Discussion:
OT Cost of Wnd energy v. nuclear.
(too old to reply)
harryagain
2015-04-13 07:15:08 UTC
Permalink
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-than-wind-power/
Dennis@home
2015-04-13 07:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.

Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.

I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
tony sayer
2015-04-13 11:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-
than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.
Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.
I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
Today trough now the wind is;


Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)

so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
--
Tony Sayer
The Other Mike
2015-04-13 16:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony sayer
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
Burn greens, lawyers, accountants, Daily Mail readers, politicians,
paediatricians, and climate change scientists?

--
Chris Hogg
2015-04-13 17:38:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:48:11 +0100, The Other Mike
Post by The Other Mike
Post by tony sayer
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
Burn greens, lawyers, accountants, Daily Mail readers, politicians,
paediatricians, and climate change scientists?
Are you sure you mean paediatricians? If so, why include them?
--
Chris
The Other Mike
2015-04-13 18:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:48:11 +0100, The Other Mike
Post by The Other Mike
Post by tony sayer
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
Burn greens, lawyers, accountants, Daily Mail readers, politicians,
paediatricians, and climate change scientists?
Are you sure you mean paediatricians? If so, why include them?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1353904/Paediatrician-attack-People-dont-want-no-paedophiles-here.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society


--
Chris Hogg
2015-04-13 18:28:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:23:28 +0100, The Other Mike
Post by The Other Mike
Post by Chris Hogg
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:48:11 +0100, The Other Mike
Post by The Other Mike
Post by tony sayer
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
Burn greens, lawyers, accountants, Daily Mail readers, politicians,
paediatricians, and climate change scientists?
Are you sure you mean paediatricians? If so, why include them?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1353904/Paediatrician-attack-People-dont-want-no-paedophiles-here.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
I remember the event; that's why I asked. I understand you now.
--
Chris
Dennis@home
2015-04-13 18:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
Post by tony sayer
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
Burn greens, lawyers, accountants, Daily Mail readers, politicians,
paediatricians, and climate change scientists?
Which doctor has upset you?
The Other Mike
2015-04-13 18:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@home
Post by The Other Mike
Post by tony sayer
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
Burn greens, lawyers, accountants, Daily Mail readers, politicians,
paediatricians, and climate change scientists?
Which doctor has upset you?
No which but Who. I had to hide behind the sofa.



--
harryagain
2015-04-13 17:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
Post by tony sayer
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
Burn greens, lawyers, accountants, Daily Mail readers, politicians,
paediatricians, and climate change scientists?
Ah.One of the brain dead I see.
harryagain
2015-04-14 16:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-
than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.
Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.
I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
We need more of all types of renewable energy sources.
Plus some gas.
Plus a lot more efficient use of energy.
tony sayer
2015-04-14 17:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-
expensive-
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.
Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.
I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
We need more of all types of renewable energy sources.
Plus some gas.
Plus a lot more efficient use of energy.
Ah! Thus spake the oracle, now where are we going to get these renewable
sources from then, and yep we still need the gas and how are we going to
use it more efficiently, so much so we can do away with coal and
nuclear.

Come on 'arry real world answers if you can.....
--
Tony Sayer
harryagain
2015-04-15 00:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-
expensive-
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.
Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.
I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
We need more of all types of renewable energy sources.
Plus some gas.
Plus a lot more efficient use of energy.
Ah! Thus spake the oracle, now where are we going to get these renewable
sources from then, and yep we still need the gas and how are we going to
use it more efficiently, so much so we can do away with coal and
nuclear.
Come on 'arry real world answers if you can.....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
whisky-dave
2015-04-15 15:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-
expensive-
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.
Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.
I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
We need more of all types of renewable energy sources.
Plus some gas.
Plus a lot more efficient use of energy.
Ah! Thus spake the oracle, now where are we going to get these renewable
sources from then, and yep we still need the gas and how are we going to
use it more efficiently, so much so we can do away with coal and
nuclear.
Come on 'arry real world answers if you can.....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
A bit of a nutter that one.
he says.
"The house is designed for maximum efficiency and the exterior looks no different from any other house."

