On Sun 21/08/2022 19:13, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <jmf33rFm074U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
Did you know that there are nearly 3000 copies of the Grauniad
delivered to Broadcasting House every (week?) day. The only paper.
Did you know that there are nearly 3000 copies of the Grauniad delivered
to Broadcasting House every (week?) day. The only paper.
Yes, the Thames no longer freezes over,
On 21/08/2022 19:38, Woody wrote:
Did you know that there are nearly 3000 copies of the Grauniad delivered
to Broadcasting House every (week?) day. The only paper.
I have heard similar but it seems unlikely as probably not that many
people at Broadcasting House.
It will be a question of reducing car use in favour of public transport,
On 21/08/2022 21:34, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/08/2022 20:50, Indy Jess John wrote:Reported by my sister's next door neighbour who is French and goes back
On 21/08/2022 19:42, Java Jive wrote:
Inherent self-contradiction, if our emissions are going down, it must
be possible for other countries' emissions to go down as well.
Our emissions are going down because this is Britain and by and large
we do what we are asked to do[1].
If only that were true!
China has 24 of the world's 27 most polluting power stations and huge
reserves of relatively low grade coal. A week or so ago China
announced that it was no longer going to comply with the agreement it
made to reduce the CO2 it produces. That renders ineffective anything
the rest of the world does.
Sadly, I'm not surprised. One of the first things that happens during a
war is that people starting thinking about the security and logistics of
vital resources.
[1] For instance, the EU issued a directive that smoking must be
banned in restaurants. Britain took it a bit further and banned
smoking in all indoor public places. France simply renamed nearly all
their restaurants as cafes or bistros, and carried on as before.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this Europhobic claim?
to France frequently to visit his family who still live there.
But I imagine you won't believe that either. Go and look for yourself!
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 04:55:07 +1000, Jamesy wrote:
Yes, the Thames no longer freezes over,
From last reports the Thames is emigrating - and has already moved a few miles ...
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 22:42:01 +0100, Indy Jess John ><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 21/08/2022 21:34, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/08/2022 20:50, Indy Jess John wrote:Reported by my sister's next door neighbour who is French and goes back
On 21/08/2022 19:42, Java Jive wrote:
Inherent self-contradiction, if our emissions are going down, it must >>>>> be possible for other countries' emissions to go down as well.
Our emissions are going down because this is Britain and by and large
we do what we are asked to do[1].
If only that were true!
China has 24 of the world's 27 most polluting power stations and huge
reserves of relatively low grade coal. A week or so ago China
announced that it was no longer going to comply with the agreement it
made to reduce the CO2 it produces. That renders ineffective anything >>>> the rest of the world does.
Sadly, I'm not surprised. One of the first things that happens during a >>> war is that people starting thinking about the security and logistics of >>> vital resources.
[1] For instance, the EU issued a directive that smoking must be
banned in restaurants. Britain took it a bit further and banned
smoking in all indoor public places. France simply renamed nearly all >>>> their restaurants as cafes or bistros, and carried on as before.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this Europhobic claim?
to France frequently to visit his family who still live there.
But I imagine you won't believe that either. Go and look for yourself!
Yor sistes next door neighbour is hardly a primary authoritive
reference. You should ask him to read Wkepedia before he goes next
time and save himself 450 euros.
In the real world with alternatives properly costed its fucking
economic suicide.
Did you know that there are nearly 3000 copies of the Grauniad delivered
to Broadcasting House every (week?) day. The only paper.
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 19:38:48 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Did you know that there are nearly 3000 copies of the Grauniad delivered
to Broadcasting House every (week?) day. The only paper.
Have they not learned how to use web browsers yet?
A cursory look at the planet's history easily shows that 400ppm or
0.0420% CO2 is nothing and in fact much lower than most of history.
Look at the history of the planet's CO2.
Do you have anything actually pertinent and useful to say?
They also bleat about the cost of
renewables, when new nuclear is the most expensive option around, the following debunks that as well.
On 21/08/2022 18:16, Rod Speed wrote:
Remember King Canute? Oh, and the global temperature just carries on
doing its own thing, regardless. These trillions are real money.
Diverting them to attempted climate alteration makes us all poorer.
That is less clear. It does provide significant employment.
But providing employment per se doesn't generate wealth. Having more
people employed to achieve the same result as was previously achieved
with less people makes the output more expensive and thus makes us
poorer. Think how we have achieved better agricultural output with less labour by means of mechanisation, thus making food cheaper.
He gave me a breakdown of his journey, starting from the first bus in
the morning that ran from his home through 2 changes of bus to get to
his new place of work. Then he did the reverse, from his place of work >through the 2 changes to arrive at his house on the last bus in the
evening. It worked out that in order to get home in the evening he had
to catch the bus that left 20 minutes before he arrived at the office! >Effectively, instead of the last bus change, he had to stay on the bus
he arrived on in order to get home.
The only
lorries stopped and fined are the ones without French number plates.
(Told to me by an English HGV driver driving a French lorry in London.
He deliberately bought a French lorry because a lot of his loads were
destined for Europe and it meant he could work on Sundays.)
I can find no provenance for that searching online, so I suspect, as
with the original claim, it's just another piece of Europhobia.
In article <te243h$2uqpc$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The problem with Java is his arguments are all qualitative and his
mind is binary and one dimensional
LOL! At least I read or watch what others put in front of me as so-called >'evidence', if only because one has to to be able to debunk it
effectively, which something I've not noticed you or Bob doing.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 02:59:10 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
The only
lorries stopped and fined are the ones without French number plates.
(Told to me by an English HGV driver driving a French lorry in London.
He deliberately bought a French lorry because a lot of his loads were
destined for Europe and it meant he could work on Sundays.)
I can find no provenance for that searching online, so I suspect, as
with the original claim, it's just another piece of Europhobia.
Curious logic. Is evidence that can be searched online somehow more
valid than evidence from someone who actually drives a lorry?
Where does "online evidence" come from anyway? Doesn't the the post to
which you are replying count as online evidence?
It must be more complicated to buy a foreign vehicle and register it
in a foreign land than to do the same at home, so why would anybody go
to the extra trouble if they hadn't discovered that there was some
real practical advantage?
It may, of course, be that the absolute tosh you barf out is not worthy
of comment.
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 19:38:48 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Did you know that there are nearly 3000 copies of the Grauniad
delivered to Broadcasting House every (week?) day. The only paper.
Have they not learned how to use web browsers yet?
So JJ knows nothing about physics, then. That explains a lot. And see my sig below.
I think his belief in the global warming hypothesis stems not from
scientific knowledge but from his leftist mindset.
The only
lorries stopped and fined are the ones without French number plates.
(Told to me by an English HGV driver driving a French lorry in London. >>>> He deliberately bought a French lorry because a lot of his loads were
destined for Europe and it meant he could work on Sundays.)
I can find no provenance for that searching online, so I suspect, as
with the original claim, it's just another piece of Europhobia.
Curious logic. Is evidence that can be searched online somehow more
valid than evidence from someone who actually drives a lorry?
Not necessarily, see below ...
Where does "online evidence" come from anyway? Doesn't the the post to
which you are replying count as online evidence?
If it was really happening as claimed, you'd expect to find other
reports of it, so a single report on its own probably doesn't
necessarily mean much, especially given the posting history of the
source here.
On 22/08/2022 in message <6vu6gh9kd3e8ig26ffltenapjibg8ho0ue@4ax.com> >Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 19:38:48 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Did you know that there are nearly 3000 copies of the Grauniad delivered >>>to Broadcasting House every (week?) day. The only paper.
Have they not learned how to use web browsers yet?
Probably not available in the BBC toilets :-)
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 16:39:35 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
If it was really happening as claimed, you'd expect to find other
reports of it, so a single report on its own probably doesn't
necessarily mean much, especially given the posting history of the
source here.
Ah. "Truth by numbers". The more people who say something the more
true it is.
The post was from *one* person relating what *one* acquaintance had
said to him about his own experience. I see no reason to disbelieve it
as it seems quite a plausible account. It wasn't a generalisation
about anything, so there would be no reason to expect anyone else to
tell the same story.
On 24/08/2022 08:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 16:39:35 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
If it was really happening as claimed, you'd expect to find other
reports of it, so a single report on its own probably doesn't
necessarily mean much, especially given the posting history of the
source here.
Ah. "Truth by numbers". The more people who say something the more
true it is.
Not necessarily, but numbers sometimes add weight to hearsay evidence.
The post was from *one* person relating what *one* acquaintance had
said to him about his own experience. I see no reason to disbelieve it
as it seems quite a plausible account. It wasn't a generalisation
about anything, so there would be no reason to expect anyone else to
tell the same story.
Except that the particular source has something of a history here of chauvignistic posts, for example his original claim about smoking in
cafes, which turned out to be quite false. Hence my search for
independent corroboration.
On 24/08/2022 16:39, Bev wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:06:49 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:Looked at logically, making a new car has a carbon footprint, and
On 22/08/2022 22:38, Java Jive wrote:14 year old Seat - no problem with getting it serviced or with getting
On 22/08/2022 22:12, Indy Jess John wrote:OK, it doesn't have to be a classic. There are quite a few cars over 10
On 22/08/2022 13:39, Java Jive wrote:
Most manufacturers stop producing spares after five or ten years.
Have you tried to keep an older than 10 year old car on the road? It >>>>>> can get very, very expensive!
years old on the road, and quite a few places that will service them.
The owner of an older car doesn't need those skills, they just need to
know which mechanics do, and owners clubs have that knowledge.
parts. At least 3 garages within a 6 mile radius are happy to deal with
it.
Some people use JavaJive's theory as an excuse to go out and buy a new
car. Some people even think that its more environmentally friendly to buy
a new 'electric' car than to run an older petrol/diesel one.
scrapping an old car has a carbon footprint. Therefore keeping an old
car on the road longer makes the annual carbon footprint smaller.
Another interesting article I saw in a newspaper was by a "motoring >correspondent" who discovered that Volvo used exactly the same body
shell and fittings with options of petrol, diesel or electric traction.
He asked Volvo where the break-even point was that made the choice of
traction irrelevant. Volvo's answer was that electric traction had the >largest carbon footprint to manufacture and the highest price to buy,
but had the lowest running cost. The diesel model had a slightly lower >running cost than the petrol one. So they compared diesel and electric
to see at what mileage the overall cost was the same. They arrived at
75,000 miles as the point where diesel ceased to be the cheapest option
- provided the electric car batteries hadn't needed to be replaced.
Another interesting article I saw in a newspaper was by a "motoring >>correspondent" who discovered that Volvo used exactly the same body
shell and fittings with options of petrol, diesel or electric traction.
He asked Volvo where the break-even point was that made the choice of >>traction irrelevant. Volvo's answer was that electric traction had the >>largest carbon footprint to manufacture and the highest price to buy,
but had the lowest running cost. The diesel model had a slightly lower >>running cost than the petrol one. So they compared diesel and electric
to see at what mileage the overall cost was the same. They arrived at >>75,000 miles as the point where diesel ceased to be the cheapest option
- provided the electric car batteries hadn't needed to be replaced.
Hence if the electric had to have it batteries changed the break even
point was way higher than 75,000 miles.
Hence if the electric had to have it batteries changed the break even
point was way higher than 75,000 miles.
And we all know what happens to the capacities of rechargeable batteries after a few years because we've all got them in our phones. The
footprint for replacing those batteries wouldn't just be carbon, but a
lot of much more exotic chemicals as well, and probably much more
dangeous.
No, what we are seeing now is due to Putin.
Putin is only the catalyst not the cause. The cause is not having an
energy policy that made any sense for decades. Our governments
dithered over energy because of pressure groups and the press. Can't
have nuclear because of Fukushima or the left's notion there is no
fuel, can't have coal because of the CO2 nut jobs etc. only two
things allowed, wind and solar and both are intermittent, very
unreliable and expensive.
I also know significant numbers of people have been seriously injured
and killed by the vaccine
In article <5a1f68c139bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
No, what we are seeing now is due to Putin.
Putin is only the catalyst not the cause. The cause is not having
an energy policy that made any sense for decades. Our governments
dithered over energy because of pressure groups and the press.
Can't have nuclear because of Fukushima or the left's notion
there is no fuel, can't have coal because of the CO2 nut jobs
etc. only two things allowed, wind and solar and both are
intermittent, very unreliable and expensive.
Erm... Putin is exploiting our large dependence on *gas* - both
directly and when used for electric power generation. > If we'd
moved a bit quicker with diversifying into and building up our wind/wave/tidal/solar sources we could have reduced that unwise
dependency. Thus weakened his ability to use it as a weapon against
us.
UK Gov also made some idiotic decisions - e.g. allowing large scale
gas storage facilities to be emptied and shut down.
We also have crazy 'mechanisms' in our faked-up 'energy market'
that mean that *non* gas sources get priced at a level that tracks
the *gas* price. All part of the 'market knows best' obsessions of
successive UK Government muppets.
