|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 12, 2022 11:54:06 GMT
Net-zero & the green dream LOL, what a complete con. National Grid have asked Drax to prepare two mothballed coal units in readiness to bring them on line, it will take about 24 hours to warm them up, but why are we so desperately short of electricity, the government have spent many £billions of our cash on so called green energy not to mention the green subsidy we are all forced to pay which increases our bills. Yet at the first hint of a cold snap there are warnings of power cuts and mothballed coal units are being warmed up. How can this be? I mean we have solar and all those lovely windmills, what's gone wrong? I wonder, will the penny finally drop? Will green zealots finally admit that with current technology solar and wind will never provide enough power, which is likely to be the case for the next 50 years. Or will they continue to weep as they demand we stop burning fossil fuel now even if does mean we freeze to death and UK Plc is switched off. metro.co.uk/2022/12/12/two-coal-fired-power-plants-put-on-emergency-standby-due-to-snowy-weather-17920200/ |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 12, 2022 11:59:13 GMT
Well said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 12, 2022 13:36:52 GMT
They will demand more motorway gantries to protest from. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 12, 2022 14:00:38 GMT
This is a bizarre thread even by the standards of the OP.
We hvae coal fired power stations available as a contingency. As the weather is very cold, resulting in higher than usual demand and wind is low, the weather is cloudy and France is unable to supply from its nuclear plants, we considered using our contingency. Which is what it is there for. And then concluded we didn't need to anyway.
Move on people. Nothing to see here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 12, 2022 14:04:03 GMT
This is a bizarre thread even by the standards of the OP. We hvae coal fired power stations available as a contingency. As the weather is very cold, resulting in higher than usual demand and wind is low, the weather is cloudy and France is unable to supply from its nuclear plants, we considered using our contingency. Which is what it is there for. And then concluded we didn't need to anyway. Move on people. Nothing to see here. LOL, thank heavens Dappy's here, I mean we all need a laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 12, 2022 14:08:18 GMT
I note Rackham, with seemingly no argument on the substance, has just resorted to (seemingly drunken) abuse again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 12, 2022 14:10:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 12, 2022 14:13:58 GMT
IN October National Grid warned of possible power cuts in the coming winter. How is this possible in the world's sixth-largest economy, in a country which pioneered every form of electricity generation through its innovating engineers and entrepreneurs? I'll tell you why, it's called 'net-zero'. It was because of (EC) Directive 2001/80/EC taken up by Ed Miliband and his 2008 Climate Change Act to enact in law CO2 reduction which sealed the fate of the coal-fired power stations which provided abundant 365-day electricity using British coal and British turbines, generators, instrumentation and cabling. Theresa May's Climate Act, passed without debate, committing the UK to "net zero" ensured their demise. www.heraldscotland.com/news/23113816.closing-coal-fired-power-stations-disaster/Thanks to the green dream and net-zero, the government have already warned us of possible rolling power cuts in January. The eco lobby must be thrilled. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 12, 2022 14:22:09 GMT
So you have now posted two links Rackham - one from the Guardian which doesn't say what you said it did (not a rare occurrence these days) and a letter from a reader of a newspaper spouting as much rubbish as you do.
What's happened to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 12, 2022 14:44:25 GMT
Net-zero & the green dream LOL, what a complete con. National Grid have asked Drax to prepare two mothballed coal units in readiness to bring them on line, it will take about 24 hours to warm them up, but why are we so desperately short of electricity, the government have spent many £billions of our cash on so called green energy not to mention the green subsidy we are all forced to pay which increases our bills. Yet at the first hint of a cold snap there are warnings of power cuts and mothballed coal units are being warmed up. How can this be? I mean we have solar and all those lovely windmills, what's gone wrong? I wonder, will the penny finally drop? Will green zealots finally admit that with current technology solar and wind will never provide enough power, which is likely to be the case for the next 50 years. Or will they continue to weep as they demand we stop burning fossil fuel now even if does mean we freeze to death and UK Plc is switched off. metro.co.uk/2022/12/12/two-coal-fired-power-plants-put-on-emergency-standby-due-to-snowy-weather-17920200/You can keep saying that wind and solar will never provide enough power, but with each development in technology I see that claim as more and more invalid. There are many ways to store energy, and as we covered before, the wind energy is now the cheapest way of generating electricity. I was of your belief at one time, but now I have had to change my mind. The reason is other countries have created some great technology. Norway have been working on the huge wind turbines that are why the power is so cheap. Actually you probably don't know but there is another design for wind turbines that float on the water and they store energy by raising and lowering a weight between the sea floor and the surface. These actually work out more economical than the best we have so far and you can deploy them where you like because they float. They use a vertical axis turbine, not a traditional blade. There are also new sodium batteries. We will never run out of sodium but could run out of lithium. See it is a case of advancing science. Never underestimate what science can do. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 12, 2022 15:10:52 GMT
