Lou is borrowing my car tomorrow so I thought I'd better clear it out.
Turns out I've been carting about half a ton of junk around. Ohh, bad for
the planet, naughty naughty!
The job took much longer than I envisaged, and as I filled the black sacks
I had the radio on. The car hasn't got DAB, so much against my better judgement I settled for BBC Radio Four. I found myself listening to 'Any Answers', presented by Anita Anand. People were ringing in to discuss
global warming. All seemed to be smoothly progressing along the lines of
the usual agenda, with a number of callers more-or-less toeing the BBC's line, but then a Scottish lady joined in. At first she talked about the
way greeny policies had damaged employment in Aberdeen, and although you could hear Anita's hackles rise this challenge to the universal consensus
was just about tolerated, but then the Scottish woman went on to express doubts (just doubts) about the whole global warming hypothesis, in as much
as it was affecting employment and prosperity. She might as well have declared that the moon was made of green cheese, that the Earth is flat,
or that sex with goats was a jolly fine thing. She was cut off faster than was decent. So much for free speech.
Next up a couple of blokes who were dead against nuclear power. Their
views were welcomed warmly. One said that 'renewables provide 90% of our electricity needs already.' Anita did not challenge this absurd claim, although she must have known it was rubbish. At the moment of writing renewables are doing much better than usual because it's really windy:
they are producing a massive 19% of demand!
The other guy said that nuclear power stations weren't 'environmentally friendly', because of the amount of cement used when they are built. I can't dig out the figures right now but I know that the amount of cement per GWh
of electricity produced by nuclear power stations is dwarfed by the same figure for wind turbines. Anita kept quiet, but then a caller came on and
to Anita's palpable alarm cunningly changed tack without warning. He
pointed out that not only do the windmills need a hell of a lot of cement because they have to have massive foundations to withstand the lateral
forces from the wind, their construction releases large amounts of CO2
that had been trapped in the peat. Wow! That man was disappeared mighty quick! Can't fault that Anita for her reflexes!
The next programme was a short story by Travis Alabanza. Actually, it isn't accurate to call it a short story. Blatant propaganda is a better description. It was in the form of letters between a mother and her
daughter. It was pure one-sided environmentalist claptrap from start to finish. No really, it was. It was incredible. I'm used to the BBC's lies
but this really made me sit up. Even in the dark days of the Soviet Union
and Radio Moscow there was no propaganda as naked and unashamed as this. Amongst much more (because they really crammed it in) we had Obama GOOD, Boris BAD, Greenpeace GOOD, Monbiot GOOD, Oil BAD, windmills GOOD, Greta a SAINT, and much much more. Needless to say a quick google confirms my suspicions about this Travis Alabanza person. She/he/it will have a fine future with the BBC.
OK, if they want to make a 15 minute over-the-top advert for
environmentalism that's one thing (and thus warned we could all avoid it), but for it to masquerade as an innocent short story is outrageously dishonest.
Bill
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:17:38 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
Actually, in practice the best way seems to be that when the general >standard of living rises above a given level, people tend to have fewer >children. IIUC this has been shown in various countries around the
world as they got up to 'first world' levels.
Professor Dawkins describes it slightly differently. He suggests the
most significant factor is that it is those cultures in which women have control over their own reproductive systems that have the lowest birth
rates. I think he makes a fair point.
Well, as I said then. The issue is that the world is warming. What is disputed is how much is our fault, and how much it is natural as far as
the earth is concerned.
Remember, Skylab? It came down five years too early because the sun had warmed up and the atmosphere of the earth expanded.
Remember, Skylab? It came down five years too early because the sun had warmed up and the atmosphere of the earth expanded.
Brian
Remember, Skylab? It came down five years too early because the sun had warmed up and the atmosphere of the earth expanded.
I was too young then to take in the nuances in the article, though I appreciated that the solar system does have a motion relative to the
spiral arm, so the basis for the prediction made sense. Since then, I
have discovered that the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere is roughly coincidental with the number of sunspots, which suggests an
11-year cycle.
In article <kPyKtbMndClhFwTT@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
100% this.
That is the only sensible way to have reliable energy and reduce CO2
output. Strangely though, many argue against nuclear maybe because CO2
isn't really their target, it's capitalism.
Bob.
Its fear of them going BANG!
In the mind of the general public, yes. But in the mind of engineers it is >"what we didn't expect", or as SuperMac put it: "Events, dear boy, events!"
e.g. The first gens didn't assume someone might *deliberately* fly a 747
into one at full speed for 'terror' reasons. But they now have to worry
about that, and if we need to shut or massively modify older stations.
e.g. Fukashima. They were confident it was safe... oops.
Then in 'third world' countries and ones with poor governments we get >examples like... Chenobyl.
How many of the 'flat pack' Fisson stations would you be happy to see >scatterred around, say, Africa? Would they even contain a 747-strike?
And aren't those subs still at Faslane awaiting 'decomissioning'... ?
Jim
In article <598cb44761bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham ><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone back
to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought with it
a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors much
safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that failed due
to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that self cooling
can be designed in now.
...and that failure was because of a tidal wave that didn't fit what the >designers assumed would occur, etc.
And 'learning' by such accidents means taking any design and bulding very >slowly. It typically takes the order of a decade to design and build a new >'nuclear' station. Add in commissioning (bug fixing), etc, and it tends to >take multiple decades. ... erm, or dear, that gets expensive and may take
too long.
...and then the hazard you didn't allow for manifests.
Whereas wind power is expanding rapidly and the cost per kWh is falling as >this happens. NOW. It is already a good commercial proposition, and getting >better. From our POV the multiple owners of wind farms also then compete, >helping push down prices.
Personally I prefer that to heavily subsidised fission stations from non-UK >sources.
Jim
In article <sn292l$k30$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> >wrote:
The good thing about the current crop of low wind high pressure systems
whilst we are short of gas is to illustrate to the non scientific
decision makers that wind turbines cannot be our only source of power.
Yes. we also need solar, hydro, etc, as well.
Not put all our ergs in one gasket. :-)
Jim
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
In article <sn0s53$nrr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
On 16/11/2021 16:37, tony sayer wrote:
What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that >>>>> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if >>>>> we are to phase out fossil.
Sigh! What hopelessly short memories people have! This subject has
been flogged to death in this ng multiple times over the last decade or >>>> so, and nothing has changed since to make it worthwhile flogging it to >>>> death all over again. Once again, let me remind you that:
- The world doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph: without
'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means something
like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' = significant
uncertainty, total current world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference >>>> Scenario = predicted demand) ...
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel- >cycle/uranium-
resources/uranium-markets.aspx
- The UK has bugger all!
On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
In article <sn0s53$nrr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
On 16/11/2021 16:37, tony sayer wrote:
What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that >>>> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if >>>> we are to phase out fossil.
Sigh! What hopelessly short memories people have! This subject has
been flogged to death in this ng multiple times over the last decade or
so, and nothing has changed since to make it worthwhile flogging it to
death all over again. Once again, let me remind you that:
- The world doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph: without
'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means something
like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' = significant
uncertainty, total current world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference >>> Scenario = predicted demand) ...
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-
resources/uranium-markets.aspx
- The UK has bugger all!
- That currently nuclear is by far the most expensive means of
generation by source in the UK:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732
"When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn.
Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn."
So half-way through the build it's £5bn over budget, can we assume that
means it will be £10bn over budget by completion? I don't know, but I
won't be surprised if it is. Meanwhile from the same report:
Lets forget Hinckley and the large reactors these are the new small
modular ones that can be factory built such as Rolls Royce have now got
the support to make them as have other firms in the USA even bill gates
is behind the idea, suppose their all wrong;?.
They can be factory built then stack as many of they as you need and
where you need ..
And yes we don't have the stuff we will have to get it from elsewhere
but where does our gas now come from I wonder?..
