OT One of the reasons we need renewable energy/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7463851/Saudis-oil-supply-cut-HALF-production-FIVE-MILLION-barrels-disrupted.html

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 14 September 2019 17:25:40 UTC+1, harry wrote:

renewables don't solve that. I wish they did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/09/2019 23:35, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Nuclear and using electricity from it to produce liquid or gaseous fuels is the solution for that.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, 15 September 2019 00:40:51 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:

Nuclear. The most expensive option. Nobody knows what to do with the waste. If they did, they'd be doing it and they aren't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/09/2019 07:07, harry wrote:

Far from it. The most expensive is open cycle gas turbine, with coal running close behind, followed by offshore wind, then nuclear.

We do know what to do with the waste: Store it until the radioactivity drops to a level where it can be safely disposed of. Nuclear fuel rod radioactivity has dropped to about one thousandth of its initial level after 40 years in storage.
--
Colin Bignell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/09/2019 09:23, nightjar wrote:

Total bollocks
The most expensive option is solar, followed by offshore wind, then onshore wind and then nuclear
CCGT and OCGT are similar in cost depending on the capacity factors. High usage needs CCGT but OCGT is cheaper as backup and peaking plant
Hydro and coal are cheapest

--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/09/2019 16:52, nightjar wrote:

Indeed. I did my own calcs. Based in not what operators said their numbers wre but bad on actual capital costs, lifetime, capacity factors and need for backup, using same cost of capital for all and eliminating government subsidy and carbon credits
Needless to say these were vastly different from what green leaning bankers and renewable energy lobbies claimed
Its another area where we are subject to endless lies and propaganda - just like climate change
And the EU. They all have the hallmarks of the same generaic trype of organisatins behind them.
Juts get as many allegedly different 'expert' organisations to repeat the same lie and idiots believe its true
--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/09/2019 16:52, nightjar wrote:

With wind and solar do they also factor in the cost of the backup when the wind doesn't shine and the sun doesn't blow? One could argue that those facilities already exist but if the green lobby has their wish alternative coal and gas will soon vanish.
--
mailto : news admac myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/09/2019 19:51, alan_m wrote:

No they dont. Nor do they factor in the grid stabilisation needed - see last months power cuts - nor yet the massive cables needed to absorb the full force of a nice stiff gale in Scotland when the demand is darn sarf, that lie idle when a high pressure zone lies over the mountains of bonnie Scotland
In addition, it's very easy to claim amortisation of capital over a 25 year period, for windmills when in fact they are useless after 12, and capacity factors up around 40% when in fact they average out at 22%.
Those two factors alone will make levelised costs 4 times higher than their 'models' suggest.
Likewise its very easy to use events like Fukushima to enforce a policy of massive cleanup to a level utterly unneeded that must come out of a privately funded insurance policy that alone will double the cost of nuclear power.
Should we be suing the renewable company for loss of power last month? How many people could have died as a result?
More than at Fukushima for sure.
Nope the dice are well loaded. Renewables can do no wrong and are given a free passage to trample on regulationns whilst coal and nuclear are demonized.
--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, 16 September 2019 00:45:43 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote :

"Wind turbines generate more cash when switched off and Scots customers sho uldering £650m blame
According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, 2018 was a record year for co nstraint payments, reaching a staggering £124,649,106 - surpassing the total in 2017 of £108,247,860.
Of this, £115,716,335 was paid to Scottish wind farms, and nearly all of that - £115,313,091 - went to onshore wind farms.
In 2018, several wind farms were switched off for around a quarter of the y ear.
Bhlaraidh wind farm near Fort Augustus, Scottish Highlands - which has 32 t urbines - was constrained for 29 per cent of 2018.
"Interestingly, because they're in a strong market position they make more per unit than when they don't sell than what they would sell per unit to th e consumer."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/wind-turbines-generate-mor e-cash-21300451
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do they still get paid not to produce electricity when there is no wind anyway (assuming this is a somewhat local situation and there is enough production elsewhere)?
--

Roger Hayter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 18 January 2020 08:29:07 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised; there's probably a compensation payment they can claim.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well one of the issues here is that those doing the sums seem to treat them as if they ware normal generators and not intermittent suppliers. I have no issue with wind farms but their costs has to be calculated against their real use times, and if it looks from past experience that building one in a given place will need huge subsidies for when its not used then why build it to start with. We simply do not learn from mistakes and as has been said before the owners seem to not care as they make money either way. I'm sure if we put our minds to it that we could build them to be able to use winds both strong and gusty and weak and wobbly, but we for some reason seem to have stagnated. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 00:58:19 -0800 (PST), harry

Any EROEI is difficult to calculate. ISTM for solar panels you can get whatever figure you want, depending on what information you put in, such as latitude and expected lifetime. Certainly, for panels in North Africa, California, South of France and other sunny climes with long hours of sunshine, their EROEI will come out quite well and they make sense, but in e.g. Northern Europe their EROEI is closer to break-even or even negative, i.e. they're net energy consumers. http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/SolarEROEI.pdf
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/01/2020 11:20, Chris Hogg wrote:

Another issue is the imponderable of maintenance.
Tech out in the sun wind and rain doesnt last as well as tech in a machine hall.
--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/09/2019 09:23, nightjar wrote:

Most expensive could be that braindead plan for Swansea bay.
If the Lib Dems hold the balnce of power this Winter, then it'll be back with a vengeance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.