Newer onshore wind generation farms became cheaper than gas before
Putin's Act of War.
But we have far too little of such sources at present to help us significantly shift away from being hooked on gas.
Because successive UK Govs have dragged their feet
and Tory voters/backers don't like to see their view 'spoiled by
wind farms'.
Combine that with the "market rulez!" reaction to anything
that can be flogged off to their mates and you get where we are.
In article <5a1f68c139bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
No, what we are seeing now is due to Putin.
Putin is only the catalyst not the cause. The cause is not having an
energy policy that made any sense for decades. Our governments
dithered over energy because of pressure groups and the press. Can't
have nuclear because of Fukushima or the left's notion there is no
fuel, can't have coal because of the CO2 nut jobs etc. only two
things allowed, wind and solar and both are intermittent, very
unreliable and expensive.
Erm... Putin is exploiting our large dependence on *gas* - both directly
and when used for electric power generation. If we'd moved a bit quicker
with diversifying into and building up our wind/wave/tidal/solar sources we >could have reduced that unwise dependency. Thus weakened his ability to use >it as a weapon against us.
UK Gov also made some idiotic decisions - e.g. allowing large scale gas >storage facilities to be emptied and shut down.
We also have crazy 'mechanisms' in our faked-up 'energy market' that mean >that *non* gas sources get priced at a level that tracks the *gas* price.
All part of the 'market knows best' obsessions of successive UK Government >muppets.
Newer onshore wind generation farms became cheaper than gas before Putin's >Act of War. But we have far too little of such sources at present to help
us significantly shift away from being hooked on gas. Because successive UK >Govs have dragged their feet and Tory voters/backers don't like to see
their view 'spoiled by wind farms'. Combine that with the "market rulez!" >reaction to anything that can be flogged off to their mates and you get
where we are.
xposting snipped.
JIm
In article <5a1f7dd25enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
Erm... Putin is exploiting our large dependence on *gas* - both
directly and when used for electric power generation. > If we'd moved
a bit quicker with diversifying into and building up our wind/wave/tidal/solar sources we could have reduced that unwise
dependency. Thus weakened his ability to use it as a weapon against us.
Well yes indeed I don't disagree with that.
Of course I would add nuclear for reliable electricity, (I know you
don't like stuff that works too well),
And seriously, the last time I looked, electricity was 5 times the price
of gas. This was only a year back. Is that due to the "mechanism"?
So I stick to my original point, Putin is the catalyst, government naive stupidity driven by the media and various green groups and anti-nuclear groups are the cause.
Combine that with the "market rulez!" reaction to anything that can be flogged off to their mates and you get where we are.
Oh dear me. Remind me how many local Labour politicians around the
country have been involved in fraud and corruption. Who was it that
ended up wearing an ankle 'thing' in parliament.
In article <5a1f8945cbbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a1f7dd25enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
'Nuclear' has many problems.
1) Takes many years to build and get working. Generally > 10 years.
2) Designs tend to show up snags that hike cost, delay operation,
etc. The industry has a track record of promising lower price for
the build and run than ever materialise.
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off'
nuclear stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that when
demand is low we have to turn off *cheaper* non-nuclear generators
so that the nuclear ones can go on running.
4) Despite decades of promises we still have no set way to dispose
of the (still growing) piles of the higher activity longer life
'scrap' produced and has to be dealt with when a station fails or
has to be decomissioned.
5) Putin's invasion hints perhaps that nuclear power stations can
also become a bit of a worry when someone invades or terrorists
find their way in.
It was "the future" c1950. Now we can see it isn't.
If, however, you mean fusion, that *may* turn into being excellent.
But don't hold your breath as you wait.
And seriously, the last time I looked, electricity was 5 times
the price of gas. This was only a year back. Is that due to the "mechanism"?
It certainly isn't all just the cost of the gas that generates a
part of our electric power. 6
So I stick to my original point, Putin is the catalyst,
government naive stupidity driven by the media and various green
groups and anti-nuclear groups are the cause.
Erm, if we'd done as those "green groups" urged a decade or two ago
we would now not need anything like as much gas. So wouldn't see
the prices we now find we get.
Combine that with the "market rulez!" reaction to anything that
can be flogged off to their mates and you get where we are.
Oh dear me. Remind me how many local Labour politicians around the
country have been involved in fraud and corruption. Who was it that
ended up wearing an ankle 'thing' in parliament.
Erm, you keep thinking I want to defend the LP or its MPs, etc.
Your error. So far as I can see they are often just as bad as the
Tories. Blair, et al went along with many of the Tory changes we
are now still stuck with.
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off' nuclear stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that when demand is low we have to turn off*cheaper* non-nuclear generators so that the nuclear ones can go on running.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
In article <5a1fa5bc68noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a1f8945cbbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a1f7dd25enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
'Nuclear' has many problems.
2) Designs tend to show up snags that hike cost, delay operation, etc.
The industry has a track record of promising lower price for the build
and run than ever materialise.
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off' nuclear stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that when demand is
low we have to turn off *cheaper* non-nuclear generators so that the nuclear ones can go on running.
4) Despite decades of promises we still have no set way to dispose of
the (still growing) piles of the higher activity longer life 'scrap' produced and has to be dealt with when a station fails or has to be decomissioned.
5) Putin's invasion hints perhaps that nuclear power stations can also become a bit of a worry when someone invades or terrorists find their
way in.
It was "the future" c1950. Now we can see it isn't.
Ok, the left are ideologically opposed to nuclear, they would rather we
went cold, I get that.
If, however, you mean fusion, that *may* turn into being excellent.
But don't hold your breath as you wait.
I don't. Fusion will always be decades away and even if they make it
work it doesn't mean it will be financially viable.
That's not to say I wouldn't like fusion to work and I would continue research, just in case and for the sake of science.
Erm, erm, the only problem with gas is our governments have refused to
use our own, instead burning the devil's without backup.
I'm relieved to hear it. As someone crudely commented on the twitter the other day, now the Tories are no longer Tories but nearer socialists,
the two parties are two cheeks of the same arse.
In article <5a2000a18bbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a1fa5bc68noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a1f8945cbbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a1f7dd25enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
'Nuclear' has many problems.
2) Designs tend to show up snags that hike cost, delay
operation, etc. The industry has a track record of promising
lower price for the build and run than ever materialise.
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off'
nuclear stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that
when demand is low we have to turn off *cheaper* non-nuclear
generators so that the nuclear ones can go on running.
4) Despite decades of promises we still have no set way to
dispose of the (still growing) piles of the higher activity
longer life 'scrap' produced and has to be dealt with when a
station fails or has to be decomissioned.
5) Putin's invasion hints perhaps that nuclear power stations
can also become a bit of a worry when someone invades or
terrorists find their way in.
It was "the future" c1950. Now we can see it isn't.
Ok, the left are ideologically opposed to nuclear, they would
rather we went cold, I get that.
Looks like you didn't read what I wrote, let alone understood it.
However it may help others.
If, however, you mean fusion, that *may* turn into being
excellent. But don't hold your breath as you wait.
I don't. Fusion will always be decades away and even if they make
it work it doesn't mean it will be financially viable.
Not certain as yet. However during the last decade a number of
venture capital projects have started on some of the more compact
alternative fusion designs. So some people with a few million to
invest seem to think it is now worth a punt.
That's not to say I wouldn't like fusion to work and I would
continue research, just in case and for the sake of science.
Erm, erm, the only problem with gas is our governments have
refused to use our own, instead burning the devil's without
backup.
Erm^3. You missed out the bit where they've failed to invest
properly into alternatives. :-)
In article <3kM+H4GFmLDjFwai@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
pointed to:-
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
FWIW I tend to prefer using
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Jim
On 29/08/2022 17:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off' nuclear stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that when demand is
low we have to turn off*cheaper* non-nuclear generators so that the nuclear ones can go on running.
Yes but when gas powered ones are turned off it saves money because it
saves gas. So that's a good thing not a bad thing. Once you've got a
nuclear power station it costs very little to run it.
In article <5a1f7dd25enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf ><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <5a1f68c139bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
No, what we are seeing now is due to Putin.
Putin is only the catalyst not the cause. The cause is not having an
energy policy that made any sense for decades. Our governments
dithered over energy because of pressure groups and the press. Can't
have nuclear because of Fukushima or the left's notion there is no
fuel, can't have coal because of the CO2 nut jobs etc. only two
things allowed, wind and solar and both are intermittent, very
unreliable and expensive.
Erm... Putin is exploiting our large dependence on *gas* - both directly >>and when used for electric power generation. If we'd moved a bit quicker >>with diversifying into and building up our wind/wave/tidal/solar sources we >>could have reduced that unwise dependency. Thus weakened his ability to use >>it as a weapon against us.
UK Gov also made some idiotic decisions - e.g. allowing large scale gas >>storage facilities to be emptied and shut down.
We also have crazy 'mechanisms' in our faked-up 'energy market' that mean >>that *non* gas sources get priced at a level that tracks the *gas* price. >>All part of the 'market knows best' obsessions of successive UK Government >>muppets.
Newer onshore wind generation farms became cheaper than gas before Putin's >>Act of War. But we have far too little of such sources at present to help >>us significantly shift away from being hooked on gas. Because successive UK >>Govs have dragged their feet and Tory voters/backers don't like to see >>their view 'spoiled by wind farms'. Combine that with the "market rulez!" >>reaction to anything that can be flogged off to their mates and you get >>where we are.
xposting snipped.
JIm
Yes old Putin isn't as daft as we might be led to think!, just imagine
the gas taps are more powerful a usable weapon than all those nukes he's
got well maybe not as many dose effects as a nuke exchange!
Course we're screwed as we depend of Gas just like where the Wind's been
in the last couple of months somewhere called the Doldrums..
Like it is today..
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
What we really need is the new small nuclear reactor system but thats
bogged down in masses of paperwork and approvals:(
Erm^3. You missed out the bit where they've failed to invest properly
into alternatives. :-)
Like nuclear yes.
In article <5a201c2dffnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <3kM+H4GFmLDjFwai@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
pointed to:-
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
FWIW I tend to prefer using
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Same info!...
The wind hsn't been zero everywhere in Europe. The Dutch have generated
all their electrical energy with wind and solar panels for more than the
last 40 days. I think UK has teamed up with Norway. to exchange wind generated electricity via a cable. It is rarely windless in both
countries at the same time. Germany has done similar deal with another country. UK is slow with installing solar panels the Dutch company that installed our panels had already installed panels on 20,000 houses. T
heir are lots of Dutch companies installing panels. There is no longer
any VAT charged on panel installations.
In article <5a2023a476bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Erm^3. You missed out the bit where they've failed to invest properly into alternatives. :-)
Like nuclear yes.
The UK has already been though experiencing 'investing' in fission
stations. Experience shows what I pointed out despite the promises
of those who made money from building them.
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off' nuclear stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that when demand is low we have to turn off*cheaper* non-nuclear generators so that the nuclear ones can go on running.
In article <5a1f68c139bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
No, what we are seeing now is due to Putin.
Putin is only the catalyst not the cause. The cause is not having an
energy policy that made any sense for decades. Our governments
dithered over energy because of pressure groups and the press. Can't
have nuclear because of Fukushima or the left's notion there is no
fuel, can't have coal because of the CO2 nut jobs etc. only two
things allowed, wind and solar and both are intermittent, very
unreliable and expensive.
Erm... Putin is exploiting our large dependence on *gas* - both directly
and when used for electric power generation. If we'd moved a bit quicker
with diversifying into and building up our wind/wave/tidal/solar sources we >could have reduced that unwise dependency. Thus weakened his ability to use >it as a weapon against us.
UK Gov also made some idiotic decisions - e.g. allowing large scale gas >storage facilities to be emptied and shut down.
We also have crazy 'mechanisms' in our faked-up 'energy market' that mean >that *non* gas sources get priced at a level that tracks the *gas* price.
All part of the 'market knows best' obsessions of successive UK Government >muppets.
Newer onshore wind generation farms became cheaper than gas before Putin's >Act of War. But we have far too little of such sources at present to help
us significantly shift away from being hooked on gas. Because successive UK >Govs have dragged their feet and Tory voters/backers don't like to see
their view 'spoiled by wind farms'. Combine that with the "market rulez!" >reaction to anything that can be flogged off to their mates and you get
where we are.
On 29/08/2022 17:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off' nuclear
stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that when demand is low we >> have to turn off*cheaper* non-nuclear generators so that the nuclear ones >> can go on running.
That does depend on how you look at it.
The construction and commissioning of a nuclear power station is most of
the cost. Subsequently the electricity generated is sold to recover the original cost (plus some maintenance and safety staff). Effectively
because the bill for commissioning has been paid and doesn't go away the baseload is virtually free at the time of production, so it makes sense
to shut down fossil fuel fired generation when possible. Wind and solar power are currently a small proportion of the total amount generated, so
they will continue to deliver what they produce (depending on sunlight
and wind).
