Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal
a heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of
running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy prices.
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments >change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal a >heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been >removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of
running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas, at >current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is >telling them about future energy prices.
On 31/05/2025 08:13, alan_m wrote:
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal
a heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy prices.
My "between the lines" understanding from the reports you mention is
that the Government have every intention of increasing the price of gas
to make it uneconomical to use it for heating compared to ASHP. Unless I missed it, there was no mention of necessary and inconvenient changes to radiator size or installation of underfloor heating to compensate for
the lower temperature of the ASHP water.
On 31/05/2025 08:13, alan_m wrote:
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments
change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal
a heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been
removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of
running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas, at
current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is
telling them about future energy prices.
My "between the lines" understanding from the reports you mention is
that the Government have every intention of increasing the price of gas
to make it uneconomical to use it for heating compared to ASHP. Unless I missed it, there was no mention of necessary and inconvenient changes to radiator size or installation of underfloor heating to compensate for
the lower temperature of the ASHP water.
Perhaps it's my cynical nature, but someone is going to make a lot of
money from anything government-sponsored (PPE anyone?...). Is it time to invest in ASHP, perhaps? Or, a little more speculative, solar power, batteries, and ASHP?
But not if Reform get in... :-)))
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal
a heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of
running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy prices.
On 31/05/2025 in message <m9vogvFsjucU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the
Governments change to building regulations are going to make it more
easy to instal a heat pump and as a result make heating your home
cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been
removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of
running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas,
at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal
ball is telling them about future energy prices.
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make
our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat
pumps :-(
On 31/05/2025 09:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 31/05/2025 in message <m9vogvFsjucU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:Well its preferable to domestic violence and screaming babies
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the
Governments change to building regulations are going to make it more
easy to instal a heat pump and as a result make heating your home
cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for
the heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has
been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the
cost of running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating
with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments
crystal ball is telling them about future energy prices.
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make
our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat
pumps :-(
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal
a heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of
running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy prices.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments
change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal
a heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been
removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of
running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas, at
current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is
telling them about future energy prices.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it just
for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil. Because
we live in a bungalow it is not that I cannot accommodate a ASHP that does not annoy my neighbour it is where do you put all the other paraphernalia that goes with one which on average seems to fill up half a garage.
According to the skill builder channel on YT there are some houses that
will never be suitable for one.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments
change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal
a heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been
removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of
running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas, at
current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is
telling them about future energy prices.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it just
for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil. Because
we live in a bungalow it is not that I cannot accommodate a ASHP that does not annoy my neighbour it is where do you put all the other paraphernalia that goes with one which on average seems to fill up half a garage.
According to the skill builder channel on YT there are some houses that
will never be suitable for one.
A few years back I read a government study that concluded every house
could be fitted with a ASHP but the older the property the less likely
it was a financially viable solution because of the major work also
required for insulation etc. It's my opinion that it may also apply to
the rabbit hutch sized properties built not too long ago where there was
no intention for a hot water tank and relied on near instant hot water
from a combi boiler.
On 31/05/2025 13:27, Tricky Dicky wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the
Governments change to building regulations are going to make it
more easy to instal a heat pump and as a result make heating your
home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for
the heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary
has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that
the cost of running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to
heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the
Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy
prices.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not goingYeah. They will simply gut the houses and remodel them completely for
to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life
paying for it just for someone else to benefit from it when I leave
this mortal coil. Because we live in a bungalow it is not that I
cannot accommodate a ASHP that does not annoy my neighbour it is
where do you put all the other paraphernalia that goes with one
which on average seems to fill up half a garage. According to the
skill builder channel on YT there are some houses that will never
be suitable for one.
ASHP
But I predict that two things are going to happen.
1. Reform will firm the next government and scrap all the 'green crap'
2. RR will get the greenlight fior nuclear, and electricity prices
will fall . Making pure electric heating not so expensive
On 31/05/2025 14:28, alan_m wrote:
A few years back I read a government study that concluded every house
could be fitted with a ASHP but the older the property the less likely
it was a financially viable solution because of the major work also
required for insulation etc. It's my opinion that it may also apply
to the rabbit hutch sized properties built not too long ago where
there was no intention for a hot water tank and relied on near instant
hot water from a combi boiler.
Well you put the ASHP outside and the tank where the combi used to be...
A combi is relatively small and can be hung in the wall somewhere. An
ASHP requires two quite large tanks (one for the space heating; one for
the hot water). Probably more than would fit in the average airing
cupboard, which you would then lose the use of.
What put me off was the extra size of the hot water tank needed to
accomodate the larger heating coils. We simply didn't have the space
without moving a staircase.
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make
our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat
pumps ðŸ™
On 31/05/2025 09:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make
our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat pumps ðŸ™
You would find it hard to hear the majority of them at 10 feet away. The Building regs are being slightly loosened to allow the HP to be fitted
closer to a neighbouring property, it still cannot cause a nuisance. The
vast majority of them are so quiet that you'd never hear them anyway.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:19:20 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 13:27, Tricky Dicky wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the
Governments change to building regulations are going to make it
more easy to instal a heat pump and as a result make heating your
home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for
the heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary
has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that
the cost of running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to
heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the
Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy
prices.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not goingYeah. They will simply gut the houses and remodel them completely for
to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life
paying for it just for someone else to benefit from it when I leave
this mortal coil. Because we live in a bungalow it is not that I
cannot accommodate a ASHP that does not annoy my neighbour it is
where do you put all the other paraphernalia that goes with one
which on average seems to fill up half a garage. According to the
skill builder channel on YT there are some houses that will never
be suitable for one.
ASHP
But I predict that two things are going to happen.
1. Reform will firm the next government and scrap all the 'green crap'
2. RR will get the greenlight fior nuclear, and electricity prices
will fall . Making pure electric heating not so expensive
Nearly right: prices *never* fall. Wasn't electricity from the original fission reactors going to be 'too cheap to meter'? The problem is that
the cost of *everything* is vastly higher than the manufacturing cost.
On 31/05/2025 10:15, charles wrote:
What put me off was the extra size of the hot water tank needed to accomodate the larger heating coils. We simply didn't have the space without moving a staircase.
