On 16/06/2023 15:58, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5ab565d115bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Twitter this morning has graphs for today.
>>
>> It claims;
>>
>> at 04:30 this morning.
>>
>> Low demand at 24.97 GW
>> Wind managing 4% of our needs.
>> Renewables in total 7%. 1.75GW
>> 74% coming from gas and nuclear.
>
> Here is the original graphic from Twitter..
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/climate/windpwr1.jpg

As seemingly everyone here but you knows, that's from GridWatch.

> Another post later this morning then said it was even worse..
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/climate/windpwr2.jpg

I was always taught that a graph without a legend is meaningless.
However, I think we can guess that it too is from GridWatch, and shows
the percentage of consumed power generate by wind when not much wind
wasn't blowing.

> The caption read :
> 30 years of "investment" in "windpower" and can't even maintain 2% of
> our electricity needs.

Which is utterly typical of the irrationality of much of Shitter.
No-one rational expects to be able to use wind turbines to generate
electricity when there's no wind.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> No-one rational expects to be able to use wind turbines to generate
> electricity when there's no wind.

Anyone rational would then raise the question of what source generates the
missing electricity when there’s no wind.

As we saw over this winter, CCGT had to do the heavy lifting, starting with
November having about 26 days where wind generation was very low.

Winter blocking highs tend to be something like 3000 miles across, to judge
from the MetO pressure charts, so Europe isn’t much help as they have the
same problem.

--
Spike

Take a look at this graph...

http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/climate/Emissions.jpg

That's just one other country, our contribution is all but
irrelevant, it's been going down for a long time as is next to
nothing.

When you look at the cost of NetZero:
People unable to heat their homes, poeverty and a broken economy.
The insane war against the motorist
Banning of gas boilers.
Internal flights banned unless you have a private jet then it's OK.
Even attacking farming to reduce CO2.

Quite how anyone rational can see that graph of just one country
against our and not think netzero is insane is beyond me. Virtue
signalling at best. The Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion loons
should protest in China. But China would not tolerate the idiocy.

In addition, during the lockdown saga, we saw quite clearly that the
the Keeling curve did not blip. We are though still leaving an ice
age and have been for long enough for the oceans to be warming which
will outgas huge amount of CO2. Science fact!

Carbon14 you say? Okay!
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/fulltext/2022/02000/world_atmospheric_co2,_its_14c_specific_activity,.2.aspx

Remember ~96% of CO2 in the atmosphere is not being accused of
burning the planet, only the ~4% that can be blamed on us.

Then remember that ACC is an unproven theory anyway and all they have
is poor temporary correlation and rigged computer models.

This isn't about the climate.

Bob.

In article <kf2korF5qhqU2@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> One might get the impression that the generation market is designed to
> be lucrative and obscure at the same time.

I suspect it has simply been 'tinkered with' over the years at the behest
of various sectors - from polticians to various supply companies, etc. Thus
has become a real guddle of different types of arrangments and 'rules'.

Those running generation which requires lots of boiling water to push
turbines will tend to hate quick changes at short notice as it would be
disrupting for them to suddenly have to 'switch on' and 'switch off'. Can
take some time to run down or up. Hence arrangements may be made to cater
for this to keep that type of source 'in the mix'. Their advantage is that,
given fuel, the can run when needed - given a suitably long warning time to
run up.

However individual wind farms have a different limit. They can wind up or
down fairly quickly with modern designs. But have no control over their
energy source. Hence although *some* wind farms may be in a currently windy
place, some others may not.

Wheras when tidal flow comes in to a useful extent the ability for any
given 'farm' will depend on the time in the lunar cycle, etc, and their
location offshore.

Hence to make optimum use of all sources overall you may need a complex set
of 'rules of engagement' by the NG.