Jim
2) We've just had the annoucements of the latest Scots (40 mile IIRC) >offshore wind farm that is said to have a capacity to supply a million
homes is now complete. With more to come. This area is defined by the >geography as set out in multimational agreements.
So expect to see really big changes here quite soon - if we have
governments with a clue. Fortunately, the Scots Gov and people seem keener
on this than the dumber bunnies at Westminster.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:05:09 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a1f7dd25enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf >><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <5a1f68c139bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
No, what we are seeing now is due to Putin.
Putin is only the catalyst not the cause. The cause is not having an
energy policy that made any sense for decades. Our governments
dithered over energy because of pressure groups and the press. Can't
have nuclear because of Fukushima or the left's notion there is no
fuel, can't have coal because of the CO2 nut jobs etc. only two
things allowed, wind and solar and both are intermittent, very
unreliable and expensive.
Erm... Putin is exploiting our large dependence on *gas* - both directly >>>and when used for electric power generation. If we'd moved a bit quicker >>>with diversifying into and building up our wind/wave/tidal/solar sources we >>>could have reduced that unwise dependency. Thus weakened his ability to use >>>it as a weapon against us.
UK Gov also made some idiotic decisions - e.g. allowing large scale gas >>>storage facilities to be emptied and shut down.
We also have crazy 'mechanisms' in our faked-up 'energy market' that mean >>>that *non* gas sources get priced at a level that tracks the *gas* price. >>>All part of the 'market knows best' obsessions of successive UK Government >>>muppets.
Newer onshore wind generation farms became cheaper than gas before Putin's >>>Act of War. But we have far too little of such sources at present to help >>>us significantly shift away from being hooked on gas. Because successive UK >>>Govs have dragged their feet and Tory voters/backers don't like to see >>>their view 'spoiled by wind farms'. Combine that with the "market rulez!" >>>reaction to anything that can be flogged off to their mates and you get >>>where we are.
xposting snipped.
JIm
Yes old Putin isn't as daft as we might be led to think!, just imagine
the gas taps are more powerful a usable weapon than all those nukes he's >>got well maybe not as many dose effects as a nuke exchange!
Course we're screwed as we depend of Gas just like where the Wind's been
in the last couple of months somewhere called the Doldrums..
Like it is today..
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
What we really need is the new small nuclear reactor system but thats >>bogged down in masses of paperwork and approvals:(
The wind hsn't been zero everywhere in Europe. The Dutch have generated all >their electrical energy with wind and solar panels for more than the last 40 >days. I think UK has teamed up with Norway. to exchange wind generated >electricity via a cable. It is rarely windless in both countries at the same >time. Germany has done similar deal with another country. UK is slow with >installing solar panels the Dutch company that installed our panels had already
installed panels on 20,000 houses. T heir are lots of Dutch companies installing
panels. There is no longer any VAT charged on panel installations.
In article <95usgcBOVnDjFw79@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <5a201c2dffnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <3kM+H4GFmLDjFwai@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
pointed to:-
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
FWIW I tend to prefer using
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Same info!...
But seems to me to be much more clearly presented by the graphics, and does >yeild lots of data points if you hover the mouse over things.The 'templar' >page has graphics I find hard to see in detail. Although the 'style' looks >nice as pretend old-school meters, etc, it isn't so clear.
Jim
On 29/08/2022 17:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off' nuclear
stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that when demand is low we >> have to turn off*cheaper* non-nuclear generators so that the nuclear ones >> can go on running.
That does depend on how you look at it.
The construction and commissioning of a nuclear power station is most of
the cost. Subsequently the electricity generated is sold to recover the >original cost (plus some maintenance and safety staff). Effectively
because the bill for commissioning has been paid and doesn't go away the >baseload is virtually free at the time of production, so it makes sense
to shut down fossil fuel fired generation when possible. Wind and solar >power are currently a small proportion of the total amount generated, so
they will continue to deliver what they produce (depending on sunlight
and wind).
Jim
The stupid Germans have closed down perfectly OK nuclear reactors just
when most everyone else if trying to eke out the life on theres good
article in the Wall st journal on that recently..
In article <gkbughhjtavs984tgjmcttkbau07jdhaep@4ax.com>, Martin ><me@address.invalid> wrote:
The wind hsn't been zero everywhere in Europe. The Dutch have generated
all their electrical energy with wind and solar panels for more than the
last 40 days. I think UK has teamed up with Norway. to exchange wind
generated electricity via a cable. It is rarely windless in both
countries at the same time. Germany has done similar deal with another
country. UK is slow with installing solar panels the Dutch company that
installed our panels had already installed panels on 20,000 houses. T
heir are lots of Dutch companies installing panels. There is no longer
any VAT charged on panel installations.
Perhaps worth adding:
1) This shows the Internationally agreed area which is our current ' >exclusive economic area' as a result of Scotland's geography. >http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
It convers, erm, 'quite a lot' of the North Atlantic, etc. Areas that, erm, >'tend to be windy and have lots of waves'.
2) We've just had the annoucements of the latest Scots (40 mile IIRC) >offshore wind farm that is said to have a capacity to supply a million
homes is now complete. With more to come. This area is defined by the >geography as set out in multimational agreements.
3) Yesterday when I looked we were exporting about 15% of our generated
power (from the mix of sources we have).
4) Engineers are now making progress with using the electricity to generate >H2 for storage and supply - thus helping to fill in those much whined-about >periods "when the wind doesn't blow". And allow for more flexible use and >distribution, etc.
One big advantage of modern wind turnbines are that they are now very cost >effective, and getting bigger and better. And an advantage of the larger
wind turbines is the longer blades and stand, meaning they reach far higher >up in the air. That is significant - particularly at sea or in high areas
is that the wind tends to be stronger, more often, and more reliably than >near the ground onland. New designs are are also for 'tethered' use - i.e. >can be used in deep water, further out, more windy, as well.
Sadly, people still seem to judge this in terms of the kinds of dinky >windmills you might see used by a single home. Chalk and cheese.
So expect to see really big changes here quite soon - if we have
governments with a clue. Fortunately, the Scots Gov and people seem keener
on this than the dumber bunnies at Westminster.
BTW I worked for some years with a colleague at Uni who was working on >fission reactors. The views I tend to express now about that are to some >extent informed by his practical experience of the (civil) industry. My
views on the defence side tend to come from working myself with people in >that.
Jim
It cost us less than Ł2,550 to install solar panels in the Netherlands. These >have generated far more electricity than we need since March when they were >installed. We get a credit for the surplus from the energy company we buy our >gas and electricity from. At old energy prices the break even on investment was
about 4 to 5 years. The company that installed our panels had already done more
than 20,000 houses. There are many Dutch companies doing installations. The >whole job including wiring took less than a day.
In article <5a2023a476bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham ><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Erm^3. You missed out the bit where they've failed to invest properly
into alternatives. :-)
Like nuclear yes.
The UK has already been though experiencing 'investing' in fission
stations. Experience shows what I pointed out despite the promises of those >who made money from building them.
The French went big on nuclear... but as in the past are now having
more problems with them. Basically fission is a dinosaur. Too slow to
build and generate their own problems along with the electicity.
Some of those problems have lingered unsolved since the idea
first arrived. e.g the ongoing failure to find any storage for
the waste that needs to be kept 'safe' for *thousands* of years.
And the 'unexpected' problems that show up in time when it comes
to continued operations or decommissioning.
Plus, of course snags with the compact designs we put into subs and
now find hard to deal with. Despite orginal promises that this wouldn't
be a problem.
The reality is that the UK largely went into fission as a part of its
drive to become a "me too!" nation in terms of having nuclear weapons.
Hence the early interest in 'breeder' reactors as well. More a matter
of political willie-waving than sense to have 'strategic' subs like
the Trident replacement.[1]
The problem is the big commercial/defence 'lobby' we now have pushing
'more nuclear'.
Jim
[1] And we still keep building these despite their orginal reason
no longer being true! The idea was that they could hide away under
the surface and be able to evade detection. Then launch a response
to an attack on the UK. That was true a few decades ago, but not now.
Now almost any 'developed' nation could build and use a 'flock'
of subsea drones to find and follow them, allowing them to be
targetted in a 'first strike'. But UK politicians need them
to boost their claim to a seat at the 'top table' in places like
the UK Security Council and let them feel important. Suits the
Americans who can profit from selling them to us as well.
We just pay for them like lambs...
It cost us less than Ł2,550 to install solar panels in the Netherlands. These >>have generated far more electricity than we need since March when they were >>installed. We get a credit for the surplus from the energy company we buy our >>gas and electricity from. At old energy prices the break even on investment was
about 4 to 5 years. The company that installed our panels had already done more
than 20,000 houses. There are many Dutch companies doing installations. The >>whole job including wiring took less than a day.
What capacity do you get for the 2,550 in kW's?..
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 29/08/2022 17:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off' nuclear
stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that when demand is low we >>> have to turn off*cheaper* non-nuclear generators so that the nuclear ones >>> can go on running.
That does depend on how you look at it.
The construction and commissioning of a nuclear power station is most of
the cost. Subsequently the electricity generated is sold to recover the
original cost (plus some maintenance and safety staff). Effectively
because the bill for commissioning has been paid and doesn't go away the
baseload is virtually free at the time of production, so it makes sense
to shut down fossil fuel fired generation when possible. Wind and solar
power are currently a small proportion of the total amount generated, so
they will continue to deliver what they produce (depending on sunlight
and wind).
Jim
And now we are creating a huge flexible sink of excess electricity, namely >electric vehicles. There are other ways of coping with excess generation,
eg thermal stores for domestic heating that are otherwise heated by gas and >domestic battery systems.
On Thu, 01 Sep 2022 10:29:36 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
[del]
2) We've just had the annoucements of the latest Scots (40 mile IIRC) >>offshore wind farm that is said to have a capacity to supply a million >>homes is now complete. With more to come. This area is defined by the >>geography as set out in multimational agreements.[del]
Watch your language :-) The world's largest wind farm, Hornsea 2, is
So expect to see really big changes here quite soon - if we have >>governments with a clue. Fortunately, the Scots Gov and people seem keener >>on this than the dumber bunnies at Westminster.
off **Yorkshire** (50 miles), capacity 1.3 million homes. Officially >declared fully operational on 22/8/2022, according to ITV and BBC.
In article <gkbughhjtavs984tgjmcttkbau07jdhaep@4ax.com>, Martin ><me@address.invalid> scribeth thus
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:05:09 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a1f7dd25enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf >>><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <5a1f68c139bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
No, what we are seeing now is due to Putin.
Putin is only the catalyst not the cause. The cause is not having an >>>>> energy policy that made any sense for decades. Our governments
dithered over energy because of pressure groups and the press. Can't >>>>> have nuclear because of Fukushima or the left's notion there is no
fuel, can't have coal because of the CO2 nut jobs etc. only two
things allowed, wind and solar and both are intermittent, very
unreliable and expensive.
Erm... Putin is exploiting our large dependence on *gas* - both directly >>>>and when used for electric power generation. If we'd moved a bit quicker >>>>with diversifying into and building up our wind/wave/tidal/solar sources we >>>>could have reduced that unwise dependency. Thus weakened his ability to use >>>>it as a weapon against us.
UK Gov also made some idiotic decisions - e.g. allowing large scale gas >>>>storage facilities to be emptied and shut down.
We also have crazy 'mechanisms' in our faked-up 'energy market' that mean >>>>that *non* gas sources get priced at a level that tracks the *gas* price. >>>>All part of the 'market knows best' obsessions of successive UK Government >>>>muppets.
Newer onshore wind generation farms became cheaper than gas before Putin's >>>>Act of War. But we have far too little of such sources at present to help >>>>us significantly shift away from being hooked on gas. Because successive UK >>>>Govs have dragged their feet and Tory voters/backers don't like to see >>>>their view 'spoiled by wind farms'. Combine that with the "market rulez!" >>>>reaction to anything that can be flogged off to their mates and you get >>>>where we are.
xposting snipped.
JIm
Yes old Putin isn't as daft as we might be led to think!, just imagine >>>the gas taps are more powerful a usable weapon than all those nukes he's >>>got well maybe not as many dose effects as a nuke exchange!
Course we're screwed as we depend of Gas just like where the Wind's been >>>in the last couple of months somewhere called the Doldrums..
Like it is today..
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
What we really need is the new small nuclear reactor system but thats >>>bogged down in masses of paperwork and approvals:(
The wind hsn't been zero everywhere in Europe. The Dutch have generated all >>their electrical energy with wind and solar panels for more than the last 40 >>days. I think UK has teamed up with Norway. to exchange wind generated >>electricity via a cable. It is rarely windless in both countries at the same >>time. Germany has done similar deal with another country. UK is slow with >>installing solar panels the Dutch company that installed our panels had already
installed panels on 20,000 houses. T heir are lots of Dutch companies installing
panels. There is no longer any VAT charged on panel installations.