Tanks with a similar size as your current one are available. The heating
coil inside the cylinder has little impact on the size (volume) of the
tank. Buidling Regs require the water storage to meet current B. Regs,
and they are based on occupants and bathrooms, there is no need to
specify a 200L + tank if the Occupant doesnt want one.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it just
for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil. Because
we live in a bungalow it is not that I cannot accommodate a ASHP that does not annoy my neighbour it is where do you put all the other paraphernalia that goes with one which on average seems to fill up half a garage.
According to the skill builder channel on YT there are some houses that
will never be suitable for one.
On 31/05/2025 16:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/2025 14:28, alan_m wrote:
A few years back I read a government study that concluded every house
could be fitted with a ASHP but the older the property the less likely
it was a financially viable solution because of the major work also
required for insulation etc. It's my opinion that it may also apply
to the rabbit hutch sized properties built not too long ago where
there was no intention for a hot water tank and relied on near instant
hot water from a combi boiler.
Well you put the ASHP outside and the tank where the combi used to be...
A combi is relatively small and can be hung in the wall somewhere. An
ASHP requires two quite large tanks (one for the space heating; one for
the hot water). Probably more than would fit in the average airing
cupboard, which you would then lose the use of.
On 31/05/2025 10:15, charles wrote:
What put me off was the extra size of the hot water tank needed to
accomodate the larger heating coils. We simply didn't have the space
without moving a staircase.
Tanks with a similar size as your current one are available. The heating
coil inside the cylinder has little impact on the size (volume) of the
tank. Buidling Regs require the water storage to meet current B. Regs,
and they are based on occupants and bathrooms, there is no need to
specify a 200L + tank if the Occupant doesnt want one.
On 31/05/2025 in message <m9vogvFsjucU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:comparable to heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy prices.
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal a heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of running a properly installed ASHP is
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat pumps :-(
It’s a shame that there aren’t more combined heat-pump and tank combos that
would be installed outside. So many houses that were designed around combis (or modified to use the space where a tank would have gone) just don’t have room internally for the tank/tanks.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the Governments
change to building regulations are going to make it more easy to instal
a heat pump and as a result make heating your home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for the
heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary has been
removed. However, it's always been my understanding that the cost of
running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to heating with gas, at
current energy prices. I'm not sure what the Governments crystal ball is
telling them about future energy prices.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it just
for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:19:20 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 13:27, Tricky Dicky wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Yeah. They will simply gut the houses and remodel them completely for
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the
Governments change to building regulations are going to make it
more easy to instal a heat pump and as a result make heating your
home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for
the heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary
has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that
the cost of running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to
heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the
Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy
prices.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going
to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life
paying for it just for someone else to benefit from it when I leave
this mortal coil. Because we live in a bungalow it is not that I
cannot accommodate a ASHP that does not annoy my neighbour it is
where do you put all the other paraphernalia that goes with one
which on average seems to fill up half a garage. According to the
skill builder channel on YT there are some houses that will never
be suitable for one.
ASHP
But I predict that two things are going to happen.
1. Reform will firm the next government and scrap all the 'green crap'
2. RR will get the greenlight fior nuclear, and electricity prices
will fall . Making pure electric heating not so expensive
Nearly right: prices *never* fall. Wasn't electricity from the original fission reactors going to be 'too cheap to meter'? The problem is that
the cost of *everything* is vastly higher than the manufacturing cost.
What put me off was the extra size of the hot water tank needed to
accomodate the larger heating coils. We simply didn't have the space
without moving a staircase.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:19:20 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 13:27, Tricky Dicky wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Yeah. They will simply gut the houses and remodel them completely for
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the
Governments change to building regulations are going to make it
more easy to instal a heat pump and as a result make heating your
home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for
the heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary
has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that
the cost of running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to
heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the
Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy
prices.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going
to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life
paying for it just for someone else to benefit from it when I leave
this mortal coil. Because we live in a bungalow it is not that I
cannot accommodate a ASHP that does not annoy my neighbour it is
where do you put all the other paraphernalia that goes with one
which on average seems to fill up half a garage. According to the
skill builder channel on YT there are some houses that will never
be suitable for one.
ASHP
But I predict that two things are going to happen.
1. Reform will firm the next government and scrap all the 'green crap'
2. RR will get the greenlight fior nuclear, and electricity prices
will fall . Making pure electric heating not so expensive
Nearly right: prices *never* fall. Wasn't electricity from the original fission reactors going to be 'too cheap to meter'? The problem is that
the cost of *everything* is vastly higher than the manufacturing cost.
On 31/05/2025 16:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/2025 14:28, alan_m wrote:
A few years back I read a government study that concluded every house
could be fitted with a ASHP but the older the property the less
likely it was a financially viable solution because of the major work
also required for insulation etc. It's my opinion that it may also
apply to the rabbit hutch sized properties built not too long ago
where there was no intention for a hot water tank and relied on near
instant hot water from a combi boiler.
Well you put the ASHP outside and the tank where the combi used to be...
A combi is relatively small and can be hung in the wall somewhere. An
ASHP requires two quite large tanks (one for the space heating; one for
the hot water). Probably more than would fit in the average airing
cupboard, which you would then lose the use of.
If for any particular property gas-heating costs are the same as ASHPyes.
heating costs, then any money invested (sic) in the latter will never be recouped, and the interest on the money used to fund it will be foregone.
Electricity prices won’t fall for the reason that fabulous sums of money are being made on the back of high gas prices.
It doesn’t make financial
sense to install a heat pump, and they won’t save the planet either.
On 31/05/2025 21:41, Paul wrote:
On Sat, 5/31/2025 11:27 AM, Joe wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:19:20 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 13:27, Tricky Dicky wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Yeah. They will simply gut the houses and remodel them completely for
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the
Governments change to building regulations are going to make it
more easy to instal a heat pump and as a result make heating your
home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for >>>>>> the heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary
has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that
the cost of running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to
heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the
Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy
prices.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going
to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life
paying for it just for someone else to benefit from it when I leave
this mortal coil. Because we live in a bungalow it is not that I
cannot accommodate a ASHP that does not annoy my neighbour it is
where do you put all the other paraphernalia that goes with one
which on average seems to fill up half a garage. According to the
skill builder channel on YT there are some houses that will never
be suitable for one.
