Re: German energy policy

[tony sayer]

In article <0gddp8-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts
<tw+u...@dionic.net> scribeth thus
>bob wrote:
>
>> On Nov 15, 11:20 pm, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:46:18 +0000 (UTC), boltar2...@boltar.world
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:28:15 +0000
>>> >tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >>>Now your part: How many TWh does the continent consume? Germany takes
>>> >>>about 600 TWh/year.
>>>
>>> >>>Hans-Joachim
>>>
>>> >>And when the wind don't blow the trains won't go .....
>>>
>>> >Cue some rubbish about solar energy making up for it from the
>>> >ecoidiots...
>>>
>>> Cur further implied rubbish that coal, oil and nuclear power stations
>>> run all the time.
>>
>> Go on then, when was the last time that either the UK or Germany was
>> unable to supply enough power to keep the grid up due to unplanned/
>> forced outages of coal, oil, nuclear or gas power stations?
>>
>> Robin
>
>27th May 2008 came pretty close. The sudden loss of 1.5GW of generation
>caused load shedding and emergency Demand Control notices to be issued to
>DNOs (regional supply networks). In other words, they came pretty close to
>turning off the lights over parts of the UK.
>
>

Would that actually happen?. I thought there were quite a few Diesel
gensets of some capacity all over the UK that could be called upon if
need be?. Not that you'd need to as they are IIRC quite expensive to
run...
--
Tony Sayer

[Jim Hawkins]

I thought gas turbine sets were the preferred standby generators, as being
very quick to start up.
Or have things changed in the last decade or two ?

Jim Hawkins

[Dave Liquorice]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:18:13 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

>>> Go on then, when was the last time that either the UK or Germany
was
>>> unable to supply enough power to keep the grid up due to
unplanned/
>>> forced outages of coal, oil, nuclear or gas power stations?
>>

>> 27th May 2008 came pretty close. The sudden loss of 1.5GW of
generation
>> caused load shedding and emergency Demand Control notices to be
issued
>> to DNOs (regional supply networks).

>> In other words, they came pretty close to turning off the lights
over
>> parts of the UK.

Some parts of the UK did go black as under frequency trips at
substations tripped, mostly in the SE. We had a very noticeable brown
out and short power cut:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/allsorts-60/4306495000

> Would that actually happen?. I thought there were quite a few Diesel
> gensets of some capacity all over the UK that could be called upon if
> need be?

They take time to start, run up to speed, synchronise and finally
start feeding the grid. Same with all other stations, in the meantime
you have more demand than generation, the lights have to go out
somewhere.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[The Natural Philosopher]

IIRC - an if anyone knows beter, says so, because I'd like to know - teh
hirerchy is

Wind. Always take wind because we are required to pay through the nose
when its available.

Hydro and pumped are always in use balancing short term fluctuations.

Interconnects are used to balance with Holland and France..keeps prices
down. In general we take french nulear rather then coal when we can -
chiefly at night.


CCGT is always in use balancing hour by hour fluctuations and generating
about 30-50%.

Coal is used when we need to balancing the daily demand. Uptto 50%
demand at this time of year is met by coal.

OCGT is held in reserve - these are exepsnive but fast start units. I
have seen a hundred MW or so of that.

Oil power stations - these are essentially fuel oil burners, held in
cold reserve, but can be fired up if things look bad, but it probably
takes a day to do it. There in case something bad happens.

At this point they also start phoning up certain companies who get cheap
leccy, saying 'your contract states that in return you wont use it when
we haven't got it: we haven't! '

Next down the line is a raft of small generation kit - like diesel
gennies in phone exchanges and hospitals they an call on for a few
hundred MW in total.

And that really is rock bottom - then its load shed time - rolling blackouts

[The Natural Philosopher]

no. They take half an hour to really get going: a diesel genny can be up
in a couple of minutes.


> Jim Hawkins
>
>

[Tim Watts]

I guess it might. If Nat Grid control were sending "Demand Control
Imminent"[1] messages on the alerts system that feeds to the DNOs (and
everyone else who matters)[2] that is possibly a strong indication of bad
things being about to happen.

I suspect they had enough industrial load voluntery shedding to get back to
the safe zone, but if not - or if there had been a further increas in demand
- this was May, if it had been January that could have been much worse.

[1] My lay understanding of this is it roughly means "Mr DNO, please be
ready to shed some load quickly as you see fit or we will shed it for you" -
perhaps someone more connected might be able to explain timescales etc?

[2] I was reading them - some part of the National Grid website or BMI (I
forget) allowed public reading of the formal alerts. Seems to have
disappeared, ie I can no longer find it, which is not a huge surprise.

> I thought there were quite a few Diesel
> gensets of some capacity all over the UK that could be called upon if
> need be?. Not that you'd need to as they are IIRC quite expensive to
> run...

Not sure what the max supply and startup times would be?

--
Tim Watts

[Tim Watts]

Jim Hawkins wrote:


> I thought gas turbine sets were the preferred standby generators, as being
> very quick to start up.
> Or have things changed in the last decade or two ?

That was the general idea, pre-privatisation.

However, the way the Thatcher government sold off the industry made it very
attractive to burn gas like it was going out of fashion.

Insane really...
--
Tim Watts

[Tim Watts]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Jim Hawkins wrote:

>> I thought gas turbine sets were the preferred standby generators, as
>> being very quick to start up.
>> Or have things changed in the last decade or two ?
>>
> no. They take half an hour to really get going: a diesel genny can be up
> in a couple of minutes.

Except, if the system load is high, they would be running them sync-locked
to the grid but at minumum power output - ie hot standby - at least, that's
what the CEGB would have done from what I understand.

The original point being that it seems that we do not have a comfortable
surplus of spare generating capacity thanks to the lack of will to build
nuclear in the last 20 years and this is what happens...

--
Tim Watts

[The Other Mike]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:22:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Jim Hawkins wrote:
>>
>> I thought gas turbine sets were the preferred standby generators, as being
>> very quick to start up.
>> Or have things changed in the last decade or two ?
>>
>no. They take half an hour to really get going: a diesel genny can be up
>in a couple of minutes.

All the 'CEGB' installed Gas Turbines fitted at coal, oil and nuclear
sites, plus those at standalone sites, were on full load in 2 minutes
from a cold start. Some of the smaller ones took just 90 seconds.
Max size was 35W, min about 14MW.

But despite the name they ran on light fuel oil, not gas :)


--

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

tony sayer schrieb:

> Would that actually happen?. I thought there were quite a few Diesel
> gensets of some capacity all over the UK that could be called upon if
> need be?. Not that you'd need to as they are IIRC quite expensive to
> run...

Forget diesel gensets, unless it is a setup like Lichtblick's
"Zuhausekraftwerk",
http://www.lichtblick.de/h/english_information_395.php
allowing to switch on several thousands with one knob.


At the moment, the fastest solution is, to have wind plants on standby,
in an area with a good breeze. Modern wind turbines can bring on 20% of
their power per second.

Second best is hydro, which might react within 10 seconds.

Next one is the gas turbines.



In real-world operation, the grid runs through small deviations simply
by the inertia of the huge generators in nuclear and coal plants. If you
suck more energy, frequency theoretically follows at once, but the mass
of the generators takes care of that for a few seconds, giving time to
react.
If a grid uses a high percentage of renewables instead, you need a
replacement for this. Modern wind turbines can simulate that by
increasing output by 10% for a period of 10 seconds, even beyond rated
power. This must be done automatically. The plant does it within half a
second, an operator can't react fast enough.