Blue sky, years away, and how much fissile fuel will be left by the time >they're ready to start work?
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/push-for-small-modular-nuclear- reactors-goes-into-overdrive-with-rolls-royce/video/d456da4f36135f28c4d8 2d85b1bfebf9
In article <sn37vl$g9j$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
And yes we don't have the stuff we will have to get it from elsewhere
but where does our gas now come from I wonder?..
Blue sky, years away, and how much fissile fuel will be left by the time
they're ready to start work?
I suspect it will be around after all what are the French going to do as
they and a bit of Europe, inc us, they supply depends on it;!....
Theres only so much sunshine we can collect and on overcast winter days
its not much cop..
Like Hydro, we just don't have the terrain for the rain;!
Have a look at France -v- England compared and see how the French got
their power right a long time ago...
In article <598cc1c96bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf ><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <598cb44761bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham >><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone back
to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought with it >>> a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors much
safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that failed due
to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that self cooling
can be designed in now.
...and that failure was because of a tidal wave that didn't fit what the >>designers assumed would occur, etc.
And 'learning' by such accidents means taking any design and bulding very >>slowly. It typically takes the order of a decade to design and build a new >>'nuclear' station. Add in commissioning (bug fixing), etc, and it tends to >>take multiple decades. ... erm, or dear, that gets expensive and may take >>too long.
...and then the hazard you didn't allow for manifests.
Whereas wind power is expanding rapidly and the cost per kWh is falling as >>this happens. NOW. It is already a good commercial proposition, and getting >>better. From our POV the multiple owners of wind farms also then compete, >>helping push down prices.
Personally I prefer that to heavily subsidised fission stations from non-UK >>sources.
Jim
quite some time earlier this year?...
On 22/11/2021 22:51, tony sayer wrote:
Theres only so much sunshine we can collect and on overcast winter days
its not much cop..
Like Hydro, we just don't have the terrain for the rain;!
Have a look at France -v- England compared and see how the French got
their power right a long time ago...
I think I read that one difference is that in the UK any large project
like that can be delayed for many years by public inquiries and then inquiries into the result of the first one and objections to planning applications.
I understand these have much less power in France so they can build
things much easier.
You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is blowing.
On 23/11/2021 11:27, Martin wrote:
You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is
blowing.
Apart from transmission losses and costs, you are back to dependence on unreliable countries like Russia and France.
Much better to be able to generate your own electricity.
On 22/11/2021 22:51, tony sayer wrote:
Theres only so much sunshine we can collect and on overcast winter days
its not much cop..
Like Hydro, we just don't have the terrain for the rain;!
Have a look at France -v- England compared and see how the French got
their power right a long time ago...
I think I read that one difference is that in the UK any large project
like that can be delayed for many years by public inquiries and then >inquiries into the result of the first one and objections to planning >applications.
I understand these have much less power in France so they can build
things much easier.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 22:38:20 +0000, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <598cc1c96bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf >><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <598cb44761bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham >>><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone back >>>> to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought with it >>>> a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors much
safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that failed due >>>> to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that self cooling >>>> can be designed in now.
...and that failure was because of a tidal wave that didn't fit what the >>>designers assumed would occur, etc.
And 'learning' by such accidents means taking any design and bulding very >>>slowly. It typically takes the order of a decade to design and build a new >>>'nuclear' station. Add in commissioning (bug fixing), etc, and it tends to >>>take multiple decades. ... erm, or dear, that gets expensive and may take >>>too long.
...and then the hazard you didn't allow for manifests.
Whereas wind power is expanding rapidly and the cost per kWh is falling as >>>this happens. NOW. It is already a good commercial proposition, and getting >>>better. From our POV the multiple owners of wind farms also then compete, >>>helping push down prices.
Personally I prefer that to heavily subsidised fission stations from non-UK >>>sources.
Jim
quite some time earlier this year?...
You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is >blowing.
On 23/11/2021 11:27, Martin wrote:
You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is
blowing.
Apart from transmission losses and costs, you are back to dependence on >unreliable countries like Russia and France.