Well the wind "might" be blowing but is there enough wind as much as we >need:?
The stupid Germans have closed down perfectly OK nuclear reactors just
when most everyone else if trying to eke out the life on theres good
article in the Wall st journal on that recently..
In article <5a2109a802noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf ><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <gkbughhjtavs984tgjmcttkbau07jdhaep@4ax.com>, Martin >><me@address.invalid> wrote:
The wind hsn't been zero everywhere in Europe. The Dutch have generated
all their electrical energy with wind and solar panels for more than the >>> last 40 days. I think UK has teamed up with Norway. to exchange wind
generated electricity via a cable. It is rarely windless in both
countries at the same time. Germany has done similar deal with another
country. UK is slow with installing solar panels the Dutch company that
installed our panels had already installed panels on 20,000 houses. T
heir are lots of Dutch companies installing panels. There is no longer
any VAT charged on panel installations.
Perhaps worth adding:
1) This shows the Internationally agreed area which is our current ' >>exclusive economic area' as a result of Scotland's geography. >>http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
It convers, erm, 'quite a lot' of the North Atlantic, etc. Areas that, erm, >>'tend to be windy and have lots of waves'.
2) We've just had the annoucements of the latest Scots (40 mile IIRC) >>offshore wind farm that is said to have a capacity to supply a million >>homes is now complete. With more to come. This area is defined by the >>geography as set out in multimational agreements.
3) Yesterday when I looked we were exporting about 15% of our generated >>power (from the mix of sources we have).
4) Engineers are now making progress with using the electricity to generate >>H2 for storage and supply - thus helping to fill in those much whined-about >>periods "when the wind doesn't blow". And allow for more flexible use and >>distribution, etc.
One big advantage of modern wind turnbines are that they are now very cost >>effective, and getting bigger and better. And an advantage of the larger >>wind turbines is the longer blades and stand, meaning they reach far higher >>up in the air. That is significant - particularly at sea or in high areas >>is that the wind tends to be stronger, more often, and more reliably than >>near the ground onland. New designs are are also for 'tethered' use - i.e. >>can be used in deep water, further out, more windy, as well.
Sadly, people still seem to judge this in terms of the kinds of dinky >>windmills you might see used by a single home. Chalk and cheese.
So expect to see really big changes here quite soon - if we have >>governments with a clue. Fortunately, the Scots Gov and people seem keener >>on this than the dumber bunnies at Westminster.
BTW I worked for some years with a colleague at Uni who was working on >>fission reactors. The views I tend to express now about that are to some >>extent informed by his practical experience of the (civil) industry. My >>views on the defence side tend to come from working myself with people in >>that.
Jim
Good site this one shows the wind over the UK and beyond inc bonnie you
know where!, but for around the last Two months its been sod all wind
its been almost non existent!.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic >=-0.73,50.04,1792
Now are we to depend on this wind and where ever it might blow and when >theres enough wind for all the upcoming loads like electric cars and the
like and the phasing out of fossil
Is wind power really going the cope with that demand?..
Yes, yes. But for the most part nuclear works. It works at night, it
works when there's no wind, it works when it's very cold or hot. My
priority it to keep people warm, keep the lights on and keep Britain
running. I don't won't people to die of the cold as more and more
pundits are now predicting unless something drastic is done quickly.
The CO2 climate catastrophe fantasists have...
On Thu, 01 Sep 2022 10:29:36 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
[del]
2) We've just had the annoucements of the latest Scots (40 mile IIRC) >offshore wind farm that is said to have a capacity to supply a million >homes is now complete. With more to come. This area is defined by the >geography as set out in multimational agreements.
[del]
So expect to see really big changes here quite soon - if we have >governments with a clue. Fortunately, the Scots Gov and people seem
keener on this than the dumber bunnies at Westminster.
Watch your language :-) The world's largest wind farm, Hornsea 2, is
off **Yorkshire** (50 miles), capacity 1.3 million homes. Officially declared fully operational on 22/8/2022, according to ITV and BBC.
Well the wind "might" be blowing but is there enough wind as much as we need:?
The stupid Germans have closed down perfectly OK nuclear reactors just
when most everyone else if trying to eke out the life on theres good
article in the Wall st journal on that recently..
On 29/08/2022 17:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
3) Then give us the baseload problem. It is hard to 'turn off' nuclear stations - as Ukriane is now finding. This means that when demand is
low we have to turn off*cheaper* non-nuclear generators so that the nuclear ones can go on running.
That does depend on how you look at it.
The construction and commissioning of a nuclear power station is most of
the cost. Subsequently the electricity generated is sold to recover the original cost (plus some maintenance and safety staff). Effectively
because the bill for commissioning has been paid and doesn't go away the baseload is virtually free at the time of production,
ow are we to depend on this wind and where ever it might blow and when
theres enough wind for all the upcoming loads like electric cars and the
like and the phasing out of fossil
Is wind power really going the cope with that demand?..
On 01/09/2022 13:34, tony sayer wrote:
The stupid Germans have closed down perfectly OK nuclear reactors just
when most everyone else if trying to eke out the life on theres good article in the Wall st journal on that recently..
EDF closed down Hinkley B a couple of weeks ago and nobody in this
country argued against it despite the plant manager claiming there was a
fair bit of life left in it (but orders are orders).
It was supposed to be closed down as Hinkley C became operational but
that is running a couple of years late.
But seems to me to be much more clearly presented by the graphics, and
does yeild lots of data points if you hover the mouse over things.The >'templar' page has graphics I find hard to see in detail. Although the >'style' looks nice as pretend old-school meters, etc, it isn't so clear.
Jim
I think he went to a lot of bother to model those smiths gauges;!..
8 panels that generate about maximum 3kWh , The amount depends on the direction and elevation of the sun and cloud . Since April it has been
about 21kWh per day on cloudy days it is about half that. We have a
south facing roof and 8 is the maximum number of panels that will fit on
the roof.
The IPCC admits "Models, by definition,
are reduced descriptions of reality and hence incomplete and with
error."
Exactly, but what matters is how much error, compared with how little
time we have left to act! The models are 70% or greater accurate, and
are predicting conditions that are likely to cause us extreme problems.
In article <Qc335KD3dSEjFwUJ@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
ow are we to depend on this wind and where ever it might blow and when
theres enough wind for all the upcoming loads like electric cars and the
like and the phasing out of fossil
Is wind power really going the cope with that demand?..
I tend to recommend people to read IEEE 'Spectrum' magazine, although I
don't know if all its content is free on the web, I know some is.
It is alread planned that some 'green' energy will be used for H2
generation. That can then be stored, sent via pipes, or by 'tankers', and used for mobile/remote purposes. It is also likely that people will use
house batteries - and/or link their electric car via intelligent charging points that can also be used to 'sell back' some of their energy to the
grid - or your home.
It is also already accepted that wind should be used *in combination* with tidal and wave power. Then used as above just like the wind power.
The point I'd make is that much of what I write here is based on seeing the reports of what engineering in these topics is already doing and scaling
up.
Jim
In article <5a210b0640bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Yes, yes. But for the most part nuclear works. It works at night,
it works when there's no wind, it works when it's very cold or
hot. My priority it to keep people warm, keep the lights on and
keep Britain running. I don't won't people to die of the cold as
more and more pundits are now predicting unless something drastic
is done quickly.
I concur with your motivations. But not with your belief systems.
The reality has been pointed out that a *diverse* set of
non-nuclear sources, spread and linked by co-operating countries
can work fine. And can deliver more added power rather quicker than
building nuclear dinosaurs.
The CO2 climate catastrophe fantasists have...
At this point you drop back into your fantasy-land.
In article <5a2193981fnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a210b0640bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
The CO2 climate catastrophe fantasists have...
At this point you drop back into your fantasy-land.
Well the wind "might" be blowing but is there enough wind as much as weIf you've spent enough time in NW Scotland or out in the North Atlantic I suspect you'd conclude the answer is "yes".:-)
need:?
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 22:43:19 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a2109a802noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf >><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <gkbughhjtavs984tgjmcttkbau07jdhaep@4ax.com>, Martin >>><me@address.invalid> wrote:
The wind hsn't been zero everywhere in Europe. The Dutch have generated >>>> all their electrical energy with wind and solar panels for more than the >>>> last 40 days. I think UK has teamed up with Norway. to exchange wind
generated electricity via a cable. It is rarely windless in both
countries at the same time. Germany has done similar deal with another >>>> country. UK is slow with installing solar panels the Dutch company that >>>> installed our panels had already installed panels on 20,000 houses. T
heir are lots of Dutch companies installing panels. There is no longer >>>> any VAT charged on panel installations.
Perhaps worth adding:
1) This shows the Internationally agreed area which is our current ' >>>exclusive economic area' as a result of Scotland's geography. >>>http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
It convers, erm, 'quite a lot' of the North Atlantic, etc. Areas that, erm, >>>'tend to be windy and have lots of waves'.
2) We've just had the annoucements of the latest Scots (40 mile IIRC) >>>offshore wind farm that is said to have a capacity to supply a million >>>homes is now complete. With more to come. This area is defined by the >>>geography as set out in multimational agreements.
3) Yesterday when I looked we were exporting about 15% of our generated >>>power (from the mix of sources we have).
4) Engineers are now making progress with using the electricity to generate >>>H2 for storage and supply - thus helping to fill in those much whined-about >>>periods "when the wind doesn't blow". And allow for more flexible use and >>>distribution, etc.
One big advantage of modern wind turnbines are that they are now very cost >>>effective, and getting bigger and better. And an advantage of the larger >>>wind turbines is the longer blades and stand, meaning they reach far higher >>>up in the air. That is significant - particularly at sea or in high areas >>>is that the wind tends to be stronger, more often, and more reliably than >>>near the ground onland. New designs are are also for 'tethered' use - i.e. >>>can be used in deep water, further out, more windy, as well.
Sadly, people still seem to judge this in terms of the kinds of dinky >>>windmills you might see used by a single home. Chalk and cheese.
So expect to see really big changes here quite soon - if we have >>>governments with a clue. Fortunately, the Scots Gov and people seem keener >>>on this than the dumber bunnies at Westminster.
BTW I worked for some years with a colleague at Uni who was working on >>>fission reactors. The views I tend to express now about that are to some >>>extent informed by his practical experience of the (civil) industry. My >>>views on the defence side tend to come from working myself with people in >>>that.
Jim
Good site this one shows the wind over the UK and beyond inc bonnie you >>know where!, but for around the last Two months its been sod all wind
its been almost non existent!.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic >>=-0.73,50.04,1792
Now are we to depend on this wind and where ever it might blow and when >>theres enough wind for all the upcoming loads like electric cars and the >>like and the phasing out of fossil
Is wind power really going the cope with that demand?..
There's been no shortage of northerly winds in The Netherlands as a result we >have had a much cooler summer than UK.
In article <5a210b0640bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham ><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Yes, yes. But for the most part nuclear works. It works at night, it
works when there's no wind, it works when it's very cold or hot. My
priority it to keep people warm, keep the lights on and keep Britain
running. I don't won't people to die of the cold as more and more
pundits are now predicting unless something drastic is done quickly.
I concur with your motivations. But not with your belief systems. The
reality has been pointed out that a *diverse* set of non-nuclear sources, >spread and linked by co-operating countries can work fine. And can deliver >more added power rather quicker than building nuclear dinosaurs.
The CO2 climate catastrophe fantasists have...
At this point you drop back into your fantasy-land.
Jim
In article <teqfri$2731h$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 01/09/2022 13:34, tony sayer wrote:
The stupid Germans have closed down perfectly OK nuclear reactors just
when most everyone else if trying to eke out the life on theres good
article in the Wall st journal on that recently..
EDF closed down Hinkley B a couple of weeks ago and nobody in this
country argued against it despite the plant manager claiming there was a
fair bit of life left in it (but orders are orders).
It was supposed to be closed down as Hinkley C became operational but
that is running a couple of years late.
Being late and over budget and having 'unforseen' snags is SOP for the Nuclear power sector. Not, of course, that some snags might have been 'unforseen' because if seen in advance they might have hiked the stated
price and time to operation. Thus subject to "don't look, don't know"...
Jim
In article <kse3hh1qh2l6rsj0sekuc9ltu3lbu6vtga@4ax.com>, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
8 panels that generate about maximum 3kWh , The amount depends on the
direction and elevation of the sun and cloud . Since April it has been
about 21kWh per day on cloudy days it is about half that. We have a
south facing roof and 8 is the maximum number of panels that will fit on
the roof.
I've been wondering about solar PV for our roof. But do wonder if the (old) roof can take it. It is quite common here for upstairs to get up to 25 or
26 C simply from the sunlight on the black slates. Significantly hotter
than downstairs or when it isn't sunny.
Jim
I have a suspicion which I will never be able to prove, that EDF who
operated Hinkley B is a French company and there is a financial benefit
to France in reducing the UK generation capability so that some of the >shortfall would then be imported from France.
