George Osborne demands massive cuts to windfarm subsidies

[Dave2002]

Dinorwig is rather interesting. I didn't realise the scale of the system, and its novelty when constructed. Would there be any point in having similar facilities elsewhere in the UK?

Scotland perhaps - even bigger mountains!

http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

[scottycelt]

Dinorwig is rather interesting. I didn't realise the scale of the system, and its novelty when constructed. Would there be any point in having similar facilities elsewhere in the UK?

Scotland perhaps - even bigger mountains!

Perhaps, heaven forbid, even somewhere in England, like the Lake District ?... though admittedly the mountains are a bit puny !.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Dinorwig is rather interesting. I didn't realise the scale of the system, and its novelty when constructed. Would there be any point in having similar facilities elsewhere in the UK?

Scotland perhaps - even bigger mountains!

http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

I hadn't looked at the Wiki before. It's wrong when it claims Dinorwig was built for the expansion of the nuke programme. The original Design Intent Memorandum was entirely aimed at provision of ancillary services, i.e. standing and spinning reserve. It was widely claimed that if Dinorwig never ran (apart from spinning in air) it would still pay for itself through the savings in efficiency resulting from displacing coal stations from providing the ancillary services. And the other side of that coin is that due to the overall efficicency of the storage cycle being 75 %, it's almost impossible to make money out of load shifting. So using pumped storage to load shift wind will be an expensive solution to the problems of variability and intermittancy of wind generation. As it stands now, the UK has sufficient ancillary service provision from Dinorwig so there's no need to build anymore similar plants (and Dinorwig /FFestiniog could easily last 100 years).

[Dave2002]

AIC

A question. Just suppose all the heating and lighting we use (and possibly air conditioning as well) could be powered off the grid. How much more capacity would be required? I'm sure the current UK grid would not be able to cope. I'm guessing that the electricity we use is actually not a very large proportion of the total energy we use in the UK.

In the long term a shift to electricity may be a good thing, but it will depend on whether the generation is efficient, and whether it involves the burning of fossil fuels.

[Dave2002]

Wow-ouch! Electricity comes "nowhere"! See this http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/1...r-1-energy.pdf and look at chart 1.1

[ahinton]

If the savings made by reductions in wind farm subsidies were to be diverted lock stock and smoking barrel to the solar industry it would at least make some defensible sense, but such hypothecatory measures would be too much to expect from our Giddy-on, I fear...

[JohnSkelton]

If earthly reality turned out to be inside the head of a jelly fish-like creature called Splang who lives in a far distant galaxy and one day Splang is eaten by a larger jelly fish-like creature called Wnrrrg whose reality is entirely different and doesn't include homo sapiens or electricity or wind or CO2 then that would solve the problem of global warming and climate change and their causes and whether wind farms are worth subsidies; except it wouldn't because the problem would only ever have existed inside Splang's head who would now be being digested by Wnrrrg and who therefore in a cognitive sense would be as if Splang had never been. As would be the case with homo sapiens or electricity or wind or CO2, except not entirely: because they all only ever existed inside Splang's head, whereas Splang possessed an independent existence prior to that existence being snuffed out by a hungry and without compunction or scruple Wnrrrg.

I don't think much else can, usefully, be said about this topic; unless scottycelt says it, of course, in which case the situation is altogether different. (Indeed - if Splang has an immortal soul then that could complicate things. He might arrive in jelly fish wherever he's destined and a jelly fish God might ask him 'what have you done with earthly reality?' Or it might just be written off as a minor fantasy of no especial importance, which seems quite probable).

[ahinton]

If reality turned out to be inside the head of a jelly fish-like creature called Splang who lives in a far distant galaxy and one day Splang is eaten by a larger jelly fish-like creature called Wnrrrg whose reality is entirely different and doesn't include homo sapiens or electricity or wind or CO2 then that would solve the problem; except it wouldn't because the problem would only ever have existed inside Splang's head who would now be being digested by Wnrrrg and who therefore in a cognitive sense would be as if Splang had never been. As would be the case with homo sapiens or electricity or wind or CO2, except not entirely: because they all only ever existed inside Splang's head, whereas Splang possessed an independent existence prior to that existence being snuffed out by a hungry and without compunction or scruple Wnrrrg.