Much better to be able to generate your own electricity.
Yes very much the case like the TGV high speed rail and i remember first going there with a mobile phone and the coverage was excellent!.
Want mobile coverage?, then just build the effing tower for it!
Job done...
The other problem is if the continental grid is short of power (which it chronically is at the moment) countries sitting on the end of inter connectors are going to be at the back of the queue. You would also have to have an order of magnitude more interconnector capacity to be able to
provide the bulk of the UK demand on a windless day, and you’d have to have that transmission capacity to multiple distant points to where you hope the wind might be blowing. Basically you need huge amounts of surplus
generation and transmission capacity to cover for one large geographic area losing wind generation capacity due to a still day. I don’t see that happening.
Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
quite some time earlier this year?...
Really? Where is your provenance for this claim?
In article <uqjppg5rj3ur3gqo7c9735a7h8m2rokp69@4ax.com>, Martin ><me@address.invalid> scribeth thus
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 22:38:20 +0000, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <598cc1c96bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf >>><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <598cb44761bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham >>>><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for >>>quite some time earlier this year?...
Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany >>>>> decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone back >>>>> to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought with it >>>>> a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors much
safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that failed due >>>>> to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that self cooling >>>>> can be designed in now.
...and that failure was because of a tidal wave that didn't fit what the >>>>designers assumed would occur, etc.
And 'learning' by such accidents means taking any design and bulding very >>>>slowly. It typically takes the order of a decade to design and build a new >>>>'nuclear' station. Add in commissioning (bug fixing), etc, and it tends to >>>>take multiple decades. ... erm, or dear, that gets expensive and may take >>>>too long.
...and then the hazard you didn't allow for manifests.
Whereas wind power is expanding rapidly and the cost per kWh is falling as >>>>this happens. NOW. It is already a good commercial proposition, and getting >>>>better. From our POV the multiple owners of wind farms also then compete, >>>>helping push down prices.
Personally I prefer that to heavily subsidised fission stations from non-UK >>>>sources.
Jim
You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind is >>blowing.
Good luck with that one then!, Britain and its surrounds is about the
most windiest place in Europe!..
Have a look at this site over time...
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic >=-0.73,50.04,1792/loc=5.752,48.142
And right now Wind is 8% of UK demand...
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Even got the Coal and Oil on the go!..
In article <h7uLgETcvBnhFwwL@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
quite some time earlier this year?...
I thought I'd already answered that. However:
1) http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
The above shows the area legally available for Scotland to have economic >control over the placing and use of wind/wave/tidal/flow/solar power. It is >almost 10 times the area of Scotland's mainland. How often is that area >devoid of all such power sources for, say, 24hours? I'd suspect the answer
is beween 'very rarely' and 'never'. Note that the western approaches
aren't well known as places where the "wind doesn't blow"! :-)
2) Storage of energy via electric batteries, hydro, hydrogen, etc. The UK >used to have storage for many days worth of gas BTW but recent goverment >allowed it to be destroyed. Similar can be rebuilt, though, and in the >future, homes may have 'power walls' and cars store energy which can be
used by the grid in exchange for payments to the owner. Remote wind/etc >generators may be economic via storing their power as generated hydrogen to >be picked up with a tanker. So not all may need to be on an electricity
grid.
The future isn't the past. The engineering we can already expect shows that >"when the wind doesn't blow" really isn't a practical problem. BTW you can >also add in
3) Long distance HVDC interconnectors between countries *and continents*. >Just as we already have some of these and long oil/gas pipes. The big >difference here is the possibity of *two way* transfers. Not just the 'one >way' of oil and gas. Scotland could end up selling a lot of energy, not
just bringing it in, via HVDC and/or hydrogen. And the first ones to
develop better wind turbines, etc, can also sell them to other
countries.
I'm pointing out the aims of work *already beeing done* by engineers as I >read about in 'Spectrum', etc. So if you want to find out more then maybe
the web editions of IEEE Spectrum may help. A lot more development is >happening than most people realise, backed by commercial support.