he hasn't seen many houses.
A lot of people live in tere4aced houses how can you thinken teh walls without reducing space in any direction. I doubt most could get the num,ber of solar panels as he has on their roof.
it has also taken them 30 years. I likke the word invested £19,000 which gives no clue to how much it actually cost to install.
Dennis@home
2015-04-15 16:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-
expensive-
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.
Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.
I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
We need more of all types of renewable energy sources.
Plus some gas.
Plus a lot more efficient use of energy.
Ah! Thus spake the oracle, now where are we going to get these renewable
sources from then, and yep we still need the gas and how are we going to
use it more efficiently, so much so we can do away with coal and
nuclear.
Come on 'arry real world answers if you can.....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
You aren't energy efficient!
You generate electricity and get paid for it.
However you use more energy than I do so you are less efficient.
You just sponge more off other tax payers.
harryagain
2015-04-15 09:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@home
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-
expensive-
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.
Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.
I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
We need more of all types of renewable energy sources.
Plus some gas.
Plus a lot more efficient use of energy.
Ah! Thus spake the oracle, now where are we going to get these renewable
sources from then, and yep we still need the gas and how are we going to
use it more efficiently, so much so we can do away with coal and
nuclear.
Come on 'arry real world answers if you can.....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
You aren't energy efficient!
You generate electricity and get paid for it.
However you use more energy than I do so you are less efficient.
You just sponge more off other tax payers.
I don't use any gas (or oil or petrol).
I genereate more than twice the energy I use.
Dennis@home
2015-04-15 19:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
Post by ***@home
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-
expensive-
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.
Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.
I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
We need more of all types of renewable energy sources.
Plus some gas.
Plus a lot more efficient use of energy.
Ah! Thus spake the oracle, now where are we going to get these renewable
sources from then, and yep we still need the gas and how are we going to
use it more efficiently, so much so we can do away with coal and
nuclear.
Come on 'arry real world answers if you can.....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
You aren't energy efficient!
You generate electricity and get paid for it.
However you use more energy than I do so you are less efficient.
You just sponge more off other tax payers.
I don't use any gas (or oil or petrol).
So you aren't connected to the grid then, how do you get FIT payments if
you aren't?
Anyone that is connected to the grid uses gas, oil, coal, nuclear,
diesel, etc.
Even if you have no mains electricity then you use all the above just
for the water, sewerage and goods you consume.
Post by harryagain
I genereate more than twice the energy I use.
That's not energy efficient.
I use less energy than you, that is more efficient.
You obviously waste energy to use that much more than I do.
harryagain
2015-04-18 11:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@home
Post by harryagain
Post by ***@home
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-
expensive-
Post by tony sayer
Post by harryagain
than-wind-power/
Wind should be the cheapest source of electricity..
Its unreliable so its not worth much to most users.
Then you would buy some reliable power which you would be prepared to
pay a premium for.
I don't see you cutting yourself of from the grid because solar is
cheap. No its not being green that you want its just greed.
Today trough now the wind is;
Wind 2.69GW
(7.16%)
so come on Harry, tell us will you what your going the make up the other
92.84% with please?...
We need more of all types of renewable energy sources.
Plus some gas.
Plus a lot more efficient use of energy.
Ah! Thus spake the oracle, now where are we going to get these renewable
sources from then, and yep we still need the gas and how are we going to
use it more efficiently, so much so we can do away with coal and
nuclear.
Come on 'arry real world answers if you can.....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
You aren't energy efficient!
You generate electricity and get paid for it.
However you use more energy than I do so you are less efficient.
You just sponge more off other tax payers.
I don't use any gas (or oil or petrol).
So you aren't connected to the grid then, how do you get FIT payments if
you aren't?
Anyone that is connected to the grid uses gas, oil, coal, nuclear, diesel,
etc.
Even if you have no mains electricity then you use all the above just for
the water, sewerage and goods you consume.
Post by harryagain
I genereate more than twice the energy I use.
That's not energy efficient.
I use less energy than you, that is more efficient.
You obviously waste energy to use that much more than I do.
I don't use gas shit-fer-brains.
This means that some of the thngs gas is used for, I use electricity.
I don't use petrol either.
I have a septic tank.
Dennis@home
2015-04-19 18:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
I don't use gas shit-fer-brains.
This means that some of the thngs gas is used for, I use electricity.
I don't use petrol either.
I have a septic tank.
OK do without the gas you don't use, disconnect the grid and use
candles, you are using gas now! and nukes and coal but not solar!

You use petrol too, every time you use a service that requires someone else.

Why is it you greens never want to understand what resources you use?

BTW you need to turn the water off too as that uses the same mix of
carbon fuels to process and deliver it and oil and diesel for the
service vehicles, and your intenet too.
The Other Mike
2015-04-16 21:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
I don't use any gas (or oil or petrol).
I genereate more than twice the energy I use.
What about services that you require like the doctors, dentist, local council,
water authority, all those having to pay more for their electricity just to
'service' you. Lots of hydrocarbon consumption too. How are the fire brigade
goign to get to your house if it catches fire, plug in their battery and wait 8
hours?

--
Nightjar .me.uk>
2015-04-16 23:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
Post by harryagain
I don't use any gas (or oil or petrol).
I genereate more than twice the energy I use.
What about services that you require like the doctors, dentist, local council,
water authority, all those having to pay more for their electricity just to
'service' you. Lots of hydrocarbon consumption too. How are the fire brigade
goign to get to your house if it catches fire, plug in their battery and wait 8
hours?
The same way my grandfather went to fires:


