Discussion:
TOT wind
Add Reply
alan_m
2025-01-22 14:17:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Davey
2025-01-22 14:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:17:14 +0000
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
The wind is going to be 'blowing a gale' later in the week. It would be
interesting to see if that number changes (up or down).
Don't they have to feather the blades or something if the wind is too
strong?
--
Davey.
Scott
2025-01-22 16:06:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:17:14 +0000, alan_m <***@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:
[snip]

'Wasn't it yesterday we used to laugh at the wind behind us?'
(Diana Ross - Touch me in the morning)
TimW
2025-01-22 18:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
SteveW
2025-01-22 23:34:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest we
need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery backup
would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus a
few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
The Natural Philosopher
2025-01-22 23:48:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by SteveW
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery backup
would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus a
few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
Nope. I was
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.

Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage.
We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and
metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"
Spike
2025-01-23 09:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by SteveW
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery backup
would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus a
few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
Nope. I was
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage.
We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and
metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be
reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All designed
and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable, unlike the
fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting on us.
--
Spike
Davey
2025-01-23 10:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 23 Jan 2025 09:29:39 GMT
Post by Spike
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by SteveW
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators
wind is only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I
write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources,
enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't
complicated. TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric,
suggest we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power
stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think.
Plus a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
Nope. I was
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric,
not just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy
usage. We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do
chemical and metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be
reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All
designed and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable,
unlike the fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting
on us.
But..but.. you're talking sense, so there is no chance that Milliband
and the current crowd in charge will give it any consideration.
The idea.
--
Davey.
The Natural Philosopher
2025-01-23 10:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Davey
On 23 Jan 2025 09:29:39 GMT
Post by Spike
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by SteveW
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators
wind is only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I
write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources,
enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't
complicated. TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric,
suggest we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power
stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think.
Plus a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
Nope. I was
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric,
not just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy
usage. We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do
chemical and metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be
reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All
designed and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable,
unlike the fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting
on us.
But..but.. you're talking sense, so there is no chance that Milliband
and the current crowd in charge will give it any consideration.
The idea.
Miliband may have no choice. With Reeves and Starmer already having done
far more damage to the economy than Liz Truss ever did, there simply may
be no money for his gratuitous EcoBollox™
--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional
Spike
2025-01-23 10:58:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Davey
On 23 Jan 2025 09:29:39 GMT
Post by Spike
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by SteveW
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators
wind is only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I
write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources,
enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't
complicated. TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric,
suggest we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think.
Plus a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
Nope. I was
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric,
not just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy
usage. We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do
chemical and metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be
reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All
designed and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable,
unlike the fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting
on us.
But..but.. you're talking sense, so there is no chance that Milliband
and the current crowd in charge will give it any consideration.
The idea.
Miliband may have no choice. With Reeves and Starmer already having done
far more damage to the economy than Liz Truss ever did, there simply may
be no money for his gratuitous EcoBollox™
I fully recommend listening to the Today programme on BBC Sounds broadcast
on the 22nd January starting at 18m20s into the programme. The government
gets slated for its policies by business users. About 10 minutes long.

Typical comment “The problem is that no member of the Cabinet has had to
find the monthly wages”.
--
Spike
The Natural Philosopher
2025-01-23 10:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by SteveW
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery backup
would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus a
few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
Nope. I was
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage.
We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and
metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be
reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All designed
and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable, unlike the
fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting on us.
Exactly. Battersea power station not only generated electricity for
London, it provided district heating as well and used the Thames to
deliver coal and cool the turbine exhausts.

It would be ideal for 4-6 SMRs. Surrounded by 'social housing' with free
heating and low cost electricity.
--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith
Jeff Layman
2025-01-25 11:48:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Exactly. Battersea power station not only generated electricity for
London, it provided district heating as well and used the Thames to
deliver coal and cool the turbine exhausts.
It would be ideal for 4-6 SMRs. Surrounded by 'social housing' with free
heating and low cost electricity.
Well, it /would/ have been...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battersea_Power_Station#2022_opening>
--
Jeff
The Natural Philosopher
2025-01-25 12:32:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Exactly. Battersea power station not only generated electricity for
London, it provided district heating as well and used the Thames to
deliver coal and cool the turbine exhausts.
It would be ideal for 4-6 SMRs. Surrounded by 'social housing' with free
heating and low cost electricity.
Well, it /would/ have been...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battersea_Power_Station#2022_opening>
Sadly, of course you are correct.