Jim
Have a look at this site over time...
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic =-0.73,50.04,1792/loc=5.752,48.142
The other problem is if the continental grid is short of power (which it chronically is at the moment) countries sitting on the end of inter connectors are going to be at the back of the queue. You would also have
to have an order of magnitude more interconnector capacity to be able to provide the bulk of the UK demand on a windless day, and you'd have to
have that transmission capacity to multiple distant points to where you
hope the wind might be blowing. Basically you need huge amounts of
surplus generation and transmission capacity to cover for one large geographic area losing wind generation capacity due to a still day. I
don't see that happening.
On 23/11/2021 11:27, Martin wrote:
You take your electricity from a distant part of Europe where the wind
is blowing.
Apart from transmission losses and costs, you are back to dependence on unreliable countries like Russia and France.
Much better to be able to generate your own electricity.
And of course windless periods very inconveniently often coincide with
very cold weather!
In article <snit45$n3n$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
And of course windless periods very inconveniently often coincide with
very cold weather!
Which may come with clear skies. :-)
In article <598ff05081noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <snit45$n3n$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
And of course windless periods very inconveniently often coincide with
very cold weather!
Which may come with clear skies. :-)
Which here, at the moment, have 13 hours of darkness.
In article <snionu$nms$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
The other problem is if the continental grid is short of power (which it
chronically is at the moment) countries sitting on the end of inter
connectors are going to be at the back of the queue. You would also have
to have an order of magnitude more interconnector capacity to be able to
provide the bulk of the UK demand on a windless day, and you'd have to
have that transmission capacity to multiple distant points to where you
hope the wind might be blowing. Basically you need huge amounts of
surplus generation and transmission capacity to cover for one large
geographic area losing wind generation capacity due to a still day. I
don't see that happening.
Well, the engineers seem happy to do it, and it makes sense as a two way exchange. Indeed, given the sheer area Scotland or the UK have for it, we have the potential (pun alert!) to do nicely out of it.
Jim
In article <598fd91efdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <h7uLgETcvBnhFwwL@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
quite some time earlier this year?...
I thought I'd already answered that. However:
1) http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
The above shows the area legally available for Scotland to have
economic control over the placing and use of wind/wave/tidal/flow/solar >power. It is almost 10 times the area of Scotland's mainland. How often
is that area devoid of all such power sources for, say, 24hours? I'd >suspect the answer is beween 'very rarely' and 'never'. Note that the >western approaches aren't well known as places where the "wind doesn't >blow"! :-)
Look up Blocking High systems they do happen and can be for several
days.
Where are these remote wind gennies then Jim?..
The future isn't the past. The engineering we can already expect shows
that "when the wind doesn't blow" really isn't a practical problem. BTW
you can also add in
3) Long distance HVDC interconnectors between countries *and
continents*. Just as we already have some of these and long oil/gas
pipes. The big difference here is the possibity of *two way* transfers.
Not just the 'one way' of oil and gas. Scotland could end up selling a
lot of energy, not just bringing it in, via HVDC and/or hydrogen. And
the first ones to develop better wind turbines, etc, can also sell them
to other countries.
As best i know most all are bi-directional!.
I'm pointing out the aims of work *already beeing done* by engineers as
I read about in 'Spectrum', etc. So if you want to find out more then
maybe the web editions of IEEE Spectrum may help. A lot more
development is happening than most people realise, backed by commercial >support.
Like Small Modular Nuclear;)..
And lets hope they get a bloody chivvy on with it!...
In article <28S+hLVtbXnhFwTN@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
And lets hope they get a bloody chivvy on with it!...
Yes, fusion has vastly more potential than fission.
In article <28S+hLVtbXnhFwTN@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <598fd91efdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <h7uLgETcvBnhFwwL@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
Yes Jim but what do you do when the winds not there, like it was for
quite some time earlier this year?...