> > They then all await the outcome of the NGs analysis of all the bids
> > for that half-hour slot. Those who made the cut then all get paid the
> > 'cut top' price for the amont of power they offerred for the half-hour.
> >
> > With a wind turbine the operating cost probably doesn't alter much as
> > the poer output varies. You just feather the blades, etc. So they can
> > bid up to what their win turbines can provide in the exising weather
> > as - if accepted - they get the price per unit of power for more units
> > of power.
>
> I don't doubt that for a moment, but income from generation and income
> from subsidies are two different things, but anyway the current system
> for both borders on the ridiculous.

The problem, I suspect is that what some may call "subsidy" for some
factors/source-types may go hand in hand with ensuring optimal overall use
of the available range of sources. This can make sense in reducing the
*overall* costs by aiding the overall availability of 'competing' sources.
But of course may also allow some game playing or tricks. Matter for
watchdogs to find and deal with.

> > However the outcome NG report shows what I graph. That we now tend to
> > get as much, or more energy from wind as from gas. And the value
> > continues to rise.

> What you are suggesting is that what is reported as Wind generation on
> sites such as the two (unrelated) gridwatch sites and the iamkate site
> must be underreporting by ~50% of actual generation.

Nope. I was "suggesting" was what I wrote. :-) The values analysed show
what has been *taken* after the bidding-acceptance process. Not what any
given sector could have delivered if all bids of that type had been
accepted. How much bigger that is, the figures don't show.

The problem is that both demand and availability/potential of sources both
vary, with the source side having variables that also depend on its type
and circumstances (as per above). Hence getting an optimal result for NG
and end customers who want energy here isn't simple.

Not all offers to supply will be accepted. This was true before wind power,
and it will remain the case. Different companies have to decide what bids
to make and how much to set up supplying given their specific circumstances
as per above. You can easily argue that Nucklear is seriously problematic
because it has a particular dislike of being shut off. Hence the rules
applied to it may be different again.

NG have to try and 'balance' all this. And still allow for factors like the
impact of some TV programmes on how many kettles get switched on to make a
cuppa. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 17/06/2023 09:53, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Take a look at this graph...
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/climate/Emissions.jpg

Yet another example of Bob LieToThem breaching the copyright of others'
sites when he could perfectly well provide a link to the original source.

The graph is from the reliable site "Our World In Data" and it shows UK
and Chinese emissions. Because Bob LieToThem was too lazy to find out
the actual figures from Our World In Data, I'm guessing because he
copied the graph from someone else on Shitter which I'll find later, and
the graph as copied is sparsely annotated long its vertical axis, we had
best look up actual values. In 2021, the last year the site gives stats
for both, the UK's emissions were 347mtCO2, China's were 11.47btCO2.
However, typically for such right-tarded propaganda, what is NOT shown
is the relative populations of the two countries, which are 67m and
1.42b respectively. So in 2021 the UK's emissions PER PERSON were
5.15t, while China's were 8.05t, worryingly high, but nothing like the
propaganda value of the attempted claim.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

And, surprise, surprise, the graph is from Tony HelluvaLiar's Shitter feed:

https://lens.google.com/search?p=ATHekxc4xozK8fGZ8DAcE0u6xFpsqTBGTwBLrZ3KRA6OEDDw0q3j3I5EdmEbmVah0fPjL0qfgzGAFow0d7w9534wMe_9UVvgfIAFS6_W_4DtfuK7qSC8nvm2t4rr_3voi03vKIQzEvRwAFyA1JrM9AL_QqADdtvvmH1CofYvfULzriRyAiWrqK5GcmI4rSAKaRhQcmRWkchAN0tstg%3D%3D&plm=ChAIDxIMCLj2tqQGEPjJqO4BChAIFxIMCLj2tqQGEIiPrO4BChAIGBIMCLj2tqQGELDHmJICChAILRIMCLj2tqQGEJjMmZICChAILhIMCLj2tqQGEPC6kJ0CChAIEBIMCLj2tqQGEICsr50CChAIGRIMCLj2tqQGEOCAs50CChAIGhIMCLj2tqQGEOiJvZ0C#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKRFk1WVRBNE5qTmhMV00wTkdFdE5EUmtZUzA1TmpjMkxUZG1Oek5tT1RZeE9UQmxNeElmWTE5TlNXb3RTVWwwZFd0VVVVUjFWV2RKVkUxaWJEUjNNMFJwWVdwQ1p3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLFtudWxsLDEyLFtdXV0=

> When you look at the cost of NetZero:
> People unable to heat their homes, poeverty and a broken economy.
> The insane war against the motorist
> Banning of gas boilers.
> Internal flights banned unless you have a private jet then it's OK.
> Even attacking farming to reduce CO2.