--
Colin Bignell
newshound
2015-04-19 18:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightjar .me.uk>
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:54:52 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
I don't use any gas (or oil or petrol).
I genereate more than twice the energy I use.
What about services that you require like the doctors, dentist, local council,
water authority, all those having to pay more for their electricity just to
'service' you. Lots of hydrocarbon consumption too. How are the fire brigade
goign to get to your house if it catches fire, plug in their battery and wait 8
hours?
http://youtu.be/RKcd5prYNF0
Nice! But of course, you won't be allowed to use coal soon, it will have
to have a wood-burner.
tony sayer
2015-04-17 11:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
Post by harryagain
I don't use any gas (or oil or petrol).
I genereate more than twice the energy I use.
What about services that you require like the doctors, dentist, local council,
water authority, all those having to pay more for their electricity just to
'service' you. Lots of hydrocarbon consumption too. How are the fire brigade
goign to get to your house if it catches fire, plug in their battery and wait 8
hours?
All things and more old Harry tends to forget about in his utopian
scheme of things;(...
--
Tony Sayer
Chris Hogg
2015-04-15 16:34:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 01:01:30 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
Out of interest, how much electricity do you use, kWh gross, per
annum, including heating, lighting, kitchen utilities and car charging
(assuming you had no solar panels)? And how much electricity do your
solar panels generate, kWh, per annum?
--
Chris
harryagain
2015-04-15 19:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 01:01:30 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
Out of interest, how much electricity do you use, kWh gross, per
annum, including heating, lighting, kitchen utilities and car charging
(assuming you had no solar panels)? And how much electricity do your
solar panels generate, kWh, per annum?
I don't know exactly any more.
There are four variables. Sum = zero.

I know how much energy I generate.
I know how much I import.
I don't know how much I export.
I don't know what proportion of what I generate is used on site.

If I knew what three of the variables were, I could work out the fourth.

I know the car has used 3000 x 4.5 Khw/year.
(4.5Kwh takes me about a mile)

The figures refered to in the newspaper were derived from comparing with
previous years consumption.
But things have changed radically since then.

The 3.87Kwp panels on the roof generate about 4000Kwh year. (Four years old)
= £2000 ATM Tax free = £2400, inflation linked. (Will it go down if we have
deflation?)

The new panels on the ground (4Kwp) generate about 8% less ISTM though they
are slighly bigger and newer.
Same orientation but "see" less sky is my theory.
Dennis@home
2015-04-15 20:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
I know the car has used 3000 x 4.5 Khw/year.
(4.5Kwh takes me about a mile)
Bleeding hell that's expensive.
That's about 8 miles from an overnight charge.
Oh I forgot you don't use the car during the day as its on charge from
the solar panels and you only drive it at night so you don't charge it
from the grid.
harryagain
2015-04-18 12:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@home
Post by harryagain
I know the car has used 3000 x 4.5 Khw/year.
(4.5Kwh takes me about a mile)
Bleeding hell that's expensive.
That's about 8 miles from an overnight charge.
Oh I forgot you don't use the car during the day as its on charge from the
solar panels and you only drive it at night so you don't charge it from
the grid.
That should be 1Kwh takes me 4.5 miles.
Chris Hogg
2015-04-16 07:33:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:37:54 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
Post by Chris Hogg
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 01:01:30 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
Out of interest, how much electricity do you use, kWh gross, per
annum, including heating, lighting, kitchen utilities and car charging
(assuming you had no solar panels)? And how much electricity do your
solar panels generate, kWh, per annum?
I don't know exactly any more.
There are four variables. Sum = zero.
I know how much energy I generate.
I know how much I import.
I don't know how much I export.
I don't know what proportion of what I generate is used on site.
If I knew what three of the variables were, I could work out the fourth.
I know the car has used 3000 x 4.5 Khw/year.
(4.5Kwh takes me about a mile)
The figures refered to in the newspaper were derived from comparing with
previous years consumption.
But things have changed radically since then.
The 3.87Kwp panels on the roof generate about 4000Kwh year. (Four years old)
= £2000 ATM Tax free = £2400, inflation linked. (Will it go down if we have
deflation?)
The new panels on the ground (4Kwp) generate about 8% less ISTM though they
are slighly bigger and newer.
Same orientation but "see" less sky is my theory.
Maybe I couched my questions too narrowly. I was trying to get a feel
for roughly how self-sufficient you were in electricity. You said to
Dennis that you generate more than twice the energy you use. If you
have two sets of solar panels, each generating ~4000 kWh per year,
then you use ~4000 kWh and you export ~4000 kWh, approximately. As
your property is very well insulated, presumably much of that is for
your car.

The wider thought was how your system would impact the national power
supply if it was widely adopted across the UK. Not that I think that
would happen any time soon: too many dwellings couldn't be modified
the way you have done yours, either with masses of insulation or solar
panels. So one might think the way forward is for community schemes:
villages or housing estates having their own centralised wind and
solar generators. But that wouldn't solve the house insulation
problem, and community schemes are simply another name for the wind
and solar farms that we already have. It makes no difference whether
wind generators and solar panels are dispersed, with every house
having them, or are concentrated onto 'farms', the problems for the
grid are the same. Increasing their number simply increases the scale
of those problems, and the arguments go around.

