When there is no wind, you crank up the big diesels. The UK now generates a lot of its electrical supply from diesel generator stations scattered around the electric grid. In theory they are only used for peak lopping, in practice they will run flat out on lots of cold still winters days (and grid capacity will still be marginal as more conventional dispatchable generation keeps going offline).
If I've understood correctly (we install cooling systems for these stations at work, which is how I know a bit about them), they are mostly not connected to the high level gird directly, but to the 11kv "local" distribution grids. This allows a convenient statistical slight of hand - they show up in the stats as a reduction in demand, rather than as generation (same thing happens with domestic solar pv), and thus don't stuff up the tractor production stats claiming how the system is all powered by windmills even when the wind isn't blowing.
Bottom line on this. I currently buy domestic electricity and gas for my house. I calculated that based on the price differential per kw between the two, the best thing I could do would be to ditch my electricity supply and run a gas engine to generate my own. It only needs to be about 20% efficient to be cheaper than my electricity supply. This is a pretty damming indightment of how much the "green revolution" is costing us, given that burning that same gas in a decent powerstation should be more like 70% efficient, and the electricity supply grid shouldn't be significantly more expensive to run than the gas grid.
Wind power will still work. Especially when its distributed around the UK, its actually quite a reliable form of energy generation.
And the Tories for the past decade have been boosting wind power. It is a far better suggestion for renewable energy generation than solar power which the UK under Labour was investing ridiculous sums in . . . when solar works much worse in the winter and the UK electricity demand peaks in the winter.
Solar and wind are excellent complements for each other in the UK.
I'd rather not have wind turbines visible from every piece of land in Scotland, the Pennines and the Lake District.
Offshore would be OK. That will stop the Spanish trawlers too.
If we could get tidal stream energy working that could be huge . It might eventually add a few milliseconds on to each day though!
What is the issue with wind turbines? I think they are pretty. Certainly in comparison with a string of pylons.
Boris leading the way on renewable energy, good to see
He doesn't "lead the way". He's just on his usual "moonshot" agenda. Propose practical measures to encourage and accelerate the delivery of renewable energy project - good. Make sweeping announcements about how "every home will be powered by wind power" in ten years - not. Because it won't happen. There are too many obstacles to making it happen, whether they be economic, political or legal. So ultimately its just making announcements as a political stunt.
Are people really complaining that Trump is not wearing a mask with absolutely no one anywhere near him?
First of all it's about the message he sends by doing so. Secondly he actually literally called a photographer up to stand next to him to get a better shot.
Is anyone actually paying any attention to Biden in this election campaign?
I've always thought Trump would beat Biden in the end for precisely the reason you say but I must admit this episode has thrown everything on it's head and I have no idea now...
Are people really complaining that Trump is not wearing a mask with absolutely no one anywhere near him?
When he is known to be contagious and other people work where he is standing?
Yes, absolutely! It is the height of irresponsibility.
Are you that pig-headed you still don't understand that contagious people exhale aerosols that linger in the air? You are aware that Trump is contagious right now aren't you?
Wind power will still work. Especially when its distributed around the UK, its actually quite a reliable form of energy generation.
And the Tories for the past decade have been boosting wind power. It is a far better suggestion for renewable energy generation than solar power which the UK under Labour was investing ridiculous sums in . . . when solar works much worse in the winter and the UK electricity demand peaks in the winter.
Solar and wind are excellent complements for each other in the UK.
I'd rather not have wind turbines visible from every piece of land in Scotland, the Pennines and the Lake District.
Offshore would be OK. That will stop the Spanish trawlers too.
If we could get tidal stream energy working that could be huge . It might eventually add a few milliseconds on to each day though!
What is the issue with wind turbines? I think they are pretty. Certainly in comparison with a string of pylons.
Boris leading the way on renewable energy, good to see
He doesn't "lead the way". He's just on his usual "moonshot" agenda. Propose practical measures to encourage and accelerate the delivery of renewable energy project - good. Make sweeping announcements about how "every home will be powered by wind power" in ten years - not. Because it won't happen. There are too many obstacles to making it happen, whether they be economic, political or legal. So ultimately its just making announcements as a political stunt.
Actually its entirely plausible that UK domestic electricity demands could be met by wind power within a decade.
Are people really complaining that Trump is not wearing a mask with absolutely no one anywhere near him?
When he is known to be contagious and other people work where he is standing?
Yes, absolutely! It is the height of irresponsibility.
Are you that pig-headed you still don't understand that contagious people exhale aerosols that linger in the air? You are aware that Trump is contagious right now aren't you?
People can't stand on a balcony outside on their own away from everyone else....ok then I can't really argue with that logic.
If the latest YouGov poll is any guide, Trump would probably need to increase his share of the vote from 46% in 2016 to about 48% this time to stand a chance of winning the electoral college.
Are people really complaining that Trump is not wearing a mask with absolutely no one anywhere near him?
When he is known to be contagious and other people work where he is standing?