Hans-Joachim

[Clive]

In message <ja646p$h1n$1...@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> writes

>At this point they also start phoning up certain companies who get
>cheap leccy, saying 'your contract states that in return you wont use
>it when we haven't got it: we haven't! '

I used to work for a firm that used gas on an industrial scale and very
cheap price, I can also remember at least three times when because of
the terms of their contract they had to shut down for a day or two until
there was enough supply to start taking again.
--
Clive

[andrew]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Next down the line is a raft of small generation kit - like diesel
> gennies in phone exchanges and hospitals they an call on for a few
> hundred MW in total.

The chap that used to do emergency repairs to my machines took a job with a
firm who managed gensets for a large supermarket chain. He said to keep
them in fettle they were regularly started at peak times to backfeed the
grid but this was over 20 years ago.

AJH

[Tim Lamb]

In message <timstreater-CA91...@news.individual.net>, Tim
Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> writes
>In article <slrnjcdbs2.3i6...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>,

>Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>> At the moment, the fastest solution is, to have wind plants on
>>standby, in an area with a good breeze. Modern wind turbines can
>>bring on 20% of
>> their power per second.
>

>Except apparently right now, when there seems to be little wind anywhere.

The Jetstream is down around Madeira!

regards
>

--
Tim Lamb

[The Natural Philosopher]

Tim Watts wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Jim Hawkins wrote:
>
>>> I thought gas turbine sets were the preferred standby generators, as
>>> being very quick to start up.
>>> Or have things changed in the last decade or two ?
>>>
>> no. They take half an hour to really get going: a diesel genny can be up
>> in a couple of minutes.
>
> Except, if the system load is high, they would be running them sync-locked
> to the grid but at minumum power output - ie hot standby - at least, that's
> what the CEGB would have done from what I understand.
>

No, that's spinning reserve. Hot standby is a plant thats up to temp put
not spinning.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> tony sayer schrieb:
>
>
>> Would that actually happen?. I thought there were quite a few Diesel
>> gensets of some capacity all over the UK that could be called upon if
>> need be?. Not that you'd need to as they are IIRC quite expensive to
>> run...
>
> Forget diesel gensets, unless it is a setup like Lichtblick's
> "Zuhausekraftwerk",
> http://www.lichtblick.de/h/english_information_395.php
> allowing to switch on several thousands with one knob.
>
>
> At the moment, the fastest solution is, to have wind plants on standby,
> in an area with a good breeze.

don't be silly. If there is no breeze they are useless.

wind turbines are the major part of the problem, not a solution.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in
> news:slrnjcdbs2.3i6...@Odysseus.Zierke.com:

>
>> tony sayer schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> Would that actually happen?. I thought there were quite a few Diesel
>>> gensets of some capacity all over the UK that could be called upon if
>>> need be?. Not that you'd need to as they are IIRC quite expensive to
>>> run...
>> Forget diesel gensets, unless it is a setup like Lichtblick's
>> "Zuhausekraftwerk",
>> http://www.lichtblick.de/h/english_information_395.php
>> allowing to switch on several thousands with one knob.
>

> The only reasonable application of a electricity generator in the home
> is to make oneself independent from the power grid if it becomes
> unreliable due to mismanagment, or too expensive due to "green"
> regulation. So far we never needed to expect such a thing, but times
> are changeing.
>
> As a strategy for the national grid it's back to the pre industrial
> age. A large number of small units must be far more expensive to run
> than a single large unit producing the same amount of power. In a world
> where economic efficiency and the general good are the main goals of
> decisionmaking, it would never be done. But we're not in such a world
> any more, mad ideologies have taken over.
>
> "Lichtblick" is an electric company that advertises itself as "green".
> No wonder it's them who'd come up with such a stupid concept.
>
+1

Greens today are a bit like Court astrologers or soothsayers of the 13th
century.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:

> The only reasonable application of a electricity generator in the home
> is to make oneself independent from the power grid if it becomes
> unreliable due to mismanagment, or too expensive due to "green"
> regulation.

The VW 2.0l is far too big for a single family home, and in this
configuration, the device is not capable of feeding electricity to
anything else but the grid.

> As a strategy for the national grid it's back to the pre industrial
> age. A large number of small units must be far more expensive to run
> than a single large unit producing the same amount of power.

You have misunderstood something: These devices are not able to provide
baseload. They switch off after heating up the water reservoir, just like
any other gas burner for house heating does.


Hans-Joachim

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <slrnjcdbs2.3i6...@odysseus.zierke.com>,

Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> writes:
>
> tony sayer schrieb:
>
>
>> Would that actually happen?. I thought there were quite a few Diesel
>> gensets of some capacity all over the UK that could be called upon if
>> need be?. Not that you'd need to as they are IIRC quite expensive to
>> run...
>
> Forget diesel gensets, unless it is a setup like Lichtblick's
> "Zuhausekraftwerk",
> http://www.lichtblick.de/h/english_information_395.php
> allowing to switch on several thousands with one knob.
>
>
> At the moment, the fastest solution is, to have wind plants on standby,
> in an area with a good breeze. Modern wind turbines can bring on 20% of
> their power per second.

Doesn't work in UK.
Wind is so expensive that the only way they can be built is to
guarantee to pay for all their output even when it's not needed,
and their electricity is very expensive anyway. No one will pay
to have them spinning in reserve.

In the UK, we have rather little emergency reserve capacity,
because people are not willing to pay for keeping it ready to go.
In the days of the CEGB, there was plenty, but their remit was
to provide an extremely reliable supply (it was the most reliable
in the world at the time), not fighting costs against profit and
competition. I am expecting that the reliability of our supply
will drop significantly over the next decade, due to lack of
investment and lack of strategy over the last 2 decades, and
the costs of what we have to rise significantly.
We had to be building nuclear or coal plant 20 years ago to keep
the lights on for the next 10 years, and to be able to afford to
do so.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[Tim Watts]

Yes. I remember a mate who worked for the CEGB, and now for Nat Grid saying
that after the sell off, they had more computing power devoted to trading
with the generators than they did for running the grid, inclduing demand
prediction.

Effectively pissing money and time away in keeping an artifical construct
alive instead of doing what they were actually supposed to be doing.

--
Tim Watts

[The Natural Philosopher]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article <slrnjcdbs2.3i6...@odysseus.zierke.com>,
> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> writes:
>> tony sayer schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> Would that actually happen?. I thought there were quite a few Diesel
>>> gensets of some capacity all over the UK that could be called upon if
>>> need be?. Not that you'd need to as they are IIRC quite expensive to
>>> run...
>> Forget diesel gensets, unless it is a setup like Lichtblick's
>> "Zuhausekraftwerk",
>> http://www.lichtblick.de/h/english_information_395.php
>> allowing to switch on several thousands with one knob.
>>
>>
>> At the moment, the fastest solution is, to have wind plants on standby,
>> in an area with a good breeze. Modern wind turbines can bring on 20% of
>> their power per second.
>
> Doesn't work in UK.

Doesnt work in Germany either :-)

> Wind is so expensive that the only way they can be built is to
> guarantee to pay for all their output even when it's not needed,
> and their electricity is very expensive anyway. No one will pay
> to have them spinning in reserve.
>
> In the UK, we have rather little emergency reserve capacity,
> because people are not willing to pay for keeping it ready to go.
> In the days of the CEGB, there was plenty, but their remit was
> to provide an extremely reliable supply (it was the most reliable
> in the world at the time), not fighting costs against profit and
> competition. I am expecting that the reliability of our supply
> will drop significantly over the next decade, due to lack of
> investment and lack of strategy over the last 2 decades, and
> the costs of what we have to rise significantly.
> We had to be building nuclear or coal plant 20 years ago to keep
> the lights on for the next 10 years, and to be able to afford to
> do so.
>

Yup.