I don't think much else can, usefully, be said about this topic

Well, if that was "useful", I'm one of said "jelly fish-like creatures"!

[amateur51]

Perhaps, heaven forbid, even somewhere in England, like the Lake District ?... though admittedly the mountains are a bit puny !.

Oh come on, scotty - complete lack of ambition!

The English like to drown a village first

[ahinton]

Oh come on, scotty - complete lack of ambition!

The English like to drown a village first

Oh come on, ams - cut him some slack; at least he's heard of England and may even know where it is!

[JohnSkelton]

Well, if that was "useful", I'm one of said "jelly fish-like creatures"!

Sadly if another jelly fish-like creature eats you you won't be able to tell us about it. If you eat another jelly fish-like creature you could tell us about it (or the jelly fish-like creature who eats you could demand you hand over your for3.org / forums log in details before eating you so as to be able to pass the information on. "Hi, this is Bztttr. I've just eaten ahinton. Bad gas, LOL"). (Note: jelly fish-like. Not jellyfish-like, which would obviously mean it would be like something in earthly reality which would be absurd given that earthly reality is a fantasy of the jelly fish-like creature called Splang ... EXCEPT! I suppose it's quite likely Splang would model something earthly on Splang's own appearance. I'm assuming the jelly fish-like creatures possess (a) some mirroring device (b) capacity for image self-recognition).

There's another problem, which is suppose Splang and Wnrrrg are themselves the product of another creature's imagination ... Vutbodd, say. Then everything to do with our reality (or 'our' reality to follow scottycelt's shining example) would be inside the head of Vutbodd who imagines Splang imagining us (sorry 'us') and imagines Wnrrrg eating Splang and thus eradicating Splang's earthly (whoops, 'earthly') fantasy. And so on. The only way that could end is if a transcendent being - Dog, say - is imagining everything. Dog might be immortal, but I suppose that's not necessary. One day Dog might electrocute Dog's self using an electric toothbrush in the bath. And that would be curtains for us ('us', my bad), Splang, Wnrrrg, Vutbodd etc.

Perhaps that's more useful (dammit: "useful")?

[ahinton]

Sadly if another jelly fish-like creature eats you you won't be able to tell us about it. If you eat another jelly fish-like creature you could tell us about it (or the jelly fish-like creature who eats you could demand you hand over your for3.org / forums log in details before eating you so as to be able to pass the information on. "Hi, this is Bztttr. I've just eaten ahinton. Bad gas, LOL"). (Note: jelly fish-like. Not jellyfish-like, which would obviously mean it would be like something in earthly reality which would be absurd given that earthly reality is a fantasy of the jelly fish-like creature called Splang ... EXCEPT! I suppose it's quite likely Splang would model something eathly on Splang's own appearance. I'm assuming the jelly fish-like creatures possess (a) some mirroring device (b) capacity for image self-recognition).

There's another problem, which is suppose Splang and Wnrrrg are themselves the product of another creature's imagination ... Vutbodd, say. Then everything to do with our reality (or 'our' reality to follow scottycelt's shining example) would be inside the head of Vutbodd who imagines Splang imagining us (sorry 'us') and imagines Wnrrrg eating Splang and thus eradicating Splang's earthly (whoops, 'earthly') fantasy. And so on. The only way that could end is if a transcendent being - Dog, say - is imagining everything. Dog might be immortal, but I suppose that's not necessary. One day Dog might electrocute Dog's self using an electric toothbrush in the bath. And that would be curtains for us ('us', my bad), Splang, Wnrrrg, Vutbodd etc.

Perhaps that's more useful (dammit: "useful")?

The distinction between "Jelly fish-like" and "jellyfish-like" had not escaped my notice, as it happens.

That said, if you are a composer, I shudder to imagine what you music would be like (but perhaps you are and I ought already to know).