Yes, absolutely! It is the height of irresponsibility.
Are you that pig-headed you still don't understand that contagious people exhale aerosols that linger in the air? You are aware that Trump is contagious right now aren't you?
People can't stand on a balcony outside on their own away from everyone else....ok then I can't really argue with that logic.
They can stand on a balcony where people work while contagious so long as they're wearing a mask.
The UK now generates a lot of its electrical supply from diesel generator stations scattered around the electric grid.
Do you have any data on this?
Short answer is no, not least because it's quite hard to come by (unsurprisingly it's not something anyone in the game wants to talk about), and as mentioned it's mostly cut out of the figures because it's missing demand rather than extra generation (the same also happens where large plant is encouraged to reduce usage from the grid at peak times - e. g. I know a large site where they are regularly achieving this by running up something like a 3Mw gas turbine to reduce demand).
The installations have popped up like mushrooms all over the place (they are quite easy to spot if you know what to look for - they look like typical factory / warehouse buildings, but you can spot the exhaust stacks and cooling packs once you know what they are), they are the product of national grids capacity auctions over the last few years (they expected people to take the money to keep coal generation open for emergencies, it turns out that diesel engines in warehouses are cheaper). This is quite well known, the dirty little secret no-one wants to talk about is how much these things have actually ended up being run.
Wind power will still work. Especially when its distributed around the UK, its actually quite a reliable form of energy generation.
And the Tories for the past decade have been boosting wind power. It is a far better suggestion for renewable energy generation than solar power which the UK under Labour was investing ridiculous sums in . . . when solar works much worse in the winter and the UK electricity demand peaks in the winter.
Solar and wind are excellent complements for each other in the UK.
I'd rather not have wind turbines visible from every piece of land in Scotland, the Pennines and the Lake District.
Offshore would be OK. That will stop the Spanish trawlers too.
If we could get tidal stream energy working that could be huge . It might eventually add a few milliseconds on to each day though!
What is the issue with wind turbines? I think they are pretty. Certainly in comparison with a string of pylons.
Not if you put them on 'wild' land where no other human structures are visible they aren't. Besides, the infrastructure that goes with them (roads, and the associated pylons) destroys the upland peat and probably releases as much CO2 as the emissions they are supposedly saving.
Wind turbines on the Cairngorms? Ben Nevis? Glencoe? Scafell? There has to be a limit somewhere. They should be part of the mix, not dominating the landscape. This island feels crowded enough as it is.
Offshore makes more sense anyway. The wind is more consistent and you don't end up having to lock down iced-up turbines. It is more expensive but more effective.
Are people really complaining that Trump is not wearing a mask with absolutely no one anywhere near him?
When he is known to be contagious and other people work where he is standing?
Yes, absolutely! It is the height of irresponsibility.
Are you that pig-headed you still don't understand that contagious people exhale aerosols that linger in the air? You are aware that Trump is contagious right now aren't you?
People can't stand on a balcony outside on their own away from everyone else....ok then I can't really argue with that logic.
They can stand on a balcony where people work while contagious so long as they're wearing a mask.
Why not wear a mask if you are contagious?
There's no one working on that balcony, he's literally the only person on there.
Is anyone actually paying any attention to Biden in this election campaign?
This is definitely true. Trump has the power to direct the media agenda at will, which is an incredibly powerful weapon. However there are some really important differences from 2016 that affect what he can do with the weapon:
1) He doesn't have anything with any traction against Biden. He's tried a bunch of things (Hunter, age, far-left-radical) but none of them stick. It's no use being able to make the media stare at things if you don't have anything for them to stare at.
2) He's the incumbent, so the actual record matters, you need a message that fits people's experience. Right now he's making everybody think about Trump's response to covid, which works out not necessarily to his advantage.
When there is no wind, you crank up the big diesels. The UK now generates a lot of its electrical supply from diesel generator stations scattered around the electric grid. In theory they are only used for peak lopping, in practice they will run flat out on lots of cold still winters days (and grid capacity will still be marginal as more conventional dispatchable generation keeps going offline).
If I've understood correctly (we install cooling systems for these stations at work, which is how I know a bit about them), they are mostly not connected to the high level gird directly, but to the 11kv "local" distribution grids. This allows a convenient statistical slight of hand - they show up in the stats as a reduction in demand, rather than as generation (same thing happens with domestic solar pv), and thus don't stuff up the tractor production stats claiming how the system is all powered by windmills even when the wind isn't blowing.
Bottom line on this. I currently buy domestic electricity and gas for my house. I calculated that based on the price differential per kw between the two, the best thing I could do would be to ditch my electricity supply and run a gas engine to generate my own. It only needs to be about 20% efficient to be cheaper than my electricity supply. This is a pretty damming indightment of how much the "green revolution" is costing us, given that burning that same gas in a decent powerstation should be more like 70% efficient, and the electricity supply grid shouldn't be significantly more expensive to run than the gas grid.