[bob]

On Nov 18, 4:18 pm, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <0gddp8-06c....@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts
> <tw+use...@dionic.net> scribeth thus

In normal operation, the grid will have a number of power stations on
base load (generally coal and nuclear) and a number of GT combined
cycle plants on part load, operating flexibly to manage the minute to
minute fluctuation in demand. In addition there will be a number of
plant (both big steam and CCGT) in "spinning reserve", meaning they
are running at idle, synched to the grid but not actually supplying
power. After that there are the "hot standby" plant, basically GTs
that are turned on but not synched, and steam plant with steam in the
boilers, ready to go, but not actually connected to the grid. On top
of that there will be open cycle GT peaker plant of various sizes.
The larger peaker plant (of the 100MW-200MW size) can be started from
cold in about 20 minutes or from warm in about 15. Smaller GTs can
start faster, but obviously have a lower output. Ditto diesel
generators. Then there is also wind and solar that supplies as much
as it can (and its fluctuation is balanced by the CCGTs). There is
also the pumped storage that will only be called in when there is a
large demand spike or loss of generating capacity as it doesn't last
very long, but can start in seconds.

Generally, taking the spare capacity in CCGTs and the spinning
reserve, there is enough generating capacity that can be called on if
the largest power station on the grid trips (Sizewell B), at which
point the hot standby becomes the new spinning reserve and other plant
is brought up to become the new hot standby.

In the day in question, Sizewell B tripped, so the above happened.
Unfortunately 5 minutes later another large station tripped (I believe
another nuclear plant). This left a shortfall that would likely be in
the region of 600 MW. When the power supplied to the grid is less
than that drawn out of it, the spinning bits lose energy, so the
frequency drops. Nominally it's at 50 HZ, but anything between 49.5
and 50.5 Hz is tolerable. When the frequency starts to drop the first
thing that happens is that every plant online will be activated in
something called "frequency response mode", which is basically a posh
way of saying "throw the kitchen sink at it". Basically every station
is ramped up as fast as it can be to as high an output as is possible
(including exceeding normal temperature limits and things like that),
in the hope that this will keep things going until new plant can come
online. No doubt whatever pumped storage was available would also be
thrown into the mix. A slight hiccup occurred as the frequency
dropped to about 47 Hz, namely that all the wind and solar generation
triped because it was "under speed". At this point, action is taken
to allow load shedding to begin (though in the event it didn't
happen). This is where the events of this particular occasion were
turned around (new capacity came online and restored balance). Were
that not to have taken place, then load shedding would begin.
Hopefully that could be done in a suitable controlled manner to match
the demand to the available capacity, so that order could be
restored. Basically sacrifice supply to some parts so that the whole
can be saved.

Robin

[Clive]

In message <ja85n0$7pp$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew Gabriel
<and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> writes

>In the UK, we have rather little emergency reserve capacity,
>because people are not willing to pay for keeping it ready to go.
>In the days of the CEGB, there was plenty, but their remit was
>to provide an extremely reliable supply (it was the most reliable
>in the world at the time), not fighting costs against profit and
>competition. I am expecting that the reliability of our supply
>will drop significantly over the next decade, due to lack of
>investment and lack of strategy over the last 2 decades, and
>the costs of what we have to rise significantly.
>We had to be building nuclear or coal plant 20 years ago to keep
>the lights on for the next 10 years, and to be able to afford to
>do so.

During the miners strike in 83? Maggie had a lot of installed diesel
generator sets to keep the lights on so that she didn't have to bow to
pressure from the miners. I remember at the time it was recommended
that her decision was made out of bloody-mindedness and would cost every
person in the country another 1.5p per day on their electricity bills
for the rest of their lives.
--
Clive

[Clive]

In message
<fe37377e-a4b6-4161...@y12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, bob
<rcp...@gmail.com> writes

>Then there is also wind and solar that supplies as much
>as it can (and its fluctuation is balanced by the CCGTs). There is
>also the pumped storage that will only be called in when there is a
>large demand spike or loss of generating capacity as it doesn't last
>very long, but can start in seconds.

As in the adverts half way through Corrie when everyone puts the kettle
on at once. I believe the CEGB used to be counted down by ITV for the
last 60s seconds before the adverts to be precise with their timing
though what happens now, I've no idea.
--
Clive

[Clive]

In message <9ipqbo...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes

>On 2011-11-19, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> During the miners strike in 83? Maggie had a lot of installed diesel
>> generator sets to keep the lights on so that she didn't have to bow to
>> pressure from the miners. I remember at the time it was recommended
>> that her decision was made out of bloody-mindedness and would cost every
>> person in the country another 1.5p per day on their electricity bills
>> for the rest of their lives.

>All sounds most unlikely.
You either don't remember Maggie, or you are a Tory.
--
Clive

[Roland Perry]

In message <TDiSHtBO...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>, at 13:51:10 on Sat,
19 Nov 2011, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>There is
>>also the pumped storage that will only be called in when there is a
>>large demand spike or loss of generating capacity as it doesn't last
>>very long, but can start in seconds.

>As in the adverts half way through Corrie when everyone puts the kettle
>on at once. I believe the CEGB used to be counted down by ITV for the
>last 60s seconds before the adverts to be precise with their timing
>though what happens now, I've no idea.

I presume the CEGB can afford a TV set these days and watch it for
themselves.

ps. The warning for advert breaks is a little chequerboard in the top
RHS of the frame.
--
Roland Perry

[John Williamson]

Does any one station get enough viewers now? Back in the days of three
or (gasp) four TV channels, there were many millions watching Corrie or
Morecambe and Wise. Also, are the ad breaks on all the channels
synchronised enough now to generate a peak in usage?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Roland Perry]

In message <9ipscl...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:22:23 on Sat, 19 Nov
2011, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> remarked:

>> ps. The warning for advert breaks is a little chequerboard in the
>>top RHS of the frame.
>
>Does any one station get enough viewers now? Back in the days of three
>or (gasp) four TV channels, there were many millions watching Corrie or
>Morecambe and Wise.

Coronation St gets between six and eleven million viewers, which is much
the same as the 70's. They got more in the late 80's and early 90's
(between twelve and twenty million).

>Also, are the ad breaks on all the channels synchronised enough now to
>generate a peak in usage?

I doubt they are synchronised at all, either accidentally or
deliberately. Other than most channels (including the BBC) transmitting
dross between approximately xx.58.00 and xx.59.59.
--
Roland Perry

[Graeme Wall]

The CEGB would have used the cue dots that ITV used to cue the different
advert breaks round the network, it wasn't a special service just for
them. Used to be a black and white pattern in the top left corner of
the screen that was normally outside the viewing area on a domestic TV.
These days the principle is the same but the cue is not on the visible
picture but buried in one of the associated data tracks.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[Graeme Wall]

The main soaps still generate enough of a peak for the generators.
There is no deliberate synchronisation of adverts over different channels.

[Graeme Wall]

On 19/11/2011 13:47, Huge wrote:
> On 2011-11-19, Clive<cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> During the miners strike in 83? Maggie had a lot of installed diesel
>> generator sets to keep the lights on so that she didn't have to bow to
>> pressure from the miners. I remember at the time it was recommended
>> that her decision was made out of bloody-mindedness and would cost every
>> person in the country another 1.5p per day on their electricity bills
>> for the rest of their lives.
>

> All sounds most unlikely.
>

Especially as the main plan was to build up massive reserves of coal at
the power stations before encouraging Scargill to commit Sepuku on the
behalf off the unions.

[Graeme Wall]

On 19/11/2011 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> I doubt they are synchronised at all, either accidentally or
> deliberately. Other than most channels (including the BBC) transmitting
> dross between approximately xx.58.00 and xx.59.59.