I thought I'd already answered that. However:
1) http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
The above shows the area legally available for Scotland to have
economic control over the placing and use of wind/wave/tidal/flow/solar
power. It is almost 10 times the area of Scotland's mainland. How often
is that area devoid of all such power sources for, say, 24hours? I'd
suspect the answer is beween 'very rarely' and 'never'. Note that the
western approaches aren't well known as places where the "wind doesn't
blow"! :-)
Look up Blocking High systems they do happen and can be for several
days.
Please give reference to stats on examples that cover most or all of the
area in the above map. This would also need to include the effect on wave
and flow powers levels to deal with the points I'm making.
Where are these remote wind gennies then Jim?..
Can I suggest you look at back issues of IEEE Spectrum. Work has already
been done on wind generators that are placed in deep water. It is the next >step being planned by businesses.
The future isn't the past. The engineering we can already expect shows
that "when the wind doesn't blow" really isn't a practical problem.
BTW
you can also add in
3) Long distance HVDC interconnectors between countries *and
continents*. Just as we already have some of these and long oil/gas
pipes. The big difference here is the possibity of *two way* transfers.
Not just the 'one way' of oil and gas. Scotland could end up selling a
lot of energy, not just bringing it in, via HVDC and/or hydrogen. And
the first ones to develop better wind turbines, etc, can also sell them
to other countries.
As best i know most all are bi-directional!.
...but the UK has been using them largely to import power, so single >direction in practice because we lack capacity in total.
I'm pointing out the aims of work *already beeing done* by engineers as
I read about in 'Spectrum', etc. So if you want to find out more then
maybe the web editions of IEEE Spectrum may help. A lot more
development is happening than most people realise, backed by commercial
support.
Like Small Modular Nuclear;)..
And fusion with small-scale commercial venture funding.
And lets hope they get a bloody chivvy on with it!...
Yes, fusion has vastly more potential than fission.
Jim
In article <snionu$nms$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> >wrote:
The other problem is if the continental grid is short of power (which it
chronically is at the moment) countries sitting on the end of inter
connectors are going to be at the back of the queue. You would also have
to have an order of magnitude more interconnector capacity to be able to
provide the bulk of the UK demand on a windless day, and you'd have to
have that transmission capacity to multiple distant points to where you
hope the wind might be blowing. Basically you need huge amounts of
surplus generation and transmission capacity to cover for one large
geographic area losing wind generation capacity due to a still day. I
don't see that happening.
Well, the engineers seem happy to do it, and it makes sense as a two way >exchange. Indeed, given the sheer area Scotland or the UK have for it, we >have the potential (pun alert!) to do nicely out of it.
Jim
On 23/11/2021 09:23, MB wrote:
On 22/11/2021 22:51, tony sayer wrote:
Theres only so much sunshine we can collect and on overcast winter days
its not much cop..
Like Hydro, we just don't have the terrain for the rain;!
Have a look at France -v- England compared and see how the French got
their power right a long time ago...
I think I read that one difference is that in the UK any large project
like that can be delayed for many years by public inquiries and then
inquiries into the result of the first one and objections to planning
applications.
I understand these have much less power in France so they can build
things much easier.
It's the French who are building Hinckley C 'for us', as they would have
us believe:
In article <ohypm7Ki59khFwov@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below enough of
the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long enough either.
You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.
Your concern for the 'UK' may hinge on if Scotland becomes independent or >not.* :-) cf my previous posting about the error of assuming wind power is >land based. It is *already* significantly sea based, and it does tend to be
a tad windy in some of those places.
BTW There is also the detail that quite often when the 'surface' winds are >low, at modest altitudes the wind is still blowing. And yes, engineers are >already working on this.
IEEE Spectrum in recent years has had a number of articles on the progress
in these topics. Am I the only IEEE member here? I don't know which of the >items is openly on the web. But a fair bit of 'Spectrum' is I think.
However I just read the printed copies they send me.
Jim
* England's western extent of Ocean is limited by the presence of Ireland. >Scotland largely bypasses that.