Puerile paranoia left in for others to laugh at.

> Quite how anyone rational can see that graph of just one country
> against our and not think netzero is insane is beyond me. Virtue
> signalling at best. The Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion loons
> should protest in China. But China would not tolerate the idiocy.

Puerile paranoia left in for others to laugh at.

> In addition, during the lockdown saga, we saw quite clearly that the
> the Keeling curve did not blip. We are though still leaving an ice
> age and have been for long enough for the oceans to be warming which
> will outgas huge amount of CO2. Science fact!

Which is all the more reason why humans need to bring our CO2 emissions
under control.

> Carbon14 you say? Okay!
> https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/fulltext/2022/02000/world_atmospheric_co2,_its_14c_specific_activity,.2.aspx

TROLL! REPEAT OF A LIE ALREADY DEBUNKED IN THIS THREAD!

On 15/06/2023 03:10, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> Here's an interesting read...
>>
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/fulltext/2022/02000/world_atmospheric_co2,_its_14c_specific_activity,.2.aspx

>
> Even more interesting is the debunking here, beginning about 2/3 down:
>
>
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm

> Remember ~96% of CO2 in the atmosphere is not being accused of
> burning the planet, only the ~4% that can be blamed on us.

TROLL! REPEAT OF A LIE OFTEN PREVIOUSLY DEBUNKED!

Man-made emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 by ...
(412-280)/280 = 47%
.... since the pre-industrial era:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

> Then remember that ACC is an unproven theory anyway and all they have
> is poor temporary correlation and rigged computer models.

TROLL! REPEAT OF A LIE ALREADY DEBUNKED IN THIS THREAD AND MULTIPLE
TIMES IN THE PAST!

On 23/08/2022 13:34, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called 'Climategate' with denialist
> oil money from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU 'Climategate'
> findings, yet they came to *exactly* the same conclusions as CRU, and
> that as a result even former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth
> team, such as statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global
> warming is happening: "What’s that mean? It means the CRU are not
> frauds. It means it’s not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over
> temperature so that we can focus on the part of the debate that really
> matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it?
> What should we do about it?”". Here's the link yet again, note the
> excellent correlation between CO2 and temperature:
>
> http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

> This isn't about the climate.

Indeed not, it's about your right-tarded shit propaganda.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14/06/2023 08:54, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> Ratcliffe-on-Soat fired up to be ready to meet demand for electricity
> to run air conditioning during this calm sunny period.
>
> Seehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-65879949

FFS that's what solar ought to be good at - making power when the sun
shines. I've always reckoned it should be a good match for aircon. Are
you telling me it isn't?

Andy

On 18/06/2023 21:14, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 14/06/2023 08:54, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>> Ratcliffe-on-Soat fired up to be ready to meet demand for electricity
>> to run air conditioning during this calm sunny period.
>>
>> Seehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-65879949
>
> FFS that's what solar ought to be good at - making power when the sun
> shines. I've always reckoned it should be a good match for aircon. Are
> you telling me it isn't?
>
> Andy

what about during the night where it is still hot and humid..... and the
sun is on teh wrong side of the earth..... what then powers the air con
units?

On 18/06/2023 21:48, SH wrote:
>
> On 18/06/2023 21:14, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>
>> On 14/06/2023 08:54, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>>
>> FFS that's what solar ought to be good at - making power when the sun
>> shines. I've always reckoned it should be a good match for aircon. Are
>> you telling me it isn't?