I'm sorry, but this is factually incorrect. (And I speak as a man who used to finance power stations in the UK.)
Historically, the "last" generators - the ones with the highest marginal cost - were diesel. International Power PLC (now Engie) used to own a big diesel generator down in Devon or Cornwall, and it would literally come on a couple of times a year.
But the oil-gas differential blew out. Oil is expensive relative to gas. Burning natural gas in cheap open cycle plants completely supplanted diesel in the grid.
The result is that all super-peaking power in the UK electrical grid is now provided by open cycle gas turbines. And despite very generous capacity payments from the grid, the last diesel generator was taken off line in the UK a few years ago.
(There are a fair number of diesel generators still in existence - but they're not for grid power, they're essentially emergency back up.)
Is anyone actually paying any attention to Biden in this election campaign?
This is definitely true. Trump has the power to direct the media agenda at will, which is an incredibly powerful weapon. However there are some really important differences from 2016 that affect what he can do with the weapon:
1) He doesn't have anything with any traction against Biden. He's tried a bunch of things (Hunter, age, far-left-radical) but none of them stick. It's no use being able to make the media stare at things if you don't have anything for them to stare at.
2) He's the incumbent, so the actual record matters, you need a message that fits people's experience. Right now he's making everybody think about Trump's response to covid, which works out not necessarily to his advantage.
I'm surprised he hasn't made more of Biden's record drone bombing children in the Middle East when vice president.
Trump must have been the only president in the last 50 years to barely be involved in foreign military adventures.
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
I certainly agree with the point that breaking rules is not ok, especially for partisan advantage, and where the rules allow really crappy things I think they should be changed.
But I am less clear on your examples here. I'm sure it was argued on here that it would be within the rules to stack the bench, since it does not have a set membership or something, and there is precedent for expanding its scale.
Sounds like a bad idea, and frankly the politicisation of the judges by their very nature seems a poor idea to me as well, but is it actually the case that the Republican shenanigans are within the rules, but expanding the court is not?
Short answer yes
The Democrat plan would involve permanently changing the number of SC judges to ensure a permanent majority effectively. The Republican actions involved bending the rules but not breaking them altogether.
What would make the Democrat plan even more binding is that, if they did expand the SC, they would almost certainly also give statehood to DC, Puerto Rico and possibly also Guam and American Samoa to give themselves a very strong lock hold on the Senate possibly for ever
Why is expanding the court, or giving statehood to Puerto Rico "against the rules"? The Democrats should certainly try to make the Senate slightly less so obscenely tilted towards rural conservative voters if they believe in democracy. Ideally it would be cross-party consensual reform, but there's no hope of that. The Republican party has proved itself to be violently opposed to democracy let's hope the Democrats get a chance to show they can live up to their name.
Note that according to US Constitution, that NO state can be deprived of equal representation (two per state or whatever multiple) without its own consent. Which increases practical difficulty of passing "ordinary" constitutional amendment to a whole new order of magnitude. Ain't gonna happen.
Possible statehood for Puerto Rico or District of Columbia is different kettle of fish. In case of PR, both US parties have pledged themselves in not-so-distant pass to granting statehood IF and when clear majority of islanders so decide. GOP has never made same (theoretical) commitment to statehood for DC.
BTW, note that a little-considered option would be returning District of Columbia to State of Maryland, at least for electoral purposes. That would mean no US Senate seats, except as part of the Maryland electorate, but WOULD give Washingtonians a couple or more voting Representatives in US House.
As for court-packing, repeat it's a historical, judicial, practical political downer. Forgetaboutit.
Of course at the time the US constitution was written Britain also had rotten boroughs that each sent 2 MPs to parliament.
Wind power will still work. Especially when its distributed around the UK, its actually quite a reliable form of energy generation.
And the Tories for the past decade have been boosting wind power. It is a far better suggestion for renewable energy generation than solar power which the UK under Labour was investing ridiculous sums in . . . when solar works much worse in the winter and the UK electricity demand peaks in the winter.
Solar and wind are excellent complements for each other in the UK.
I'd rather not have wind turbines visible from every piece of land in Scotland, the Pennines and the Lake District.
Offshore would be OK. That will stop the Spanish trawlers too.
If we could get tidal stream energy working that could be huge . It might eventually add a few milliseconds on to each day though!
What is the issue with wind turbines? I think they are pretty. Certainly in comparison with a string of pylons.
Boris leading the way on renewable energy, good to see
He doesn't "lead the way". He's just on his usual "moonshot" agenda. Propose practical measures to encourage and accelerate the delivery of renewable energy project - good. Make sweeping announcements about how "every home will be powered by wind power" in ten years - not. Because it won't happen. There are too many obstacles to making it happen, whether they be economic, political or legal. So ultimately its just making announcements as a political stunt.
Actually its entirely plausible that UK domestic electricity demands could be met by wind power within a decade.
And follow up question - do you believe that they will?
Do you believe that Johnson has a serious plan for making it happen? Has considered the cost and the vested interests that would need tackling to make it happen. And the political opposition that it is likely to generate? Or is it an announcement more designed to generate positive headlines and communicate a "vision" that he has a long term agenda for the country?
The UK now generates a lot of its electrical supply from diesel generator stations scattered around the electric grid.
Do you have any data on this?
Short answer is no, not least because it's quite hard to come by (unsurprisingly it's not something anyone in the game wants to talk about), and as mentioned it's mostly cut out of the figures because it's missing demand rather than extra generation (the same also happens where large plant is encouraged to reduce usage from the grid at peak times - e. g. I know a large site where they are regularly achieving this by running up something like a 3Mw gas turbine to reduce demand).
The installations have popped up like mushrooms all over the place (they are quite easy to spot if you know what to look for - they look like typical factory / warehouse buildings, but you can spot the exhaust stacks and cooling packs once you know what they are), they are the product of national grids capacity auctions over the last few years (they expected people to take the money to keep coal generation open for emergencies, it turns out that diesel engines in warehouses are cheaper). This is quite well known, the dirty little secret no-one wants to talk about is how much these things have actually ended up being run.
Hang on.
Given that I can generate a kilowatt hour of electricity for about 40% less* with natural gas than with diesel, and I don't need to have expensive storage facilities (i.e. tanks), then why would anyone implement diesel for any reason other than emergency backup?
Are people really complaining that Trump is not wearing a mask with absolutely no one anywhere near him?
When he is known to be contagious and other people work where he is standing?
Yes, absolutely! It is the height of irresponsibility.
Are you that pig-headed you still don't understand that contagious people exhale aerosols that linger in the air? You are aware that Trump is contagious right now aren't you?
People can't stand on a balcony outside on their own away from everyone else....ok then I can't really argue with that logic.
They can stand on a balcony where people work while contagious so long as they're wearing a mask.
Why not wear a mask if you are contagious?
There's no one working on that balcony, he's literally the only person on there.
What part of the aerosols linger in the air are you struggling with? The cameras stayed there and a few minutes later there were people working there. Why should they be exposed to a contagious person's infected aerosols?
Is anyone actually paying any attention to Biden in this election campaign?
This is definitely true. Trump has the power to direct the media agenda at will, which is an incredibly powerful weapon. However there are some really important differences from 2016 that affect what he can do with the weapon:
1) He doesn't have anything with any traction against Biden. He's tried a bunch of things (Hunter, age, far-left-radical) but none of them stick. It's no use being able to make the media stare at things if you don't have anything for them to stare at.
2) He's the incumbent, so the actual record matters, you need a message that fits people's experience. Right now he's making everybody think about Trump's response to covid, which works out not necessarily to his advantage.
I'm surprised he hasn't made more of Biden's record drone bombing children in the Middle East when vice president.
Trump must have been the only president in the last 50 years to barely be involved in foreign military adventures.
He has dropped more bombs on foreign countries than the previous 2 presidents did in their first terms
Are people really complaining that Trump is not wearing a mask with absolutely no one anywhere near him?
When he is known to be contagious and other people work where he is standing?
Yes, absolutely! It is the height of irresponsibility.
Are you that pig-headed you still don't understand that contagious people exhale aerosols that linger in the air? You are aware that Trump is contagious right now aren't you?
People can't stand on a balcony outside on their own away from everyone else....ok then I can't really argue with that logic.
They can stand on a balcony where people work while contagious so long as they're wearing a mask.
Why not wear a mask if you are contagious?
There's no one working on that balcony, he's literally the only person on there.
What part of the aerosols linger in the air are you struggling with? The cameras stayed there and a few minutes later there were people working there. Why should they be exposed to a contagious person's infected aerosols?
The UK now generates a lot of its electrical supply from diesel generator stations scattered around the electric grid.
Do you have any data on this?
Short answer is no, not least because it's quite hard to come by (unsurprisingly it's not something anyone in the game wants to talk about), and as mentioned it's mostly cut out of the figures because it's missing demand rather than extra generation (the same also happens where large plant is encouraged to reduce usage from the grid at peak times - e. g. I know a large site where they are regularly achieving this by running up something like a 3Mw gas turbine to reduce demand).
The installations have popped up like mushrooms all over the place (they are quite easy to spot if you know what to look for - they look like typical factory / warehouse buildings, but you can spot the exhaust stacks and cooling packs once you know what they are), they are the product of national grids capacity auctions over the last few years (they expected people to take the money to keep coal generation open for emergencies, it turns out that diesel engines in warehouses are cheaper). This is quite well known, the dirty little secret no-one wants to talk about is how much these things have actually ended up being run.
Hang on.
Given that I can generate a kilowatt hour of electricity for about 40% less* with natural gas than with diesel, and I don't need to have expensive storage facilities (i.e. tanks), then why would anyone implement diesel for any reason other than emergency backup?
* That excludes transportation costs.
My bad. They are actually piston engines running on natural gas rather than derv. From a cooling POV they are the same creatures, so I'd forgotten that detail.