In article <sn8im4$9rv$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John ><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
I was too young then to take in the nuances in the article, though I
appreciated that the solar system does have a motion relative to the
spiral arm, so the basis for the prediction made sense. Since then, I
have discovered that the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere is
roughly coincidental with the number of sunspots, which suggests an
11-year cycle.
That agrees with what I tentatively recall. IIRC the high atmosphere >essentially passes visible and near visible light but absorbs UV - Xrays
etc. This tends to come from the corona or flares, etc. And thus varies
with the Solar activity cycle (like sunspots), mass ejections, etc.
What those studying thes things may call 'space weather' or 'solar
weather'.
Has little or no correlation with the temperature of the lower atmosphere, >but can mean damaged spacecraft or - for serious mass ejections - disrupt >power distribution of comms.
Jim
On 22/11/2021 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/push-for-small-modular-nuclear-
reactors-goes-into-overdrive-with-rolls-royce/video/d456da4f36135f28c4d8
2d85b1bfebf9
I'm not going to bother to read or watch the link because every other
link to them I've followed has been appallingly biased and often
factually incorrect, so much so that my name for them is Lie News Australia.
And as has already been explained to you, these much hyped mine reactors
are blue sky, years away, and how much fuel for them will be left by the
time they're ready, particularly for us in the UK without any indigenous >supplies of our own? We have to use what nature has given us, which is >fossil-fuels, which means we have to burn those and capture the carbon.
Surly good olde Bonnie Scotland doesn't want to go back to pre union
times now does it;?,....
In article <snin9u$db3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
It's the French who are building Hinckley C 'for us', as they would have
us believe:
Yes guv! The whole things fecked up badly managed and engineered it
seems.
Pity they didn't get on with the small modular ones, can be factory
built not so much extra infrastructure around and they will as you say
be some way off regulations and all that Not good.
Still other countries now think its a good idea!..
Still carbon captures going ok isn't it???...
Carbon capture isn't looking very promising at the moment!
https://tinyurl.com/y8b2cu5m and
https://tinyurl.com/cu8u3c59
In article <598cbef463noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
Your concern for the 'UK' may hinge on if Scotland becomes independent or
not.* :-) cf my previous posting about the error of assuming wind power is >> land based. It is *already* significantly sea based, and it does tend to be >> a tad windy in some of those places.
Surly good olde Bonnie Scotland doesn't want to go back to pre union
times now does it;?,....
* England's western extent of Ocean is limited by the presence of Ireland. >> Scotland largely bypasses that.
Scottish navy being formed then ;?...
If Boris and co have any sense they'll do well to keep the coal stations operable for a while yet as unfashionable as that that may be!
tony sayer wrote:
If Boris and co have any sense they'll do well to keep the coal stations
operable for a while yet as unfashionable as that that may be!
The UK has already "phased down coal" haven't we?
Let the rest of the world catch-up to that COP goal before we continue
to "phase out coal"
I think a cheaper and better way to cope with the relatively small
number of windless days is to keep a reserve of gas or oil powered
plant. You are going to be paying for redundant plant whether it's wind turbines and transmission infrastructure, or thermal plant.
And of course windless periods very inconveniently often coincide
with very cold weather!
Which may come with clear skies. :-)
Which here, at the moment, have 13 hours of darkness.
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <598ff05081noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <snit45$n3n$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
And of course windless periods very inconveniently often coincide
with very cold weather!
Which may come with clear skies. :-)
Which here, at the moment, have 13 hours of darkness.
And a low sun angle even at noon.
tony sayer wrote:
If Boris and co have any sense they'll do well to keep the coal stations
operable for a while yet as unfashionable as that that may be!
The UK has already "phased down coal" haven't we?
Let the rest of the world catch-up to that COP goal before we continue to "phase
out coal"
On 23/11/2021 13:54, tony sayer wrote:
Have a look at this site over time...
