OT: a particularly dire Guardian article about wind and nuclear (but some good comments)

[newshound]

[Spike]

"Ministers, journalists and pro-nuclear politicians of all stripes keep repeating the mantra that baseload power is needed to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.

In 2020 this statement is no longer true and excess baseload power is becoming an embarrassment. Nuclear power, so inflexible that it cannot be turned down or off, is surplus to requirements when large quantities of cheaper renewable energy are available. The need to accommodate nuclear power pushes up bills because windfarm owners are being paid to turn off turbines and avoid making unwanted free electricity."

What planet is the Guardian reporting on?

We have just had a run of some days where the wind didn't blow and the sun didn't shine. "Renewables" produced less than10 percent of peak demand. Nuclear, Coal, and CCGT were running flat out and the French Interconnector was nearly melting while we imported 2GW of French nuclear power.

Windpower isn't 'free, it's costly, and pushes up electricity bills.

[harry]

Though the wind isn't blowing where you are, it's blowing somewhere. East West Electricity grids are bringing it increasingly within reach.

[Tim Streater]

No it isn't, as we saw last week.

[mm0fmf]

The wind is always blowing out of harry.

[Dave Liquorice]

somewhere.

Bingo! Two for the price of one. Turbine up his arse and burn the gas. B-)

More to the point when has the base demand ever been less than the nuke output? Even in the wee small hours in summer base demand is >

20 GW, nukes might make 8 GW with them all running flat out (which isn't often due to the statutory maintenace).

[Chris Hogg]

Quite right, Harry, although a tropical storm in the China Sea wouldn't be much use to us when there's a blocking high over the whole of northern Europe like the other week, would it!

[Donald Johnson]

Yep, the Guardian would also have us believe the most serious problem with the Labour party is antisemitism.

To say that this paper prints nonsense would be a massive understatement.

I hope you have done anything to support it.

[newshound]

Superconducting interconnectors. Just a matter of time :-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

People who allow the guardian to do their thinking for them dont understand that the cost of transporting electricity from the south china seas exceeds te cost of building a nuclear power station in the UK by an order of magnitude.

The guardian artocle is about the real probloem - the elephant in the room - that makes the case that once you have nuclear power, you dont need or want any reneables at all.

So the renewable industry has paid for an article that reverses this truth into a convenient lie.

[Brian Gaff (Sofa 2)]

I find all this very silly. Its the same argument on closing hospital beds and then moaning as a lot of beds are blocked by people as social car are slow to get people into care. Bean counters never see the full picture or underestimate the scale of an issue in extreme circumstances. They bring everything back to averages an statistics which do not reflect the real world. Brian

[Spike]

That didn't help a couple of weeks ago, when there was a run of some days where the wind didn't blow and the sun didn't shine. "Renewables" produced less than 10 percent of peak demand.

Plus, of course, there is only a narrow range of wind speeds where the windmills are useful: too low, and they produce little - too much and they shut down. If the wrong type of wind is blowing, they are of very little use, no matter where they are located.

[polygonum_on_google]

Bean counters do everything they can to exploit externalities. Get the costs out of where they can be seen and need to be accounted for.

[newshound]

Yes. Well, good ones do, anyway. This article was written by a lobbyist, not a bean counter.

[Chris Hogg]

Ah, but by then we'll have fusion. 'Too cheap to meter' all over again. Superconducting interconnectors won't be needed!