You're quite correct, no one in their right mind would be generating on diesel given the current gas prices.
Is anyone actually paying any attention to Biden in this election campaign?
This is definitely true. Trump has the power to direct the media agenda at will, which is an incredibly powerful weapon. However there are some really important differences from 2016 that affect what he can do with the weapon:
1) He doesn't have anything with any traction against Biden. He's tried a bunch of things (Hunter, age, far-left-radical) but none of them stick. It's no use being able to make the media stare at things if you don't have anything for them to stare at.
2) He's the incumbent, so the actual record matters, you need a message that fits people's experience. Right now he's making everybody think about Trump's response to covid, which works out not necessarily to his advantage.
I'm surprised he hasn't made more of Biden's record drone bombing children in the Middle East when vice president.
Trump must have been the only president in the last 50 years to barely be involved in foreign military adventures.
He has dropped more bombs on foreign countries than the previous 2 presidents did in their first terms
The UK now generates a lot of its electrical supply from diesel generator stations scattered around the electric grid.
Do you have any data on this?
Short answer is no, not least because it's quite hard to come by (unsurprisingly it's not something anyone in the game wants to talk about), and as mentioned it's mostly cut out of the figures because it's missing demand rather than extra generation (the same also happens where large plant is encouraged to reduce usage from the grid at peak times - e. g. I know a large site where they are regularly achieving this by running up something like a 3Mw gas turbine to reduce demand).
The installations have popped up like mushrooms all over the place (they are quite easy to spot if you know what to look for - they look like typical factory / warehouse buildings, but you can spot the exhaust stacks and cooling packs once you know what they are), they are the product of national grids capacity auctions over the last few years (they expected people to take the money to keep coal generation open for emergencies, it turns out that diesel engines in warehouses are cheaper). This is quite well known, the dirty little secret no-one wants to talk about is how much these things have actually ended up being run.
Hang on.
Given that I can generate a kilowatt hour of electricity for about 40% less* with natural gas than with diesel, and I don't need to have expensive storage facilities (i.e. tanks), then why would anyone implement diesel for any reason other than emergency backup?
* That excludes transportation costs.
The extra efficiency from gas is only in large CHP plants, surely? I'm not sure there would be much thermal cycle benefit in a smaller facility.
Wind power will still work. Especially when its distributed around the UK, its actually quite a reliable form of energy generation.
And the Tories for the past decade have been boosting wind power. It is a far better suggestion for renewable energy generation than solar power which the UK under Labour was investing ridiculous sums in . . . when solar works much worse in the winter and the UK electricity demand peaks in the winter.
Solar and wind are excellent complements for each other in the UK.
I'd rather not have wind turbines visible from every piece of land in Scotland, the Pennines and the Lake District.
Offshore would be OK. That will stop the Spanish trawlers too.
If we could get tidal stream energy working that could be huge . It might eventually add a few milliseconds on to each day though!
What is the issue with wind turbines? I think they are pretty. Certainly in comparison with a string of pylons.
Not if you put them on 'wild' land where no other human structures are visible they aren't. Besides, the infrastructure that goes with them (roads, and the associated pylons) destroys the upland peat and probably releases as much CO2 as the emissions they are supposedly saving.
Wind turbines on the Cairngorms? Ben Nevis? Glencoe? Scafell? There has to be a limit somewhere. They should be part of the mix, not dominating the landscape. This island feels crowded enough as it is.
Offshore makes more sense anyway. The wind is more consistent and you don't end up having to lock down iced-up turbines. It is more expensive but more effective.
Absolutely, offshore is consistent, cheap and powerful. There is absolutely no reason we shouldn't be getting our power from it. The idea that it is a farcical "moonshot" that household energy demand could be met by the end of the decade from wind couldn't be further from the truth. I'd be amazed if it wasn't.
2018 UK household electricity consumption was 9,034 ktoe which unless my maths is wrong is 105 GWh and that has been falling annually. From 2010 to 2019 UK Wind power generation went from 5,357 GWh to 64,134 GWh.
@alex_ I expect wind will be producing more than 100% of household electricity consumption by the end of this Parliament, let alone by the end of the decade.
Are people really complaining that Trump is not wearing a mask with absolutely no one anywhere near him?
When he is known to be contagious and other people work where he is standing?
Yes, absolutely! It is the height of irresponsibility.
Are you that pig-headed you still don't understand that contagious people exhale aerosols that linger in the air? You are aware that Trump is contagious right now aren't you?
People can't stand on a balcony outside on their own away from everyone else....ok then I can't really argue with that logic.
They can stand on a balcony where people work while contagious so long as they're wearing a mask.
Why not wear a mask if you are contagious?
There's no one working on that balcony, he's literally the only person on there.
What part of the aerosols linger in the air are you struggling with? The cameras stayed there and a few minutes later there were people working there. Why should they be exposed to a contagious person's infected aerosols?
He might not even be wearing deodorant.
