Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y,sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:15:03 +0100
Organization: A little, after lunch
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <v6607n$2najh$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v64kvk$2cc3j$2@dont-email.me> <v655vt$2jju3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v65g26$2l5br$4@dont-email.me> <v65m9e$2mc0i$1@dont-email.me>
 <len6voFfsavU2@mid.individual.net> <v65rnf$2najh$3@dont-email.me>
 <v65up1$2nm1f$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:15:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dc51d958de16694e953d6628ba38a631";
	logging-data="2861681"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/fbpf6RhjQE/B7OCXRUC2rP3OKRP7ULs="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EwkUdyQG7T1xJKC82CtkHxSm9D0=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v65up1$2nm1f$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4962

On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
>>> Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works 
>>> and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the 
>>> extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.
>>
>> It isn't even cheaper then.
>> Some of us have run the numbers...
>>
>> Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station 
>> but that ignores
>> - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
>> - the capacity factor of the windmill
>> - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.
> 
> But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure 
> storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it 
> take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.
> 
Ity is not massive.
In fact its trivial
How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
Will they ever be returned to Green Field
Who will pay for it?

>> Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make 
>> a silk purse out of a pigs ear...
> 
> It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk purse.
> 
> If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an 
> option.
> 
Of course it is
More lies

> "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the 
> time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month 
> refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with special 
> control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core without 
> shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual PWR reactor 
> to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases markedly as it 
> progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is considerable scope for 
> running a fleet of reactors in load-following mode. European Utility 
> Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new reactor designs must be 
> capable of load-following between 50 and 100% of capacity with a rate of 
> change of electric output of 3-5% per minute. The economic consequences 
> are mainly due to diminished load factor of a capital-intensive plant."
> 
Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make 
best use of capital when you have any hydro


Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this

> Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and 
> battery storage is even more flexible.
> 
> You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of 
> renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional 
turbiunes,. It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up 
overnight, or w wind grid operational in a flat calm

And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind 
costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.

Consumers do instead,
> 

-- 
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism 
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, 
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and 
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a 
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,' 
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for 
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet 
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that 
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian 
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus