On 07/01/2025 12:23, Vir Campestris wrote:

I've been offline for a bit. I got involved in something pointless, then along came a proposal for a damn great big solar farm between my house
and the nearest pub - so I've been crunching data.

The first thing I found is that there are some errors in the data in Gridwatch. (the real one, not the commercial copy). Enough errors that I couldn't use the data to work out what is going on.

I've got a partial filter - but it's not enough, so I ended up using
data from NESO instead. NESO don't publish as much information, but they
seem to be reliable, so I used them for my conclusions.

My filter for the gridwatch data says:
Ignore a line if:
- The frequency is zero
- The demand is zero
- The demand has risen by more than 50%, or dropped to 2/3 of the
previous value
- The demand and the frequency have not changed from the previous one

That is probably correct. ewas in hospital and in convalescence for a
long time exactly when BM reports decided to change their data format
and that data is gone forebver I think

Sometimes the data is the same for an entire month at a time :(

When I was flat out in bed

My conclusions BTW are that solar power - even rooftop solar - is a
complete waste in this climate. It cannot help us to reach the
Governments "Net Zero" target, nor can it do anything useful.

I cant argue with that. In fact all 'renewable' energy is a waste of
time. If the amount spent on subusidies had ben spent on nuclear instead
we would be in clover now

The reasons?

If you look at the demand for power it's highest in the evening, and in winter.

In winter in the evening it's dark.

That means we need something else to make the power then.

If it works then it can work any time.

Precisely, and if its nuclear it costs as much to shut it down as to run
it. So nuclear is the best option for base load and a bit more to allow
for servicing and unscheduled maintenance.

Hydro and gas are best for peak demand following.
Intermittent renewables have no place whatsoever.

Incidentally right now solar _does_ do something useful - on the days
when it is sunny they can throttle back the gas. But that won't be the
case if we are using the less than 5% gas that "net zero" requires. By
2030.

Governments cannot change reality. Only peoples minds.

Net Zero is finished. Milliband will nail the final coffin shut on it
any week now by trying to make it work and failing even mire dismally
than he has failed at everything else.

Andy

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I've been offline for a bit. I got involved in something pointless, then
along came a proposal for a damn great big solar farm between my house
and the nearest pub - so I've been crunching data.

The first thing I found is that there are some errors in the data in
Gridwatch. (the real one, not the commercial copy). Enough errors that I couldn't use the data to work out what is going on.

I've got a partial filter - but it's not enough, so I ended up using
data from NESO instead. NESO don't publish as much information, but they
seem to be reliable, so I used them for my conclusions.

My filter for the gridwatch data says:
Ignore a line if:
- The frequency is zero
- The demand is zero
- The demand has risen by more than 50%, or dropped to 2/3 of the
previous value
- The demand and the frequency have not changed from the previous one

Sometimes the data is the same for an entire month at a time :(

My conclusions BTW are that solar power - even rooftop solar - is a
complete waste in this climate. It cannot help us to reach the
Governments "Net Zero" target, nor can it do anything useful.

The reasons?

If you look at the demand for power it's highest in the evening, and in
winter.

In winter in the evening it's dark.

That means we need something else to make the power then.

If it works then it can work any time.

Incidentally right now solar _does_ do something useful - on the days
when it is sunny they can throttle back the gas. But that won't be the
case if we are using the less than 5% gas that "net zero" requires. By 2030.

Andy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7 Jan 2025 at 12:23:28 GMT, Vir Campestris wrote:

My conclusions BTW are that solar power - even rooftop solar - is a
complete waste in this climate. It cannot help us to reach the
Governments "Net Zero" target, nor can it do anything useful.

The reasons?

If you look at the demand for power it's highest in the evening, and in winter.

My electricty consumption is pretty even throughout the year (gas CH).

In winter in the evening it's dark.

Link the solar to a storage battery maybe?

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/7/25 13:27, RJH wrote:

On 7 Jan 2025 at 12:23:28 GMT, Vir Campestris wrote:

My conclusions BTW are that solar power - even rooftop solar - is a
complete waste in this climate. It cannot help us to reach the
Governments "Net Zero" target, nor can it do anything useful.

The reasons?

If you look at the demand for power it's highest in the evening, and in
winter.

My electricty consumption is pretty even throughout the year (gas CH).

Mine was even too, which surprised me as I used an electric fan heater
to heat my study, rather than turn on the gas central heating for the
whole house.

