the profits from *limited*
extraction to their HQs abroad.
In article <5a600b69e3charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
There was the Greenie councillor who wanted to ban all electromagnetic radiation from his village. I wonder how he'd stop sunlight
How fortunate we are that no politician of any other party is clueless
about science or engineering! :-)
Jim
This is all well and good, BUT - there are times when there is no wind anywhere in the UK; these times can last for days and usually occur at
times of peak demand,
The point here is that the potential wind/etc capacity within the UKs area (inc sea) is far bigger than our total need - or present take. Our problem
is that as yet we've not built anything like the number of turbines, etc, that we need. The current limit is due to what we've built so far, not what we can build and use. To a fair extent, this poor level of exploitation is due to flawed political choices, not engineering or the real amount of
energy which could be taken.
On 03/01/2023 10:18, charles wrote:
This is all well and good, BUT - there are times when there is no wind
anywhere in the UK; these times can last for days and usually occur at
times of peak demand,
And combined with very cold weather.
Yes, because as yet we've got no-where near the potential capacity the UK
has for wind energy. To a significant extent due to Westminster
foot-dragging and NIMBY.
On 02/01/2023 10:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Yes, because as yet we've got no-where near the potential capacity the UK
has for wind energy. To a significant extent due to Westminster
foot-dragging and NIMBY.
I presume you do not have any near you?
I was amused a few months ago to read that a grid line was being put underground in North Wales to placate the Greenies. It was replacing a couple of 100 ft pylons, but the Greenies are happy with the hills being despoiled by wind turbine towers two or three times higher than that.
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 03/01/2023 10:18, charles wrote:
This is all well and good, BUT - there are times when there is no wind
anywhere in the UK; these times can last for days and usually occur at
times of peak demand,
And combined with very cold weather.
So operate gas/oil fired plant during those periods.
On 02/01/2023 10:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The point here is that the potential wind/etc capacity within the UKs area >> (inc sea) is far bigger than our total need - or present take. Our problem >> is that as yet we've not built anything like the number of turbines, etc,
that we need. The current limit is due to what we've built so far, not what >> we can build and use. To a fair extent, this poor level of exploitation is >> due to flawed political choices, not engineering or the real amount of
energy which could be taken.
Being a cynic, I am just waiting for large ship, perhaps carrying
something nasty, to plough into one of the offshore wind power stations.
Ships regularly hit natural features that have been in the same place
for millennia and marked on all charts.
In article <tortev$1d63b$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
So what is wrong with using gas to fill the gaps rather than gas to
provide all the generation? The wind generation preserves the gas we do
produce ourselves and saves balance of payments outgoings. Any home
produced energy increases our energy security.
Particularly when you have built enough wind/tidal/etc capacity to generate
a significant amount of 'gas' (H2) which can be stored, tankered, or piped *in addition* to the wind/tidal/etc sources supplying electric power directly.
The point here is that the potential wind/etc capacity within the UKs area (inc sea) is far bigger than our total need - or present take. Our problem
is that as yet we've not built anything like the number of turbines, etc, that we need. The current limit is due to what we've built so far, not what we can build and use. To a fair extent, this poor level of exploitation is due to flawed political choices, not engineering or the real amount of
energy which could be taken.
The above also means we can become a big net exporter of energy from such green sources *if* we get our act together and don't just flog it off to non-UK 'private enterprise' that creams the profits from *limited*
extraction to their HQs abroad.
MB wrote:
The Greenies tend to be as thick as the proverbial short planks. I
wonder how difficult it would be to convince one that you could feed the
solar power along optical fibre!
Actually, that's quite an interesting idea. :-)
The long-range optical fibres tend to have a *very* low loss/km. So I
wonder how much light power they can cope with and stay OK? I guess the
main problems would be the efficiencies of the convertions at either end
and what to do when the RX wants more or less. 8-]
So maybe it will happen, but it will only strike a few turbines at the edge of the field. You might equally worry about an LNG tanker ship setting ablaze. In other news, aircraft fall out of the sky occasionally. Doesn’t stop most folk from using them. We’ve also has oil and gas rigs at sea, and to the best of my knowledge nothing has struck one (badly).
If you run the gas/oil-fired plants all the time, there are two benefits:
1) they can be run in the most efficient mode, rather than at a very inefficient part throttle and having considerable fire-up costs and wasted heat at shutdown,
On 03/01/2023 11:09, Spike wrote:
If you run the gas/oil-fired plants all the time, there are two benefits:
1) they can be run in the most efficient mode, rather than at a very
inefficient part throttle and having considerable fire-up costs and wasted >> heat at shutdown,
My understanding is that gas based plant is used precisely because it
can be run up and down quickly. It's too expensive for base load use.
One is typically talking about gas turbine, where the main useful heat content is in the gas itself, not in large quantities of water and heat exchangers.
Winds finally up and blowing a good 'un today t keeping the gasYes. Despite the variability, every kWh from wind, etc, is one we didn't
consumption low lets hope that carries on for a while at least.
need gas for.
Jim
On 26/12/2022 20:22, wrights...@aol.com wrote:The tunnelling etc is done by machines.
Modern coal mining is largely automated.Once it is installed.
So there's generating machinery sitting around doing nothing.
On 05/01/2023 16:29, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
So there's generating machinery sitting around doing nothing.
That predates renewables. There has always been excess capacity for
periods of peak demands, including commercial breaks.
That predates renewables. There has always been excess capacity for
periods of peak demands, including commercial breaks.
On 05/01/2023 16:29, wrights...@aol.com wrote:But the extent of it is now far more.
So there's generating machinery sitting around doing nothing.That predates renewables. There has always been excess capacity for
periods of peak demands, including commercial breaks.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:32:02 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,200 |