These days it is dross between xx.00.00 and xx.59.59.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Andrew Gabriel schrieb:

> Doesn't work in UK.
> Wind is so expensive that the only way they can be built is to
> guarantee to pay for all their output even when it's not needed,
> and their electricity is very expensive anyway. No one will pay
> to have them spinning in reserve.

Same in Germany, at this moment.

But prices come down more and more. In the beginning, we paid 3 times as
much for wind energy as with current installations. Likewise, the
percentage provided by wind energy grows and grows, which means, that
wind energy must contribute its share to network stabilization in future.
Requirements for network friendlyness and network services were already
tightened.

> In the UK, we have rather little emergency reserve capacity,

This used to be generous in Germany, but of course, we can't switch off
7 nukes and still have a generous reserve.

If we want to have all that renewable energy, two things are important:

1) We must punish (by the price) a major difference in efficiency for
fully loaded versus partly loaded solar panels. Now that the solar
panels are able to flatten the noon peak, the interesting question is
not the maximum output, but the minimum output with an overcast sky.
Some modules provide a much lower efficiency when partly loaded, and
we have to price those out of the market, by giving them less subsidy.

2) The wind plants must get higher, out of the ground effects. This is
less important on a windy day, but on a day like yesterday, tips at
200m would have given us ... no perfect supply, far from that, but at
least, several GW more.


Hans-Joachim

[Alistair Gunn]

In uk.railway Graeme Wall twisted the electrons to say:

> Especially as the main plan was to build up massive reserves of coal at
> the power stations before encouraging Scargill to commit Sepuku on the
> behalf off the unions.

<nods> Though according to the encyclopedia of a thousand lies, the oil
fired power station at Inverkip got to run at full power instead of being
~2/3rds mothalled.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Alistair Gunn]

In uk.railway Clive twisted the electrons to say:

> As in the adverts half way through Corrie when everyone puts the kettle
> on at once. I believe the CEGB used to be counted down by ITV for the
> last 60s seconds before the adverts to be precise with their timing
> though what happens now, I've no idea.

According to this video I found on YouTube some time ago, not only do
they have information forom the TV networks as to when things like
Eastenders and Corrie are meant to finish they also take the logical step
of having a TV running in the control room so they know when it actually
finishes!

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTM2Ck6XWHg>

[The Real Doctor]

On 19/11/11 14:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> ps. The warning for advert breaks is a little chequerboard in the top
> RHS of the frame.

Which is not their for viewers, but to allow local ITV stations to get
their adverts cued up and ready to go.

Ian

[Graeme Wall]

On 19/11/2011 15:08, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In uk.railway Graeme Wall twisted the electrons to say:
>> Especially as the main plan was to build up massive reserves of coal at
>> the power stations before encouraging Scargill to commit Sepuku on the
>> behalf off the unions.
>
> <nods> Though according to the encyclopedia of a thousand lies, the oil
> fired power station at Inverkip got to run at full power instead of being
> ~2/3rds mothalled.

Oil, of course, was not subject to picketing and using it extended the
availability of the stock-piled coal.

[Graeme Wall]

On 19/11/2011 15:10, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In uk.railway Clive twisted the electrons to say:
>> As in the adverts half way through Corrie when everyone puts the kettle
>> on at once. I believe the CEGB used to be counted down by ITV for the
>> last 60s seconds before the adverts to be precise with their timing
>> though what happens now, I've no idea.
>
> According to this video I found on YouTube some time ago, not only do
> they have information forom the TV networks as to when things like
> Eastenders and Corrie are meant to finish they also take the logical step
> of having a TV running in the control room so they know when it actually
> finishes!
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTM2Ck6XWHg>

They need the TV to see the cue-dots.

[charles]

In article <9ipscl...@mid.individual.net>,

John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry wrote:
> > In message <TDiSHtBO...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>, at 13:51:10 on Sat,
> > 19 Nov 2011, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> remarked:
> >>> There is
> >>> also the pumped storage that will only be called in when there is a
> >>> large demand spike or loss of generating capacity as it doesn't last
> >>> very long, but can start in seconds.
> >
> >> As in the adverts half way through Corrie when everyone puts the
> >> kettle on at once. I believe the CEGB used to be counted down by ITV
> >> for the last 60s seconds before the adverts to be precise with their
> >> timing though what happens now, I've no idea.
> >
> > I presume the CEGB can afford a TV set these days and watch it for
> > themselves.
> >
> > ps. The warning for advert breaks is a little chequerboard in the top
> > RHS of the frame.

> Does any one station get enough viewers now? Back in the days of three
> or (gasp) four TV channels, there were many millions watching Corrie or
> Morecambe and Wise.

Miss World was another 'loader'. The Duty Engineer at TvC had a phone on
the LEB's PABX to keep them up-to-date.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

[Roland Perry]

In message <ja8hj9$9g1$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:14 on Sat, 19 Nov
2011, The Real Doctor <ian.g...@btinternet.com> remarked:

>> ps. The warning for advert breaks is a little chequerboard in the top
>> RHS of the frame.
>
>Which is not their for viewers, but to allow local ITV stations to get
>their adverts cued up and ready to go.

I was suggesting it could be used by the CEGB. Unless they count as one
of your "viewers".
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <TbPxq.27437$8A3....@newsfe15.ams2>, at 14:38:43 on Sat, 19
Nov 2011, Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>These days the principle is the same but the cue is not on the visible
>picture but buried in one of the associated data tracks.

It's still visible - I used it while skipping the adverts on a recording
of "I'm a Celebrity GMOOH" yesterday evening!
--
Roland Perry

[Another Dave]

On 19/11/2011 14:56, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> Andrew Gabriel schrieb:

>
> 2) The wind plants must get higher, out of the ground effects. This is
> less important on a windy day, but on a day like yesterday, tips at
> 200m would have given us ... no perfect supply, far from that, but at
> least, several GW more.
>

Germany must be an awfully ugly country for you not to mind covering it
with 200m high industrial plant. I've not been there recently.

Another Dave

[John Williamson]

Typical scene there. On the motorway from Aachen to Cologne, there are
couple of dozen wind turbines on the ridge on the South side of the
road, being driven by a *large* coal fired station on the North side.

The first service area you reach on that road coming into Germany has a
wind turbine on site that, for some reason, no longer has a display
showing the statistics for it. Although, whenever I checked the display
when it was there, it always showed a minimal or zero output. Which was
backed up by a total lack of stuff spinning round up above. The service
area building does, however, have a turf roof for Winter insulation and
Summer cooling.

Or you can go to the Black Forest, and admire the lines of wind turbines
along many of the ridges there.

[The Natural Philosopher]

1/. It is awfully ugly. "A country ruined by subsidy"
2/. Nor has anyone else. See above.

> Another Dave
>
>

[Graeme Wall]

A long time since I've watched anything on ITV[1], I know they have a
data cue because a lot of the regional opt outs for advertising breaks
are now done automatically. I'm a mite surprised they still have a
visible cue. Perhaps they keep it for the CEGB :-)

[1] Most of my TV watching is done via the computer these days

[Another Dave]

On 19/11/2011 16:19, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>
> http://www.ruhl-online.de/05-Gegenwind/Holstein_1820.jpg
>

God help you!

No amount of nuclear power can be worse than that.

Another Dave

[Roger Traviss]

>> > Germany must be an awfully ugly country for you not to mind covering
>> > it with 200m high industrial plant. I've not been there recently.
>>

>> http://www.ruhl-online.de/05-Gegenwind/Holstein_1820.jpg
>
> Ugly *now*, Manuel.