It was only after buying smart plugs that I discovered my old Freezer
and Fridge both consumed huge amounts of energy in Summer (I let my
kitchen get cold in winter).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Vir Campestris wrote:

Sometimes the data is the same for an entire month at a time 🙁

I think for that one, TNP went into hospital at the time Elexon changed
the data source ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/01/2025 12:23, Vir Campestris wrote:

I've been offline for a bit. I got involved in something pointless, then along came a proposal for a damn great big solar farm between my house
and the nearest pub - so I've been crunching data.

The first thing I found is that there are some errors in the data in Gridwatch. (the real one, not the commercial copy). Enough errors that I couldn't use the data to work out what is going on.

I've got a partial filter - but it's not enough, so I ended up using
data from NESO instead. NESO don't publish as much information, but they
seem to be reliable, so I used them for my conclusions.

My filter for the gridwatch data says:
Ignore a line if:
- The frequency is zero
- The demand is zero
- The demand has risen by more than 50%, or dropped to 2/3 of the
previous value
- The demand and the frequency have not changed from the previous one

Sometimes the data is the same for an entire month at a time :(

My conclusions BTW are that solar power - even rooftop solar - is a
complete waste in this climate. It cannot help us to reach the
Governments "Net Zero" target, nor can it do anything useful.

The reasons?

If you look at the demand for power it's highest in the evening, and in winter.

In winter in the evening it's dark.

That means we need something else to make the power then.

If it works then it can work any time.

Incidentally right now solar _does_ do something useful - on the days
when it is sunny they can throttle back the gas. But that won't be the
case if we are using the less than 5% gas that "net zero" requires. By 2030.

If we use more power in winter than summer, wouldn't it make solar even
less attractive when the standing charge goes and the cost per kWh
increases to compensate? Solar would make even less of a contribution to
energy costs at that time of year. It would make a higher contribution
in summer, but unless a lot of air-conditioning was used, it wouldn't compensate for the higher winter usage.

--
Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <vllb6o$2mb1t$1@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 07/01/2025 12:23, Vir Campestris wrote:

I've been offline for a bit. I got involved in something pointless,
then along came a proposal for a damn great big solar farm between my
house and the nearest pub - so I've been crunching data.

The first thing I found is that there are some errors in the data in Gridwatch. (the real one, not the commercial copy). Enough errors that
I couldn't use the data to work out what is going on.

I've got a partial filter - but it's not enough, so I ended up using
data from NESO instead. NESO don't publish as much information, but
they seem to be reliable, so I used them for my conclusions.

My filter for the gridwatch data says: Ignore a line if: - The
frequency is zero - The demand is zero - The demand has risen by more
than 50%, or dropped to 2/3 of the previous value - The demand and the frequency have not changed from the previous one

Sometimes the data is the same for an entire month at a time :(

My conclusions BTW are that solar power - even rooftop solar - is a complete waste in this climate. It cannot help us to reach the
Governments "Net Zero" target, nor can it do anything useful.

The reasons?

If you look at the demand for power it's highest in the evening, and in winter.

In winter in the evening it's dark.

That means we need something else to make the power then.

If it works then it can work any time.

Incidentally right now solar _does_ do something useful - on the days
when it is sunny they can throttle back the gas. But that won't be the
case if we are using the less than 5% gas that "net zero" requires. By 2030.

If we use more power in winter than summer, wouldn't it make solar even
less attractive when the standing charge goes and the cost per kWh
increases to compensate? Solar would make even less of a contribution to energy costs at that time of year. It would make a higher contribution
in summer, but unless a lot of air-conditioning was used, it wouldn't compensate for the higher winter usage.

ah - but if you have big (gynormous) batteries there's no problem ;-(

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t�
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/01/2025 13:27, RJH wrote:

Link the solar to a storage battery maybe?

Right now storage is one of the data reported. The maximum output from
all the storage in the entire country over a day is about an hour's consumption.

If you look at a bad week in the depths of winter solar does **** all
even in the limited hours of daylight, which means we'd need enough
storage to maybe last a month (guessing here).

If we had that much storage it would be better linked to wind farms.
They're even uglier than solar farms, but at lease they produce more
power in winter when we need it.

If we install 2.6 times more wind farms than we currently have we can
get ourselves down to the 5% gas that "net zero" requires.

For solar it's 40 times, and when the sun does shine we'd have to turn
most of them off.

Andy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8 Jan 2025 at 10:00:03 GMT, charles wrote:

Incidentally right now solar _does_ do something useful - on the days
when it is sunny they can throttle back the gas. But that won't be the
case if we are using the less than 5% gas that "net zero" requires. By
2030.

Mine (maybe 2500W max) hasn't done much through December - 1.5kw/h a day on average. I gather this has been a bad winter, though.

If we use more power in winter than summer, wouldn't it make solar even
less attractive when the standing charge goes and the cost per kWh
increases to compensate? Solar would make even less of a contribution to
energy costs at that time of year. It would make a higher contribution
in summer, but unless a lot of air-conditioning was used, it wouldn't
compensate for the higher winter usage.

It all depends on how the tariffs stack up come the time. As things stand,
with a small battery and 16p/unit export over the summer, I get electricity pretty much free over the year. That may well change . . .

ah - but if you have big (gynormous) batteries there's no problem ;-(

It won't help much over the winter, unless there's a tariff that allows you to top up to your daily capacity at a cheap(er) rate.

It's all a lottery. I did look at the figures and pondered the future, but
made my decision in the main on environmental factors, the fact that I was having the roof retiled anyway, plus achieving some isolation from the energy market. 'Energy security' I suppose that's called.

I'm lucky enough not to have to worry about an economic return. Well, at the moment anyway.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8 Jan 2025 at 10:47:52 GMT, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 07/01/2025 13:27, RJH wrote:

Link the solar to a storage battery maybe?

Right now storage is one of the data reported. The maximum output from
all the storage in the entire country over a day is about an hour's consumption.

OOI - where is that reported? I think the figure relating to domestic with solar and storage installed would be interesting.

If you look at a bad week in the depths of winter solar does **** all
even in the limited hours of daylight, which means we'd need enough
storage to maybe last a month (guessing here).

Yes of course. I don't think anyone's ever suggested that solar will be a significant source of energy in the UK for maybe 6 months of the year.

If we had that much storage it would be better linked to wind farms.

That is actually the point - have a decent and thought through spread of renewables. Plus of course other sources of power when renewables just don't
do it.

They're even uglier than solar farms, but at lease they produce more
power in winter when we need it.

If we install 2.6 times more wind farms than we currently have we can
get ourselves down to the 5% gas that "net zero" requires.

For solar it's 40 times, and when the sun does shine we'd have to turn
most of them off.

Hopefully, somebody somewhere would come up with a storage solution if we ever got to that state. I was speaking to somebody the other day (an academic environmental scientist) who was getting excited about domestic thermal stores for suitable properties (with cellars, in the main). Over my head but there could be something in it.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7 Jan 2025 at 13:40:36 GMT, Pancho wrote:

On 1/7/25 13:27, RJH wrote:

On 7 Jan 2025 at 12:23:28 GMT, Vir Campestris wrote:

My conclusions BTW are that solar power - even rooftop solar - is a
complete waste in this climate. It cannot help us to reach the
Governments "Net Zero" target, nor can it do anything useful.

The reasons?

If you look at the demand for power it's highest in the evening, and in
winter.

My electricty consumption is pretty even throughout the year (gas CH).

Mine was even too, which surprised me as I used an electric fan heater
to heat my study, rather than turn on the gas central heating for the
whole house.

Yes, I've started doing that - just 700W keeps things reasonably warm, even in this weather. So I'd expect it to go up by a couple of units a day.

It was only after buying smart plugs that I discovered my old Freezer
and Fridge both consumed huge amounts of energy in Summer (I let my
kitchen get cold in winter).

Indeed - freezer's in the cellar. Annual running costs about 2/3 of manufacturer's estimate.
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/01/2025 11:08, RJH wrote:

Hopefully, somebody somewhere would come up with a storage solution if we ever
got to that state. I was speaking to somebody the other day (an academic environmental scientist) who was getting excited about domestic thermal stores
for suitable properties (with cellars, in the main). Over my head but there could be something in it.

I ran the calcs on this,. A well insulated swimming pool sized heat bank
under the house would definitely enable you to use off peak electricity
for all heating, but it got infeasibly large to be useful to store
summer sunlight for winter heating.
And of course that means using electricity to heat: Currently most homes offices and the like are gas or oil heated. Th overall increase in
electricity would negate the use of such a system on economic grounds

It all looks good till you run the numbers

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/01/2025 10:00, charles wrote:

ah - but if you have big (gynormous) batteries there's no problem ;-(

But since we don't, it is.

