SteamyTea

West facing should be the biggest problem as, usually, the OAT is greater in the afternoon, the sun angle is lower so can impart a greater fraction of the energy in a 'beam' and there is less time to ventilate cooler air. Living by the coat will help as the wind can become onshore and that is usually a cooler air mass.

Using rough numbers, and quick 'fag packet' arithmetic, The UK has about 30 million home. If each one had 1.5 kWp of solar fitted, and 1 kWh of dispatchable battery storage, each day in there would be 30 GW of power available at almost anytime. Now I do not know what that would cost, probably somewhere around £2000 per home, so £60bn. As it would take about a decade to fit, that is £6bn a year. As it would also last about two decades, but with the easy to replace battery system needing replacement at say £500/house, an extra £0.75bn would need to be added. So let us round up to £7bn a year. If the average house uses 15,000 kWh a year on space and water heating, an extra 1.5p/kWh on the energy bill will sort that.

Here is one, though I suspect the i has not reported it properly. https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/britain-building-new-reservoirs-4192207

The people that make the real decisions i.e. the engineers, probably only pay lip service to it as they know that the science and economics do not stack up, and therefore, no it will not happen.

Well worth a listen, the political element was interesting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002qj06

They could put in a large CO2e meter at the same time in the fossil fuel network. That could raise some cash for England and help subsidise our high cost of running urban gas stations.

When loads are high, which is generally during periods of winter stormy weather, those same higher windspeed not only help produce more power from wind farms, they also help cool the cables, allowing more power to be shifted. It is not just the digging that costs more, it is oversizing cables. Most power cuts are caused by trees falling onto the small, local cables. Have you ever seen a tree taller than a large pylon? There was a bit on the news this morning about subsea cables for offshore windfarms. Will allow the UK to export more energy to the EU. It is a complicated market. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/26/uk-among-10-countries-to-build-100gw-wind-power-grid-in-north-sea

I missed this post, good resources. Shall have a play with them when I have more time.

The bit in the middle, which needs to stop any vibrations from the pipework could be made with flexible foam. The k-value of that would be similar to normal insulation. You can get fire resistant, closed cell foams, they are usually used for furniture cushions. As for inside and outside air and water resistance, can you fabricate some covers out of plywood. Cut any holes 10mm bigger than the diameter and make your own 'seals' up with high modulus silicone. You can buy silicone sheet in different thicknesses and it can be 'glued' with normal silicone sealant.

Would have some people trying to move into the area, bit like having a 'good school' nearby. I am one of 6 houses in my post code area, would be get a discount based on the number of turbines/pylons/hectares of PV, slip 6 ways, so a good discount. What if there were 600 houses i.e. a small discount. Discounting peoples energy is a recipe for disaster, no incentive to do the right thing and use less.

Seems that Pakistan has imported 50 GWs of PV and installed over 33 GWs of it, 18 GW in the last financial year. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/01/20/pakistans-installed-pv-capacity-estimated-above-27-gw/ The UK, 18.1 GWs installed. https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/solar-technology/uk-solar-capacity-up-5-9-year-on-year Pakistan's first 48 GWs has an estimated cost of $2bn. Pakistan's GDP, in 2024 was $371,570,000, UK $3,686,033,040. Near as damn it, a tenth of ours. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD Per Capita CO2 emissions are 0.72 tonne/person for Pakistan, UK 4.35 tonnes/person. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita Population of Pakistan is 255,219,554, UK 69,551,332. https://www.worldometers.info/geography/countries-of-the-world/

They are multi directional. Our electrical grid is similar to a house ring main. It is designed this way to make it more robust and capable of dealing with unexpected large generation plants shutting down. It is the small (but still large) spurs that need an upgrade to cope with more distributed capacity. But that is nothing compared to the local 'last mile' upgraded that are needed. Map_of_the_National_Grid_in_Great_Britain.svg

1 tonne of bio digestible waste produces about 400 cubic metres of gas, half of that is methane. 200 m3 of methane has around 2 MWh of energy. If a third of that was converted to electricity, and the UK produced about 35 million tonnes each year, so about 23 TWh of power. Or, oddly enough, about what Hinckley C will churn out in a year. (The use of fuel cells, rather than turbines would up efficiently significantly, but that would require more development)

They get reliable, low CO2e, electricity. I am sure there were similar complaints about paving roads. Now people marvel at what the Romans did for us. But realistically, telegraph and power poles in 'pretty' villages are a bigger problem visually. I have one outside my bedroom window. I don't notice it, mainly as I am asleep, or it is dark. Oddly though, it does not supply my house, that has underground cabling.

That is not really an issue though. Bulk transmission losses are pretty small. The biggest problem is public acceptance of wind and solar. Mostly based on disinformation. One of the oldest windfarms is near Truro, clearly visible from the A30, but only for about a mile, so less than a minute at 70 MPH. There is also a solar farm close to it, most people I know do not know of its existence. even though it is clearly visible.

That is our biggest problem. Marginal Pricing is a ludicrous system for a necessary service. Imagine if the supermarkets did it.

How many grockles you hog tied with it, and how long do you need to chock them to stop them camping on your land.

Possibly the cost of decommissioning is account for elsewhere. I think that the two EPRs are both close to £20bn, though it is hard to find a true costs for any of them. It is not really the price that is the problem as much of that is for labour, of which most is UK based. The biggest problem is the slow pace. Do you think so. We already have half hour pricing, just not on the retail side. Dynamic pricing will be to a lot of customers a disadvantage. Most cannot cope with E7, let alone E10 (two cheaper periods. I work with two people, neither of them stupid, and one is an electrician. Like me, they both have E7. One cannot understand how to set up a storage heater and heats her hot water on demand, the other (the electrician) has twice the day units than night units (700 kWh, 360 kWh respectively). A little probing and it transpires that they run a tumble dryer for 2 hours every day (as part of their holiday cottage cleaning business business). As the night units only heat the hot water, they are using about 10 kWh/day, which is probably about right for two/three of them. I was around their place the other evening, not coming out of the storage heaters. They heat when they feel cold, so generally on day rate. Offering those people dynamic pricing will be a disaster.