Nor would a smart grid be the answer. It sounds appealing,
superficially, (got the 'smart' word in it!) but you can't get
electricity out of thin (stationary) air! You need back-up generators.
--
Chris
harryagain
2015-04-18 12:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:37:54 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
Post by Chris Hogg
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 01:01:30 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
Out of interest, how much electricity do you use, kWh gross, per
annum, including heating, lighting, kitchen utilities and car charging
(assuming you had no solar panels)? And how much electricity do your
solar panels generate, kWh, per annum?
I don't know exactly any more.
There are four variables. Sum = zero.
I know how much energy I generate.
I know how much I import.
I don't know how much I export.
I don't know what proportion of what I generate is used on site.
If I knew what three of the variables were, I could work out the fourth.
I know the car has used 3000 x 4.5 Khw/year.
(4.5Kwh takes me about a mile)
The figures refered to in the newspaper were derived from comparing with
previous years consumption.
But things have changed radically since then.
The 3.87Kwp panels on the roof generate about 4000Kwh year. (Four years old)
= £2000 ATM Tax free = £2400, inflation linked. (Will it go down if we have
deflation?)
The new panels on the ground (4Kwp) generate about 8% less ISTM though they
are slighly bigger and newer.
Same orientation but "see" less sky is my theory.
Maybe I couched my questions too narrowly. I was trying to get a feel
for roughly how self-sufficient you were in electricity. You said to
Dennis that you generate more than twice the energy you use. If you
have two sets of solar panels, each generating ~4000 kWh per year,
then you use ~4000 kWh and you export ~4000 kWh, approximately. As
your property is very well insulated, presumably much of that is for
your car.
I generate around 8000Kwh per year.
Absolute max/day would be 60Kwh.
But obviously much less in Winter and none at night.
So I export by day and import by night and on heavily overcast days.
Total yearly income (FIT) is about £2500 (tax free , inflation linked)
Plus savings on electricty imported, no gas system to install or maintain.
Plus no petrol or road tax.
About 2/3 of power for car comes from PV panels.
Post by Chris Hogg
The wider thought was how your system would impact the national power
supply if it was widely adopted across the UK. Not that I think that
would happen any time soon: too many dwellings couldn't be modified
the way you have done yours, either with masses of insulation or solar
villages or housing estates having their own centralised wind and
solar generators. But that wouldn't solve the house insulation
problem, and community schemes are simply another name for the wind
and solar farms that we already have. It makes no difference whether
wind generators and solar panels are dispersed, with every house
having them, or are concentrated onto 'farms', the problems for the
grid are the same. Increasing their number simply increases the scale
of those problems, and the arguments go around.
Nor would a smart grid be the answer. It sounds appealing,
superficially, (got the 'smart' word in it!) but you can't get
electricity out of thin (stationary) air! You need back-up generators.
We need as many different source of renewable energy as possible.
And I think we will always need some gas unless there is a breakthrough in
energy storage.
Dispersed energy sources reduce transmission losses.

Most of all we need enrgy efficiency.
I always buy the most efficient electric appliances possible. Still some way
to go.
All new houses should be built to passive house standards.

The immediate problem will shortly be the uncontrolled connection of PV
panels, at some point this will need tobe controlled (by smart meters?) My
own panels drive the local voltage up by around 10 volts. (Local transformer
is small).

The point at the moment is reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
We are moving from an era of expensive power stations and cheap fossil fuel
to one on expensive power stations and expensive fossil fuel.
Renewable fuel is free and can't be cut off by nasty foreigners.
And there is the pollution aspect.
And AGW.

But it will all take decades to implement.
However it is the final solution, the energy is cost free, pollution free,
secure and endless.

For me personally I have few fuel bill worries and a good income.
There are idle and dopey toerags here that are envious. (Probably
socialists.)
But their are lifes failures everywhere.
Tim Streater
2015-04-19 21:45:04 UTC
Permalink
We need no sources of renewable energy.
Corrected that for you harry.
--
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc
Arfa Daily
2015-04-21 01:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
The point at the moment is reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
We are moving from an era of expensive power stations and cheap fossil
fuel to one on expensive power stations and expensive fossil fuel.
We have plenty of cheap fossil fuel of our own that Johnny Foreigner can't
cut off. We just need to frack it out of the ground ...
Post by harryagain
Renewable fuel is free
Of course it isn't ...

and can't be cut off by nasty foreigners.
Post by harryagain
And there is the pollution aspect.
So building windmills and shipping them, and putting in all the
infrastructure and maintaining them, has no energy budget, and generates no
pollution ?
Post by harryagain
And AGW.
Or that ...
Post by harryagain
But it will all take decades to implement.
Decades that we haven't got, if we keep shutting down reliable cheap power
stations
Post by harryagain
However it is the final solution, the energy is cost free, pollution free,
secure and endless.
Nonsense
Post by harryagain
For me personally I have few fuel bill worries and a good income.
At my expense
Post by harryagain
There are idle and dopey toerags here that are envious. (Probably
socialists.)
But their are lifes failures everywhere.
There ... life's ...

Arrogant plank ...

