SteamyTea

Was Brintey, a Southpark reference.

We do understand the chemistry of combusting carbon based fuels, and the physics of of how the CO2 molecule traps and releases energy at different frequencies. By eliminating carbon based combustion, we reduce the physical side, but we will not reduce it so much that we will be plunged into a 'snowball earth'. So now that the majority of the population are going to be more aware of how reliant on energy we are, if offered two options, find a new source of oil/gas or use proven low carbon technologies, we would be a bit silly to choose the oil/gas route as we have several decades of knowing how volatile the price is.

Or get rid of the firepit and have happier neighbours.

A decade ago I know, but we did not have any qualified solar installers fitting our kit. We just used 'lads that had done some roofing'. Though we did employ an electrician to finish the wiring. Luckily the company was run by a crook and did not last very long.

What are you frying up, whole sides of pig?

It is all do do with Coulombs, as said by Nick, generally charge and discharge rates are sized to the storage capacity, though that is not the be all and end all of it. Lithium Ion batteries can have a very high discharge rate, why they are used in BEVs, but to increase longevity, they are charged slowly (there used to be a limit on how often they could be changed at maximum rate). We are long was off that point yet, and it is easy and cheap to turn off a few turbines than pay to turn off a few large freezers. There is a balancing mechanism that sorts all this out, supermarkets get paid to turn of loads. The system is set up to minimize price and emissions, but it limited i.e. you can't turn off a large nuclear or hydroelectric plant.

It is multifactorial, so climate change is part of it. The main problem with climate change is the rapidness of the change. We has spent the last 8000 years setting up our agricultural systems to come with the usual variation in weather, but as the climate changes, that usual variation is happening more often, and in unexpected places (look at Siberian and Antarctic upper temperatures). Just last year, we had an extreme heat warning in the SW. It was hot for a few days, not impossible to cope with (though I had to put tin foil on my upstairs windows to limit the heat coming in, and it worked very well). The mean temperature over those few days was around 22°C, peaking at 26°C. Pretty low, even for the UK. But the difference is that the SW is not used to those temperatures, the peaks are usually damped by the Atlantic Ocean (why we don't get the cold winters as well). So why was a warning issued when people 200 miles east are used to these extremes. It was because it was unusual, and lasted for more than a couple of days. Now extrapolate that to a proper farming area, say the Mid West USA, sudden heat waves, though good for drying crops, puts a strain on the infrastructure i.e. not enough machinery to harvest. This is where the problems are. Now rich countries can easily afford to pay a higher price, but poor countries can't, but the shortages are not price led, they are climate led. And sadly, it is the poorest places that suffer the most, not because they cannot adapt, they can often adapt faster (remember Ethiopia), but they are hampered by international politics and local ideologies. A quick look on the FOA wed site will show you that the wealthy nations are not always the best at coping. So taking Saudi Aribia and Spain, and looking at undernourishment, Saudi is at 3.9%, Spain is less than 2.5%. The UK is the same as Spain. Now I know you will claim that I am cherry picking data, so here is Morocco's numbers, it is geographically close to Spain. <2.5%, same as the fully developed examples.

Just make up a company, or copy the details of one that is MCS registered onto the paperwork. Only checked when it goes wrong, and by then, most companies have vanished. I am sure if the DNO is happy, the problem is solved. The structural element is really for your house insurance.

Except the assumptions were wrong. Using the same example, if all the returning aircraft had no damage to engine cowlings, one would assume that engines never got hit. The story was very different when they inspected downed aircraft. So back to the original point, it is no good only counting the survivors of extreme weather events, you have to count the non survivors, that shows the scale of the problem. Or to pick a building analogy. It is usual to brace a wall that gets the prevailing wind during construction, but you have to accept that a non prevailing wind can do damage as well. Saving a few quid by not doing that can have expensive repercussions. Not that I can think of anyone that would not do that.