You can keep saying that wind and solar will never provide enough power, but with each development in technology I see that claim as more and more invalid. There are many ways to store energy, and as we covered before, the wind energy is now the cheapest way of generating electricity. I was of your belief at one time, but now I have had to change my mind. The reason is other countries have created some great technology. Norway have been working on the huge wind turbines that are why the power is so cheap. Actually you probably don't know but there is another design for wind turbines that float on the water and they store energy by raising and lowering a weight between the sea floor and the surface. These actually work out more economical than the best we have so far and you can deploy them where you like because they float. They use a vertical axis turbine, not a traditional blade. There are also new sodium batteries. We will never run out of sodium but could run out of lithium. See it is a case of advancing science. Never underestimate what science can do. No BvL, you are wrong. I do not keep saying wind and solar will never provide enough power. I keep saying wind and solar will never provide enough power 'with todays technology'. And with the government warning of power cuts next month, that must be patently obvious. The technology does not exist that enables us to store any volume of power for any length of time, and that is what industry requires. Fossil fuel generated power is reliable 365 days a year, renewables are not. Things may change in the future, but as things stand today pretending renewables are reliable will result in ever higher fuel bills and more power cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 12, 2022 15:30:57 GMT
You can keep saying that wind and solar will never provide enough power, but with each development in technology I see that claim as more and more invalid. There are many ways to store energy, and as we covered before, the wind energy is now the cheapest way of generating electricity. I was of your belief at one time, but now I have had to change my mind. The reason is other countries have created some great technology. Norway have been working on the huge wind turbines that are why the power is so cheap. Actually you probably don't know but there is another design for wind turbines that float on the water and they store energy by raising and lowering a weight between the sea floor and the surface. These actually work out more economical than the best we have so far and you can deploy them where you like because they float. They use a vertical axis turbine, not a traditional blade. There are also new sodium batteries. We will never run out of sodium but could run out of lithium. See it is a case of advancing science. Never underestimate what science can do. No BvL, you are wrong. I do not keep saying wind and solar will never provide enough power. I keep saying wind and solar will never provide enough power 'with todays technology'. And with the government warning of power cuts next month, that must be patently obvious. The technology does not exist that enables us to store any volume of power for any length of time, and that is what industry requires. Fossil fuel generated power is reliable 365 days a year, renewables are not. Things may change in the future, but as things stand today pretending renewables are reliable will result in ever higher fuel bills and more power cuts. Ah OK then, I agree that the technology and what we have in place at the moment is not up to the job. There is another bitch fact we face as well. Russia produces about half the world's uranium.
You see in the beginning we as a country did a gamble and chucked a lot of money into new green technologies. Right now it is looking like the gamble paid off handsomely and will continue to do so as the point at which profit is realised in the money invested. So given we are out in front on this matter compared to many other countries it means we will get there sooner. There are various technical solutions to this storage and distribution problem and a lot is to do with clever computers which can balance it all up with international cables to even out the load. There will be a massive solar farm in Africa as well to feed us along a cable that runs that distance. You get 3x the energy for your investment near the equator.
What I think it will eventually mean is we will never have to compromise ourselves by relying on foreign imports of energy that we can not do without, such as when OPEC screwed us in the 70s. So in the past we have had to send the armies in to make sure our supply is guaranteed and it has caused no end up trouble. We will be sitting pretty if we end up paying half the price than we did with oil and gas. It is in fact crucial because those with the cheapest energy are those who get business setting up factories and the like. We could be an investment hotspot all because of cheaper energy, which we can make big profits on if we export the technology worldwide too.
As for right now, of course it makes sense to keep these coal power stations in case we need them. If we run out of energy now all our future will be unachievable. We need the energy to manufacture the green technologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Dec 12, 2022 15:32:39 GMT
Net-zero & the green dream LOL, what a complete con. National Grid have asked Drax to prepare two mothballed coal units in readiness to bring them on line, it will take about 24 hours to warm them up, but why are we so desperately short of electricity, the government have spent many £billions of our cash on so called green energy not to mention the green subsidy we are all forced to pay which increases our bills. Yet at the first hint of a cold snap there are warnings of power cuts and mothballed coal units are being warmed up. How can this be? I mean we have solar and all those lovely windmills, what's gone wrong? I wonder, will the penny finally drop? Will green zealots finally admit that with current technology solar and wind will never provide enough power, which is likely to be the case for the next 50 years. Or will they continue to weep as they demand we stop burning fossil fuel now even if does mean we freeze to death and UK Plc is switched off. metro.co.uk/2022/12/12/two-coal-fired-power-plants-put-on-emergency-standby-due-to-snowy-weather-17920200/You can keep saying that wind and solar will never provide enough power, but with each development in technology I see that claim as more and more invalid. There are many ways to store energy, and as we covered before, the wind energy is now the cheapest way of generating electricity. I was of your belief at one time, but now I have had to change my mind. The reason is other countries have created some great technology. Norway have been working on the huge wind turbines that are why the power is so cheap. Actually you probably don't know but there is another design for wind turbines that float on the water and they store energy by raising and lowering a weight between the sea floor and the surface. These actually work out more economical than the best we have so far and you can deploy them where you like because they float. They use a vertical axis turbine, not a traditional blade. There are also new sodium batteries. We will never run out of sodium but could run out of lithium. See it is a case of advancing science. Never underestimate what science can do. Weight driven mechanisms have powered clocks since at least the end of the 13th century. And spring driven clock work has been around since 1500.