Why people want to pay vast sums of money to live in a third world
shithole is beyond me.
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
SteveW
2025-01-23 15:05:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by SteveW
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus a
few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
Nope. I was
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
Fair enough, that's why I included SMRs in the question.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage. We
probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and metal
smelting, concrete making and the like.
While we will need a lot more electricity, chunks of it (Heating stored
hot water, charging EVs and home batteries, some industrial processes,
maybe heating heat stores for later home heating), will likely be done
at what are currently times of low demand. We may need 3x as much
electricity per year, but the increase in peak demand (and therefore
generating capacity) will likely be far lower.
The Natural Philosopher
2025-01-23 15:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by SteveW
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by SteveW
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus
a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
Nope. I was
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
Fair enough, that's why I included SMRs in the question.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage.
We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and
metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
While we will need a lot more electricity, chunks of it (Heating stored
hot water, charging EVs and home batteries, some industrial processes,
maybe heating heat stores for later home heating), will likely be done
at what are currently times of low demand. We may need 3x as much
electricity per year, but the increase in peak demand (and therefore
generating capacity) will likely be far lower.
If you have a big smelter you will want it to operate 24x7. Banks dont
offer lower interests rates on capital which is only used at night :-)

But you have a slight point: using nuclear electricity to make offpeak
hydrogen to use as a reducing agent in a 24x7 smelter is possible. As is
massive heat banks built into new build houses...

And a selection of liquid salt cooled reactors whose liquid salt is
itself a huge heat bank in its own right.

It all gets much easier if you don't want to store electricity, just heat.

HOWEVER be aware that the UK's total energy consumption is a lot higher
than just its electricity consumption. Transport takes a lot as does
commercial. We have of course outsourced manufacturing to India and
China, so we don't use any there at all, although we probably should.

We are currently running at 125 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe)
annually.
(
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66f13235f188a93404379f94/Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK_2024.pdf
)

Now leaving aside the matter of apples and oranges and the efficiency of
fuel burning engines versus the efficiency of electrical machines, that
is 1453750 MWh. and averaged crudely over a year (8766 hours) that means
the average consumption of the UK is 165GW.

Which is ~ 4 times higher than existing grid supplies.

And we would need a bit of headroom for winter.

So a zero carbon britain with no useless renewables needs maybe 200GW of
nuclear, which is about 400 RR SMRs.Which I reckon would be arranged in
reasonably large groups to make 150 power stations. Or 50 MASSIVE
Fukushima sized 5GW power stations.

Obviously that is only a crude wet finger estimate, and we can argue
over details all day, but my gut feeling is that we will in time go for
SMRs simply because they can be mass produced and will be cheaper,
especially if built far closer to where the power is needed than today's
nuclear power stations.

And we will need about 150 sites. Some may be big ones. There is a good
argument for powering London from a couple of 5GW power stations
somewhere down the Estuary..

But not e.g, Northampton. There a couple of SMRs are far more appropriate
--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.
alan_m
2025-01-23 17:42:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by SteveW
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by SteveW
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could  never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus
a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
Nope. I was
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
Fair enough, that's why I included SMRs in the question.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage.
We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and
metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
While we will need a lot more electricity, chunks of it (Heating stored
hot water, charging EVs and home batteries, some industrial processes,
maybe heating heat stores for later home heating), will likely be done
at what are currently times of low demand. We may need 3x as much
electricity per year, but the increase in peak demand (and therefore
generating capacity) will likely be far lower.
On a cold winters day households are likely to have their electric ASHP
heating on throughout the day whereas now approx 20 millions UK of homes
are heated with gas. Yes, if you charge your battery off peak and use
it during the day you can spread the load but that means the majority of
householders have to invest 1000s in batteries.
BUT
It wouldn't have worked in the past week as there was very little
renewable generation to charge the batteries in the first place.

With everyone charging their EVs overnight there may not be an off peak
period.

This is probably the golden period where those who can afford perhaps
£20K to install solar and batteries (taking advantage of substantial
grants) to offset peak usage with their cheap off peak storage. When
the grants stop and enough people are doing the same the advantages for
saving money may evaporate.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Jack Harry Teesdale
2025-01-23 17:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by TimW
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
We neither need nor can afford net zero.

Those who want EV's and heat pumps are welcome to them but in the
meantime the rest of us are happy with our petrol/diesel cars and
gas/oil boilers because they are affordable and do the job properly
AnthonyL
2025-01-23 12:44:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
At this very moment Gridwatch says wind is producing 31%, almost as
much as CCGT. But then what will happen if it gets windier?
--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?
The Natural Philosopher
2025-01-23 14:56:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AnthonyL
Post by alan_m
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
At this very moment Gridwatch says wind is producing 31%, almost as
much as CCGT. But then what will happen if it gets windier?
They will switch turbines off. They will still get paid for what they
'could' have generated if the grid had been able to take it.
--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.
Loading...