ASHP
But I predict that two things are going to happen.
1. Reform will firm the next government and scrap all the 'green crap' >>>> 2. RR will get the greenlight fior nuclear, and electricity prices
will fall . Making pure electric heating not so expensive
Nearly right: prices *never* fall. Wasn't electricity from the original
fission reactors going to be 'too cheap to meter'? The problem is that
the cost of *everything* is vastly higher than the manufacturing cost.
What happened here, when we built multiple nukes on large sites,
is yes, the original price quoted for the lekky, was dirt cheap.
It's because they had no idea at the time, what operation and
maintenance cost would be for the things. They did not really know, how
often on average a unit would need to be re-built in the core.
Dead wrong.
Nucler power was proftaible at an ex-site cost of 4-5p a unit and
competitive with coal for baseload.
So troo was gas when we were pumping it out of te Notrth Sea.
the whole cost of a reactor is in the Capex and the inters on teh denbt
Fuel and maintenance and even decommissioning are peanuts by comparison
For that class of reactor today, the costs are known with a bitThey were always known
more precision.
And bad things happen, if you only build one of the things on a site.That makes no sense.
One area of the country tried to go cheap, by building a single unit,
and the cost of replacement lekky while a rebuild of the core
was going on, just about sank them. They have to go offline at
some point, and you need a pool of them to smooth out the bumps.
What happened to the nuclear industry is two things.
After Sizeweell B which was the fiorst time someone siad '#lets just buy
in a priven dfesign' which was delieverd pretty much on time and on
budget, two things happened
Interest rates climbed through the roof,and the cost of a reactor
trebled because of that, and then North Sea gas came ashore at silly
prices and it was a no brainer to switch to gas.
Since then the industry has been deliberately strangled by EUÂ (Euratom) regulation to the point where a basically simpley construction project
that could be built in a couple of years now takes 20.
Because German Greens and a coalition government decided that Germany
wasn't going to have more nukes and was going to waste money on
windmills instead.
The SMRs we are getting, the type/class will be different in the
sense the unit is smaller, and the scale of doing various things
might make a slight difference.
3:1 difference in price and 10:1 impriovemnent in build time
Since the operating principle
and the refueling method are knowns ("have seen it before"),
the maintenance estimates for the thing should be a LOT more
realistic than the pie-in-the-sky numbers of the first generation.
Bullshit. O & M costs have never ever been an issue for nuclear,. Only
capex.
They promoted the idea of using *resistive heating* with the first
generation, and a couple of people tried it. But they later
removed the units, because as hard as it is to believe, making
a big resistive heater reliable, was harder to do than it looked.
One of my buddies at work came in one morning "one element just blew on
the electric furnace, down to 75% capacity", and that was one
of the events that led to the unit being thrown into the nearest
field.
France runs almost exclusively on resistive underfloor heating,. So does Sweden.
So dies every immersion heater.
You are spouting mire bollocks again
At least with heat pumps, the electricity usage is a bit more
intelligent. Still not perfect, but better.
Noithing is perfect
 From a resiliency perspective, we should continue to work on the
infrastructure for more than one heating method, as you never know
when one of the methods could go flat bust. (No wind blows,
or no LNG tanker shows up.) It helps to have an alternative
to use. You don't want to be a slave to a single-source solution.
Maybe you already have half-a-cord of wood sitting in the back yard :-)
Wood and oil.
On Sat, 5/31/2025 11:27 AM, Joe wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:19:20 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 13:27, Tricky Dicky wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Yeah. They will simply gut the houses and remodel them completely for
Over the past few days I heard reported a few times that the
Governments change to building regulations are going to make it
more easy to instal a heat pump and as a result make heating your
home cheaper.
I believe one change to the regulation is that the requirement for
the heat pump to be a least one metre from a neighbours boundary
has been removed. However, it's always been my understanding that
the cost of running a properly installed ASHP is comparable to
heating with gas, at current energy prices. I'm not sure what the
Governments crystal ball is telling them about future energy
prices.
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going
to be a ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life
paying for it just for someone else to benefit from it when I leave
this mortal coil. Because we live in a bungalow it is not that I
cannot accommodate a ASHP that does not annoy my neighbour it is
where do you put all the other paraphernalia that goes with one
which on average seems to fill up half a garage. According to the
skill builder channel on YT there are some houses that will never
be suitable for one.
ASHP
But I predict that two things are going to happen.
1. Reform will firm the next government and scrap all the 'green crap'
2. RR will get the greenlight fior nuclear, and electricity prices
will fall . Making pure electric heating not so expensive
Nearly right: prices *never* fall. Wasn't electricity from the original
fission reactors going to be 'too cheap to meter'? The problem is that
the cost of *everything* is vastly higher than the manufacturing cost.
What happened here, when we built multiple nukes on large sites,
is yes, the original price quoted for the lekky, was dirt cheap.
It's because they had no idea at the time, what operation and
maintenance cost would be for the things. They did not really know, how
often on average a unit would need to be re-built in the core.
For that class of reactor today, the costs are known with a bit
more precision.
And bad things happen, if you only build one of the things on a site.
One area of the country tried to go cheap, by building a single unit,
and the cost of replacement lekky while a rebuild of the core
was going on, just about sank them. They have to go offline at
some point, and you need a pool of them to smooth out the bumps.
The SMRs we are getting, the type/class will be different in the
sense the unit is smaller, and the scale of doing various things
might make a slight difference.
and the refueling method are knowns ("have seen it before"),
the maintenance estimates for the thing should be a LOT more
realistic than the pie-in-the-sky numbers of the first generation.
They promoted the idea of using *resistive heating* with the first generation, and a couple of people tried it. But they later
removed the units, because as hard as it is to believe, making
a big resistive heater reliable, was harder to do than it looked.
One of my buddies at work came in one morning "one element just blew on
the electric furnace, down to 75% capacity", and that was one
of the events that led to the unit being thrown into the nearest
field.
At least with heat pumps, the electricity usage is a bit more
intelligent. Still not perfect, but better.