Arfa
harryagain
2015-04-22 07:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arfa Daily
Post by harryagain
The point at the moment is reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
We are moving from an era of expensive power stations and cheap fossil
fuel to one on expensive power stations and expensive fossil fuel.
We have plenty of cheap fossil fuel of our own that Johnny Foreigner can't
cut off. We just need to frack it out of the ground ...
Post by harryagain
Renewable fuel is free
Of course it isn't ...
and can't be cut off by nasty foreigners.
Post by harryagain
And there is the pollution aspect.
So building windmills and shipping them, and putting in all the
infrastructure and maintaining them, has no energy budget, and generates
no pollution ?
Post by harryagain
And AGW.
Or that ...
Post by harryagain
But it will all take decades to implement.
Decades that we haven't got, if we keep shutting down reliable cheap power
stations
Post by harryagain
However it is the final solution, the energy is cost free, pollution
free, secure and endless.
Nonsense
Post by harryagain
For me personally I have few fuel bill worries and a good income.
At my expense
Post by harryagain
There are idle and dopey toerags here that are envious. (Probably
socialists.)
But their are lifes failures everywhere.
There ... life's ...
Arrogant plank ...
I see you're one of them.
Brain dead and idle.
Brainwashed at an early age.
Arfa Daily
2015-04-23 00:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
Post by Arfa Daily
Post by harryagain
The point at the moment is reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
We are moving from an era of expensive power stations and cheap fossil
fuel to one on expensive power stations and expensive fossil fuel.
We have plenty of cheap fossil fuel of our own that Johnny Foreigner
can't cut off. We just need to frack it out of the ground ...
Post by harryagain
Renewable fuel is free
Of course it isn't ...
and can't be cut off by nasty foreigners.
Post by harryagain
And there is the pollution aspect.
So building windmills and shipping them, and putting in all the
infrastructure and maintaining them, has no energy budget, and generates
no pollution ?
Post by harryagain
And AGW.
Or that ...
Post by harryagain
But it will all take decades to implement.
Decades that we haven't got, if we keep shutting down reliable cheap
power stations
Post by harryagain
However it is the final solution, the energy is cost free, pollution
free, secure and endless.
Nonsense
Post by harryagain
For me personally I have few fuel bill worries and a good income.
At my expense
Post by harryagain
There are idle and dopey toerags here that are envious. (Probably
socialists.)
But their are lifes failures everywhere.
There ... life's ...
Arrogant plank ...
I see you're one of them.
You see nothing at all.
Post by harryagain
Brain dead and idle.
You know nothing about me you ignorant twat
Post by harryagain
Brainwashed at an early age.
Brainwashed ? What and you're not in your joke fortress with its 4ft thick
walls and window shutters believing that you're saving the world from all
the rest of us ?

Arfa
Nightjar .me.uk>
2015-04-15 23:31:57 UTC
Permalink
On 15/04/2015 01:01, harryagain wrote:
...
Post by harryagain
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
Why didn't you just buy a cold war nuclear bunker? They start at around
£18k, look as inviting and come with many metres of earth insulation as
standard.
--
Colin Bignell
harryagain
2015-04-18 12:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightjar .me.uk>
...
Post by harryagain
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
Why didn't you just buy a cold war nuclear bunker? They start at around
£18k, look as inviting and come with many metres of earth insulation as
standard.
Earth alone is not that good an insulator.
Haven't you noticed, caves are quite cold?
Part of my house is earth shielded but there is insulation as well.

Nightjar .me.uk>
2015-04-20 16:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
Post by Nightjar .me.uk>
...
Post by harryagain
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
Why didn't you just buy a cold war nuclear bunker? They start at around
£18k, look as inviting and come with many metres of earth insulation as
standard.
Earth alone is not that good an insulator.
Maybe it doesn't have a particularly good U value, but enough of it can
be very efficient. Cave houses are generally considered to be very green.
Post by harryagain
Haven't you noticed, caves are quite cold?
The temperature is fairly constant. How cold they are without any
heating depends upon how deep they are. Shallow caves in the UK are
generally around 10C, but the cave of the giant crystals is about 58C.
However, nuclear bunkers often come with their own air conditioning
system, albeit mainly to get rid of the excess heat from the humans if
they were ever to be fully occupied.
Post by harryagain
Part of my house is earth shielded but there is insulation as well.
http://youtu.be/4jKGQXH55fs
--
Colin Bignell
harryagain
2015-04-21 05:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
Post by Nightjar .me.uk>
...
Post by harryagain
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
Why didn't you just buy a cold war nuclear bunker? They start at around
£18k, look as inviting and come with many metres of earth insulation as
standard.
Earth alone is not that good an insulator.
Maybe it doesn't have a particularly good U value, but enough of it can be
very efficient. Cave houses are generally considered to be very green.
Post by harryagain
Haven't you noticed, caves are quite cold?
The temperature is fairly constant. How cold they are without any heating
depends upon how deep they are. Shallow caves in the UK are generally
around 10C, but the cave of the giant crystals is about 58C. However,
nuclear bunkers often come with their own air conditioning system, albeit
mainly to get rid of the excess heat from the humans if they were ever to
be fully occupied.
The problem is that rainwater passing through the soil takes away a lot of
heat.
I have put down paving slabs to try to divert it away from the
walls/insulation.