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <vllt9h$2pqit$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 08/01/2025 10:00, charles wrote:

ah - but if you have big (gynormous) batteries there's no problem ;-(

But since we don't, it is.

exactly

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t�
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

On 8 Jan 2025 at 10:47:52 GMT, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 07/01/2025 13:27, RJH wrote:

Link the solar to a storage battery maybe?

Right now storage is one of the data reported. The maximum output from
all the storage in the entire country over a day is about an hour's consumption.

OOI - where is that reported? I think the figure relating to domestic with solar and storage installed would be interesting.

grid.iamkate.com says that storage stats are available, but only for
discharge and not charge (so she doesn't include it). I can't see anything about that in her code, so it doesn't offer any clues where it's coming
from.

Most solar is not attached to the grid but to the DNOs, so the solar stats
are estimated numbers from them. I'd imagine they're not going to see
domestic batteries since they're not actively reporting (ie they can't tell when you're charging vs consuming, and your export is consumed by your neighbours so just reduces local demand rather than is separately meterable
at the DNO level). Smart meters would improve the resolution but I don't
know if the DNOs get export stats from the DCC.

Hopefully, somebody somewhere would come up with a storage solution if we ever
got to that state. I was speaking to somebody the other day (an academic environmental scientist) who was getting excited about domestic thermal stores
for suitable properties (with cellars, in the main). Over my head but there could be something in it.

I think that's phase-change? SunAmp is a purveyor of thermal stores using phase change material. They aren't exactly cheap but I don't think there is anything intrinsically complicated in them, just pick the right material and make it in bulk - paraffin wax will do in a pinch: https://sunamp.com/blog/what-is-a-phase-change-material/

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 1/8/2025 1:45 PM, charles wrote:

In article <vllt9h$2pqit$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 08/01/2025 10:00, charles wrote:

ah - but if you have big (gynormous) batteries there's no problem ;-(

But since we don't, it is.

exactly

You'll have to excuse their units choice, but they claim
something will be built. I like to see both gigawatts and
gigawatts-hours in the reporting. Multiple reports of
this type, have been careless like this.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/12/17/uk-plans-for-22-gw-battery-storage-fleet-by-2030/

That's not a ginormous battery, but it also indicates
they haven't given up on the idea entirely. They may be adding
these batteries, just for grid stability purposes.

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/01/2025 22:19, Paul wrote:

They may be adding
these batteries, just for grid stability purposes.

They are. They are designed to replace the inertia of spinning turbines
only. Of course that's not how the green press releases are phrased.

Teh amount of pure Horseshit spouted by the GreenCrap™ lobby is enough
to power the country for a week.
The public narrative is for great strides forward towards 100% renewable
energy - at least for electricity. The reality is that we are emitted
moire CO2 than if we had simplyt built more baseload CCGT stations


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/9/25 09:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 08/01/2025 22:19, Paul wrote:

They may be adding
these batteries, just for grid stability purposes.

They are. They are designed to replace the inertia of spinning turbines
only. Of course that's not how the green press releases are phrased.

Teh amount of pure Horseshit spouted by the GreenCrap™ lobby is enough
to power the country for a week.

I saw the article used the term "LDES", Long duration energy store.

So naturally I looked for a definition of what "long duration" is:


Quote: "Long duration energy storage is defined as a technology storing
energy in various forms including chemical, thermal, mechanical, or electrochemical. These resources dispatch energy or heat for extended
periods of time ranging from 8 hours, to days, weeks, or seasons."

Cite: <https://www.ldescouncil.com/>

8 hours is ballpark reasonable with batteries, but muddying the water
with a term that suggests weeks or seasons is not. It is wrong to lump
them together.

The public narrative is for great strides forward towards 100% renewable energy - at least for electricity. The reality is that we are emitted
moire CO2 than if we had simplyt built more baseload CCGT stations

I was looking for a media piece about what Ed Milliband's big green plan
was up to. Instead I found a piece from The Telegraph that
unintentionally made Ed sound 100% sane.

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/08/ed-miliband-going-to-throw-away-brilliant-fusion-industry/>

I think it illustrates that the problems understanding energy are not necessarily Marxist, more that journalists and politicians have zero appreciation of technology.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

I was looking for a media piece about what Ed Milliband's big green plan
was up to. Instead I found a piece from The Telegraph that
unintentionally made Ed sound 100% sane.

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/08/ed-miliband-going-to-throw-away-brilliant-fusion-industry/>

I think it illustrates that the problems understanding energy are not necessarily Marxist, more that journalists and politicians have zero appreciation of technology.