From a resiliency perspective, we should continue to work on the infrastructure for more than one heating method, as you never know
when one of the methods could go flat bust. (No wind blows,
or no LNG tanker shows up.) It helps to have an alternative
to use. You don't want to be a slave to a single-source solution.
Maybe you already have half-a-cord of wood sitting in the back yard :-)
Paul
Wind and solar typically cost 15p-45p plus the cost of redundant grid, battery and backup.
Now obviously the electricity companies will try and turn the difference
into profit, but there is only so far OFGEN will let them go...
On 01/06/2025 03:28, RJH wrote:
On 31 May 2025 at 23:00:55 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Wind and solar typically cost 15p-45p plus the cost of redundant grid,
battery and backup.
Where do you get that figure?
Capital cost for small scale is about £1000/kW. Upper end generation would be
1000kW/h/year (very rough guess). Depending upon how you calculate the return
and factor in maintenance and repair, it'll come out far less than 15p in any
event. And that's small scale - solar farms will be much lower.
The capital costs of a small scale solar installation rarely includes an upgrade to the electricity supply to the house to feed back into the
grid.
On 31 May 2025 at 23:00:55 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Wind and solar typically cost 15p-45p plus the cost of redundant grid,
battery and backup.
Where do you get that figure?
Capital cost for small scale is about £1000/kW. Upper end generation would be
1000kW/h/year (very rough guess). Depending upon how you calculate the return and factor in maintenance and repair, it'll come out far less than 15p in any event. And that's small scale - solar farms will be much lower.
Tricky Dicky wrote:
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to
be a
ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it just
for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil.
That seems to assume the installed equipment would outlive you.
Not a safe assumption with so much 'modern' heating kit.
That 'someone else' would have to pay for a new lot of equipment to be installed.That's what tends to happen when younger couples buy houses after older
What happened here, when we built multiple nukes on large sites,
is yes, the original price quoted for the lekky, was dirt cheap.
It's because they had no idea at the time, what operation and
maintenance cost would be for the things. They did not really know, how
often on average a unit would need to be re-built in the core.
For that class of reactor today, the costs are known with a bit
more precision.
And bad things happen, if you only build one of the things on a site.
One area of the country tried to go cheap, by building a single unit,
and the cost of replacement lekky while a rebuild of the core
was going on, just about sank them. They have to go offline at
some point, and you need a pool of them to smooth out the bumps.
Things *do* get cheaper. In 1885 I paid £800 for a PC clone. This
machine is way more powerful and overall cost me about £400
'too cheap to meter'?
On 31/05/2025 17:50, Max Demian wrote:
On 31/05/2025 16:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/2025 14:28, alan_m wrote:
A few years back I read a government study that concluded every house
could be fitted with a ASHP but the older the property the less
likely it was a financially viable solution because of the major work
also required for insulation etc. It's my opinion that it may also
apply to the rabbit hutch sized properties built not too long ago
where there was no intention for a hot water tank and relied on near
instant hot water from a combi boiler.
Well you put the ASHP outside and the tank where the combi used to be...
A combi is relatively small and can be hung in the wall somewhere. An
ASHP requires two quite large tanks (one for the space heating; one for
the hot water). Probably more than would fit in the average airing cupboard, which you would then lose the use of.
Are you sure about that? Installations I've seen simply have a tank for
DHW. There is no call to store hot water for space heating
On 31/05/2025 17:50, Max Demian wrote:
A combi is relatively small and can be hung in the wall somewhere. An
ASHP requires two quite large tanks (one for the space heating; one
for the hot water). Probably more than would fit in the average airing
cupboard, which you would then lose the use of.
No, there is only one tank required for the hot water, as in current
houses with a hot water tank. The space the boiler took up would not be required, as the heat source will be outside now.
It does not have to be a large tank, the tank size is specified to meet
the occupants requirements. 200 litre tanks are typical, but smaller can
be fitted if required. It could be fitted into exactly the same space as
the current tank if a similar size tank was specified.
On 31/05/2025 21:41, Paul wrote:
What happened here, when we built multiple nukes on large sites,
is yes, the original price quoted for the lekky, was dirt cheap.
It's because they had no idea at the time, what operation and
maintenance cost would be for the things. They did not really know, how
often on average a unit would need to be re-built in the core.
For that class of reactor today, the costs are known with a bit
more precision.
And bad things happen, if you only build one of the things on a site.
One area of the country tried to go cheap, by building a single unit,
and the cost of replacement lekky while a rebuild of the core
was going on, just about sank them. They have to go offline at
some point, and you need a pool of them to smooth out the bumps.
 Is that in Canada? CANDU is supposed to allow online refueling.
On 31/05/2025 23:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Things *do* get cheaper. In 1885 I paid £800 for a PC clone. This
machine is way more powerful and overall cost me about £400
I had no idea that Mr Babbage was making them so cheaply at that time.
On 31 May 2025 at 23:00:55 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Wind and solar typically cost 15p-45p plus the cost of redundant grid,
battery and backup.
Where do you get that figure?
Capital cost for small scale is about £1000/kW. Upper end generation would be
1000kW/h/year (very rough guess). Depending upon how you calculate the return and factor in maintenance and repair, it'll come out far less than 15p in any event. And that's small scale - solar farms will be much lower.
And again (as usual) you seem to assume that other costs, primarily environmental, of non-renewables are zero.
Now obviously the electricity companies will try and turn the difference
into profit, but there is only so far OFGEN will let them go...
Indeed. Good luck with that.
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote:
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to
be a
ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it
just
for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil.
That seems to assume the installed equipment would outlive you.
Not a safe assumption with so much 'modern' heating kit.
When I bought this house in 1990 it had a cast iron lump, one
thermocouple later it still has the same boiler. Replacing it with something modern isn't on my list. I think the way that SEDBUK ratings
are calculated changed* some time ago, but before they did, it was only
a single digit difference in efficiency from combis of the time.
I've changed radiators from singles to doubles as I've done-up each
room, and it's had the pump replaced.
That 'someone else' would have to pay for a new lot of equipment to beThat's what tends to happen when younger couples buy houses after older people have died/moved into a home ...
installed.
[*] such that you can't compare an old rating to a new rating.
On 31/05/2025 16:27, Joe wrote:
'too cheap to meter'?