Good site this one shows the wind over the UK and beyond inc bonnie you
know where!, but for around the last Two months its been sod all wind
its been almost non existent!.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic =-0.73,50.04,1792
Oh, and BTW, mathematically, you can formally prove that there is always at least one place on Earth where the surface windspeed
In article <Qc335KD3dSEjFwUJ@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
ow are we to depend on this wind and where ever it might blow and when
theres enough wind for all the upcoming loads like electric cars and the
like and the phasing out of fossil
Is wind power really going the cope with that demand?..
I tend to recommend people to read IEEE 'Spectrum' magazine, although I
don't know if all its content is free on the web, I know some is.
It is alread planned that some 'green' energy will be used for H2
generation. That can then be stored, sent via pipes, or by 'tankers', and >used for mobile/remote purposes. It is also likely that people will use
house batteries - and/or link their electric car via intelligent charging >points that can also be used to 'sell back' some of their energy to the
grid - or your home.
It is also already accepted that wind should be used *in combination* with >tidal and wave power. Then used as above just like the wind power.
The point I'd make is that much of what I write here is based on seeing the >reports of what engineering in these topics is already doing and scaling
up.
Jim
In article <teqfri$2731h$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John ><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 01/09/2022 13:34, tony sayer wrote:
The stupid Germans have closed down perfectly OK nuclear reactors just
when most everyone else if trying to eke out the life on theres good
article in the Wall st journal on that recently..
EDF closed down Hinkley B a couple of weeks ago and nobody in this
country argued against it despite the plant manager claiming there was a
fair bit of life left in it (but orders are orders).
It was supposed to be closed down as Hinkley C became operational but
that is running a couple of years late.
Being late and over budget and having 'unforseen' snags is SOP for the >Nuclear power sector. Not, of course, that some snags might have been >'unforseen' because if seen in advance they might have hiked the stated
price and time to operation. Thus subject to "don't look, don't know"...
Jim
In article <Qc335KD3dSEjFwUJ@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
Good site this one shows the wind over the UK and beyond inc bonnie you
know where!, but for around the last Two months its been sod all wind
its been almost non existent!.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic
=-0.73,50.04,1792
I've been playing with the above. Nice page! But I don't fully agree with >your comments. Looks to me that over the extended area there generally
tends to be a fair bit of wind. You also need to be careful of their colour >coding as quite a lot of the 'low but usable' levels of wind at 1bar level >look like plain darkish blue with now 'flow lines'. Easy to assume that
areas with now 'flow direction' lines mean zero wind, when I'm not sure
that is true.
Looking at the iamkate graphs and doing a mousehover to get values also >doesn't seem to agree with your comment. That said, I'd prefer to find
the source data so will see if I can locate that. It may be tangled
into her page code.
Also bear in mind that the change in wind level from 'sea level' up to a
few hundred metres can be quite marked. Even more so on land. The newer >bigger turbines are pretty big and can take power from this effect.
I'm not sure the wind page gives enough height-resolution for this.
Not relevant for that page, but a general warning for people. Avoid some >values of 'averaged wind velocity' because velocity is a vector. Thus it
can sometimes average down towards zero if the direction sign is left into >the sum by the unwary. :-)
Oh, and BTW, mathematically, you can formally prove that there is always at >least one place on Earth where the surface windspeed *is* zero. 8-]
Jim
In article <M0wwDjCobKEjFwV1@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
Well the wind "might" be blowing but is there enough wind as much as we
need:?
If you've spent enough time in NW Scotland or out in the North Atlantic I >suspect you'd conclude the answer is "yes". :-)
The stupid Germans have closed down perfectly OK nuclear reactors just
when most everyone else if trying to eke out the life on theres good
article in the Wall st journal on that recently..
Their error was in assuming that they could rely on Gas... from Putin. Many >in Europe assumed this and that it helped Russia to become more like the >'west'. Big error.
Jim
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 23:05:27 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
It cost us less than Ł2,550 to install solar panels in the Netherlands. These
have generated far more electricity than we need since March when they were >>>installed. We get a credit for the surplus from the energy company we buy our
gas and electricity from. At old energy prices the break even on investment >was
about 4 to 5 years. The company that installed our panels had already done >more
than 20,000 houses. There are many Dutch companies doing installations. The >>>whole job including wiring took less than a day.
What capacity do you get for the 2,550 in kW's?..
8 panels that generate about maximum 3kWh , The amount depends on the direction
and elevation of the sun and cloud . Since April it has been about 21kWh per day
on cloudy days it is about half that. We have a south facing roof and 8 is the >maximum number of panels that will fit on the roof.
In article <kse3hh1qh2l6rsj0sekuc9ltu3lbu6vtga@4ax.com>, Martin ><me@address.invalid> scribeth thus
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 23:05:27 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
It cost us less than Ł2,550 to install solar panels in the Netherlands. These
have generated far more electricity than we need since March when they were
installed. We get a credit for the surplus from the energy company we buy our
gas and electricity from. At old energy prices the break even on investment >>was
about 4 to 5 years. The company that installed our panels had already done >>more
than 20,000 houses. There are many Dutch companies doing installations. The >>>>whole job including wiring took less than a day.
What capacity do you get for the 2,550 in kW's?..
8 panels that generate about maximum 3kWh , The amount depends on the direction
and elevation of the sun and cloud . Since April it has been about 21kWh per day
on cloudy days it is about half that. We have a south facing roof and 8 is the
maximum number of panels that will fit on the roof.
Interesting that looking at quotes here in England..
I have a suspicion which I will never be able to prove, that EDF who
operated Hinkley B is a French company and there is a financial benefit
to France in reducing the UK generation capability so that some of the shortfall would then be imported from France.
On 02/09/2022 11:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Well the wind "might" be blowing but is there enough wind as much asIf you've spent enough time in NW Scotland or out in the North
we need:?
Atlantic I suspect you'd conclude the answer is "yes".:-)
Can we transport the power from up there down to where it's needed?
Won't that be very expensive?
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The problem is that most of these technologies are still in the pilot
stage. Tidal and wave power have been experimented with for decades but
none have progressed to at scale reliable generation. I believe you
posted a while ago that the way around unreliable wind generation was to assert that the wind would be blowing somewhere in Europe and thus the
power could be moved around by inter connectors.
Well, we are seeing how energy shortage in countries is causing inter connectors to go dark. At the end of the day the country has to secure
its own energy needs and not be in hock to others.
This is a good reason to attempt to phase out reliance on oil,
regardless of the global warming debate. We can't be fully reliant on
wind, nor can we be fully reliant on nuclear (reactors go offline due to unforeseen issues, if it's a common problem a fleet could go down for checks).
I notice you've kept your head down recently as others have dismantled
your nonsense but no fight from you with them.
On 02/09/2022 11:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I've been wondering about solar PV for our roof. But do wonder if the
(old) roof can take it. It is quite common here for upstairs to get up
to 25 or 26 C simply from the sunlight on the black slates.
Significantly hotter than downstairs or when it isn't sunny.
Jim
Solar PV is fixed to the timbers underneath, not the roof covering
itself. Unless you have woodworm damage, the rafters should cope. Most suppliers/installers will do a survey of suitability before allowing
you to order, so you are not taking much of a risk.
EDF Energy, trading as EDF in the UK, is a wholly state owned company
of France. What France can decide to do is probably in the same
ballpark as Russia. Our new PM should ponder this before making off the
cuff comments about France's president.
In article <5a2193981fnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
Sod that for a game of soldiers Jim, who can we trust to deliver and not
cut us off etc?..
A diverse load?, well lets see..
Say we need 60 GW of supply. OK now we can make that a mix of say Gas
and fossil, Nuclear and Renewables..
OK so say Renewables are what 20 or so GW of that. So where the suns now
out at night and were not getting 20 Gig of wind where do we make the
short fall up from?..
Or make the renewable content higher, same issue and same problem.
Serious question...
In article <tf0ndj$30nim$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 02/09/2022 11:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Solar PV is fixed to the timbers underneath, not the roof covering
I've been wondering about solar PV for our roof. But do wonder if the
(old) roof can take it. It is quite common here for upstairs to get up
to 25 or 26 C simply from the sunlight on the black slates.
Significantly hotter than downstairs or when it isn't sunny.
Jim
itself. Unless you have woodworm damage, the rafters should cope. Most
suppliers/installers will do a survey of suitability before allowing
you to order, so you are not taking much of a risk.
Ta. That's useful to know. :-)
Alas, as things are I guess Solar PV and house battery suppliers and installers are now being swampted with would-be-customers! My error was not doing it years ago. But I was delaying expecting the costs to fall.
Jim
In article <kse3hh1qh2l6rsj0sekuc9ltu3lbu6vtga@4ax.com>, Martin <me@address.invalid> scribeth thus
8 panels that generate about maximum 3kWh , The amount depends on the >direction and elevation of the sun and cloud . Since April it has been >about 21kWh per day on cloudy days it is about half that. We have a
south facing roof and 8 is the maximum number of panels that will fit
on the roof.
Interesting that looking at quotes here in England..
In article <5a21957b61noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <Qc335KD3dSEjFwUJ@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
It is alread planned that some 'green' energy will be used for H2 >generation. That can then be stored, sent via pipes, or by 'tankers',
and used for mobile/remote purposes. It is also likely that people will
use house batteries - and/or link their electric car via intelligent >charging points that can also be used to 'sell back' some of their
energy to the grid - or your home.
I somehow remain doubtful there will be a great surplus of wind
generated power and these tidal projects any being planned?..
I note the learned engineers cynicism but remove all the Nuclear around
the world thats a bloody big hole in power supply!...
In article <pEn5$WFzDLFjFwKo@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <5a21957b61noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
In article <Qc335KD3dSEjFwUJ@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
It is alread planned that some 'green' energy will be used for H2
generation. That can then be stored, sent via pipes, or by 'tankers',
and used for mobile/remote purposes. It is also likely that people will
use house batteries - and/or link their electric car via intelligent
charging points that can also be used to 'sell back' some of their
energy to the grid - or your home.
I somehow remain doubtful there will be a great surplus of wind
generated power and these tidal projects any being planned?..
When I looked at various times yesterday at the iamkate page the wind +
solar was around 25 - > 30 % of the UK generation.[1] And we currently have >far less in the way of wind farms, etc, that we could build over, say, the >next decade. And the size, efficiency, and 'take' of the individual
turbines is still rising. As is the ability to locate them further out at
sea where it tends to be more windy.
Tidal looks like coming in two different forms. Flow streams and using >'lagoons' as reservouirs of potental energy. The latter is problematic for >non-energy reasons, so politically/socially has drawbacks. Flow is less >problematic in those terms, and the sea is, erm, 'very large'. :-) The UK
is fortunate in having some places where the flow is quite large. And the >geography 'spreads out' when the peaks occur in time quite usefully.
But in terms of investment and R&D it does lag well behind wind and solar >which are already becoming commercially successful. The main tidal gen I
know about is the tidal flow turbine being developed for tests. One of the >main issues being anti-fouling as the sea is 'messy' compared with wind!
The advantage is that you can reliably predict tidal flows and there is
quite a lot of energy involved because water is so much denser than air and >is 'incompressable'.
[1] Just checked and it was 48% gas / 30% solar + Wind. That's with our >present 'fleet' of wind turbines and solar sources. It seems pretty
likely that we
will put in place many more turbines and solar captures over the next few >years. So I'd expect that capacity to rise quite a lot. More turbines, and >much larger power-per-turbine than the older ones. Our problem was a lack
of digit extraction in the past.
Alas, as things are I guess Solar PV and house battery suppliers and installers are now being swampted with would-be-customers! My error
was not doing it years ago. But I was delaying expecting the costs to
fall.
Jim
The real issue is the sealing of the holes through the roof where the
fixings pass through.
When I looked at various times yesterday at the iamkate page the wind +
solar was around 25 - > 30 % of the UK generation. And we currently
have far less in the way of wind farms, etc, that we could build over,
say, the next decade. And the size, efficiency, and 'take' of the
individual turbines is still rising. As is the ability to locate them
further out at sea where it tends to be more windy.
On 02/09/2022 11:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <kse3hh1qh2l6rsj0sekuc9ltu3lbu6vtga@4ax.com>, MartinSolar PV is fixed to the timbers underneath, not the roof covering
<me@address.invalid> wrote:
8 panels that generate about maximum 3kWh , The amount depends on the
direction and elevation of the sun and cloud . Since April it has been
about 21kWh per day on cloudy days it is about half that. We have a
south facing roof and 8 is the maximum number of panels that will fit on >>> the roof.
I've been wondering about solar PV for our roof. But do wonder if the (old) >> roof can take it. It is quite common here for upstairs to get up to 25 or
26 C simply from the sunlight on the black slates. Significantly hotter
than downstairs or when it isn't sunny.
Jim
itself. Unless you have woodworm damage, the rafters should cope. Most >suppliers/installers will do a survey of suitability before allowing you
to order, so you are not taking much of a risk.