No, a coal-power station was fired up and generated because of the lack
of wind, but the solar allegation was fake news, read the BBC's
debunking of it. Summary: solar if it get too hot works less
efficiently than when cooler, but still works well enough, as GridWatch
and those here with solar panels all confirmed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65907342

> what about during the night where it is still hot and humid..... and the
> sun is on teh wrong side of the earth..... what then powers the air con
> units?

Indeed.

It is quite extraordinary how biased people are about this. No-one
expects a coal-fired power station to work without having any coal, but
from the tone of the complaints here somehow wind and solar are expected
to work without wind and daylight!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/06/2023 21:48, SH wrote:
> what about during the night where it is still hot and humid..... and the
> sun is on teh wrong side of the earth..... what then powers the air con
> units?

Same as when there is a big high pressure over the country in Winter so
very low temperatures and no wind.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 21:57:39 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>It is quite extraordinary how biased people are about this. No-one
>expects a coal-fired power station to work without having any coal, but
>from the tone of the complaints here somehow wind and solar are expected
>to work without wind and daylight!

I think the main source of exasperation is with the politicians who
fail to realise this and yet still want to force these ineffective
systems upon us.

Electric cars are another example. They're expensive, they don't work
as well as what we already have, and they won't save the world either.

Rod.

In article <kf2rkmF6qt4U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > Andy Burns wrote:
> >
> >> What graphs have you got?
> >
> > See the URLs I've posted already.

> Well I went back though all your posts looking for them, before asking
> ... but just seen the PDF, why not graph GWh/year per source (or
> probably TWh)

I was trying to focus on when demand may have been highest. But I could
redo this for each quarter, say. And as I've pointed out, the data is on
the web. So anyone who can do analysis can DIY from it their own stats.

At present I'm more curious about assessing the 'fluctuations' in short
scale times to see if I can highlight the effect of 'weather' when averaged
over the National scale. Help to assess the basis of complaints about when
wind "doesn't blow". My guess is that variations will have reduced as a
percentage of the total as more farms, etc, come into play in more
locations.

Question of when I may get the time to do it.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <6b0d289f-5373-ae33-aa66-5eca31bfddce@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/2023 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <c5161ec3-5776-48e8-2aff-7d1bb3783202@outlook.com>, Robin
> > <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> >> Do you may have in mind "constraint payments"?
> >
> >> Short explainer from ESO:
> >
> >> "It's our job to keep the cost of running the system as low as
> >> possible, so we can keep energy bills down. One of the ways we do
> >> this is with constraint payments.
> >
> >> When there are physical constraints on the network (ie the network
> >> cannot physically transfer the power from one region to another), we
> >> ask generators to reduce their output to maintain system stability
> >> and manage the flows on the network.
> >
> >> Generators are then compensated via a constraint payment. The
> >> alternative is building more infrastructure at a significant cost,
> >> meaning higher bills for consumers.
> >
> >> If we use the analogy of motorways, it's like paying road users to
> >> temporarily stay put, instead of building more motorways which will
> >> rarely be used. "
> >
> >
> >> https://www.nationalgrideso.com/electricity-explained/how-do-we-balance-grid/what-are-constraints-payments
> >
> > Thanks for that. I'll have a look. But it sounds like it is mainly
> > aimed at generation systems that are more difficult to 'run down' than
> > modern wind turbines. Thus costs to do so.
> >

> err...I don't think the market works quite as you think

> https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/23238220.windfarms-receive-227million-subsidies-switch-off/

> https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/372-why-are-unsubsidised-wind-farms-receiving-constraint-payments

I'll have a look. I was relying on what I found on some NG pages.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5ab56218e8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> Some say the object of all the current fashionable ideologies isn't what
> they say at all, it is the destruction of western civilisation. Make us
> pliable to the WEF Great Reset (Communism and totalitarianism).

> I'm not sure about that but in so many ways we are going backwards at a
> pace with posh useful idiots playing their part in our destruction.

I'd agree. In the UK BloJo and his non-dom Ultra-High-Worth backers and
newspaper owners, etc, are a good example of how they get people to fall
for policies that do harm. (And I'm NOT talking about Brexit!)