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic =-0.73,50.04,1792/loc=5.752,48.142
That's an interesting site. I changed the display to show WPD to give an
idea of the power output of the wind around the UK. Unfortunately, at
the sort of wind speeds we often see it's very much towards the
left-hand side of the scale, and the colour shown in the North Sea
didn't seem to match anything on the scale. Any idea if there's any way
of stretching the LH side of the scale?
On 24/11/2021 10:08, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <28S+hLVtbXnhFwTN@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
And lets hope they get a bloody chivvy on with it!...
Yes, fusion has vastly more potential than fission.
as was said by contemporaries who went off to work on fusion in the
early 1970s. I still don't know if they really meant "potential to give
us jobs for life".
Surly good olde Bonnie Scotland doesn't want to go back to pre union
times now does it;?,....
Probably, most polls that I've seen recently seem to hover around
somewhere over 50% in favour.
Your concern for the 'UK' may hinge on if Scotland becomes independent
or not.* :-) cf my previous posting about the error of assuming wind
power is land based. It is *already* significantly sea based, and it
does tend to be a tad windy in some of those places.
Surly good olde Bonnie Scotland doesn't want to go back to pre union
times now does it;?,....
BTW There is also the detail that quite often when the 'surface' winds
are low, at modest altitudes the wind is still blowing. And yes,
engineers are already working on this.
Just how high are they talking about?...
One interesting point about living in Scotland is that we get to see both 'parts' of the media, whereas people in England probably never know when
the papers here look different to there, and report different things in a different way.
In article <snks95$sus$1@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/11/2021 13:54, tony sayer wrote:
Have a look at this site over time...
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic >>> =-0.73,50.04,1792/loc=5.752,48.142
That's an interesting site. I changed the display to show WPD to give an
idea of the power output of the wind around the UK. Unfortunately, at
the sort of wind speeds we often see it's very much towards the
left-hand side of the scale, and the colour shown in the North Sea
didn't seem to match anything on the scale. Any idea if there's any way
of stretching the LH side of the scale?
I looked at the page as presented by the URL above. It is interesting. But
I couldn't find a way to change the date/time for which data was shown, or
do any kind of integration. Is that possible? I guess the "1000hPa" may be used to mean 'sea level' so perhaps changing that will show the wind at various pressure levels (heights asl). But the apparent on-plot controls I saw seem a but limited. Maybe I missed something?
I don't think it is that certain, SNP people seem to only mix with other
SNP people so overestimate their popularity when in practice many hate
the SNP.
I think electoral system was set up to avoid any one party getting too
much power with the expectation that Labour might have continued to be
the main party otherwise but corruption destroyed them.
SNP could easily go the same way with the number of cases of corruption
in recent years though the Scottish media turn a blind eye to it.
On 25/11/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
One interesting point about living in Scotland is that we get to see
both 'parts' of the media, whereas people in England probably never
know when the papers here look different to there, and report
different things in a different way.
I don't think it is that certain, SNP people seem to only mix with other
SNP people so overestimate their popularity when in practice many hate
the SNP.
You can change the date by clicking on the "Earth" at bottom left, and
in the popup which appears use the "Control" line "Date" to change the
date to what you want. Or you can click on a double chevron to go back/forward 8 hours, or a single chevron to go forward/back one hour. I don't understand what you mean by doing any kind of integration. If you
click on the settings icon at bottom right in the popup, you get
another popup with "Interpolation" in it, but you can only select
"bitlinear" or "nearest" if that's what you meant.
In article <snomel$oq9$1@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
You can change the date by clicking on the "Earth" at bottom left, and
in the popup which appears use the "Control" line "Date" to change the
date to what you want. Or you can click on a double chevron to go
back/forward 8 hours, or a single chevron to go forward/back one hour. I
don't understand what you mean by doing any kind of integration. If you
click on the settings icon at bottom right in the popup, you get
another popup with "Interpolation" in it, but you can only select
"bitlinear" or "nearest" if that's what you meant.
I'll experiment.
The integration would be to examine summing or averaging over given ranges
of altitudes, times, or areas, to estmate the total overall energy at least nominally available -e.g. in a 24 period.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 236:19:40 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,319,829 |