Hydroelectric power began in the 1870's, and pumped storage hydropower followed in the 1890's.
But it's took until 1991 for a clockwork radio to be devised. And using off-peak electricity to store energy to provide extra electrical energy when required, are still being developed.
Now most of the developed world is on the case, I'm confident that zero carbon is a realisable objective within a decade or so in most of the West...
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 12, 2022 15:37:30 GMT
You can keep saying that wind and solar will never provide enough power, but with each development in technology I see that claim as more and more invalid. There are many ways to store energy, and as we covered before, the wind energy is now the cheapest way of generating electricity. I was of your belief at one time, but now I have had to change my mind. The reason is other countries have created some great technology. Norway have been working on the huge wind turbines that are why the power is so cheap. Actually you probably don't know but there is another design for wind turbines that float on the water and they store energy by raising and lowering a weight between the sea floor and the surface. These actually work out more economical than the best we have so far and you can deploy them where you like because they float. They use a vertical axis turbine, not a traditional blade. There are also new sodium batteries. We will never run out of sodium but could run out of lithium. See it is a case of advancing science. Never underestimate what science can do. Weight driven mechanisms have powered clocks since at least the end of the 13th century. And spring driven clock work has been around since 1500.
Hydroelectric power began in the 1870's, and pumped storage hydropower followed in the 1890's.
But it's took until 1991 for a clockwork radio to be devised. And using off-peak electricity to store energy to provide extra electrical energy when required, are still being developed.
Now most of the developed world is on the case, I'm confident that zero carbon is a realisable objective within a decade or so in most of the West...
The beauty of this system is it is all controlled by telemetry and computer automation. You might have been able to build something similar in the past, but likely uneconomical. It's all the little improvements in many things that makes it work in the economic sense, like advanced materials. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 12, 2022 16:23:49 GMT
Ah OK then, I agree that the technology and what we have in place at the moment is not up to the job. There is another bitch fact we face as well. Russia produces about half the world's uranium.
You see in the beginning we as a country did a gamble and chucked a lot of money into new green technologies. Right now it is looking like the gamble paid off handsomely and will continue to do so as the point at which profit is realised in the money invested. So given we are out in front on this matter compared to many other countries it means we will get there sooner. There are various technical solutions to this storage and distribution problem and a lot is to do with clever computers which can balance it all up with international cables to even out the load. There will be a massive solar farm in Africa as well to feed us along a cable that runs that distance. You get 3x the energy for your investment near the equator.
What I think it will eventually mean is we will never have to compromise ourselves by relying on foreign imports of energy that we can not do without, such as when OPEC screwed us in the 70s. So in the past we have had to send the armies in to make sure our supply is guaranteed and it has caused no end up trouble. We will be sitting pretty if we end up paying half the price than we did with oil and gas. It is in fact crucial because those with the cheapest energy are those who get business setting up factories and the like. We could be an investment hotspot all because of cheaper energy, which we can make big profits on if we export the technology worldwide too.
As for right now, of course it makes sense to keep these coal power stations in case we need them. If we run out of energy now all our future will be unachievable. We need the energy to manufacture the green technologies.
The problem is governments, particularly western governments and especially our government, since at least 2008 have been more concerned about showing the world how 'green' they are, without fully considering the realities of being green. The fact is we closed our coal power stations too quickly and without a backup plan, other than Russian gas. We now know that renewable energy is expensive and unreliable and without massive subsidies private enterprise wouldn't be interested in it. The global solar farm in Africa is an interesting idea and works great, on paper. In reality it's a none starter, yes a solar panel in the Sahara generates three times more power than a solar panel in the UK, but transmission losses are not insignificant and the costs involved are eye watering, I think the initial cost was half a trillion dollars and the problems were huge. I seem to remember a major concern from an investors point of view was the risk involved in investing in countries that are not politically stable and you have no control over. I posted a link about it a while back... Here it is, have a look at this - youtu.be/7OpM_zKGE4o - it explains the problems of the global solar farm quite well. |
|