Read two books {*)

1) "Taxtopia" by A rebel accountant

2 "Follow The Money" by Paul Johnson

which explain and document this from both sides of the problem.

To learn more, try Steve Keen or - if you're terrified of maths and graphs
- books by Ha-Joon Chang

* Seems likely that Bob will refuse and dismiss them without reading. But,
Bob, if you and others read them you may find their content of interest.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <b22051e7-ddd6-ff9a-3656-8779dca0373b@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> > Why allow more generating capacity than grid capacity? maybe things
> > have changed because I hear tell of other generators waiting for
> > capacity to become available?

> That's certainly true FSVO of "grid capacity" but I don't know if lack
> of connections between nations/regions is a factor. (In passing, I think
> there's the same issue with solar in the West Country at times like

Don't know the details. But I've encountered a number of reports recently
of wind farm projects, etc, being left with 'waiting time' of up to a
*decade* before the NG plan to connect to them! If so, we need more
emphasis on shifting towards a better spread of connectivity.

Since I'm in Scotland I can recall some of these rpoets saying that some
current projects are being connected to Scots distribution, but can't yet
be connected to demand in England/Wales due to the limited connection from
here to there.

Jim
> now.)

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <u6hebi$q8dl$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 16/06/2023 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Wind turbines can usually 'feather' to generate zero.

> I am familiar with the wind turbines but we used smaller ones at work,
> they feathered (or turned away from wind) to reduce the risk of damage
> in high winds. Otherwiise they might just go faster and faster.

Yes. this seems to be common for modern high capacity designs. It is the
basis of the graph I gave that shows nominal output rising at first with
wind velocity, then limiting to avoid damage, then going to zero when this
becomes needed at very high wind velocities.

> We lost one that blew off the top of its mast.

> The mind boggles at the thought of a turbine at a wind power station in
> high wind and unable to take preventative action.

Yes. FWIW designers are saying that some of the vertical axis designs are
better at keeping operating as a source over a wider range of wind
velocities. May also have a smaller downwind turbulance pattern, so
allowing more turbines in a given area of farm. I suspect designs will get
steadily better as we get into this.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <919a6d8c-51c9-63e0-7c4d-e0bb902ebf8d@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> I have now skimmed your paper. The only point I'd offer is that your
> comment "the problems all come down to a combination of engineering and
> politics" omits another rather important factor: economics.

In terms of current (pun alert) economics and situation, yes. Because
economics is in essence tied to political decisions.

> It is a fact that transmitting electricity is expensive. Power
> generated off the West coast of Scotland, possibly far out into the
> Atlantic, is a very long way indeed from the main consumers of power.

> By way of comparison, a study by BVG in 2019 for Wind Europe[1]
> envisaged perhaps 10 out of a total 450 GW offshore wind in the regions
> West and East of Scotland, based on wind resources, proximity to demand
> and supply chain efficiencies.

> Of course you might argue that engineering can change the economics.
> (Superconductors?) But that's not a given.

> [1]
> https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/reports/WindEurope-Our-Energy-Our-Future.pdf

Thanks. I've added that to the list of sources I'm collection to look at.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5ab565d115bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Is this right? Is wind really that poor?

Depends on what data point you cherry-pick. :-) You can see plots of the
'reliability' on the pdf I put up. Do you understand how to interpret them?
(That isn't meant to be patronising. The relevant graphs do need some
consideration to draw conclusions from them. So I may not have explained
clearly enough.)

Note also that at present the geograpic range, number, and capacity, of Uk
wind farms is far poorer than it will (Government willing!) be in a decade
or so, cf my points about the wind blowing in places you aren't noticing.

I think many people seem to be looking at this in way that causes them to
fall into "Can't see the Wood for the Trees" view. Consider the following:

The draft doc I put up is far from finished and needs editing, but:

1) The graph at the bottom of page 4 shows how the wind contribution
now tends to equal the gas, and the wind contribution is rising steadily
with gas now tending to fall.