58 deg would have to be geothermal heat.
AnthonyL
2015-04-21 11:47:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:32:12 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
Post by harryagain
Post by Nightjar .me.uk>
...
Post by harryagain
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9902805/I-make-4000-a-year-being-energy-efficient.html
Why didn't you just buy a cold war nuclear bunker? They start at around
£18k, look as inviting and come with many metres of earth insulation as
standard.
Earth alone is not that good an insulator.
Maybe it doesn't have a particularly good U value, but enough of it can be
very efficient. Cave houses are generally considered to be very green.
Post by harryagain
Haven't you noticed, caves are quite cold?
The temperature is fairly constant. How cold they are without any heating
depends upon how deep they are. Shallow caves in the UK are generally
around 10C, but the cave of the giant crystals is about 58C. However,
nuclear bunkers often come with their own air conditioning system, albeit
mainly to get rid of the excess heat from the humans if they were ever to
be fully occupied.
The problem is that rainwater passing through the soil takes away a lot of
heat.
I have put down paving slabs to try to divert it away from the
walls/insulation.
And you've painted the slabs green I suppose.
--
AnthonyL
Nightjar .me.uk>
2015-04-13 07:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-than-wind-power/
That report was published in February 2012 and, if French nuclear power
is going to be more expensive than onshore wind at EUR70-90 per MWh,
they must have very cheap wind power. The UK figure for onshore wind
power is £80-110 per MWh.
--
Colin Bignell
Chris Hogg
2015-04-13 08:14:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:15:08 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-than-wind-power/
LOL! EWEA = European Wind Energy Association. Well they would say
that, wouldn't they!

Quote
"According to EWEA analysis on the true costs of electricity, nuclear
will cost €102 /MWh in 2020 – the average price across Europe taking
into account the fact that nuclear plants take a long time to build
which pushes up the initial capital cost. Onshore wind energy
meanwhile will see a price drop by 2020 falling to €58 /MWh and
offshore wind will cost €75 /MWh."
Unquote

I wonder if the 'true' cost of wind power includes the cost of
building and maintaining back-up power for when the wind doesn't blow,
or the cost to the economy of blackouts when there's not enough
electricity to go round. I doubt it.
--
Chris
The Natural Philosopher
2015-04-13 08:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:15:08 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-than-wind-power/
LOL! EWEA = European Wind Energy Association. Well they would say
that, wouldn't they!
Quote
"According to EWEA analysis on the true costs of electricity, nuclear
will cost €102 /MWh in 2020 – the average price across Europe taking
into account the fact that nuclear plants take a long time to build
which pushes up the initial capital cost. Onshore wind energy
meanwhile will see a price drop by 2020 falling to €58 /MWh and
offshore wind will cost €75 /MWh."
Unquote
I wonder if the 'true' cost of wind power includes the cost of
building and maintaining back-up power for when the wind doesn't blow,
or the cost to the economy of blackouts when there's not enough
electricity to go round. I doubt it.
No. Specifically it does NOT include that. That is taken care of by
subsidising gas and other power stations to be there 'just in case'
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
AnthonyL
2015-04-14 11:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:15:08 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-than-wind-power/
LOL! EWEA = European Wind Energy Association. Well they would say
that, wouldn't they!
Quote
"According to EWEA analysis on the true costs of electricity, nuclear
will cost €102 /MWh in 2020 – the average price across Europe taking
into account the fact that nuclear plants take a long time to build
which pushes up the initial capital cost. Onshore wind energy
meanwhile will see a price drop by 2020 falling to €58 /MWh and
offshore wind will cost €75 /MWh."
Unquote
I wonder if the 'true' cost of wind power includes the cost of
building and maintaining back-up power for when the wind doesn't blow,
or the cost to the economy of blackouts when there's not enough
electricity to go round. I doubt it.
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".

So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.