Yes, very ugly. :-(


--
Cheers
Roger Traviss


Photos of the late HO scale GER: -

http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/

[The Real Doctor]

Sorry. No contradiction intended.

Ian

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:


> http://www.ruhl-online.de/05-Gegenwind/Holstein_1820.jpg

Good example.

1/3 the number, but 7.5 MW plants would give the same installed power,
but a lot better harvest, especially on days with low wind speed like
yesterday.


Hans-Joachim

[The Natural Philosopher]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Another Dave <dmar...@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:ja8j77$ju9$1...@dont-email.me:

> http://www.ruhl-online.de/05-Gegenwind/Holstein_1820.jpg
>
A monument to government stupidity, green naivete and Siemens corporate
greed..

[The Natural Philosopher]

+100

[Tim Lamb]

In message <9ipscl...@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes

>Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <TDiSHtBO...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>, at 13:51:10 on
>>Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> There is
>>>> also the pumped storage that will only be called in when there is a
>>>> large demand spike or loss of generating capacity as it doesn't last
>>>> very long, but can start in seconds.
>>
>>> As in the adverts half way through Corrie when everyone puts the
>>>kettle on at once. I believe the CEGB used to be counted down by
>>>ITV for the last 60s seconds before the adverts to be precise with
>>>their timing though what happens now, I've no idea.
>> I presume the CEGB can afford a TV set these days and watch it for
>>themselves.

>> ps. The warning for advert breaks is a little chequerboard in the
>>top RHS of the frame.
>

>Does any one station get enough viewers now? Back in the days of three
>or (gasp) four TV channels, there were many millions watching Corrie or

>Morecambe and Wise. Also, are the ad breaks on all the channels
>synchronised enough now to generate a peak in usage?

Huh! They were this afternoon when I was channel hopping trying to avoid
them:-(

regards
>

--
Tim Lamb

[Bruce]

and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
>Doesn't work in UK.
>Wind is so expensive that the only way they can be built is to
>guarantee to pay for all their output even when it's not needed,
>and their electricity is very expensive anyway. No one will pay
>to have them spinning in reserve.

It's about as bonkers as bonkers gets. All because the Blair
government wanted to be seen as leaders in Europe, completely
regardless of cost.

>In the UK, we have rather little emergency reserve capacity,

>because people are not willing to pay for keeping it ready to go.
>In the days of the CEGB, there was plenty, but their remit was
>to provide an extremely reliable supply (it was the most reliable
>in the world at the time), not fighting costs against profit and
>competition. I am expecting that the reliability of our supply
>will drop significantly over the next decade, due to lack of
>investment and lack of strategy over the last 2 decades, and
>the costs of what we have to rise significantly.


The CEGB also did a pretty good job of keeping prices low.

[Lüko Willms]

Am 19.11.2011 21:50, schrieb Wolfgang Schwanke:

> Today I received a letter from my power company, kindly informing me
> that from 1. January 2012 they will charge me 8.75 percent more, or
> 23.36 Ct/kWh instead of currently 21.48 Ct/kWh. The explicit reason
> stated in the letter is the German government's policy of nuclear
> shutdown and wind/solar expansion both causing costs to rise.

Do you believe any excuse a greedy monopoly company gives you to
raise their prices?


L.W.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature> wrote
> in news:hehlp8-...@wschwanke.de:
>
>> Another Dave <dmar...@nospam.com> wrote
>> in news:ja8oeh$i7k$1...@dont-email.me:

>> Outside the right edge of the photo, only a few km upstream the river
>> Elbe estuary, there are three large nuclear power stations, two of
>> which have already been shut down.
>
> Correction: four large nuclear power stations, three of which have
> already been shut down. They are Brunsbüttel, Brokdorf, Stade and
> Krümmel, all on the river Elbe bank shortly upstream or downstream of
> Hamburg. Out of those four only Brokdorf is still operational. The
> other three could be operational if it weren't for the government
> decision. And now the bills are coming in.
>
You should see how much the operators are suing the government for in
terms of breach of contract after it initially granted them license to
operate beyond 2020.

You should also be very afraid since the UK has recently become a net
exporter of electricity, which means that prices must be high enough on
the continental mainland to warrant the highly punitively taxed coal
power stations in the UK running flat out to feed the continent.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

There is today, a complete lull over the WHOLE of Europe..barely a
breath of wind is stirring, and there is sod all windpower anywhere.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/surface_pressure.html

Not at ground level and not at 200 meters either.

And only the fact its not THAT cold (about zero over most of it) and its
a weekend is allowing the power demand to be met.

Our Lords and Masters sleep walked their way into a war with Iraq, a
global financial crisis, and now they are doing it with the energy we
need to stay alive.

Frankly there is a real solid legal case for taking Christopher Huhne to
court for criminal negligence.

[The Natural Philosopher]

What monopoly?


>
> L.W.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

The Natural Philosopher schrieb:

> You should see how much the operators are suing the government for in
> terms of breach of contract after it initially granted them license to
> operate beyond 2020.

Won't help them, because that could easily be recovered by an uranium
tax. As well, the RWE position has already caused a shareholder revolt.
Großmann has been told to go, which he will do on July 1st. The image
of a nuclear energy company could easily ruin RWE.

> There is today, a complete lull over the WHOLE of Europe..barely a
> breath of wind is stirring, and there is sod all windpower anywhere.

My weathermap shows heavy rainfall at the French Med, and I would be
surprised, if this goes along with no wind. But for Germany, you are
correct.

Germany: 744.8 MW at 6:00, 723.5 MW at 9:00. 12:00 not yet available
(without paying for access). But the 12:00 figures will be bad.

Luckily, solar energy contributed 787,6 MW at 9:00, and 3139.1 MW at
11:45 (these figures extend a little further already). >3GW isn't bad
for mid november.

> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/surface_pressure.html
>
> Not at ground level and not at 200 meters either.

With all plants at 200m, it wouldn't be 730MW for Germany, but a few GW
at least. Still bad, but having some GW or not isn't a trivial issue.



Hans-Joachim

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher schrieb:
>
>
>> You should see how much the operators are suing the government for in
>> terms of breach of contract after it initially granted them license to
>> operate beyond 2020.
>
> Won't help them, because that could easily be recovered by an uranium
> tax. As well, the RWE position has already caused a shareholder revolt.
> Großmann has been told to go, which he will do on July 1st. The image
> of a nuclear energy company could easily ruin RWE.
>

They are suing over that as well, since its introduction was conditional
on them continuing to operate.

>
>
>> There is today, a complete lull over the WHOLE of Europe..barely a
>> breath of wind is stirring, and there is sod all windpower anywhere.
>
> My weathermap shows heavy rainfall at the French Med, and I would be
> surprised, if this goes along with no wind. But for Germany, you are
> correct.

Thers a little wind here, and in the Med.

>
> Germany: 744.8 MW at 6:00, 723.5 MW at 9:00. 12:00 not yet available
> (without paying for access). But the 12:00 figures will be bad.
>

Wher do you find those?

> Luckily, solar energy contributed 787,6 MW at 9:00, and 3139.1 MW at
> 11:45 (these figures extend a little further already). >3GW isn't bad
> for mid november.
>
>

Are you sure thats not KW?

>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/surface_pressure.html
>>
>> Not at ground level and not at 200 meters either.
>
> With all plants at 200m, it wouldn't be 730MW for Germany, but a few GW
> at least. Still bad, but having some GW or not isn't a trivial issue.
>
>

I doubt it .
The windmills are already at 130m.

My experience with model aircraft shows that the winds are not a great
deal different once you get above 100 feet or so.