No that was a lie simply to disguise the first reactors were
designed/built to produce large amounts of weapons grade Pu239. The electricity was a byproduct of Pu production.
Chapelcross had 4 small reactors not because they didn't know how to
make a station with 2 big reactors but 4 reactors meant they refuelled
just one reactor with 3 running and could recover the Pu239 readily. Interrupting the output by 50% all the time would be 'obvious' what the purpose was.
On 01/06/2025 11:17, mm0fmf wrote:
On 31/05/2025 16:27, Joe wrote:No, it was applied to the then 'just around the corner' *fusion recators*
'too cheap to meter'?
No that was a lie simply to disguise the first reactors were designed/
built to produce large amounts of weapons grade Pu239. The electricity
was a byproduct of Pu production.
On 31/05/2025 18:00, Alan Lee wrote:
On 31/05/2025 17:50, Max Demian wrote:
A combi is relatively small and can be hung in the wall somewhere. An
ASHP requires two quite large tanks (one for the space heating; one
for the hot water). Probably more than would fit in the average
airing cupboard, which you would then lose the use of.
No, there is only one tank required for the hot water, as in current
houses with a hot water tank. The space the boiler took up would not
be required, as the heat source will be outside now.
It does not have to be a large tank, the tank size is specified to
meet the occupants requirements. 200 litre tanks are typical, but
smaller can be fitted if required. It could be fitted into exactly the
same space as the current tank if a similar size tank was specified.
If you have a "combi" you don't have a water tank. The water, whether
for the tap or the radiators is heated as it goes through the boiler.
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote:
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to
be a
ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it
just
for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil.
That seems to assume the installed equipment would outlive you.
Not a safe assumption with so much 'modern' heating kit.
When I bought this house in 1990 it had a cast iron lump, one
thermocouple later it still has the same boiler. Replacing it with something modern isn't on my list. I think the way that SEDBUK ratings
are calculated changed* some time ago, but before they did, it was only
a single digit difference in efficiency from combis of the time.
I've changed radiators from singles to doubles as I've done-up each
room, and it's had the pump replaced.
On 31/05/2025 09:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make
our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat
pumps ðŸ™
You would find it hard to hear the majority of them at 10 feet away.
The
Building regs are being slightly loosened to allow the HP to be fitted
closer to a neighbouring property, it still cannot cause a nuisance. The
vast majority of them are so quiet that you'd never hear them anyway.
On 31/05/2025 09:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make
our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat
pumps ðŸ™
You would find it hard to hear the majority of them at 10 feet away. The Building regs are being slightly loosened to allow the HP to be fitted
closer to a neighbouring property, it still cannot cause a nuisance. The
vast majority of them are so quiet that you'd never hear them anyway.
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote:
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to
be a
ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it just >>> for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil.
That seems to assume the installed equipment would outlive you.
Not a safe assumption with so much 'modern' heating kit.
When I bought this house in 1990 it had a cast iron lump, one
thermocouple later it still has the same boiler. Replacing it with
something modern isn't on my list.
On 31/05/2025 18:06, Alan Lee wrote:
On 31/05/2025 09:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make
our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat
pumps ðŸ™
You would find it hard to hear the majority of them at 10 feet away. The
Building regs are being slightly loosened to allow the HP to be fitted
closer to a neighbouring property, it still cannot cause a nuisance. The
vast majority of them are so quiet that you'd never hear them anyway.
And fan bearings never start fail during their lifetime. :)
And ASHP owners will always invest in timely maintenance. :)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R3FuOWh25bk
On 31/05/2025 18:06, Alan Lee wrote:
On 31/05/2025 09:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make
our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat
pumps ðŸ™
You would find it hard to hear the majority of them at 10 feet away. The Building regs are being slightly loosened to allow the HP to be fitted closer to a neighbouring property, it still cannot cause a nuisance. The vast majority of them are so quiet that you'd never hear them anyway.
And fan bearings never start fail during their lifetime. :)
And ASHP owners will always invest in timely maintenance. :)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R3FuOWh25bk
On 01/06/2025 09:25, Andy Burns wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote:
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to
be a
ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it just >>>> for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil.
That seems to assume the installed equipment would outlive you.
Not a safe assumption with so much 'modern' heating kit.
When I bought this house in 1990 it had a cast iron lump, one
thermocouple later it still has the same boiler. Replacing it with
something modern isn't on my list.
I trust it isn't so old that it doesn't have a self-reigniting pilot
light.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 18:06, Alan Lee wrote:
On 31/05/2025 09:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make >>>> our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat >>>> pumps ðŸ™
You would find it hard to hear the majority of them at 10 feet away. The >>> Building regs are being slightly loosened to allow the HP to be fitted
closer to a neighbouring property, it still cannot cause a nuisance. The >>> vast majority of them are so quiet that you'd never hear them anyway.
And fan bearings never start fail during their lifetime. :)
And ASHP owners will always invest in timely maintenance. :)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R3FuOWh25bk
When I used to maintain cooling equipment that had externally mounted fans
it was noticeable how soon fan bearings deteriorated on premises within
say half a mile of the coast. The saline air from the sea really got to
them.
GH
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 18:06, Alan Lee wrote:
On 31/05/2025 09:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make >>>> our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat >>>> pumps ðŸ™
You would find it hard to hear the majority of them at 10 feet away. The >>> Building regs are being slightly loosened to allow the HP to be fitted
closer to a neighbouring property, it still cannot cause a nuisance. The >>> vast majority of them are so quiet that you'd never hear them anyway.
And fan bearings never start fail during their lifetime. :)
And ASHP owners will always invest in timely maintenance. :)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R3FuOWh25bk
That was a busted compressor caused by freezing due to the poor install, rather than bad bearings:
https://youtu.be/gWB27SUgoVE?feature=shared&t=249
Theo
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 18:06, Alan Lee wrote:
On 31/05/2025 09:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, in this crowded island of ours we are going to be free to make >>>> our neighbours' lives even more intolerable with the noise of our heat >>>> pumps ðŸ™
You would find it hard to hear the majority of them at 10 feet away. The >>> Building regs are being slightly loosened to allow the HP to be fitted >>> closer to a neighbouring property, it still cannot cause a nuisance. The >>> vast majority of them are so quiet that you'd never hear them anyway.