(Figures are illustrative - concept isn't)
--
AnthonyL
Tim Streater
2015-04-14 15:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by AnthonyL
Post by Chris Hogg
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:15:08 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-
than-wind-power/
LOL! EWEA = European Wind Energy Association. Well they would say
that, wouldn't they!
Quote
"According to EWEA analysis on the true costs of electricity, nuclear
will cost •102 /MWh in 2020 ˆ the average price across Europe taking
into account the fact that nuclear plants take a long time to build
which pushes up the initial capital cost. Onshore wind energy
meanwhile will see a price drop by 2020 falling to •58 /MWh and
offshore wind will cost •75 /MWh."
Unquote
I wonder if the 'true' cost of wind power includes the cost of
building and maintaining back-up power for when the wind doesn't blow,
or the cost to the economy of blackouts when there's not enough
electricity to go round. I doubt it.
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are we betting on likely teacher response? I'd go for: "Eh?"
--
HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks. Dave. DAVE!
Big Les Wade
2015-04-14 15:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by AnthonyL
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are we betting on likely teacher response? I'd go for: "Eh?"
"No, I don't need a standby generator, I'll just keep my mains supply,
and I'll take free power from the wind turbine when it's running.
That'll save on my electricity bill for only £100 outlay, while
guaranteeing my supply. If the turbine delivers at least 625 kWh over
its lifetime, I'll be ahead."
--
Les
hugh
2015-04-14 20:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Tim Streater
Post by AnthonyL
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are we betting on likely teacher response? I'd go for: "Eh?"
"No, I don't need a standby generator, I'll just keep my mains supply,
and I'll take free power from the wind turbine when it's running.
That'll save on my electricity bill for only £100 outlay, while
guaranteeing my supply. If the turbine delivers at least 625 kWh over
its lifetime, I'll be ahead."
The mains supply IS your standby generator.
--
hugh
The Natural Philosopher
2015-04-15 07:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by hugh
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Tim Streater
Post by AnthonyL
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are we betting on likely teacher response? I'd go for: "Eh?"
"No, I don't need a standby generator, I'll just keep my mains supply,
and I'll take free power from the wind turbine when it's running.
That'll save on my electricity bill for only £100 outlay, while
guaranteeing my supply. If the turbine delivers at least 625 kWh over
its lifetime, I'll be ahead."
The mains supply IS your standby generator.
Until everybody is doing it, at which point the cost of your standby
power has to increase three times to cater for the limited (ab)use its
getting. And suddenly your overall costs are twice what they used to be,
before you had a friggin' windmill.
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
Big Les Wade
2015-04-15 07:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by hugh
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Tim Streater
Post by AnthonyL
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are we betting on likely teacher response? I'd go for: "Eh?"
"No, I don't need a standby generator, I'll just keep my mains supply,
and I'll take free power from the wind turbine when it's running.
That'll save on my electricity bill for only £100 outlay, while
guaranteeing my supply. If the turbine delivers at least 625 kWh over
its lifetime, I'll be ahead."
The mains supply IS your standby generator.
But mains power doesn't cost what Tim said. Mine only costs £66 a year
plus £0.16 per kWh.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Until everybody is doing it, at which point the cost of your standby
power has to increase three times to cater for the limited (ab)use its
getting. And suddenly your overall costs are twice what they used to
be, before you had a friggin' windmill.
That may or may not be true, but it's not the answer to Tim's question,
which is about here and now.
--
Les
Tim Streater
2015-04-15 07:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by hugh
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Tim Streater
Post by AnthonyL
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are we betting on likely teacher response? I'd go for: "Eh?"
"No, I don't need a standby generator, I'll just keep my mains supply,
and I'll take free power from the wind turbine when it's running.
That'll save on my electricity bill for only £100 outlay, while
guaranteeing my supply. If the turbine delivers at least 625 kWh over
its lifetime, I'll be ahead."
The mains supply IS your standby generator.
But mains power doesn't cost what Tim said. Mine only costs £66 a year
plus £0.16 per kWh.
To quote myself: Eh? I didn't say anything about costs.
--
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English
is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion,
English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious
and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James Nicoll, rasfw
Big Les Wade
2015-04-15 07:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by hugh
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Tim Streater
Post by AnthonyL
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are we betting on likely teacher response? I'd go for: "Eh?"
"No, I don't need a standby generator, I'll just keep my mains supply,
and I'll take free power from the wind turbine when it's running.
That'll save on my electricity bill for only £100 outlay, while
guaranteeing my supply. If the turbine delivers at least 625 kWh over
its lifetime, I'll be ahead."
The mains supply IS your standby generator.
But mains power doesn't cost what Tim said. Mine only costs £66 a year
plus £0.16 per kWh.
To quote myself: Eh? I didn't say anything about costs.
Sorry, it was Anthony; but from your remark I assume you endorsed his
analysis.
--
Les
Tim Streater
2015-04-15 17:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by hugh
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Tim Streater
Post by AnthonyL
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are we betting on likely teacher response? I'd go for: "Eh?"
"No, I don't need a standby generator, I'll just keep my mains supply,
and I'll take free power from the wind turbine when it's running.
That'll save on my electricity bill for only £100 outlay, while
guaranteeing my supply. If the turbine delivers at least 625 kWh over
its lifetime, I'll be ahead."
The mains supply IS your standby generator.
But mains power doesn't cost what Tim said. Mine only costs £66 a year
plus £0.16 per kWh.
To quote myself: Eh? I didn't say anything about costs.
Sorry, it was Anthony; but from your remark I assume you endorsed his
analysis.
I endorse the notion that the child was given the impression that all
you need is to install a windmill. She was not given the complete
picture. My guess is that the teacher won't be aware of those points
either, and won't understand them, and so will say "Eh?". Why else d'ye
think all these dweebs are voting Green.

Trouble is, ignorant people appear to believe that TV, radio,
computers, electricity, etc, are all operated by some species of magic.
Only having done, at best, Media Studies A-level, they are unaware of
the complications of reality.

My sister is a good example of this. She proudly operates on what she
describes as a "need to know" basis (i.e. has no natural curiosity). A
LibDem voter, she got all excited when there was talk that the
preserved line somewhere behind their old house might be reconnected to
the main line at each end. Oh, they'll be able to run goods trains down
that line, says she. Thus completely overlooking that preserved lines
run on a light-rail permit, and that to go over 25 mph or running goods
would require all the signalling and crossings to be redone. I pointed
this out and haven't heard a word about it since.