>
> Hans-Joachim

[The Natural Philosopher]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:

>
>> Luckily, solar energy contributed 787,6 MW at 9:00, and 3139.1 MW at
>> 11:45 (these figures extend a little further already). >3GW isn't bad
>> for mid november.
>>
>>
> Are you sure thats not KW?
>

average insolatin in Hamburg in November is 18w./sq meter. Doule that
because its daytime, double that because its the middle of the day, and
at best that's 72W/sq meter.

3billion divided by 72 means that germany has 41 square kilometers of
solar panels? pull the other one.

And what happens when the sun sets.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

The Natural Philosopher schrieb:

> They are suing over that as well, since its introduction was conditional
> on them continuing to operate.

They can do a lot, but the important thing isn't to sue, but to win. Plus
they have to fear that 80% majority and a possible boycott / move to
other companies.

>>> There is today, a complete lull over the WHOLE of Europe..

> Thers a little wind here, and in the Med.

Sounds more realistic.

>> Germany: 744.8 MW at 6:00, 723.5 MW at 9:00. 12:00 not yet available
>> (without paying for access). But the 12:00 figures will be bad.
>
> Wher do you find those?

http://transparency.eex.com

>> Luckily, solar energy contributed 787,6 MW at 9:00, and 3139.1 MW at
>> 11:45 (these figures extend a little further already). >3GW isn't bad
>> for mid november.
>>
> Are you sure thats not KW?

Try to act a little less childish.

3 GW is quite low a number, would be at least 10GW on a summer day, and
5 GW on a really sunny November day. Peak at 3239.2 MW, 12:15.

We urgently must enforce less of a drop in efficiency at low power. If
the panels would be of better quality overall, it would be >4GW. With
the current level of installation, flattening the noon peak is of no
concern any longer, they do that anyway. The decisive question now is,
how much they contribute with less sunlight available.

> I doubt it .
> The windmills are already at 130m.

And get a harvest of 20 - 25% at that height. At 200m, it's ~30%. (Of
course, still depending on location.) The lower the windspeed, the more
important it is to get out of the ground effects.

If you don't like it, please write to Mr. Bernoulli at the complaints
department.

> My experience with model aircraft shows that the winds are not a great
> deal different once you get above 100 feet or so.

Good example. Very good example. That's your /estimation/.

The government in Bavaria did similar estimations, telling us that there
are no good wind locations around. Then they paid for measurements
instead of estimations, and did simulations on the basis of measurements.

On pages 18, 19, 20 of
http://www.verwaltung.bayern.de/egov-portlets/xview/Anlage/4015428/BayerischerWindatlas.pdf
you can see the results for 10m, 80m, 140m.



Hans-Joachim

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:

> 3 GW is quite low a number, would be at least 10GW on a summer day, and
> 5 GW on a really sunny November day. Peak at 3239.2 MW, 12:15.
>
> We urgently must enforce less of a drop in efficiency at low power.

I do LOVE the german mind.

Ze wind does not blow,zee zun does not shine, we vill pass a law making
this not ze case!


Grow up. They don't produce because there is no solar energy to use

You cant generate more than is falling on them.

Solar is more of a bust than wind power. when you want it - when its
dark and cold, there is sod all about.

I don't mind watching Germany ruin its industry and its nation, but I
resent having to pay for it.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

The Natural Philosopher schrieb:

> I do LOVE the german mind.
>
> Ze wind does not blow,zee zun does not shine, we vill pass a law making
> this not ze case!

The funniest thing of all: It works! Ze Germans make a law, zat ze zun
has to shine in November, and one week ago, output of solar energy was
6863.1 MW at 12:30. Zats what we get on a sunny November day, and zus,
it isn't too surprising, zat we gain 3 GW on a partly overcast day like
zis one.
If you had ever made photographs in zose days, when a handheld device
was used for measuring ze light, you might have gained some basic
understanding of zis.

> Grow up. They don't produce because there is no solar energy to use

Germans, or at least some Germans, believe into measurements instead of
vague feelings. And zus, zey might measure both the sunlight and the
output of the solar panels, and find out: Wow, the output drops faster
than the incoming light!

(Some Britons might share the capability to do so, but you probably
aren't one of them.)

And with some more measurements, zose Germans might understand, that the
difference between drop in input and drop in output depends on the way
the panels are made.

> I don't mind watching Germany ruin its industry and its nation, but I
> resent having to pay for it.

And after it has become a success, with the technology sold to the world,
you are going to complain, zat ze Germans are exporting too much.



Hans-Joachim

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher schrieb:
>
>
>> I do LOVE the german mind.
>>
>> Ze wind does not blow,zee zun does not shine, we vill pass a law making
>> this not ze case!
>
>
> The funniest thing of all: It works! Ze Germans make a law, zat ze zun
> has to shine in November, and one week ago, output of solar energy was
> 6863.1 MW at 12:30. Zats what we get on a sunny November day, and zus,
> it isn't too surprising, zat we gain 3 GW on a partly overcast day like
> zis one.
> If you had ever made photographs in zose days, when a handheld device
> was used for measuring ze light, you might have gained some basic
> understanding of zis.
>
>
>> Grow up. They don't produce because there is no solar energy to use
>
> Germans, or at least some Germans, believe into measurements instead of
> vague feelings. And zus, zey might measure both the sunlight and the
> output of the solar panels, and find out: Wow, the output drops faster
> than the incoming light!
>

Whereas British engineers measure the ouput in full sunlight, calculate
the cost of storage, backup and loss of land area, and decide they don't
want anyhing to do with it,.

I see that after the billions spent, its less than 2% of annual output.
About one nuclear power station or less

[harry]

On Nov 19, 2:09 pm, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <9ipqboFl5...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
> <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes>On 2011-11-19, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> During the miners strike in 83? Maggie had a lot of installed diesel
> >> generator sets to keep the lights on so that she didn't have to bow to
> >> pressure from the miners.   I remember at the time it was recommended
> >> that her decision was made out of bloody-mindedness and would cost every
> >> person in the country another 1.5p per day on their electricity bills
> >> for the rest of their lives.
> >All sounds most unlikely.
>
> You either don't remember Maggie, or you are a Tory.

Link?
Sounds like fiction.
Diesel sets are tiny compared with turbines.

[harry]

On Nov 19, 2:43 pm, Graeme Wall <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 19/11/2011 13:47, Huge wrote:
>
> > On 2011-11-19, Clive<cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>  wrote:
>
> >> During the miners strike in 83? Maggie had a lot of installed diesel
> >> generator sets to keep the lights on so that she didn't have to bow to
> >> pressure from the miners.   I remember at the time it was recommended
> >> that her decision was made out of bloody-mindedness and would cost every
> >> person in the country another 1.5p per day on their electricity bills
> >> for the rest of their lives.
>
> > All sounds most unlikely.
>

> Especially as the main plan was to build up massive reserves of coal at
> the power stations before encouraging Scargill to commit Sepuku on the
> behalf off the unions.
>
> --
> Graeme Wall
> This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
> Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Heh Heh. I remember that. They removed coal from the non visible part
of the piles to promote despair among the strikers.

[harry]

On Nov 19, 3:36 pm, Graeme Wall <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/11/2011 15:08, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>
> > In uk.railway Graeme Wall twisted the electrons to say:

> >> Especially as the main plan was to build up massive reserves of coal at
> >> the power stations before encouraging Scargill to commit Sepuku on the
> >> behalf off the unions.
>

> > <nods>   Though according to the encyclopedia of a thousand lies, the oil
> > fired power station at Inverkip got to run at full power instead of being
> > ~2/3rds mothalled.
>
> Oil, of course, was not subject to picketing and using it extended the
> availability of the stock-piled coal.