And is that infectious during a plague? What is the relevance of that?
Indeed they did. But they watch pro wrestling. Disclaimer. So do I but I know it is working class ballet. Not a David Attenborough documentary on how swans mate.
The UK now generates a lot of its electrical supply from diesel generator stations scattered around the electric grid.
Do you have any data on this?
Short answer is no, not least because it's quite hard to come by (unsurprisingly it's not something anyone in the game wants to talk about), and as mentioned it's mostly cut out of the figures because it's missing demand rather than extra generation (the same also happens where large plant is encouraged to reduce usage from the grid at peak times - e. g. I know a large site where they are regularly achieving this by running up something like a 3Mw gas turbine to reduce demand).
The installations have popped up like mushrooms all over the place (they are quite easy to spot if you know what to look for - they look like typical factory / warehouse buildings, but you can spot the exhaust stacks and cooling packs once you know what they are), they are the product of national grids capacity auctions over the last few years (they expected people to take the money to keep coal generation open for emergencies, it turns out that diesel engines in warehouses are cheaper). This is quite well known, the dirty little secret no-one wants to talk about is how much these things have actually ended up being run.
Hang on.
Given that I can generate a kilowatt hour of electricity for about 40% less* with natural gas than with diesel, and I don't need to have expensive storage facilities (i.e. tanks), then why would anyone implement diesel for any reason other than emergency backup?
* That excludes transportation costs.
My bad. They are actually piston engines running on natural gas rather than derv. From a cooling POV they are the same creatures, so I'd forgotten that detail.
You're quite correct, no one in their right mind would be generating on diesel given the current gas prices.
This is one of these installations if anyone is curious - if you go into satellite veiw note the air/exhaust vents in the roof and the rows of cooling packs outside alongside one wall. Inside are several rows of big piston engined gensets (one per cooling pack).
When we first got involved with this (we do changes on damaged cooling packs for them - they've damaged quite a few during installation and commissioning) I couldn't believe that piston engines are viable compared to open cycle gas turbines, but I think the capx was less (although I'd imagine the maintenance per hour run is rapidly offsetting this).
The UK now generates a lot of its electrical supply from diesel generator stations scattered around the electric grid.
Do you have any data on this?
Short answer is no, not least because it's quite hard to come by (unsurprisingly it's not something anyone in the game wants to talk about), and as mentioned it's mostly cut out of the figures because it's missing demand rather than extra generation (the same also happens where large plant is encouraged to reduce usage from the grid at peak times - e. g. I know a large site where they are regularly achieving this by running up something like a 3Mw gas turbine to reduce demand).
The installations have popped up like mushrooms all over the place (they are quite easy to spot if you know what to look for - they look like typical factory / warehouse buildings, but you can spot the exhaust stacks and cooling packs once you know what they are), they are the product of national grids capacity auctions over the last few years (they expected people to take the money to keep coal generation open for emergencies, it turns out that diesel engines in warehouses are cheaper). This is quite well known, the dirty little secret no-one wants to talk about is how much these things have actually ended up being run.
Hang on.
Given that I can generate a kilowatt hour of electricity for about 40% less* with natural gas than with diesel, and I don't need to have expensive storage facilities (i.e. tanks), then why would anyone implement diesel for any reason other than emergency backup?
* That excludes transportation costs.
The extra efficiency from gas is only in large CHP plants, surely? I'm not sure there would be much thermal cycle benefit in a smaller facility.
This is not about efficiency, this is about the fact that I can buy gas - on a straight per calorie basis - for a lot less than diesel. (In fact, I'd completely missed how low UK natural gas prices are: 8 pence per therm! At 33% efficiency, this means you can generate power for 0.7 pence per kilowatt hour. Good luck spending less than 2 or 3 pence, even at wholesale tax free diesel prices.)
Presidents do NOT run elections in USA. This is done by state and (mostly) local officials, whose personal politics tend to reflect those of their jurisdiction. With caveat that vast majority of elections in vast majority of places are run a) according to law; and b) in a free and fair manner.
As in England, Canada & other democracies, exceptions really stand out.
I read the link and that's is just really describing the phenomenon rather than explaining it.
It does offer some possibilities, such as the young being more likely to vote Democrat, but we know from the current polls that this is looking like the opposite in this election, with the young favouring Trump and the old Biden, so if that was the case you'd expect a red shift instead.
Some counties in Georgia have only one polling station.
Think about that for a second.
Well if they are closing polling stations to supress votes then that is definitely wrong, although it seems to be from both Republican and Democrat areas.
I have no problem with voter photo ID though, I think that's a good idea to help prevent fraud.
Some counties in Georgia have only one polling station.
Think about that for a second.
Well if they are closing polling stations to supress votes then that is definitely wrong, although it seems to be from both Republican and Democrat areas.
I have no problem with voter photo ID though, I think that's a good idea to help prevent fraud.