See, this is the cock that we're up against. Aided and abetted by
fatheads like harry.
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
whisky-dave
2015-04-15 15:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by AnthonyL
Post by Chris Hogg
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:15:08 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-
than-wind-power/
LOL! EWEA = European Wind Energy Association. Well they would say
that, wouldn't they!
Quote
"According to EWEA analysis on the true costs of electricity, nuclear
will cost •102 /MWh in 2020 ˆ the average price across Europe taking
into account the fact that nuclear plants take a long time to build
which pushes up the initial capital cost. Onshore wind energy
meanwhile will see a price drop by 2020 falling to •58 /MWh and
offshore wind will cost •75 /MWh."
Unquote
I wonder if the 'true' cost of wind power includes the cost of
building and maintaining back-up power for when the wind doesn't blow,
or the cost to the economy of blackouts when there's not enough
electricity to go round. I doubt it.
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are we betting on likely teacher response? I'd go for: "Eh?"
I remmebr doiung a similar 'project' in the 70s where we were told by more than just teachers that nuclear would be so cheap they wouldn't bother billing anyone because the paper bills would cost more to generate than the bill itself.
And that we'd be working a 30 hour week with 6-8 weeks holiday.
harryagain
2015-04-14 16:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by AnthonyL
Post by Chris Hogg
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:15:08 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-than-wind-power/
LOL! EWEA = European Wind Energy Association. Well they would say
that, wouldn't they!
Quote
"According to EWEA analysis on the true costs of electricity, nuclear
will cost ?102 /MWh in 2020 - the average price across Europe taking
into account the fact that nuclear plants take a long time to build
which pushes up the initial capital cost. Onshore wind energy
meanwhile will see a price drop by 2020 falling to ?58 /MWh and
offshore wind will cost ?75 /MWh."
Unquote
I wonder if the 'true' cost of wind power includes the cost of
building and maintaining back-up power for when the wind doesn't blow,
or the cost to the economy of blackouts when there's not enough
electricity to go round. I doubt it.
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
(Figures are illustrative - concept isn't)
You failed to explain the relative costs of the fuel.
And the fact diesel will soon cost even more and may nor be available at
some point
Plus the fact that the diesel generator exhaust will kill you.
And is killing us all. Killing her right now.

So you really are a brain dead granpa aren't you?
Why not leave education to people that have some clue?
You are a dinosaur, living in the past.

Your granddaughter needs of future, not shit-fer-brains outdated drivel.

I'm surprised you didn't lecture her on the benfits of gaslighting.
AnthonyL
2015-04-15 13:39:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:35:15 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
Post by AnthonyL
Post by Chris Hogg
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:15:08 +0100, "harryagain"
Post by harryagain
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/02/french-nuclear-set-to-become-more-expensive-than-wind-power/
LOL! EWEA = European Wind Energy Association. Well they would say
that, wouldn't they!
Quote
"According to EWEA analysis on the true costs of electricity, nuclear
will cost ?102 /MWh in 2020 - the average price across Europe taking
into account the fact that nuclear plants take a long time to build
which pushes up the initial capital cost. Onshore wind energy
meanwhile will see a price drop by 2020 falling to ?58 /MWh and
offshore wind will cost ?75 /MWh."
Unquote
I wonder if the 'true' cost of wind power includes the cost of
building and maintaining back-up power for when the wind doesn't blow,
or the cost to the economy of blackouts when there's not enough
electricity to go round. I doubt it.
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
(Figures are illustrative - concept isn't)
You failed to explain the relative costs of the fuel.
And the fact diesel will soon cost even more and may nor be available at
some point
Plus the fact that the diesel generator exhaust will kill you.
And is killing us all. Killing her right now.
That's why the generator will be nuclear.
Post by harryagain
So you really are a brain dead granpa aren't you?
Losing the argument already?
Post by harryagain
Why not leave education to people that have some clue?
I just ask that it is balanced and balanced with fact.
Post by harryagain
You are a dinosaur, living in the past.
??
Post by harryagain
Your granddaughter needs of future, not shit-fer-brains outdated drivel.
She needs access to proper information, something you appear to be
incapable of understanding, no doubt through inattentiveness when folk
were trying.
Post by harryagain
I'm surprised you didn't lecture her
I don't lecture the grandkids, I converse with them.
Post by harryagain
on the benfits of gaslighting.
What's a "benfit"?
--
AnthonyL
The Other Mike
2015-04-14 21:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by AnthonyL
I tried to explain this in simple terms to my granddaughter the other
day. She is studying science at school and the book she has
illustrates the costs of each of the technologies available to provide
power. So wind is "very cheap to run".
So I said, ok, someone comes to you and says here's a wind turbine,
£100 and it will give you free power. Do you need to have guaranteed
power? She said "yes". Ah ok then, here's a standby generator that
will cost you £1000 and you have to keep it maintained, and power is
expensive. Wouldn't you'd rather spend £1200 and have guaranteed
power and a fairly cheap electricity? She's going to ask her teacher.
Are you trying to get her expelled for blasphemy?

--
Loading...