In article <tf8cc3$e33$2@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Fairly sure the mentally ill Java lives in Cambridge
Glad someone has had the courage to say what I have been thinking for
some years, I presume others are too. For clarity, I'm not referring to
where he may or may not reside.
Unfortunately, a couple of weeks ago the wind contribution was only
(IIRC) 2.5%, and we're going to need a hack of a lot more-and-bigger new turbines to ensure that they can, under adverse conditions, still
maintain a sensible contribution.
In article <qRdpM5FT4xFjFwK$@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Unfortunately, a couple of weeks ago the wind contribution was
only (IIRC) 2.5%, and we're going to need a hack of a lot
more-and-bigger new turbines to ensure that they can, under
adverse conditions, still maintain a sensible contribution.
Yes, we urgently need many more wind farms with the bigger and
higher rated turbines asap.
However this process may now be 'speeded up' by having our noses
rubbed in the consequences of not digit-extracting before now.
I did visit Cambridge a few times. While working on projects with some
people there. Can't say I was particularly impressed. But they seemed moderately sane. Preferred the Mile End Rd, though. :-)
Also gas is far more appropriate for heating homes, schools and
businesses than electricity ever will be even if you could generate
and distribute it.
Your own view is based on an obsessive believe in something that remains
to be verified by alternative input data, and therefore can only be accurately described as possible (at a pinch, probable) rather than demonstrably true.
Similarly a lack of energy *storage* is a weak point for our national >government's 'skim resources to max profits' approach to 'planning' (sic). >To the point that our idiot governments have been allowing storage to be >*closed down* - until now. Shit, meet fan.
Solar PV is fixed to the timbers underneath, not the roof covering
itself. Unless you have woodworm damage, the rafters should cope.
Most suppliers/installers will do a survey of suitability before
allowing you to order, so you are not taking much of a risk.
fires only seem to occur on Houses in NL that have solar panels added by amateurs
Martin wrote:
fires only seem to occur on Houses in NL that have solar panels added by
amateurs
Not surprising perhaps given the combination of amateur with mains electric and also likely large capacity battery storage.
On 07/09/2022 18:23, Bob Latham wrote:
Also gas is far more appropriate for heating homes, schools and
businesses than electricity ever will be even if you could
generate and distribute it.
Heat is priced per kilowatt hour. Although the most recent "Price
Cap" exercises have increased the price of gas relative to
electricity, It will still be cheaper per kilowatt to heat with gas
than electricity for some time yet.
Maybe the numbers on paper show that electricity is cheap, but the
bills coming through my letter box don't show that.
Still, at long last there is a glimmer of hope. We now have a PM
that wants to place energy security for the nation ahead of fairy
tale and utterly pointless objectives. She has 30 years of green
stupidity to redress in just two years. It is green stupidity that
has got us into this mess. Our own gas resources land and see,
shelved in the name of green. Stupid doesn't do it justice.
On 07/09/2022 10:29, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I did visit Cambridge a few times. While working on projects with some people there. Can't say I was particularly impressed. But they seemed moderately sane. Preferred the Mile End Rd, though. :-)
The Mile End Road was mentioned loudly from the terraces at the Boleyn Ground[1]. Were you a fan?
Heat is priced per kilowatt hour. Although the most recent "Price Cap" exercises have increased the price of gas relative to electricity, It
will still be cheaper per kilowatt to heat with gas than electricity for
some time yet.
Maybe the numbers on paper show that electricity is cheap, but the bills coming through my letter box don't show that.
In article <5a241f893anoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <qRdpM5FT4xFjFwK$@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Unfortunately, a couple of weeks ago the wind contribution was only (IIRC) 2.5%, and we're going to need a hack of a lot more-and-bigger
new turbines to ensure that they can, under adverse conditions,
still maintain a sensible contribution.
Yes, we urgently need many more wind farms with the bigger and higher
rated turbines asap.
Vandalism !
'Enough' wind farms would either be a terrible blight on our landscape
or make us dependant on sharing with other countries.
And can there ever be enough? Somehow I doubt it. A nice high pressure
area stuck over the country in winter isn't unusual and that COLD and
very often means very low winds.
If recent months have taught us anything, I would think most sensible
people would now want our country to be energy self sufficient.
Also gas is far more appropriate for heating homes, schools and
businesses than electricity ever will be even if you could generate and distribute it.
On Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:17:11 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
Similarly a lack of energy *storage* is a weak point for our national >government's 'skim resources to max profits' approach to 'planning'
(sic). To the point that our idiot governments have been allowing
storage to be *closed down* - until now. Shit, meet fan.
What are the storage facilities foir gas? I know about Rough being shut
down, go on please tell about what is still operational.
In article <tfav5j$3scjg$9@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Heat is priced per kilowatt hour. Although the most recent "Price Cap"
exercises have increased the price of gas relative to electricity, It
will still be cheaper per kilowatt to heat with gas than electricity for
some time yet.
Maybe the numbers on paper show that electricity is cheap, but the bills
coming through my letter box don't show that.
The cap is per kWh. So if your charge rate for both is at the cap (as I
guess it will be for us all in due time if not right now) then electric
would nominally be cheaper for heating as it doesn't lose anything via the flue.
In article <tfav5j$3scjg$9@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 07/09/2022 18:23, Bob Latham wrote:
Also gas is far more appropriate for heating homes, schools and businesses than electricity ever will be even if you could generate
and distribute it.
Heat is priced per kilowatt hour. Although the most recent "Price Cap" exercises have increased the price of gas relative to electricity, It
will still be cheaper per kilowatt to heat with gas than electricity
for some time yet.
Yes, Electricity can only get near gas for heating by deliberately
increasing the price of gas or by reducing its supply. All in the name
of Netzero stupidity.
I think Jim Lesurf raised the issue of the forced link between gas and electricity pricing and I think he wants that changed and I agree. I surprised he thinks that though as it's part of the Netzero plan.
Maybe the numbers on paper show that electricity is cheap, but the
bills coming through my letter box don't show that.
Exactly, all this "free" wind energy :-) and yet our electricity bills
are through the roof.
Still, at long last there is a glimmer of hope. We now have a PM that
wants to place energy security for the nation ahead of fairy tale and
utterly pointless objectives.
She has 30 years of green stupidity to redress in just two years. It is
green stupidity that has got us into this mess. Our own gas resources
land and see, shelved in the name of green. Stupid doesn't do it justice.
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Martin wrote:
fires only seem to occur on Houses in NL that have solar panels added
by amateurs
Not surprising perhaps given the combination of amateur with mains
electric and also likely large capacity battery storage.
battery storage isn't necessary (and is only fitted in a minority of PV systems)
In article <5a244c1a05bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a241f893anoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <qRdpM5FT4xFjFwK$@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Unfortunately, a couple of weeks ago the wind contribution
was only (IIRC) 2.5%, and we're going to need a hack of a lot more-and-bigger new turbines to ensure that they can, under
adverse conditions, still maintain a sensible contribution.
Yes, we urgently need many more wind farms with the bigger and
higher rated turbines asap.
Vandalism !
'Enough' wind farms would either be a terrible blight on our
landscape or make us dependant on sharing with other countries.
Ah, yes, the standard Tory argument
- I don't like it to spoil the view - used to dismiss a source of
energy. Do you also dislike ones 40m offsea because you might be
able to see them on a photo taken from space? :-)
And can there ever be enough? Somehow I doubt it. A nice high
pressure area stuck over the country in winter isn't unusual and
that COLD and very often means very low winds.
I guess you've missed the data that shows that show thet during the
coldest times of year the wind - and wind generated energy - are
higher.
Enough? Well we could easily scale up wind farm energy levels by
anything from x2 to x5 over a decade if willing to invest. And cut
Tory 'red tape' that tries to prevent them.
The point here is that the generation capacity of each turbine is
rising rapidly as well as people building more of them.
Given a decade we could have far more added *UK* energy that way
than by building any more nuclear stations.
But we mustn't spoil the view, eh?..
If recent months have taught us anything, I would think most
sensible people would now want our country to be energy self
sufficient.
So have our own wind farms, not nuclear stations build by the
French, Chinese, etc. Those 'new promise' nukes won't generate a
Watt for a decade or more, and then take *more* years to generate
more than they cost ti build and get going... with profits going
abroad to the people who actually control them.
Also gas is far more appropriate for heating homes, schools and
businesses than electricity ever will be even if you could
generate and distribute it.
It has been more 'appropriate', but that is changing. And of course
one point for wind, etc, is that it can be used to produce H2 which
can then be tanked or piped.
In fact when the price is per kWh for
gas and electric are the same (e.g. via a 'cap) electric may be a
*cheaper* way to heat your home. Because it doesn't waste some
energy on flue gases or water vapour that didn't condense before
released.
BTW at present the actual cost of wind kWh would be much lower than
gas if it weren't for the crazy 'Balancing Mechanism' that nails
the price paid for it *to that for gas*.
At least one wind farm firm has said already that the hike in
income they get from this will be used to build more wind farms as
fast as they can get them done.
I'm trying to get a document that lists storage quarterly in recent years
On 08/09/2022 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tfav5j$3scjg$9@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Heat is priced per kilowatt hour. Although the most recent "Price Cap"
exercises have increased the price of gas relative to electricity, It
will still be cheaper per kilowatt to heat with gas than electricity for >>> some time yet.
Maybe the numbers on paper show that electricity is cheap, but the bills >>> coming through my letter box don't show that.
The cap is per kWh. So if your charge rate for both is at the cap (as I
guess it will be for us all in due time if not right now) then electric
would nominally be cheaper for heating as it doesn't lose anything via the >> flue.
But the cap information from the Ofgem website says
Electricity unit rates are rising from 28.3p, to 51.8p per kWh, while
gas doubles from 7.4p to 14.8p
In article <tfcq19$m9h5$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
But the cap information from the Ofgem website says Electricity unit
rates are rising from 28.3p, to 51.8p per kWh, while gas doubles from
7.4p to 14.8p
IIRC Truss has said they'd be the same.
But the cap information from the Ofgem website says Electricity unit
rates are rising from 28.3p, to 51.8p per kWh, while gas doubles from
7.4p to 14.8p
It doesn't matter how much stays indoors and how much escapes via the
flue, the prices per kWh are very different for gas and electricity, and while that differential remains I won't be tempted to replace my gas
boiler.
Jim Lesurf wrote:
IIRC Truss has said they'd be the same.
Not quite. The announcement was that the new cap will be lower (but they are
talking about the annual bill for average users and there are no unit prices published yet). However, the "before" unit rates also show a disparity between
gas and electricity, and the gap is even greater than the "after" rates which would have closed the gap somewhat.
The cap is per kWh. So if your charge rate for both is at the cap (as
I guess it will be for us all in due time if not right now) then
electric would nominally be cheaper for heating as it doesn't lose
anything via the flue.
I would be interested in your calculations for this hypothesis.
Jim Lesurf wrote:
I'm trying to get a document that lists storage quarterly in recent
years
Dunno about a list, but two facilities to get you started
<https://www.uniper.energy/united-kingdom/power-plants-in-the-united-kingdom/holford>
<https://www.storengy.co.uk/storengy-uk-stublach-site/learn-more-about-gas-storage>
The announcement was that the new cap will be lower (but they are
talking about the annual bill for average users and there are no unit
prices published yet). However, the "before" unit rates also show a disparity between gas and electricity, and the gap is even greater than
the "after" rates which would have closed the gap somewhat.
One of the sources of confusion/irritation has been the way
politicians and media keep talking about the 'bill' and giving an
average. Early on this was likely to be particularly puzzling /
misleading because, of course, many of us get *two* bills - one for
Gas, the other for Electric. So prompts questions like "Is that the
total for both, or for each?" Only latterly have the media started
saying values in terms of kWh. But still fail to make this clear a
lot of the time.
The complication for us we have is that our old gas boiler CH has
failed and would need complete replacement as now needs a 'combi'.
Yet it seems quite plasuible that a few years from now electric
might *not* be much more expensive than gas. So then may need
changing to an electric powered system.
Devil in that is what Govenment force upon us by their decisions.
As it is, the muppets look like being keen on boosting gas rather
than switching to wind, etc,
which were *already* cheaper per kWh to generate *before* Putin's
Act of War
and the War Profiteering. Of course, our wonderful 'privatised'
energy industry paid *more* than this for wind power
because of the insane 'Balancing Mechanism' that rigged the system
to suit Gas generation of electric.
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 11/09/2022 19:52, Java Jive wrote:
But a waste of everyone's time to abuse it.
Not everyone's time wasted, only yours. Nobody else is complaining.
I imagine they are either ignoring the thread or enjoying the fencing match.
Jim
Im voting for the latter; though its less a fencing match than a >fish-in-a-barrel thing. And JJ isnt winning it
In article <5a2633b8d3bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a25ab1a99noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
I suppose I have the same figures that everyone else has which is..
12,000 KWh of gas 2,900 KWh of Electricity.
This is supposed to be the average and that is, intended to be capped at
ÂŁ2,500 PA. If anyone has more detail I would be grateful.
These may help people. Someone else pointed them to me yesterday.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-bills-support/energy-bills-support-factsheet-8-september-2022
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-cost-electricity-kwh-uk
Alas, the details on one of those 'pages' has changed from day to day. So I suspect that our current 'Government' (sic) are still not clear on what balance between "let the poor freeze" and "have us all pay more for longer
on the never never" to settle upon. (sigh) It is also from many people's
POV a real PITA to try and use the above data to assess what they face.
In article <5a25ab1a99noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
I suppose I have the same figures that everyone else has which is..
12,000 KWh of gas 2,900 KWh of Electricity.
This is supposed to be the average and that is, intended to be capped at Ł2,500 PA. If anyone has more detail I would be grateful.
The complication for us we have is that our old gas boiler CH has
failed and would need complete replacement as now needs a 'combi'.
Are combis the only type available now?
Yet it seems quite plasuible that a few years from now electric might
*not* be much more expensive than gas. So then may need changing to an electric powered system.
Although I don't agree with the ACC claims and agenda, the question you
raise there is still interesting and here I will admit I wish I
understood more. If the price of electric per KWh fell to the same or
lower than gas what really mean?
Presumably, you *could* have an electric boiler, a giant electric kettle producing hot water to pump around your home. Although a former boss of
mine was telling me 10 years ago that electric boilers were coming I had
my doubts then as now because homes drawing greater 20KW from the mains
for hours is not feasible.
So I presume you mean heat pumps.
Are combis the only type available now?
That's what I was told by three different 'plumbers'. Mind you they also
told me that my busted pump was no longer available. Yet someone else says >they are. So I guess the real problem is: "Canna be bothered to fix/change >that when I can make more money from saying th entire system has to be >replaced."
Unfortunately it's one thing to win an argument, but sometimes quite
another to convince the other person that you have.
In article <5a2633b8d3bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a25ab1a99noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
These may help people. Someone else pointed them to me yesterday.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-bills-support/energy-bills-support-factsheet-8-september-2022
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-cost-electricity-kwh-uk
Alas, the details on one of those 'pages' has changed from day to
day. So I suspect that our current 'Government' (sic) are still not
clear on what balance between "let the poor freeze" and "have us
all pay more for longer on the never never" to settle upon. (sigh)
The complication for us we have is that our old gas boiler CH
has failed and would need complete replacement as now needs a
'combi'.
Are combis the only type available now?
That's what I was told by three different 'plumbers'. Mind you they
also told me that my busted pump was no longer available. Yet
someone else says they are. So I guess the real problem is: "Canna
be bothered to fix/change that when I can make more money from
saying th entire system has to be replaced."
Yet it seems quite plasuible that a few years from now electric
might *not* be much more expensive than gas. So then may need
changing to an electric powered system.
Although I don't agree with the ACC claims and agenda, the
question you raise there is still interesting and here I will
admit I wish I understood more. If the price of electric per KWh
fell to the same or lower than gas what really mean?
Presumably, you *could* have an electric boiler, a giant electric
kettle producing hot water to pump around your home. Although a
former boss of mine was telling me 10 years ago that electric
boilers were coming I had my doubts then as now because homes
drawing greater 20KW from the mains for hours is not feasible.
The basic point is that at *some point* non-gas will be cheaper.
This was *already* the case for newer onshore wind farms *before*
the current Act of War. (And new farms like these can be built
quickly if we get going. Offshore is slower, but offers a much
bigger capture area and take.)
But despite that we had to buy it the price *set by gas* so people
couldn't see this happen. And the transfer of electric power from
Scotland to the south of England is high price *because of lack of
grid capacity*. i.e. failure to invest because cheap gas was taken
for granted.
General failure by UK Gov of vision and investment, to our cost -
even without Putin's behaviour.
Single output boilers are still available, you don't have to have a
combi but all boilers are condensing type now.
Grundfos circulation heating pumps... https://www.screwfix.com/search?search=grunfoss+pump#_=p
I looked at the Government figures, and the unit rates look to be about half-way between the "up to September" price cap and the original "from
1 October" price cap. This will effectively mean that light users will
see the rebate guarantee as a larger proportion of their bills than
heavier users will.
I couldn't be sure whether the Government figures were before VAT or
after VAT. I could have a guess, but it would have been nice to see it specifically stated. This is made even more complicated by my supplier (British Gas) quoting with VAT prices on their website yet before VAT
prices on their bills.
Maybe you misunderstood your plumbers. ALL boilers are CONDENSING
boilers,you need system boiler (that is what Vaillant call them).
See https://www.vaillant.co.uk/for-installers/products/home-system-boiler-range-17344.html
Unless wee Krankie has ordained that all boilers have to be combis.
In article <tfn4bg$1bfvh$8@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
I looked at the Government figures, and the unit rates look to be about
half-way between the "up to September" price cap and the original "from
1 October" price cap. This will effectively mean that light users will
see the rebate guarantee as a larger proportion of their bills than
heavier users will.
I couldn't be sure whether the Government figures were before VAT or
after VAT. I could have a guess, but it would have been nice to see it
specifically stated. This is made even more complicated by my supplier
(British Gas) quoting with VAT prices on their website yet before VAT
prices on their bills.
For whatever reason, the various figures given by Government, OfGen, and companies generally seem to be in different forms with various assumptions, and change almost from day to day. Makes me think of "find the lady" merchants!... Makes it almost impossible for most people to know if the
rate declared on their bill is actually what *should* be the rate for them.
Parallel with the routine quoting of a total annual cost for a mythical 'average' house and user that leads people to assume "I won't have to pay more than that" which is likely to be wrong.
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Are combis the only type available now?
That's what I was told by three different 'plumbers'. Mind you they also
told me that my busted pump was no longer available. Yet someone else says >> they are. So I guess the real problem is: "Canna be bothered to fix/change >> that when I can make more money from saying th entire system has to be
replaced."
Maybe you misunderstood your plumbers. ALL boilers are CONDENSING
boilers,you need system boiler (that is what Vaillant call them).
In article <5a26b2633cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a2633b8d3bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a25ab1a99noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
These may help people. Someone else pointed them to me yesterday.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-bills-support/energy-bills-support-factsheet-8-september-2022
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-cost-electricity-kwh-uk
Thank you for those.
Alas, the details on one of those 'pages' has changed from day to day.
So I suspect that our current 'Government' (sic) are still not clear
on what balance between "let the poor freeze" and "have us all pay
more for longer on the never never" to settle upon. (sigh)
It's not at all clear as yet what we are facing and it is a PITA.
But being fair, the PM and government have had a baptism of fire in the
last week.
The first website says that the details have been passed to our energy suppliers. If true then it's the suppliers that are now not giving us
the information we need.
Obviously, you'd prefer the Labour option of a windfall tax.
Are combis the only type available now?
That's what I was told by three different 'plumbers'. Mind you they
also told me that my busted pump was no longer available. Yet someone
else says they are. So I guess the real problem is: "Canna be bothered
to fix/change that when I can make more money from saying th entire
system has to be replaced."
Single output boilers are still available, you don't have to have a
combi but all boilers are condensing type now.
Grundfos circulation heating pumps... https://www.screwfix.com/search?search=grunfoss+pump#_=p
There should be a replacement for you there. I suggest you get a better plumber.
The basic point is that at *some point* non-gas will be cheaper. This
was *already* the case for newer onshore wind farms *before* the
current Act of War. (And new farms like these can be built quickly if
we get going. Offshore is slower, but offers a much bigger capture
area and take.)
I agree that for the UK, Putin has had little impact on the price of
gas. The reason gas is expensive here is because supply has been
curtailed by government and no new sources have been developed. Supply
and demand. The reason for that is the green 'Water Melons' banging on
about CO2.
Our price of gas is a direct result of the green offensive. You asked
for it, you got it.
In article <5a26cb5db8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a26b2633cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a2633b8d3bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a25ab1a99noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The basic point is that at *some point* non-gas will be
cheaper. This was *already* the case for newer onshore wind
farms *before* the current Act of War. (And new farms like
these can be built quickly if we get going. Offshore is slower,
but offers a much bigger capture area and take.)
I agree that for the UK, Putin has had little impact on the price
of gas. The reason gas is expensive here is because supply has
been curtailed by government and no new sources have been
developed. Supply and demand. The reason for that is the green
'Water Melons' banging on about CO2.
Your usual coloured view. The price has soared Putin because has
cut supply to Europe, etc.
In parallel we've failed to get on with
building up alternatives that would make us more independent of
'World Price' for gas or oil or coal.
Our price of gas is a direct result of the green offensive. You
asked for it, you got it.
Back in reality,
the failure has been to allow enough building of
'green' energy sources under the control of the UK. The people who
build and run the farms are keen because they already can produce
electric power far cheaper than gas *even at the price of gas
BEFORE Putin's Act of War*.
And new onshore wind production can be build up more quickly and
cheaply than 'new gas'... which of course is a finite resource that
will deplete, whereas wind/wave/tidal won't.
Parallel with the routine quoting of a total annual cost for a
mythical 'average' house and user that leads people to assume "I won't
have to pay more than that" which is likely to be wrong.
Ofgem start with data on actual usage. They then calculate the lower quartile, median and upper quartile of household consumption for the two
most recent years of available data. The averages of those 2 years give
their Typical Domestic Consumption Values.
How's that "mythical"?
Maybe you misunderstood your plumbers. ALL boilers are CONDENSING boilers,you need system boiler (that is what Vaillant call them).
or even a heat-only boiler, but they tend to be for large properties
with many occupants.
FWIW That edition of the R4 prog is well worth a listen as it
indicates the sheer lunacy and current vague of Government 'policy'
on this issue. Now perhaps underscored by the different approach
the EU seem to be proposing for its membe states.
One did come and try to remove the existing (dud) pump. It does
have connectors. Alas, these seem to become corrosion 'stuck'. To
my surprise they then seemed unable to work with what looks to me
like ye olde 'Yorkshire Tube'. i.e. they said they couldn't drain
the system, cut out the old pipe, and then fit a new pump and
pipework in its place.
In article <b406358a-153f-6070-07d7-5762bbf9ae35@outlook.com>, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
Parallel with the routine quoting of a total annual cost for a
mythical 'average' house and user that leads people to assume "I won't
have to pay more than that" which is likely to be wrong.
Ofgem start with data on actual usage. They then calculate the lower
quartile, median and upper quartile of household consumption for the two
most recent years of available data. The averages of those 2 years give
their Typical Domestic Consumption Values.
How's that "mythical"?
If you read what I wrote it says: "mythical 'average' house".
In reality the vast majority of houses aren't the same as the 'average'.
And from the "More or Less" today they apparently don't actually mean "average" but "median"!
However I assume that they take for granted no-one
will know what that means. Another potential source of muddle when anyone tries to comapare with their actuality.
In article <jocd9sFeaj2U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns ><usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood your plumbers. ALL boilers are CONDENSING
boilers,you need system boiler (that is what Vaillant call them).
or even a heat-only boiler, but they tend to be for large properties
with many occupants.
Again, others have said to me that isn't needed as you *can* fit condensing >boilers lower down by using a 'sump' to soak away the condensation water.
But again, all the people I've asked to do the work say this is impossible.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:49:18 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <jocd9sFeaj2U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns[snip]
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood your plumbers. ALL boilers are CONDENSING
boilers,you need system boiler (that is what Vaillant call them).
or even a heat-only boiler, but they tend to be for large properties
with many occupants.
Again, others have said to me that isn't needed as you *can* fit condensing >> boilers lower down by using a 'sump' to soak away the condensation water.
But again, all the people I've asked to do the work say this is impossible. >>
It seems your plumbers / heating 'engineers' have never
heard of condensate pumps. And they use electricity!
And new onshore wind production can be build up more quickly and
cheaply than 'new gas'... which of course is a finite resource that
will deplete, whereas wind/wave/tidal won't.
<sigh>. You cannot move the country over to using electricity as a replacement for gas - just like that, it would take many years.
In article <5a27bc3612bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
<sigh>. You cannot move the country over to using electricity as a replacement for gas - just like that, it would take many years.
<bigger sigh> That's why our Government, etc, have *been wilfully
stupid in not getting on with it in past years*. Now, it would be
the fastest way to increase our gas dependency and one advantage of
the delay has been that newer designs of wind turbines are more
capable and could be implimented more quickly at scale *if* enabled
by Gov to get on with it.
In article <5a27bc3612bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham ><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
And new onshore wind production can be build up more quickly and
cheaply than 'new gas'... which of course is a finite resource that
will deplete, whereas wind/wave/tidal won't.
<sigh>. You cannot move the country over to using electricity as a
replacement for gas - just like that, it would take many years.