And fan bearings never start fail during their lifetime. :)
And ASHP owners will always invest in timely maintenance. :)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R3FuOWh25bk
That was a busted compressor caused by freezing due to the poor install, rather than bad bearings:
https://youtu.be/gWB27SUgoVE?feature=shared&t=249
Theo
The refrigerant froze? Seems unlikely. Can’t see wow the water freezing in the system could cause compressor failure.
I trust it isn't so old that it doesn't have a self-reigniting pilot light.
Jeff Layman wrote:
I trust it isn't so old that it doesn't have a self-reigniting pilot light.
Relighting the pilot light doesn't require too much contortion, it's a question of holding the gas valve open while using the piezo igniter
until the thermocouple gets hot, the only time it ever went out by
itself was when the thermocouple failed, I think it's overdue happening again, there's already a replacement in the shed.
It has been 'tested' a few times recently when gas meter and pipes in
street have been replaced.
This thing has no PCB, no fans, just pipes and wires.
You have to admire the simplicity of older boilers, if not their peak efficiency.
Tim+ wrote:
You have to admire the simplicity of older boilers, if not their peak efficiency.
Nearest neighbours have each had two combis fitted in that time, that
pays for a lot of gas ...
In article <ma5qi5FrtavU1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim+ wrote:
You have to admire the simplicity of older boilers, if not their peak
efficiency.
Nearest neighbours have each had two combis fitted in that time, that
pays for a lot of gas ...
This time last year, I had my 1979 'modern' gas boiler replaced. I reckon it had done pretty well.
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/06/2025 09:25, Andy Burns wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote:
Dunno about gas prices but in my twilight years there is not going to >>>>> be a
ASHP for us I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying for it just >>>>> for someone else to benefit from it when I leave this mortal coil.
That seems to assume the installed equipment would outlive you.
Not a safe assumption with so much 'modern' heating kit.
When I bought this house in 1990 it had a cast iron lump, one
thermocouple later it still has the same boiler. Replacing it with
something modern isn't on my list.
I trust it isn't so old that it doesn't have a self-reigniting pilot
light.
If it’s cast iron it’s almost a certainty that it doesn’t. The thermocouple
is to shut off the gas should the flame fail.
On 02/06/2025 17:00, charles wrote:
In article <ma5qi5FrtavU1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim+ wrote:
You have to admire the simplicity of older boilers, if not their peak
efficiency.
Nearest neighbours have each had two combis fitted in that time, that
pays for a lot of gas ...
This time last year, I had my 1979 'modern' gas boiler replaced. I reckon it had done pretty well.
I too had a modern 1980s gas boiler that lasted until about 4 years ago.
The claims were that it was much more efficient than boilers with a
cast iron heat exchanger. It was very easy to clean for a service. I had
a couple of thermocouples fail but very easy to replace. The pump
overrun also failed again and once I worked out how it was working easy
to fix. The overrun was a simple bi-metal spring that operated a micro-switch. Over the years the little plastic tab on the micro switch
had worn down a bit. Luckily Glowworm had included an adjustment screw,
the downside was they had a used screw lock to make sure it didn't move
:) This boiler had a constant pilot light with the thermocouple acting
as a safety device to shut off the gas valve if the pilot went out.
If my old boiler was more efficient than one with a cast iron heat
exchanger and my new condensing boiler is again much more efficient than
my previous boiler still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot
light may have used extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used
extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
alan_m wrote:
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used
extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot water, during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light
is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing
charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year payback,
OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler.
On 03/06/2025 08:27, RJH wrote:
On 3 Jun 2025 at 07:53:02 BST, Andy Burns wrote:
alan_m wrote:
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used
extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot water, >>> during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light
is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing
charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year payback,
OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler.
JOOI, is the waste of energy/resources of no concern? It in no way
informs
your choice of boiler?
The world is awash with energy, in the form of nuclear fuel and that
uses small resources too.
I spend my energy (sic!) campaigning for a sane energy policy. Not
making sure the kettle has exactly one mugful of water in it.
In the end cost of fuel reflects energy shortage. Ex of government interference.
I could probably save maybe £300 a year fuel on a new boiler costing £3000. That's almost worth doing - its not a bad ROI
But I couldn't give a toss about any EcoCrapâ„¢. I have no 'libral'
friends to impress with how green I am.
The failure of EU energy policy is that it failed to make the 'wrong' decisions expensive.
Instead of taxing carbon fuel (howls of anguish from German industry)
they made Renewables obligatory (yelps of delight from German windmill manufacturers).
None of it was actually designed to reduce emissions. It was designed to placate a very stupid Green party in a PR electorate and keep German industry profitable.
In the end the free market is the best way to arrive at the correct technology, with as little government interference as possible.
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation
from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and gas,
and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources than
a nuclear reactor,.
If you apply careful taxation to the thing you decide is socially
expensive in environmental terms as people believe (I dont) CO2 is, then
you end up favouring nuclear power as the cheapest.
That is what a rational energy policy that wanted tor educe dependence
on resources and minimise emissions should have led to.
And the reason it didn't is the EU.
And that's why I voted to leave. Of course May and subsequently Boris
and now Starmer have signed up to the EU energy policyu anyway,
But I don't think Farage will. And against all the odds, I think he
will be the next PM.
And we will finally get some sort of genuine Brexit.
So no. I don't give a fuck about EcoCrap™ because the whole thing is a marketing fraud created by profiteering businesses with the ear of governments.
Re Eds GreenCrapâ„¢ is now on the back burner at best, if not in the trash bin, die to it all being completely unaffordable.
Maybe, finally, we will get the cheap nuclear power that is so easy to achieve once you get governments fingers out of the markets.
On 3 Jun 2025 at 07:53:02 BST, Andy Burns wrote:
alan_m wrote:
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used
extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot water,
during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light
is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing
charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year payback,
OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler.
JOOI, is the waste of energy/resources of no concern? It in no way informs your choice of boiler?
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot water, >>> during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light
is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing
charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year payback,
OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler.
JOOI, is the waste of energy/resources of no concern? It in no way informs >> your choice of boiler?