>
> --
> Graeme Wall
> This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
> Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

The thing about coal is that you can pile up coal anywhere. Oil you
can't.
I was running coal fired boilers at a hospital. We filled the
hospital car park with coal pre the strike.
Our local power station did a similar thing. They started building up
stocks a year in advance as I remember it.
It was all well planned. The stupid bastards had no chance.

[harry]

On Nov 19, 4:19 pm, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature> wrote:
> Another Dave <dmars...@nospam.com> wrote innews:ja8j77$ju9$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> > On 19/11/2011 14:56, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> >> Andrew Gabriel schrieb:
>
> >> 2) The wind plants must get higher, out of the ground effects. This
> >> is
> >>     less important on a windy day, but on a day like yesterday, tips
> >>     at 200m would have given us ... no perfect supply, far from that,
> >>     but at least, several GW more.
>
> > Germany must be an awfully ugly country for you not to mind covering
> > it with 200m high industrial plant. I've not been there recently.
>
> http://www.ruhl-online.de/05-Gegenwind/Holstein_1820.jpg

Strewth!!!!
Is that lot privately/individually owned?
They all seem to be random sizes and placing.

[harry]

The taxpayer was subsidising them. And colal was much cheaper then.
It was subsidised too.

[harryagain]

"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjcierm.2jg...@Odysseus.Zierke.com...

Hans.
Es tut mir leid. TNP ist unsere dumkopf.

[harryagain]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" <s...@sig.nature> wrote in message
news:hehlp8-...@wschwanke.de...

> Another Dave <dmar...@nospam.com> wrote
> in news:ja8oeh$i7k$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 19/11/2011 16:19, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.ruhl-online.de/05-Gegenwind/Holstein_1820.jpg
>>>
>>
>> God help you!
>>
>> No amount of nuclear power can be worse than that.
>
> Outside the right edge of the photo, only a few km upstream the river
> Elbe estuary, there are three large nuclear power stations, two of
> which have already been shut down.
>

> Today I received a letter from my power company, kindly informing me
> that from 1. January 2012 they will charge me 8.75 percent more, or
> 23.36 Ct/kWh instead of currently 21.48 Ct/kWh. The explicit reason
> stated in the letter is the German government's policy of nuclear
> shutdown and wind/solar expansion both causing costs to rise.
>

> Hidden in the price is also a "green tax" and a number of previous
> price increases over the last couple of years, all of which were
> justified by subsidies of green technologies. VAT is charged on all
> these additional costs as well. Overall more than half of the end
> consumer price in this country is now due to green policies, and
> totally unnecessary.
>
> --

The decision to shut the nuclear down was political. (Post Fukushima).
I have no heating bills and make a profit from the power company.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chloroptera/sets/72157627608971673/

[harry]

On Nov 19, 8:50 pm, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature> wrote:
> Another Dave <dmars...@nospam.com> wrote

> innews:ja8oeh$i7k$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> > On 19/11/2011 16:19, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>
> >>http://www.ruhl-online.de/05-Gegenwind/Holstein_1820.jpg
>
> > God help you!
>
> > No amount of nuclear power can be worse than that.
>
> Outside the right edge of the photo, only a few km upstream the river
> Elbe estuary, there are three large nuclear power stations, two of
> which have already been shut down.
>
> Today I received a letter from my power company, kindly informing me
> that from 1. January 2012 they will charge me 8.75 percent more, or
> 23.36 Ct/kWh instead of currently 21.48 Ct/kWh. The explicit reason
> stated in the letter is the German government's policy of nuclear
> shutdown and wind/solar expansion both causing costs to rise.
>
> Hidden in the price is also a "green tax" and a number of previous
> price increases over the last couple of years, all of which were
> justified by subsidies of green technologies. VAT is charged on all
> these additional costs as well. Overall more than half of the end
> consumer price in this country is now due to green policies, and
> totally unnecessary.
>

[Alistair Gunn]

In uk.railway harry twisted the electrons to say:

> It was all well planned. The stupid bastards had no chance.

The miners where, I believe, encouraged to build up those stockpiles
through a bonus scheme for producitivity?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Andy Champ]

On 20/11/2011 15:10, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> On pages 18, 19, 20 of
> http://www.verwaltung.bayern.de/egov-portlets/xview/Anlage/4015428/BayerischerWindatlas.pdf
> you can see the results for 10m, 80m, 140m.

That's surprising to me... but TBH I haven't read much of it. My German
is like that of most British. Mostly missing. I have perhaps 100
words, they aren't the right ones...

The graph on P8 shows the change in windspeed with altitude above
various types of ground. The first three are towns and wooded areas,
unlikely for windfarms. The third seems to me to show 80% windspeed at
about 30 metres. And 90% at 140m. Why do you think that going to 200m
instead of 140 would make much difference?

(I suspect the graphs on P14 are suggesting that it's interpolated from
measurements at 10, 80 and 140m.)

On another matter, I recall someone suggesting that the turbines are
good for soaking up spikes in demand - you can overrun them, let them
slow below ideal speed, and used the stored inertia to generate a spike
in output.

Not if they aren't spinning at all, because there's no wind.

Andy

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

harry schrieb:

> Strewth!!!!
> Is that lot privately/individually owned?
> They all seem to be random sizes and placing.

A regional planning authority will set up so-called "Vorranggebiete"
(priority areas). The wind plants are supposed to go into these
"Vorranggebiete", not elsewhere.

As a practical example, the government of Nordrhein-Westfalen tries to
push the wind plants to the motorways and railroad tracks, if possible
and compatible with enough wind expectation.


Within such a priority zone, landowners and builders are free to
negotiate, although within a wealth of regulations: Not more than
40 db(A) at any wall of a house occupied by humans, shadow on occupied
houses not more than 30 days per year and 30 minutes per day, and on and
on ...


Most of the wind plants are small business owned and built on farmland.
The farmer will rent them a major part of a field for building, for
several months, and after that, cashes in a yearly rent for the small
spot the plant needs. That rent is typically much higher than
agricultural rent.


BTW: Here is a video about building such a plant. Funny language, which
nobody understands, but most of it might be self-explanatory:
http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/mediathek.php?obj=16222&mode=play


Hans-Joachim

[Bruce]

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>In article
><74b04d05-4487-4778...@p1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

>That didn't make the coal cheaper. It just meant the taxpayers paid more
>for that also.


After the demise of the nationalised British Coal, all the cheap deals
for imported coal quickly evaporated and the average price paid for
coal delivered to the power station reverted in a matter of months to
something strangely close what British Coal had been charging.

A cynic might conclude that the low prices offered on the import
market in the dying years of British Coal were short term measures,
primarily intended to hasten the demise of that nationalised company.