My point was that one of the big drivers of the increase in voting by mail is how difficult it is to vote in some of these places. If you have to drive 20 or 30 miles to get to a polling station, which is the only one for the county, and to wait in line for an hour... well, wouldn't you rather vote by mail?
You have to assume Trump will try to control the narrative way before polls close with stories of how massive fraud has been uncovered all over the place.
You have to assume Trump will try to control the narrative way before polls close with stories of how massive fraud has been uncovered all over the place.
It almost certainly doesn't help him in practice because the courts aren't going to follow the narrative pushed by crazy people, even if some of the courts are partisan and one of the crazy people is the president.
It gives Trump the ability to claim that he was robbed. But in return it completely screws the GOP down-ballot, they should be trying to get their vote out any way they can but Trump is cutting them off at the knees, and he's created a highly visible cluster to scare his elderly supporters out of voting on election day and magnify the Dems' advantage.
You have to assume Trump will try to control the narrative way before polls close with stories of how massive fraud has been uncovered all over the place.
It almost certainly doesn't help him in practice because the courts aren't going to follow the narrative pushed by crazy people, even if some of the courts are partisan and one of the crazy people is the president.
It gives Trump the ability to claim that he was robbed. But in return it completely screws the GOP down-ballot, they should be trying to get their vote out any way they can but Trump is cutting them off at the knees, and he's created a highly visible cluster to scare his elderly supporters out of voting on election day and magnify the Dems' advantage.
Trump's campaign needs something special now...he is dogged by questions ref his health, and a negative bad-tempered campaign tone about voter fraud and Dem bashing. I am trying to anticipate what the next push will be, too much on his so-called recovery and his core messages are lost, its a tricky position to be in....
In this case "his base" = "genuine people voting in elections"
And the Democrats are what?
Lizard peope voting in elections?
Well if there's a plausible reason that the Democrats perform massively better in postal voting than in person then I'm open to hear it.
Because there is a plague happening right now so it is safer to do so and they are following medical advice.
And the reason the Democrats also did better in postal voting than in person in the 2016 election is what?
By amazing coincidence many locations that vote heavily Dem in red states are badly served in terms of election infrastructure and when people turnout on the day they have 4 hour waits to vote.
As a result people make the rational economic decision to vote by post.
Die to the correlation between long wait times for in person voting and and area voting Dem that means... More Dems vote early the Republicans.
This decision came whilst Obama was in power. An astonishing blizzard of voter suppression actions then followed. Elections are run by the states, not the Federal government.
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
I certainly agree with the point that breaking rules is not ok, especially for partisan advantage, and where the rules allow really crappy things I think they should be changed.
But I am less clear on your examples here. I'm sure it was argued on here that it would be within the rules to stack the bench, since it does not have a set membership or something, and there is precedent for expanding its scale.
Sounds like a bad idea, and frankly the politicisation of the judges by their very nature seems a poor idea to me as well, but is it actually the case that the Republican shenanigans are within the rules, but expanding the court is not?
Short answer yes
The Democrat plan would involve permanently changing the number of SC judges to ensure a permanent majority effectively. The Republican actions involved bending the rules but not breaking them altogether.
What would make the Democrat plan even more binding is that, if they did expand the SC, they would almost certainly also give statehood to DC, Puerto Rico and possibly also Guam and American Samoa to give themselves a very strong lock hold on the Senate possibly for ever
The "Democrat Plan" (which btw is GOP phraseology) is NOT going to include court packing.
For one thing, just about all the Democrats running for US Senate in contested races this year have gone on record pledged to OPPOSE any such plan.
For another, just a dumb idea, historically, judicially and above all politically.
So why does Biden equivocate if it is as clear as that?
Comments
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1313242154437873665?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1313231022880849920?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1313228791116959744?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1313227213064613889?s=20
If I've understood correctly (we install cooling systems for these stations at work, which is how I know a bit about them), they are mostly not connected to the high level gird directly, but to the 11kv "local" distribution grids. This allows a convenient statistical slight of hand - they show up in the stats as a reduction in demand, rather than as generation (same thing happens with domestic solar pv), and thus don't stuff up the tractor production stats claiming how the system is all powered by windmills even when the wind isn't blowing.
Bottom line on this. I currently buy domestic electricity and gas for my house. I calculated that based on the price differential per kw between the two, the best thing I could do would be to ditch my electricity supply and run a gas engine to generate my own. It only needs to be about 20% efficient to be cheaper than my electricity supply. This is a pretty damming indightment of how much the "green revolution" is costing us, given that burning that same gas in a decent powerstation should be more like 70% efficient, and the electricity supply grid shouldn't be significantly more expensive to run than the gas grid.
Yes, absolutely! It is the height of irresponsibility.
Are you that pig-headed you still don't understand that contagious people exhale aerosols that linger in the air? You are aware that Trump is contagious right now aren't you?
Why not wear a mask if you are contagious?
