Switch off at the socket?

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:26:08 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:37:44 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

A terrorist would have to knock out a hell of a lot of windmills
scattered over the country to make a difference. It would be a lot
easier to fly some planes into some nuclear power stations.

This is an extremely valid security reason for not putting all of one's
energy producing eggs in the same basket.

Enough is "sufficient unto the day".

Cost and viability are also security issues.


Diversity is the key to future stability and sufficiency in electrical
power/heating generation from roof top solar cells, micro-hydroelectric
schemes, to CHP, to clean coal power stations, and nuclear power stations.

Derek

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:33:06 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

Be fair. The delicate bits of windmills are 50ft in the air, safe from
the average chav.

The delicate bit is the hollow steel tube that the turbine sits on.
Give that a hard enough whack and it'll just crumple, as several have
done spontaneously...

And to damage enough of them to make any difference to our supply
situation would take a _lot_ of effort. There are _thousands_ of them.

Even if you took 'em all out it still wouldn't make much difference.
Might have to ask Drax for another few percent of their capacity.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:37:44 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.

A terrorist would have to knock out a hell of a lot of windmills
scattered over the country to make a difference.

Juts goes to show what a trivial impact windmills actually have.

BW

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:00:52 +0100, Calum wrote:

We have hydro plants on streams that can generate a couple
kilowatts Sounds like Scottish Power generate more than a
*couple of
kilowatts* to me from hydro electric schemes --

Lanark Hydro Electric Scheme 17 MW
Galloway Hydro Electric Scheme 106.5 MW

Sloy 152MW
Foyers 300MW

Ben Cruachan 440MW
Dinorwig 1728 MW
Ffestiniog 360 MW

Those last three (at least) are pumped storage. Dinorwig can run at
full output for not much more than 12hrs, Ben Cruachan can do 22 hrs
but has to keep 12hrs in reserve for black start eventalities. Not
sure about Ffestininog.

Would be interesting to know how long the other hydro plants can run
before they empty their reservoirs or if they have catchment areas
large enough to keep them topped up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:22:51 +0100, Bof wrote:

seems like 'some' is currently around 170 MK products

Why are none of them available for home delivery?

Could it be that they are the remnants of the stock line still available
at some stores which have not yet sold out of the item, and thus are
no longer available from the central distribution depot (from where
home delivery items would be dispatched)?

Or is that a bogus explanation?

In message , Paul
Martin writes:
In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I fear the anti-windies are as bad as the pro-windies: complete dislike
(which, I must say, seems to actually approach hate) of wind is as daft
as relying on it.

Subsidising wind power is distorting the market. It's a political move
that smacks of the short term thinking that is endemic in high level
decisions these days.

Agreed. There is some justification for subsidising new technologies
initially, but not when they have reached a certain level - which I
would say wind power has reached. Though I am pro wind, I think it
should compete on an equal basis.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:06:32 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

You can not supply enough hydro electric power in the UK for it to
solve
our energy problems.
Nobody has claimed that hydro electric power generation *alone* can
provide
the total electrical energy requirements of the UKofGB&NI.

Ah the old chestnut, 'if it cant do it all, that doesn't make it not
worth doing'

Calling it an old chestnut doesn't make it an invalid point.

True enough IF, and its a very big IF, its not promoted as being THE
answer, it is sufficiently cheap to compete fairly with other

Agreed on those two points ...

technologies, and it does not have huge implications in terms of
environmental impact.

.... but not on that one, because it is so subjective. They _all_ have
enviro impact - hydro with dams, tidal changes flows, solar covers the
area with cells or mirrors, nuclear irradiates (or risks doing so), wind
needs lots of windmills/turbines, and carbon-based warm the planet.

IF you have the right geography, the second condition can be met by
hydro power. There will always be arguments about the third,
drastically modifying the natural landscape to create artificial dams.

In the case of windpower, it cannot even compete on cost grounds, let
alone environmental impact. Except in a very few cases where to install
other technology by dint of geography is even MORE expensive.

(My points above are general, not specific to any one "solution".)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
[]
Green ****ing in the wind, as usual.
[]
What about when there isn't any wind (-:?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

FACT: Our current electricity consumption is 46 GW, not 300GW

Could you clarify what you mean by that exactly?

IIUC, our total annual electricity production (including nett imports)
is something just under 400GWh[1].

Oops, sorry, make that TWh!

You have: 400 ****t hour /year
You want: Gwatt
* 45.631821

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
Bambleweeny57 writes:
[]
Yes, we already have backup capacity but its already "spoken for" by a
combination of variations in load and redundant capacity to cover for
maintenance and failure. Shaving a few points off that backup capacity
just increases the scope for large scale, systematic failure.
[]
If it never represents a significant percentage of the whole it's only
ever going to be a distraction from the real issue of how we cater for
our energy need for the next 50 years.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, on the earlier
area: I think a small amount is worth having, and because it _is_
such a smaller amount, the threat it poses to the stability of the
rest is small - it'll just mean the rest of the system will use
slightly less fuel for some of the time.


why should I subsidise a horse and cart, so that it is there if the car
breaks down?
[]
A better analogy would be, why should a distribution depot keep a
solar-charged van? There's no way (especially in this country!) such a
vehicle could replace the normal truck fleet, but equally, it's free for
what little it could do.

(Actually not a bad analogy [to wind power], in that setup costs are
significant; I happen to think that, with current costs [and
efficiencies] of solar cells, such a van _would_ be _totally_
uneconomic, whereas I think that - in certain limited circumstances -
wind power has a chance of being.)

Your horse has high maintenance costs. (The cart less so.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.