The world is awash with energy, in the form of nuclear fuel and that
uses small resources too.
I spend my energy (sic!) campaigning for a sane energy policy. Not
making sure the kettle has exactly one mugful of water in it.
In the end cost of fuel reflects energy shortage. Ex of government interference.
I could probably save maybe £300 a year fuel on a new boiler costing £3000. That's almost worth doing - its not a bad ROI
But I couldn't give a toss about any EcoCrapâ„¢. I have no 'libral'
friends to impress with how green I am.
The failure of EU energy policy is that it failed to make the 'wrong' decisions expensive.
Instead of taxing carbon fuel (howls of anguish from German industry)
they made Renewables obligatory (yelps of delight from German windmill manufacturers).
None of it was actually designed to reduce emissions. It was designed to placate a very stupid Green party in a PR electorate and keep German industry profitable.
In the end the free market is the best way to arrive at the correct technology, with as little government interference as possible.
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation
from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and gas,
and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources than
a nuclear reactor,.
If you apply careful taxation to the thing you decide is socially
expensive in environmental terms as people believe (I dont) CO2 is, then
you end up favouring nuclear power as the cheapest.
That is what a rational energy policy that wanted tor educe dependence
on resources and minimise emissions should have led to.
And the reason it didn't is the EU.
And that's why I voted to leave. Of course May and subsequently Boris
and now Starmer have signed up to the EU energy policyu anyway,
But I don't think Farage will. And against all the odds, I think he
will be the next PM.
And we will finally get some sort of genuine Brexit.
So no. I don't give a fuck about EcoCrapâ„¢ because the whole thing is a marketing fraud created by profiteering businesses with the ear of governments.
Re Eds GreenCrapâ„¢ is now on the back burner at best, if not in the trash bin, die to it all being completely unaffordable.
Maybe, finally, we will get the cheap nuclear power that is so easy to achieve once you get governments fingers out of the markets.
Slighty OT but why is nuclear is so expensive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Plxrsryxw
On 03/06/2025 12:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/06/2025 08:27, RJH wrote:
On 3 Jun 2025 at 07:53:02 BST, Andy Burns wrote:
alan_m wrote:
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used >>>>> extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot
water,
during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light >>>> is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing
charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year payback, >>>> OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler.
JOOI, is the waste of energy/resources of no concern? It in no way
informs
your choice of boiler?
The world is awash with energy, in the form of nuclear fuel and that
uses small resources too.
I spend my energy (sic!) campaigning for a sane energy policy. Not
making sure the kettle has exactly one mugful of water in it.
In the end cost of fuel reflects energy shortage. Ex of government
interference.
I could probably save maybe £300 a year fuel on a new boiler costing
£3000. That's almost worth doing - its not a bad ROI
But I couldn't give a toss about any EcoCrapâ„¢. I have no 'libral'
friends to impress with how green I am.
The failure of EU energy policy is that it failed to make the 'wrong'
decisions expensive.
Instead of taxing carbon fuel (howls of anguish from German industry)
they made Renewables obligatory (yelps of delight from German windmill
manufacturers).
None of it was actually designed to reduce emissions. It was designed
to placate a very stupid Green party in a PR electorate and keep
German industry profitable.
In the end the free market is the best way to arrive at the correct
technology, with as little government interference as possible.
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation
from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and
gas, and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more
resources than a nuclear reactor,.
If you apply careful taxation to the thing you decide is socially
expensive in environmental terms as people believe (I dont) CO2 is,
then you end up favouring nuclear power as the cheapest.
That is what a rational energy policy that wanted tor educe dependence
on resources and minimise emissions should have led to.
And the reason it didn't is the EU.
And that's why I voted to leave. Of course May and subsequently Boris
and now Starmer have signed up to the EU energy policyu anyway,
But I don't think Farage will. And against all the odds, I think he
will be the next PM.
And we will finally get some sort of genuine Brexit.
So no. I don't give a fuck about EcoCrapâ„¢ because the whole thing is a
marketing fraud created by profiteering businesses with the ear of
governments.
Re Eds GreenCrapâ„¢ is now on the back burner at best, if not in the
trash bin, die to it all being completely unaffordable.
Maybe, finally, we will get the cheap nuclear power that is so easy to
achieve once you get governments fingers out of the markets.
Slighty OT but why is nuclear is so expensive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Plxrsryxw
On 3 Jun 2025 at 12:17:01 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
A pilot light uses gas - a non-renewable form of energy. When it's gone, it's gone.This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot water, >>>> during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light >>>> is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing
charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year payback, >>>> OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler.
JOOI, is the waste of energy/resources of no concern? It in no way informs >>> your choice of boiler?
The world is awash with energy, in the form of nuclear fuel and that
uses small resources too.
I spend my energy (sic!) campaigning for a sane energy policy. Not
making sure the kettle has exactly one mugful of water in it.
OK. But the OP is talking about the euivalent of operating a kettle for about 2 hours each day -several gallons of tea.
In the end cost of fuel reflects energy shortage. Ex of governmentNot always. Especially if there's a poorly regulated monopoly.
interference.
I could probably save maybe £300 a year fuel on a new boiler costing
£3000. That's almost worth doing - its not a bad ROI
Getting to my original point, at last.
But I couldn't give a toss about any EcoCrapâ„¢. I have no 'libral'
friends to impress with how green I am.
Avoiding waste isn't 'ecocrap'. It's a state of mind
sort of household), it's one of the ways to achieve an optimal use of finite resources, it's a philospophical position,
and it's one of many ways to avoid
climate catastrophe.
The failure of EU energy policy is that it failed to make the 'wrong'
decisions expensive.
And we are where we are. Is wasting energy of interest to you? Would it inform
your choice of (say) a boiler, all other things being equal?
Instead of taxing carbon fuel (howls of anguish from German industry)
they made Renewables obligatory (yelps of delight from German windmill
manufacturers).
None of it was actually designed to reduce emissions. It was designed to
placate a very stupid Green party in a PR electorate and keep German
industry profitable.
So you say. I see some huge benefits that've arisen from EU and other regulation. You don't. OK.
In the end the free market is the best way to arrive at the correct
technology, with as little government interference as possible.