Read the actual document, rather than filtered through the media. It's much better at presenting the numbers: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-power-2030-action-plan

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/10/25 12:33, Theo wrote:

Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

I was looking for a media piece about what Ed Milliband's big green plan
was up to. Instead I found a piece from The Telegraph that
unintentionally made Ed sound 100% sane.

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/08/ed-miliband-going-to-throw-away-brilliant-fusion-industry/>

I think it illustrates that the problems understanding energy are not
necessarily Marxist, more that journalists and politicians have zero
appreciation of technology.

Read the actual document, rather than filtered through the media. It's much better at presenting the numbers: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-power-2030-action-plan

Theo

To be honest it looks like a wall of text, techno-babel, with ambiguous
and political propaganda, as opposed to a serious plan.

Take LDES, mentioned 32 times without a clear definition of what it is.
They use the term as a seasonal replacement for Natural Gas, as opposed
to 8 hours. There is an ambiguous shell game. LDES is reasonable for 8
hours, LDES can be used to solve seasonal changes in demand, spot where
they shift meaning.

Deep in the document they cite LDES, H2P (hydrogen 2 power) and CCUS
(Carbon Capture), these really are yesterday's technological future.
These aren't realistic for 2030. There was talk of a hydrogen economy a
few years ago, but it came to nothing.

You also see highly misleading political comments like "Putin turned off
the gas". Our politicians sanctioned Russian energy, rather than the
other way around. That is why gas prices went up. The latest story is
about Ukraine switching off their gas pipeline, Putin was willing to
continue supply.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10 Jan 2025 at 13:36:26 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

You also see highly misleading political comments like "Putin turned off
the gas". Our politicians sanctioned Russian energy, rather than the
other way around. That is why gas prices went up. The latest story is
about Ukraine switching off their gas pipeline, Putin was willing to
continue supply.

Of course. It was raising money for Putin's war.

--
HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks. Dave. DAVE!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/10/25 13:58, Tim Streater wrote:

On 10 Jan 2025 at 13:36:26 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

You also see highly misleading political comments like "Putin turned off
the gas". Our politicians sanctioned Russian energy, rather than the
other way around. That is why gas prices went up. The latest story is
about Ukraine switching off their gas pipeline, Putin was willing to
continue supply.

Of course. It was raising money for Putin's war.

Sure, if you like, but that is a bit of a shell game too. You might not
like Putin, but he didn't cut off the gas supply.

I find documents more trustworthy if they don't try to promote their
arguments by distorting the truth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <vlrce8$2drr$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

On 1/10/25 13:58, Tim Streater wrote:

On 10 Jan 2025 at 13:36:26 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

You also see highly misleading political comments like "Putin turned off >> the gas". Our politicians sanctioned Russian energy, rather than the
other way around. That is why gas prices went up. The latest story is
about Ukraine switching off their gas pipeline, Putin was willing to
continue supply.

Of course. It was raising money for Putin's war.

Sure, if you like, but that is a bit of a shell game too. You might not
like Putin, but he didn't cut off the gas supply.

because he needed the income.

I find documents more trustworthy if they don't try to promote their arguments by distorting the truth.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t�
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/01/2025 14:56, Pancho wrote:

On 1/10/25 13:58, Tim Streater wrote:

On 10 Jan 2025 at 13:36:26 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

You also see highly misleading political comments like "Putin turned off >>> the gas". Our politicians sanctioned Russian energy, rather than the
other way around. That is why gas prices went up. The latest story is
about Ukraine switching off their gas pipeline, Putin was willing to
continue supply.

Of course. It was raising money for Putin's war.

Sure, if you like, but that is a bit of a shell game too. You might not
like Putin, but he didn't cut off the gas supply.

No, but he is attempting to cut off Ukraines electricity, and
now he is getting his Chinese friends to try and cut off
subsea power cables to the Baltic countries, and recently
a Russian 'survey' ship was escorted out of Irish waters.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10 Jan 2025 at 14:56:08 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

On 1/10/25 13:58, Tim Streater wrote:

On 10 Jan 2025 at 13:36:26 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

You also see highly misleading political comments like "Putin turned off >>> the gas". Our politicians sanctioned Russian energy, rather than the
other way around. That is why gas prices went up. The latest story is
about Ukraine switching off their gas pipeline, Putin was willing to
continue supply.

Of course. It was raising money for Putin's war.