The usefulness or otherwise (with or without inverted commatic enhancements) of your post above is something about which I imagine you alone to be capable of forming a meaningful conclusion; the thought of Allen Ginsberg attempting a mature Joycean paraphrastic rewrite of Das Kapital comes fleetingly to mind but is wisely and rapidly dismissed. "Eathly"'s a new one on me, but then perhaps you have an Anthony Burgess-like (as distinct from Anthony-Burgess like, if indeed that is distinct therefrom) capacity to invent a new word whenever the right one seems to be unavailable...

By the way, I thought that it might be both prudent and helpful to mention en passant that, to the best of my knowledge, the use of inverted commas is not something on which the Scots have, or profess to have, a monopoly, notwithstanding what might be perceived by some as recent evidence to the contrary.

OK, that's gotten that out of the way. Phew! Now - anyone with anything to say about George Osborne, demands, massiveness, cuts, windfarms, subsidies or any combination of any number thereof?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Wow-ouch! Electricity comes "nowhere"! See this http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/1...r-1-energy.pdf and look at chart 1.1

No, but your question implies, perhaps, a good use for wind would be to disconnect it (and solar) from the grid on the basis that their electricity confers no benefit to the quality of the grid's accuracy, and reliability of supply and simply use it for space heating - it's all they're fit for!

If the savings made by reductions in wind farm subsidies were to be diverted lock stock and smoking barrel to the solar industry it would at least make some defensible sense, but such hypothecatory measures would be too much to expect from our Giddy-on, I fear...

Well I'd be delighted if all the subsidies on wind were cut. If it comes to it, I'd cut every form of energy subsidy other than helping out the aged. As for diverting research onto PV, we've been researching solar refining and PV for the last 70 years so I'm not expecting any miracles any time soon. So come on George, rough up the wind industry!

[ahinton]

Well I'd be delighted if all the subsidies on wind were cut. If it comes to it, I'd cut every form of energy subsidy other than helping out the aged. As for diverting research onto PV, we've been researching solar refining and PV for the last 70 years so I'm not expecting any miracles any time soon. So come on George, rough up the wind industry!

Have "we" really? Well, there's no doubt that the technology and research into it does indeed date back quite some time, but the problem with it is far too little energy (sorry!) going into it, otherwise we'd be way farther forward with it by now and the prices would have come down as a direct consequence of large-scale production to the point where subsidies would no longer have been needed in any case. I'm not in favour or indefinite subsidies anyway - only for the intial period in which they might generate (sorry again!) sufficient public interest to lead to the possiblility of mass manufacture and distribution which brings down the price of the products. That said, I do favour tax subsidies for those who run sustainable alternative energy applications, such as reductions in car tax for those who drive non-fossil-fuel-powered vehicles and reductions in council tax and business rates for those who run their homes and businesses on non-fossil-fuel-based energy sources - and perhaps also additional taxes as disincentives for some of those who don't do so once the alternatives have become much more widely available and affordable.

[Dave2002]

No, but your question implies, perhaps, a good use for wind would be to disconnect it (and solar) from the grid on the basis that their electricity confers no benefit to the quality of the grid's accuracy, and reliability of supply and simply use it for space heating - it's all they're fit for!

Which question? msg 64 perhaps?

You have a point about space heating. However, how many other uses for electricity really require it in its electrical form? How many really require a tightly regulated supply, with near constant frequency?

Electricity for space heating would be much better done using heat pumps anyway.

Types of equipment and applications:

1. Electronic equipment: TVs, radios, computers, modems.
2. Motor driven equipment: Fridges, freezers, washing machines, dishwashers.
3. Other?
4. Heating (radiators, underfloor heating, kettles, toasters, ovens etc.)
5. Lighting

Not all equipment really needs to have an electrical power source which is regulated to within 0.1%.

Burning fossil fuel in power stations to do things which might just as easily be done by burning the fuel at the point of use may not be a good thing.
I think this applies to applications such as gas heating. If you're going to burn the fuel anyway, then it should be done where that is most effective and efficient.

I still return to the notion that burning fossil fuels is depleting energy reserves to all intents and purposes permanently, and that we shouldn't deliberately burn up non renewable resources without good reasons.