[geoff]

In message <2h1lp8-...@wschwanke.de>, Wolfgang Schwanke
<s...@sig.nature> writes

>Another Dave <dmar...@nospam.com> wrote in

>news:ja8j77$ju9$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 19/11/2011 14:56, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>>> Andrew Gabriel schrieb:
>>>
>>> 2) The wind plants must get higher, out of the ground effects. This
>>> is
>>> less important on a windy day, but on a day like yesterday, tips
>>> at 200m would have given us ... no perfect supply, far from that,
>>> but at least, several GW more.
>>>
>>
>> Germany must be an awfully ugly country for you not to mind covering
>> it with 200m high industrial plant. I've not been there recently.
>
>http://www.ruhl-online.de/05-Gegenwind/Holstein_1820.jpg
>

All ready to march on poland



--
geoff

[geoff]

In message <hehlp8-...@wschwanke.de>, Wolfgang Schwanke

<s...@sig.nature> writes
>Another Dave <dmar...@nospam.com> wrote

>in news:ja8oeh$i7k$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>> On 19/11/2011 16:19, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.ruhl-online.de/05-Gegenwind/Holstein_1820.jpg
>>>
>>
>> God help you!
>>
>> No amount of nuclear power can be worse than that.
>
>Outside the right edge of the photo, only a few km upstream the river
>Elbe estuary, there are three large nuclear power stations, two of
>which have already been shut down.
>
>Today I received a letter from my power company, kindly informing me
>that from 1. January 2012 they will charge me 8.75 percent more, or
>23.36 Ct/kWh instead of currently 21.48 Ct/kWh. The explicit reason
>stated in the letter is the German government's policy of nuclear
>shutdown and wind/solar expansion both causing costs to rise.
>

Aah, but just you wait until they finally resolve the Greek Euro crisis
and there is no more hot air around

--
geoff

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Andy Champ schrieb:

> The graph on P8 shows the change in windspeed with altitude above
> various types of ground. The first three are towns and wooded areas,
> unlikely for windfarms. The third seems to me to show 80% windspeed at
> about 30 metres. And 90% at 140m. Why do you think that going to 200m
> instead of 140 would make much difference?

If you look at an Enercon E-126,
http://img.fotocommunity.com/Energiemaschinen/Windraeder/Winter-in-Aurich-Enercon-E-126-a19836302.jpg
the hub height is 135m, and the rotor has a diameter of 127m. This brings
it up to 198.5m. If you now look at it, don't you think, that a decisive
area might be a little lower than 200m? ;-)

In addition, few areas in Germany are just flat farmland without
interruption by little forests or treelines. The typical sight is more
like this:
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/24581364

In eastern Germany, there are some areas with former GDR LPGs, which
are really flat and uninterrupted (and might cause dust storms /
considerable loss of soil by wind), but you won't find a lot of that in
western Germany.

> On another matter, I recall someone suggesting that the turbines are
> good for soaking up spikes in demand - you can overrun them, let them
> slow below ideal speed, and used the stored inertia to generate a spike
> in output.
>
> Not if they aren't spinning at all, because there's no wind.

That's true, but at least, the new ones can provide STATCOM service even
when standing still. It does not make sense, to build separate STATCOMS,
if you have variable-speed wind turbines - they need to have the power
electronics anyway, so dual use of the stuff is best.


Hans-Joachim

[geoff]

In message <slrnjci62i.2jg...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>,
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> writes

>
>
>We urgently must enforce less of a drop in efficiency at low power. If
>the panels would be of better quality overall, it would be >4GW. With
>the current level of installation, flattening the noon peak is of no
>concern any longer, they do that anyway. The decisive question now is,
>how much they contribute with less sunlight available.

Let me guess ...

fuck all through the cold hours of winter darkness

>
>
>
>> I doubt it .
>> The windmills are already at 130m.
>
>And get a harvest of 20 - 25% at that height. At 200m, it's ~30%. (Of
>course, still depending on location.) The lower the windspeed, the more
>important it is to get out of the ground effects.
>
>If you don't like it, please write to Mr. Bernoulli at the complaints
>department.
>
>
>
>> My experience with model aircraft shows that the winds are not a great
>> deal different once you get above 100 feet or so.
>
>Good example. Very good example. That's your /estimation/.
>
>The government in Bavaria did similar estimations, telling us that there
>are no good wind locations around. Then they paid for measurements
>instead of estimations, and did simulations on the basis of measurements.
>
>On pages 18, 19, 20 of
>http://www.verwaltung.bayern.de/egov-portlets/xview/Anlage/4015428/Bayer
>ischerWindatlas.pdf
>you can see the results for 10m, 80m, 140m.
>

Bavaria is a landlocked country, all the wind is in Prussia to the north


--
geoff

[geoff]

In message <slrnjcierm.2jg...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>,
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> writes
>

Did you develop a nervous tick together with that speech defect


--
geoff

[Clive]

In message
<c60407ac-0f5b-4918...@p2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
harry <harol...@aol.com> writes

I don't have a link, I have a memory. I also remember the standoff at
the Orgreave coke works, where it was reported that the miners attacked,
the police who then batten charged and injured many miners, Only for
the truth to come out many years later that the protest was peaceful and
the police and TV crews got fed up with nothing happening so the police
charged at the miners who reacted by throwing stones at the police.
All it needed was for the government to insist on a little reversal of
events by careful editing. This story I think was broken by Newsnight
but I could be wrong.
--
Clive

[harry]

On Nov 20, 8:21 pm, Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/11/2011 15:10, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>
> > On pages 18, 19, 20 of

> >http://www.verwaltung.bayern.de/egov-portlets/xview/Anlage/4015428/Ba...

> > you can see the results for 10m, 80m, 140m.
>
> That's surprising to me... but TBH I haven't read much of it.  My German
> is like that of most British.  Mostly missing.  I have perhaps 100
> words, they aren't the right ones...
>
> The graph on P8 shows the change in windspeed with altitude above
> various types of ground.  The first three are towns and wooded areas,
> unlikely for windfarms. The third seems to me to show 80% windspeed at
> about 30 metres.  And 90% at 140m.  Why do you think that going to 200m
> instead of 140 would make much difference?
>
> (I suspect the graphs on P14 are suggesting that it's interpolated from
> measurements at 10, 80 and 140m.)
>
> On another matter, I recall someone suggesting that the turbines are
> good for soaking up spikes in demand - you can overrun them, let them
> slow below ideal speed, and used the stored inertia to generate a spike
> in output.
>
> Not if they aren't spinning at all, because there's no wind.
>
> Andy

I used to have my own aircraft. I have seen wind speeds of over
100mph.
Close to the ground there is lots of turbulence that messes things up.
At hilltops(ridges) there is a compression effect that can accellarate
the wind.

[harry]

On Nov 20, 8:43 pm, Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com>
wrote:

Vielen dank!

[harry]

On Nov 21, 2:23 am, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message

> <c60407ac-0f5b-4918-a3b3-dbd4d78d0...@p2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

So you were there?
Or you just heard that from someone. Nothing like passing on a good
rumour.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:

> That's true, but at least, the new ones can provide STATCOM service even
> when standing still. It does not make sense, to build separate STATCOMS,
> if you have variable-speed wind turbines - they need to have the power
> electronics anyway, so dual use of the stuff is best.
>
>

No Hans. Best is to save the money and not have any of it.

Conventional power stations represent a far amount of spinning mass and
do the same job and need no electronics either.


> Hans-Joachim

[Dave Liquorice]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:

> If you look at an Enercon E-126,
> http://img.fotocommunity.com/Energiemaschinen/Windraeder/Winter-in-
> Aurich-Enercon-E-126-a19836302.jpg
> the hub height is 135m, and the rotor has a diameter of 127m.

Rotor of 127m bloody hell I thought the ones with an 80m dia where
big. Only just a bit bigger than a jumbo jet on a stick, but 127 is
two jumbo jets side by side on a stick.

Look at those full grown mature trees cowering underneath the thing.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Roger Chapman]

On 21/11/2011 02:23, Clive wrote:
> I don't have a link, I have a memory. I also remember the standoff at
> the Orgreave coke works, where it was reported that the miners attacked,
> the police who then batten charged and injured many miners, Only for
> the truth to come out many years later that the protest was peaceful and
> the police and TV crews got fed up with nothing happening so the police
> charged at the miners who reacted by throwing stones at the police. All
> it needed was for the government to insist on a little reversal of
> events by careful editing. This story I think was broken by Newsnight
> but I could be wrong.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/arthurs-army-the-strike-that-rocked-britain-1637617.html?action=Gallery&ino=22

--
Roger Chapman