The installations have popped up like mushrooms all over the place (they are quite easy to spot if you know what to look for - they look like typical factory / warehouse buildings, but you can spot the exhaust stacks and cooling packs once you know what they are), they are the product of national grids capacity auctions over the last few years (they expected people to take the money to keep coal generation open for emergencies, it turns out that diesel engines in warehouses are cheaper). This is quite well known, the dirty little secret no-one wants to talk about is how much these things have actually ended up being run.
Wind turbines on the Cairngorms? Ben Nevis? Glencoe? Scafell? There has to be a limit somewhere. They should be part of the mix, not dominating the landscape. This island feels crowded enough as it is.
Offshore makes more sense anyway. The wind is more consistent and you don't end up having to lock down iced-up turbines. It is more expensive but more effective.
1) He doesn't have anything with any traction against Biden. He's tried a bunch of things (Hunter, age, far-left-radical) but none of them stick. It's no use being able to make the media stare at things if you don't have anything for them to stare at.
2) He's the incumbent, so the actual record matters, you need a message that fits people's experience. Right now he's making everybody think about Trump's response to covid, which works out not necessarily to his advantage.
Historically, the "last" generators - the ones with the highest marginal cost - were diesel. International Power PLC (now Engie) used to own a big diesel generator down in Devon or Cornwall, and it would literally come on a couple of times a year.
But the oil-gas differential blew out. Oil is expensive relative to gas. Burning natural gas in cheap open cycle plants completely supplanted diesel in the grid.
The result is that all super-peaking power in the UK electrical grid is now provided by open cycle gas turbines. And despite very generous capacity payments from the grid, the last diesel generator was taken off line in the UK a few years ago.
(There are a fair number of diesel generators still in existence - but they're not for grid power, they're essentially emergency back up.)
Trump must have been the only president in the last 50 years to barely be involved in foreign military adventures.
Do you believe that Johnson has a serious plan for making it happen? Has considered the cost and the vested interests that would need tackling to make it happen. And the political opposition that it is likely to generate? Or is it an announcement more designed to generate positive headlines and communicate a "vision" that he has a long term agenda for the country?
Given that I can generate a kilowatt hour of electricity for about 40% less* with natural gas than with diesel, and I don't need to have expensive storage facilities (i.e. tanks), then why would anyone implement diesel for any reason other than emergency backup?
* That excludes transportation costs.
You're quite correct, no one in their right mind would be generating on diesel given the current gas prices.
https://twitter.com/brenonade/status/1313263278613827585?s=21
2018 UK household electricity consumption was 9,034 ktoe which unless my maths is wrong is 105 GWh and that has been falling annually.
From 2010 to 2019 UK Wind power generation went from 5,357 GWh to 64,134 GWh.
@alex_ I expect wind will be producing more than 100% of household electricity consumption by the end of this Parliament, let alone by the end of the decade.
Disclaimer. So do I but I know it is working class ballet. Not a David Attenborough documentary on how swans mate.
Lizard peope voting in elections?
This is one of these installations if anyone is curious - if you go into satellite veiw note the air/exhaust vents in the roof and the rows of cooling packs outside alongside one wall. Inside are several rows of big piston engined gensets (one per cooling pack).
When we first got involved with this (we do changes on damaged cooling packs for them - they've damaged quite a few during installation and commissioning) I couldn't believe that piston engines are viable compared to open cycle gas turbines, but I think the capx was less (although I'd imagine the maintenance per hour run is rapidly offsetting this).
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313266827653414913?s=20
https://twitter.com/jeremymbarr/status/1313267270521696257?s=21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_shift_(politics)
So your conclusion is not necessarily reasonable.
If everything's so great why are thousands a week dying in the USA from this?
Perhaps it could be to do with voter fraud, such as a recent election in New Jersey that found 1 in 5 votes to be fraudulent.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/26/1_in_5_ballots_rejected_as_fraud_is_charged_in_nj_mail-in_election_143551.html
It has gotten much worse in recent years.
Can I suggest you also read this - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/southern-u-s-states-have-closed-1200-polling-places-in-recent-years-rights-group-idUSKCN1VV09J
Some counties in Georgia have only one polling station.
Think about that for a second.
As in England, Canada & other democracies, exceptions really stand out.
It does offer some possibilities, such as the young being more likely to vote Democrat, but we know from the current polls that this is looking like the opposite in this election, with the young favouring Trump and the old Biden, so if that was the case you'd expect a red shift instead.
I have no problem with voter photo ID though, I think that's a good idea to help prevent fraud.
It gives Trump the ability to claim that he was robbed. But in return it completely screws the GOP down-ballot, they should be trying to get their vote out any way they can but Trump is cutting them off at the knees, and he's created a highly visible cluster to scare his elderly supporters out of voting on election day and magnify the Dems' advantage.
As a result people make the rational economic decision to vote by post.
Die to the correlation between long wait times for in person voting and and area voting Dem that means... More Dems vote early the Republicans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
This decision came whilst Obama was in power. An astonishing blizzard of voter suppression actions then followed. Elections are run by the states, not the Federal government.