No, he was explaining that the most efficient 'window' is to only charge and discharge at 40% of rated capacity I think. There are also inverter limits. If you want a very high capacity inverter, that starts to cost. Though you can use two inverters. This is an unsustainable tariff and not something I would base an investment decision on. The power companies have to make the exact same calculations, except their 'storage' is basically buying in extra capacity when they are caught out, usually from gas powered sources.

Not quite the case, unless you are totally off grid. The battery storage can supplement the grid supply, it does not have to replace it all. Whether it is financially worth it at 14p/kWh at night and 23p/kWh during the day is the tricky bit. With my daily mean usage of 2 kWh (50p worth), I doubt it is.

They are still not surviving. https://www.gapminder.org What you are doing is counting the wrong things. To give an aviation example, during WW2, the USAF got people to work out where to put reinforcement on aeroplanes by counting the bullet holes. The more holes in an area i.e. fuselage, the more reinforcement was needed. Trouble was, they were not counting the holes in the planes that did not return.

Was more the Sun in that case.

Too right. Saves the cash getting wasted on pointless vanity projects by central government. I am currently reading (slowly as it is my bedtime book) Just read the bit about public opinion to benefit scroungers (actually press manipulation). When asked in a poll, people thought that 25 to 30% of claimants were fraudulent, truth is 0.7% are. I can live with that.

Just thought of something else I dislike about mine. The door is hinged on the side (LHS). That is hopeless as you cannot use it as a shelf when removing stuff. My Mother has a Bosch one, similar to this (she has had it 20+ years). https://www.appliancesonline.com.au/product/bosch-combination-ovenmicrowave-hbc84k553a Not too bad.

Wealth as in assets or cash? Wealth is assets and cash. Not the same as richest, which as far as I know, does not have a real, economic definition. And then there is income. I am not complaining, just the way things have panned out.

We have seen this before, was Gulf War 1 really over 30 years ago. Year Average Closing Price Year Open Year High Year Low Year Close Annual % Change 1991 $21.54 $26.53 $32.25 $17.43 $19.15 -32.76% 1990 $24.53 $22.88 $41.07 $15.43 $28.48 30.40%

Thank you, worth knowing about. Got my tip today, works alright. Though I do think at £2.60 for 1, it is expensive. But shall see how well it lasts. Soldered the pins to the GY-302 pretty easily, now see if I can detect light with it.

Or we could keep explain that RE can deliver at <£55/MWh and FF is now costing >£80/MWh. Even utility scale PV is cheaper than coal now. So maybe, to get around the planning problems, the government should be fitting, free of charge and obligations, PV to all suitable roofs. Let us say there are 10 million suitable properties, and each can have, on average, 2 kWp. So 20 GWp of installed capacity. If this was done at scale, and in an organised manner, probably cost £3000 per installation. So £30bn. A estimate on generation would be 2 MWh per installation per year, so 20 TWh/year. I am sure the government can raise £30bn easily enough, it is going to be paying 10% of that as a council tax rebate,

Does that mean the wealthiest group in the country pay less tax?

One of the costs of climate change is migration. But that is alright, the UK can set up a 'sorting hat' somewhere, maybe New Zealand. They could use a few sheep to do it, got to be faster than what we are currently doing.

What planet are you on. It would take 15 years to get a gas terminal though planning, then another 5 or so to build it. South Hook, took 6 or 7 years to build, and that was on the old ESSO refinery site what already had the infrastructure.

Interesting, I would see that as a plus. It is the turntable that makes the noise, and the fan. The turntableless (just microwave) ones at work are great, quiet, quick and easy to clean.

I have one, a Panasonic NN-CD87KS Not had decent toast for over a year now. It is alright, but is noisy and slow. Works fine as a conventional fan oven, microwave is a slow considering the power, and the grill is just rubbish, but then most electric grills are. And way to many built in options. Plus side is that it does not take up too much space, which is good.