2) The 'reliablity' is indicated to some extent by the graphs at the
bottom of page 5. These show that wind now give us more than 50% of
our energy more often than gas does. And again, the contribution
percentages of wind are rising as gas falls away.

3) The map on page 7 shows that - as yet - we only have a *tiny*
number of offshore wind farms. Many more are planned and in the
process that will let them be built and come into use. And as yet,
these only cover a part of the areas available for the UK/Scotland.

The point there is that what we have now is only a *tiny* fraction
of what we can have in a decade or two *if* we go for it. (Remember
that some decades ago some scoffed at the idea that we'd be able
to bulld offshore facilities to tap and pipe in the unsersea gas
and oil.

4) The info on later pages show just how much wind energy is available
and assess its 'reliability etc. However...

5) The key point is that 'wind' is only a part of the change we will
experience. In addition we wll tap tidal flows - well offshore as well
as near shore - and also solar offshore if we choose. The point here
is that once we have established wind farms that can transfer energy
back onshore, it makes sense to use them also as 'hubs' for the
buliding of tidal flow turbines to provide another source in addition
to the wind. Ditto for having solar panels use the infrastructure.

So you need to combine all the above. The result then is an overall
reliability and sheer amount of available ower that is rather different
from the shallow short-sighted view that when you can't feel a breeze
cooling your bald head then we will need gas, etc, and stick with
old ways. :-)

The future is not the past with nicer wallpaper. 8-]

But as yet I've simply been looking into the details wrt UK wind
power. If I get a chance I'll widen that at some future point.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <95f12386-bef8-4e53-5216-e11b9660f811@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> t is of course a well known issue and why the EU is pressing for ever
> more interconnects. But statements like "X-land could generate wind
> power to meet Y% of Europe's demand" need to be read with an implicit
> "when the wind blows in X-land at the right speeds".

And, as you said, they have sufficient wind farm capacity on the relevant
areas. At the moment we have far too low a coverage/spread/connectivity.
The challenge is that historically the Grids assumed a different
geographical distribution to what we will need. So we don't have things yet
in place to exploit what happens when wind farms can be built in more
places, etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5ab5dc680enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <b22051e7-ddd6-ff9a-3656-8779dca0373b@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> > > Why allow more generating capacity than grid capacity? maybe things
> > > have changed because I hear tell of other generators waiting for
> > > capacity to become available?

> > That's certainly true FSVO of "grid capacity" but I don't know if lack
> > of connections between nations/regions is a factor. (In passing, I think
> > there's the same issue with solar in the West Country at times like

> Don't know the details. But I've encountered a number of reports recently
> of wind farm projects, etc, being left with 'waiting time' of up to a
> *decade* before the NG plan to connect to them! If so, we need more
> emphasis on shifting towards a better spread of connectivity.

> Since I'm in Scotland I can recall some of these rpoets saying that some
> current projects are being connected to Scots distribution, but can't yet
> be connected to demand in England/Wales due to the limited connection from
> here to there.

I read the other day that a proposed pylon route was being objected to
because it crossed some locally sensitive area (battlefield?). It's
objection that slow down the building of many projects.

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

In article <5ab5de182dnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5ab56218e8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > Some say the object of all the current fashionable ideologies
> > isn't what they say at all, it is the destruction of western
> > civilisation. Make us pliable to the WEF Great Reset (Communism
> > and totalitarianism).

> > I'm not sure about that but in so many ways we are going
> > backwards at a pace with posh useful idiots playing their part in
> > our destruction.

> I'd agree. In the UK BloJo and his non-dom Ultra-High-Worth backers
> and newspaper owners, etc, are a good example of how they get
> people to fall for policies that do harm. (And I'm NOT talking
> about Brexit!)

Don't think for one minute that I'm a Boris fan I'm not. He was one
of only a few MPs prepared to carry out the decision of the
referendum, most MPs were happy to hold parliament hostage in order
not to be democratic despite promising they would accept it.