About 25 away from getting some power. Now imagine if half the money had been spent on grid reinforcement/renewal, a third on new RE generation and the remaining amount on storage (which does NOT have to be batteries). We would have increased installed capacity by about 15GW, and dispatchable power by probably 10GW. Or, in eady to understand terms, about 20% of our needs. But hey, getting to Birmingham, from somewhere near North London is a vote winner.

Ah, talk about this when you are there: From the corrupt (maybe), left wing, multi million turnover press: New wood-burning stoves to carry health warnings in UK plan Pollution from wood burners kills thousands but proposed emissions limit would cut toxic particles by 10% Damian Carrington Environment editor Thu 22 Jan 2026 13.56 GMT New wood-burning stoves will carry a health warning highlighting the impact of the air pollution they produce, under UK government plans. Ministers have also proposed cutting the limit on the smoke emitted from wood burners by 80%. However, the measure would only apply to new stoves, most of which already meet the stricter limit. The new limit would cut the annual toxic emissions from wood burning in the UK by only 10% over the next decade, according to the consultation. Clean air campaigners said the proposals ignore the pollution from existing stoves and compared less polluting stoves to low-tar cigarettes. Pollution from burning in homes is one of the UK’s biggest sources of air pollution, contributing 20% of fine particles, about the same as all road transport. The fine particles are the most dangerous air pollutant for human health, the government said. Wood-burning stoves and fires in homes are linked to 2,500 early deaths a year in the UK, according to a recent study, as well as 3,700 cases of diabetes and 1,500 cases of asthma. Wood burners linked to 2,500 deaths a year in the UK, analysis finds Wood burners are used by about 12% of households, but more than 90% of these have other sources of heating. Many use the stoves and fires solely for their aesthetic appeal. Emma Hardy, the air quality minister, said: “Dirty air robs people of their health and costs our NHS millions each year to treat lung conditions and asthma. We are determined to clean up our air. By limiting emission levels and introducing new labels as outlined in our consultation, families will be able to make better, healthier choices when heating their homes.” The UK-wide consultation proposes labels for new stoves that clearly state the impact burning solid fuels has on the health of individuals and their families. A suggested warning reads: “Please be aware that this appliance emits air pollution into and around your home which can harm your health.” The label would also rate the energy efficiency of the stove from A to C. Wood sold for burning would also carry a health warning, with a suggested wording reading: “Burning in the home leads to air pollution which has a negative impact on the health of you and your family.” The final proposed measure would increase the fine for fuel suppliers who sell insufficiently dry wood from £300 to £2,000. Damp wood produces more pollution. The proposed limit for smoke emissions from new stoves is 1g per hour, down from the current 5g per hour. About 70% of stoves tested since 2018 already meet the new limit, the consultation said, and the new standard would not come into force for three to five years from the date the new law is passed. The foreword to the consultation said: “We all deserve to live in an environment where our everyday lives are not negatively affected by the quality of the air that we breathe.” Emissions of fine particle pollution from domestic burning rose by 36% from 2009-20, largely due to a rise in emissions from the burning of wood. Larissa Lockwood, director of clean air at Global Action Plan, said: “While measures to tighten pollution standards for wood burning stoves and better inform people of the health risks of these products at the point of sale are a good first step, they don’t go far enough. “A less polluting stove is like a low tar cigarette: it’s slightly better for your health, but still significantly worse than not using them in the first place. We want to see further action from the government to ensure everyone can access cleaner, greener forms of heating and give local authorities the powers they need to curb harmful emissions for the benefit of their local communities.” Research found that no prosecutions for illegal wood burning were made in England in the year to August 2025, despite 15,195 complaints. Only 24 fines were issued by local authorities during that period. Jemima Hartshorn from the Mums for Lungs campaign group said: “Almost daily, people tell us about being smoked out of their homes and gardens, of non-stop coughing and wheezing during the winter despite their neighbours burning in a legal way across the country. “Non-essential wood burning needs to end,. The consultation outline does not go far enough – it only suggests measures that will reduce wood burning from new stoves but does not address the huge pollution emitted by existing stoves. Hopefully, the final outcome will be more aligned with scientists and health professionals and the needs of the public and children’s health.” The consultation closes on 19 March.

https://www.oftrb.com/archives/39898 Small-scale LNG Carriers: Around 3,500 to 20,000 cubic meters. Medium-sized LNG Carriers: Approximately 20,000 to 90,000 cubic meters. Large LNG Carriers (Q-Max and Q-Flex classes): Between 210,000 and 266,000 cubic meters.

I just done a quick search to see how much gas storage, as a service, costs, seems to be about £0.00167/kWh ($0.64/MCF), so quite expensive. May have got the conversions wrong and the original data may be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_storage If it is even a factor of 10 out, it is still expensive, possibly why we don't store that much.

I bought a second hand one in 1984, it was good. The video rental shop owner had a Betamax, so loads of choice.

Yes, John Clauser, paid by the American Petroleum Institute. And you think scientist are corrupt. I studied the very field that he says is the cause. I abandoned it as a long term study as the science, experiments and events, all pointed to it not being the main cause. In the last decade and a half, the subject has been studied intensively and no studies have really shown that it is anything more than a short term weather phenomenon. But all that is a digression. If you are serious about debate on anthropogenic climate change, go get a higher degree in the subject and then rubbish all the research, that will level the playing field for you.

Shall pop your comments into the conspiracy theory bin.