Sure, if you like, but that is a bit of a shell game too. You might not
like Putin, but he didn't cut off the gas supply.

Neither did the ukrainians. They simply refused to renew the contract, which has run its term.

--
The truth of the matter is that we Scots have always been more divided amongst ourselves than pitted against the English. Scottish history before the Union of Parliaments is a gloomy, violent tale of murders, feuds, and tribal revenge. Only after the Act
of Union did Highlanders and Lowlanders, Picts and Celts, begin to recognise one another as fellow citizens.

Tam Dalyell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/10/25 18:11, Tim Streater wrote:

On 10 Jan 2025 at 14:56:08 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

On 1/10/25 13:58, Tim Streater wrote:

On 10 Jan 2025 at 13:36:26 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote: >>>

You also see highly misleading political comments like "Putin turned off >>>> the gas". Our politicians sanctioned Russian energy, rather than the
other way around. That is why gas prices went up. The latest story is
about Ukraine switching off their gas pipeline, Putin was willing to
continue supply.

Of course. It was raising money for Putin's war.

Sure, if you like, but that is a bit of a shell game too. You might not
like Putin, but he didn't cut off the gas supply.

Neither did the ukrainians. They simply refused to renew the contract, which has run its term.

I said our politicians sanctioned Russia. *Our* politicians chose to
block our access to cheap Russian energy. I can understand why they try
to divert us from noticing their responsibility for higher bills. It is
what politicians do. It is just that when I notice them doing it in an
energy plan, I know it is clearly a political document.

I'm not sure why you want to spin it so that the Ukrainians aren't
responsible for decisions they took to limit other countires access to
Russian gas. Prior to terminating transit via the Ukraine pipeline, they
tried to block Nord Stream 2.

Putin does lots of bad shit, but making out that he is refusing to sell
us cheap gas isn't reasonable.

FWIW, if Trump invades Panama (or some other country), do you think we
should invoke sanctions against the USA? I would be against.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/01/2025 19:42, Pancho wrote:

On 1/10/25 18:11, Tim Streater wrote:

On 10 Jan 2025 at 14:56:08 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

On 1/10/25 13:58, Tim Streater wrote:

On 10 Jan 2025 at 13:36:26 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:

You also see highly misleading political comments like "Putin
turned off
the gas". Our politicians sanctioned Russian energy, rather than the >>>>> other way around. That is why gas prices went up. The latest story is >>>>> about Ukraine switching off their gas pipeline, Putin was willing to >>>>> continue supply.

Of course. It was raising money for Putin's war.

Sure, if you like, but that is a bit of a shell game too. You might not
like Putin, but he didn't cut off the gas supply.

Neither did the ukrainians. They simply refused to renew the contract,
which
has run its term.

I said our politicians sanctioned Russia. *Our* politicians chose to
block our access to cheap Russian energy. I can understand why they try
to divert us from noticing their responsibility for higher bills. It is
what politicians do. It is just that when I notice them doing it in an
energy plan, I know it is clearly a political document.

I'm not sure why you want to spin it so that the Ukrainians aren't responsible for decisions they took to limit other countires access to Russian gas. Prior to terminating transit via the Ukraine pipeline, they tried to block Nord Stream 2.

Putin does lots of bad shit, but making out that he is refusing to sell
us cheap gas isn't reasonable.

FWIW, if Trump invades Panama (or some other country), do you think we
should invoke sanctions against the USA?  I would be against.

There are plans to transport shipping containers across the land gap
between north and south america by other routes and means.

The Panama canal locks are too small for the latest ships and the
amount of water needed to fill the locks is seriously depleted.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/01/2025 13:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 08/01/2025 10:00, charles wrote:

ah - but if you have big (gynormous) batteries there's no problem ;-(

But since we don't, it is.

<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/17/us/fire-battery-storage-plant-california.html>

"A large fire erupted on Thursday at the Moss Landing battery plant,
south of San Jose, Calif., closing Highway 1 and prompting local the authorities to issue evacuation orders for around 2,000 residents.

The plant, owned by Vistra Energy, is one of the largest battery storage
sites in the world and holds tens of thousands of lithium-ion batteries
that store electricity for the power grid.

It is unclear what had started the fire, which began around 3 p.m. on
Thursday and sent up clouds of black smoke. By 10 a.m. on Friday, the
fire was down to less than 5 percent of its original size, said Fire
Chief Joel Mendoza of the North County Fire Protection District."

Andy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)