That was as far as it goes for me, he left NI in the EU and committed
us to the most utterly pointless and ruinously expensive policy in
human history because his partner was captured by activists that
still have no evidence. I give you NetZero.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/twenty-four-reasons-why-net-zero-must-be-abandoned/

By printing and spending money we didn't have he broke the economy
and coupled with netzero gave us high inflation and every service in
the UK broken. Police are now political, NHS broken etc. etc..

Would not and will not control immigration legal or illegal.

Conservatives are now not remotely conservative.

No, I'm not a Boris or a Conservatives fan. Labour and Conservatives
are two cheeks of the same arse. Both indulging in ideological
nonsense and destroying what's left of civilisation.

> Read two books {*)

You expect me to buy and read your books but can't be arsed to watch
a video yourself.

Bob.

In article <5ab2c2edf1bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> A stark reminder from UN climate spokesperson Greta Thunberg that we
> only have 10 days left to save the humanity from extinction.

> On 21st June 2018 Greta Thunberg said "A top climate scientist is
> warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we
> stop using fossil fuels over the next five years".

I'm told she has now taken down her Twitter post. Expect the date to
be revised and the same thing posted again. That's what keeps
happening with promises that the poles will be ice free, just change
the date and repeat.

Media do big scary story on absurd predictions and then silence when
as always, they fail to materialise.

The current round of perfectly natural El Nino is predicted to cause
some warming which will be blamed on .... ???

Bob.

On 19/06/2023 08:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 21:57:39 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> It is quite extraordinary how biased people are about this. No-one
>> expects a coal-fired power station to work without having any coal, but
>> from the tone of the complaints here somehow wind and solar are expected
>> to work without wind and daylight!
>
> I think the main source of exasperation is with the politicians who
> fail to realise this and yet still want to force these ineffective
> systems upon us.

No it's not, and again this is bias, these systems are far from
'ineffective'; on the contrary, think about how much worse our situation
would have been recently after the invasion of Ukraine had we had to
rely *totally* on oil and gas, and our limited nuclear capacity?

> Electric cars are another example. They're expensive, they don't work
> as well as what we already have, and they won't save the world either.

They seem to work for a lot of people.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> Don't know the details. But I've encountered a number of reports recently
> of wind farm projects, etc, being left with 'waiting time' of up to a
> *decade* before the NG plan to connect to them! If so, we need more
> emphasis on shifting towards a better spread of connectivity.

> Since I'm in Scotland I can recall some of these rpoets saying that some
> current projects are being connected to Scots distribution, but can't yet
> be connected to demand in England/Wales due to the limited connection from
> here to there.

Both of the problems you raise are due to the grid as it was originally
developed not being designed for variable generation being placed at long
distances from the demand, as well as having to supply rather more than
‘balancing’ power. It’s a subject not often mentioned when the mantra of
‘We need more wind/solar/tidal’ crops up. Re-engineering the grid to
accommodate these issues is a massive and costly engineering task, and it
will take quite some time to accomplish.

--
Spike

On 19/06/2023 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <kf2rkmF6qt4U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
> <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> What graphs have you got?
>>>
>>> See the URLs I've posted already.
>
>> Well I went back though all your posts looking for them, before asking
>> ... but just seen the PDF, why not graph GWh/year per source (or
>> probably TWh)
>
> I was trying to focus on when demand may have been highest. But I could
> redo this for each quarter, say. And as I've pointed out, the data is on
> the web. So anyone who can do analysis can DIY from it their own stats.

Or of course just read what's been published by people paid to look at
such things. A search including the term "wind drought" will bring up a
lot of stuff.

Including e.g. the recent warning from the Climate Change Committee
(statutory cheerleaders for net zero) that current plans don't have the
"fundamental integration of system-level weather hazards,
such as wind droughts, within planning and governance, including climate
resilience remits". In other words, no one has yet worked out and
budgeted for what needs to be done to cope with a wind drought. I
expect a lot more on that in the imminent report from the Electricity
Networks Commissioner.

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

In article <5ab6e88880bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

[Snip]

> Would not and will not control immigration legal or illegal.

How could anyone control illegal immigration? Sink the boats? Put high
fences on every bit of shoreline? Throw those that land back in the sea?

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