<bigger sigh> That's why our Government, etc, have *been wilfully stupid in >not getting on with it in past years*. Now, it would be the fastest way to >increase our gas dependency and one advantage of the delay has been that >newer designs of wind turbines are more capable and could be implimented
more quickly at scale *if* enabled by Gov to get on with it.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:45 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <5a27bc3612bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob LathamThat's governments of all flavours is it Jim?
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
And new onshore wind production can be build up more quickly and
cheaply than 'new gas'... which of course is a finite resource that
will deplete, whereas wind/wave/tidal won't.
<sigh>. You cannot move the country over to using electricity as a
replacement for gas - just like that, it would take many years.
<bigger sigh> That's why our Government, etc, have *been wilfully stupid in >> not getting on with it in past years*. Now, it would be the fastest way to >> increase our gas dependency and one advantage of the delay has been that
newer designs of wind turbines are more capable and could be implimented
more quickly at scale *if* enabled by Gov to get on with it.
In article <5a27b71c7fnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
FWIW That edition of the R4 prog is well worth a listen as it
indicates the sheer lunacy and current vague of Government 'policy' on
this issue. Now perhaps underscored by the different approach the EU
seem to be proposing for its membe states.
What on earth would you expect from the biased BBC?
We agree with Labour not Tories. We think the EU is great and brexit bad.
In article <5a27b7d57cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
One did come and try to remove the existing (dud) pump. It does have connectors. Alas, these seem to become corrosion 'stuck'. To my
surprise they then seemed unable to work with what looks to me like ye
olde 'Yorkshire Tube'. i.e. they said they couldn't drain the system,
cut out the old pipe, and then fit a new pump and pipework in its
place.
Almost every time I've changed a pump the big pump nuts refused to
budge. In the early days decades ago, I expected this and didn't waste
much time trying but gave in and drained the system. Undid the 22mm side
of the pump nuts and removed the pump and isolator taps. Obviously then replacing the pump nuts/taps along with the pump.
More recently, I got some rubber bungs (designed for the exact purpose)
and sealed the system vent over the water tank and blocked the fill
point from the tank. With that done it is possible to remove motorised
valves and pumps with very little water escaping, its held in by air
pressure and vacuum.
On 14/09/2022 09:41, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <b406358a-153f-6070-07d7-5762bbf9ae35@outlook.com>, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
Parallel with the routine quoting of a total annual cost for a
mythical 'average' house and user that leads people to assume "I
won't have to pay more than that" which is likely to be wrong.
Ofgem start with data on actual usage. They then calculate the lower
quartile, median and upper quartile of household consumption for the
two most recent years of available data. The averages of those 2
years give their Typical Domestic Consumption Values.
How's that "mythical"?
If you read what I wrote it says: "mythical 'average' house".
In reality the vast majority of houses aren't the same as the
'average'.
And? It's bog standard usage.
I don't know if you have ever been involved in conveying information to
the general public or a large slice of it.
I have. And have worked with people with a lot of experience and
expertise in it. We knew it was bloody hard. All too many adults in GB
are:
a. incapable of understanding calculations such as a utility bill from usage, standing and unit charges
b. totally lost if you start on about "medians".
So the use of figures for an "average household" are a simple way of
getting across the direction and scale of change leaving those who want
the details to get them from Of gem or elsewhere.
But you of course may know how it can and should be done better
And I suspect "What we have here is a failure to communicate" on the
'sump'. That's just what some (including Worcetser Bosch) call the trap where condensate is collected before draining - or being pumped - away.
In article <face5e50-c554-41c9-2d54-53778c61d37e@outlook.com>, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2022 09:41, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <b406358a-153f-6070-07d7-5762bbf9ae35@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
Parallel with the routine quoting of a total annual cost for a
mythical 'average' house and user that leads people to assume "I
won't have to pay more than that" which is likely to be wrong.
Ofgem start with data on actual usage. They then calculate the lower
quartile, median and upper quartile of household consumption for the
two most recent years of available data. The averages of those 2
years give their Typical Domestic Consumption Values.
How's that "mythical"?
If you read what I wrote it says: "mythical 'average' house".
In reality the vast majority of houses aren't the same as the
'average'.
And? It's bog standard usage.
And is of no use to most people who have no idea if their home is
"average", or how much it differs from "average".
I don't know if you have ever been involved in conveying information to
the general public or a large slice of it.
Erm. Hints.
I worked in the Ed Biz for decades. I've also written a few magazine
articles for varous consumer/science mags.
I have. And have worked with people with a lot of experience and
expertise in it. We knew it was bloody hard. All too many adults in GB
are:
a. incapable of understanding calculations such as a utility bill from
usage, standing and unit charges
b. totally lost if you start on about "medians".
So the use of figures for an "average household" are a simple way of
getting across the direction and scale of change leaving those who want
the details to get them from Of gem or elsewhere.
But provides no actual values which can be used more precisely by people
who do have a clue. Using an "average" is fine *if you ALSO provide more specific details for those who can make sense of them*. It is possible to
do this.
But you of course may know how it can and should be done better
Perhaps. :-)
Moving more and more of our energy needs to wind will get us out of the frying pan and into the fire. Wind is not dependable, countries that
rely on it hit problems. What do you propose we do when the wind doesn't blow?
Don't dare say share with France !!
There is no rational reason to not exploit good old reliable gas and
build nuclear.
<bigger sigh> That's why our Government, etc, have *been wilfully
stupid in not getting on with it in past years*. Now, it would be the >fastest way to increase our gas dependency and one advantage of the
delay has been that newer designs of wind turbines are more capable and >could be implimented more quickly at scale *if* enabled by Gov to get
on with it.
That's governments of all flavours is it Jim?
That's governments of all flavours is it Jim?
Successive administrations have faced the same problem: strategic energy options (a) upset some people and (b) involved short-term pain for
long-term gain, where "long-term" was >5 years before voters see the
gains...
On 15/09/2022 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <face5e50-c554-41c9-2d54-53778c61d37e@outlook.com>, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
I don't know if you have ever been involved in conveying information
to the general public or a large slice of it.
Erm. Hints.
I worked in the Ed Biz for decades. I've also written a few magazine articles for varous consumer/science mags.
I had gained the impression your work in "the Ed Biz" was at university
level in STEM subjects which is very much a top slice of a general
public where 1 in 5 are innumerate.
The government and Ofgem publish details[1]. They are picked up and
passed on by the likes of Which? and moneysavingexpert.com. The fact
that most news organisations don't give them may just possibly reflect
the fact that they know their readership - including knowing that those
who want the details can mostly find them easily.
In article <k116ihd53b1a6uhid7mrqrkmpgchqinbeg@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9 ><reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<bigger sigh> That's why our Government, etc, have *been wilfullyThat's governments of all flavours is it Jim?
stupid in not getting on with it in past years*. Now, it would be the
fastest way to increase our gas dependency and one advantage of the
delay has been that newer designs of wind turbines are more capable and
could be implimented more quickly at scale *if* enabled by Gov to get
on with it.
At Westminster, sadly, in essence, yes. If you were expecting me to defend >people like Blair/Brown then I see no reason to overall wrt their
decisions when in Gov so far as things like Energy source planning, etc, is >concerned. They went along with the same old 'free market' delusions and >didn't do much for green energy.
That said, the divergence between government plans, rules for planning and >operating the energy 'market' (sic) etc compared to what was needed has >become even more stark during the past decade or so. Mainly driven by the >delusion that the "market rules" whilst symultaneously rigging that market
to make it difficult to get planning permission for onshore wind farms
*and* the insane 'Balancing Mechanism' that takes for granted that gas will >*always* be cheaper than any other source of Electric generation. So we
have to pay the price of gas generation for *all* other sources, even when >the producers would take a lower price and still profit.
i.e. more recent Governments have had available a lot more evidence that it >would make sense to encourage, not deter, green alternatives. Plus an >increasingly rising need for it. But have wilfully ignored this and tended
to *hamper* the process. In some cases via allowing local authorities to
make it harder.
In essence, the result is a 'free' market that has been rigged to suit >political beliefs and the biggest companies. Not us.
If you mean the difference between the Scots Gov and Westminster, they
*are* different. Scots have been keener on 'renewables' in terms of
planning, etc.
In article <5a283e67b3bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Moving more and more of our energy needs to wind will get us out
of the frying pan and into the fire. Wind is not dependable,
countries that rely on it hit problems. What do you propose we do
when the wind doesn't blow?
Look at this and learn.
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/WhenTheWindDoesntBlow.jpeg
I had been waiting for a time when the "wind doesn't blow" across
the UK. Found it at the time given. Note the broken red line that
indicates the area assigned to Scotland by international
Law/Treaties for purposes like Energy extraction. (I omitted the
area for England+Wales+NI which of course add to this.)
At the time there was little wind onshore. But a *LOT* offshore.
Where people *are* building new, large, wind farms connected back
to the mainland. Within a decade we could have far more wind power
from these areas than from we get presently from the land. In
addition to more from the land.
Add in plans to add Solar PV to wind turnbines as a routine add-on.
Since it tends to be sunny when the wind is low (it was here at the
time of the above illusration) that will become a no-brainer add-on
for turbine makers as it gives them a 'free bonus' supply of Energy particularly for when people on land think it "isn't windy today".
In addition have you seen the
figures on raw materials those wind farms use and their maintenance
and the piles of fatigued blades in landfill. Ecological nightmare.
[Usual far-right diarrhoetic chunder snipped]
Gas is what we need not clown world.
[Usual far-right diarrhoetic chunder snipped]
Excellent video on the WEF, 'build back better for whom?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v = J Q l P D a Q O M M 8
Coincidence with all the recent crisis waves, I'm not sure. The
solution to all of them we're told, is world government.
Every time they erect a turbine for a wind power station, you can just
about guarantee that one of the large cranes will go off the road or get stuck, causing great inconvenience to people in the area.
In article <a5d8f370-cdf7-9b41-d41f-d972a0126865@outlook.com>, Robin ><rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
And I suspect "What we have here is a failure to communicate" on the
'sump'. That's just what some (including Worcetser Bosch) call the trap
where condensate is collected before draining - or being pumped - away.
I can't tell but suspect part of the problem is that the plumbers who've
come here all have a specific type/set of kit they choose and fit. They
then ignore the existence of alternatives. Maybe they get a discount from
the equipment suppliers.
Maybe its limited training. Maybe they just want
max profit for min effort. Dunno. I've just seen their reactions and have >described them here.
Ten years ago we did have a local plumber as a neighbour. He was quite
handy and helpful. But he retired and moved, alas.
Jim
In article <jocd9sFeaj2U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns ><usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood your plumbers. ALL boilers are CONDENSING
boilers,you need system boiler (that is what Vaillant call them).
or even a heat-only boiler, but they tend to be for large properties
with many occupants.
I think I've reported on this before, but will say the following to help
set the reality we've experienced.
I know that you can buy replacement pumps and that ours *could* be
replaced. But I have tried a number of heating/plumer firms.
One did come and try to remove the existing (dud) pump. It does have >connectors. Alas, these seem to become corrosion 'stuck'. To my surprise
they then seemed unable to work with what looks to me like ye olde
'Yorkshire Tube'. i.e. they said they couldn't drain the system, cut out
the old pipe, and then fit a new pump and pipework in its place.
Three other firms have simply said they can't do any of the above.
Insisting you can't get replacement pumps and have to go for a 'combi' with >its own internal pump. Despite my saying otherwise. The also insist that
the new boiler would have to go higher up the wall at the other end of the >kichen. Meaning another hole in the wall, trashing some cupboards, etc, and >also filling up the old flue opening.
Again, others have said to me that isn't needed as you *can* fit condensing >boilers lower down by using a 'sump' to soak away the condensation water.
But again, all the people I've asked to do the work say this is impossible.
In effect, they simply want what suits them and lets them charge the most >money for the maximum of work. Anything else, they refuse to do and say it >can't be done.
Jim
Zzzzzzzzzzz!
In article <5a28c0e03cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a283e67b3bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Moving more and more of our energy needs to wind will get us out
of the frying pan and into the fire. Wind is not dependable,
countries that rely on it hit problems. What do you propose we do
when the wind doesn't blow?
Look at this and learn.
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/WhenTheWindDoesntBlow.jpeg
I had been waiting for a time when the "wind doesn't blow" across
the UK. Found it at the time given. Note the broken red line that
indicates the area assigned to Scotland by international
Law/Treaties for purposes like Energy extraction. (I omitted the
area for England+Wales+NI which of course add to this.)
At the time there was little wind onshore. But a *LOT* offshore.
That was Lucky then wasn't it? Can you guarantee that will always be
the case?
Solar works so well at night and during the winter when the sun is
weak and the panels are covered in snow and ice.
I can't be bothered to plough through your wall of text advocating
energy from intermittent sources
Fascinating video, more technical than most videos I've seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v = l c y K o B H e a A o
Honest and educational video, it's about
science
for a change.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 10:34:09 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,335 |