Nuts.
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation
from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and gas,
and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources than
a nuclear reactor,.
So you say. Yet without any decent evidence.
If you apply careful taxation to the thing you decide is socially
expensive in environmental terms as people believe (I dont) CO2 is, then
you end up favouring nuclear power as the cheapest.
That is what a rational energy policy that wanted tor educe dependence
on resources and minimise emissions should have led to.
And the reason it didn't is the EU.
And that's why I voted to leave. Of course May and subsequently Boris
and now Starmer have signed up to the EU energy policyu anyway,
Well, maybe you were naive. It's panning out pretty much as I expected (the nasty recent populist turn excepted), which is why I didn't vote for it.
In any event I don't see the UK's failure to invest in nuclear as EU contrived. It's to do with the fixation with privatisation (the main reason), domestic-national choice, cost 9in the widest sense), decent and proven alternatives, and a form of UK regulation and oversight that defies logic.
But I don't think Farage will. And against all the odds, I think he
will be the next PM.
And we will finally get some sort of genuine Brexit.
Given your past predictive form, I'm not holding my breath. Even if I knew what 'genuine Brexit' means.
So no. I don't give a fuck about EcoCrapâ„¢ because the whole thing is a
marketing fraud created by profiteering businesses with the ear of
governments.
Re Eds GreenCrapâ„¢ is now on the back burner at best, if not in the trash >> bin, die to it all being completely unaffordable.
Maybe, finally, we will get the cheap nuclear power that is so easy to
achieve once you get governments fingers out of the markets.
Too cheap to meter, eh? Been there before . . .
JOOI, is the waste of energy/resources of no concern? It in no way informs your choice of boiler?
alan_m wrote:
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used
extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot water, during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light
is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing
charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year payback,
OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler.
the heat from the pilot light is not wasted. It does find its way
into the heat exchanger
and if it is still on C plan (as most Baxi Bermudas were)
then that keeps circulating warmish
water through the 28mm gravity feed to the tank, so you never
end up with a stone cold tank
RJH wrote:
JOOI, is the waste of energy/resources of no concern? It in no way informs >> your choice of boiler?
Not really, gas is for sale, and I choose to buy an extra ~10 cu ft per day.
If gas was charged at electricity prices, I'd think more of it, but the pitchforks would be out on the streets if the average gas bill was £3,300/year ...
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation
from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and gas,
and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources than >>> a nuclear reactor,.
So you say. Yet without any decent evidence.
Do the fucking sums yourself and dont be so lazy.
On 03/06/2025 07:53, Andy Burns wrote:
alan_m wrote:
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used
extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot water,
during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light
is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing
charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year payback,
OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler.
But the heat from the pilot light is not wasted. It does find
its way into the heat exchanger and if it is still on C plan
(as most Baxi Bermudas were) then that keeps circulating warmish
water through the 28mm gravity feed to the tank, so you never
end up with a stone cold tank (unless you use it all)
On 3 Jun 2025 at 16:57:14 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation >>>> from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and gas, >>>> and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources than >>>> a nuclear reactor,.
So you say. Yet without any decent evidence.
Do the fucking sums yourself and dont be so lazy.
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today, especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE: Renewables
Capital Cost: Renewables
Maintenance/Operation: Renewables
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
Reliability and baseload are two reasons why nuclear is probably going to be a
part of the overall provision - maybe 20% at current levels of consumption. It's more expensive than the alternatives, though.
On 3 Jun 2025 at 21:02:01 BST, Andrew wrote:
On 03/06/2025 07:53, Andy Burns wrote:
alan_m wrote:
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used
extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot water, >>> during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light
is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing
charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year payback,
OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler.
But the heat from the pilot light is not wasted. It does find
its way into the heat exchanger and if it is still on C plan
(as most Baxi Bermudas were) then that keeps circulating warmish
water through the 28mm gravity feed to the tank, so you never
end up with a stone cold tank (unless you use it all)
I'd have thought that most of the heat goes out the flue. But if it doesn't and the tank is close to the boiler with very low losses from the pipe, and you need the heated water, point taken.
On 03/06/2025 07:53, Andy Burns wrote:
alan_m wrote:
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used
extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot
water, during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the
pilot light is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than
the standing charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year
payback, OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a
condensing boiler.
But the heat from the pilot light is not wasted. It does find
its way into the heat exchanger and if it is still on C plan
(as most Baxi Bermudas were) then that keeps circulating warmish
water through the 28mm gravity feed to the tank, so you never
end up with a stone cold tank (unless you use it all)
RJH wrote:
JOOI, is the waste of energy/resources of no concern? It in no way
informs
your choice of boiler?
Not really, gas is for sale, and I choose to buy an extra ~10 cu ft per
day.
If gas was charged at electricity prices, I'd think more of it, but the pitchforks would be out on the streets if the average gas bill was £3,300/year ...
On 6/4/25 06:48, RJH wrote:
On 3 Jun 2025 at 16:57:14 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation >>>>> from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and gas, >>>>> and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources than >>>>> a nuclear reactor,.
So you say. Yet without any decent evidence.
Do the fucking sums yourself and dont be so lazy.
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE: Renewables
Capital Cost: Renewables
Maintenance/Operation: Renewables
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
Reliability and baseload are two reasons why nuclear is probably going to be a
part of the overall provision - maybe 20% at current levels of consumption. >> It's more expensive than the alternatives, though.
Nuclear has the potential to become much cheaper. There is a path to the technology becoming cheaper, not just cheaper than gas, but cheaper than
coal ever was.
The potential for renewable is very tightly bounded by the energy
available. For countries like the UK, renewables will always be
expensive, more expensive than energy traditionally was.
That is why you
need "efficiency". Home insulation/efficiency is expensive, it only
makes sense if heating is expensive.
There is nothing inherently
virtuous in saving energy, the sun wastes a huge amount, and has been
wasting a huge amount for billions of years.
By damaging the reputation of nuclear power and stifling the only real
cheap alternative to fossil fuels, the green lobby is responsible for perpetuating CO2 emissions. Poor people, most of the people in the
world, will only stop burning fossil fuels when they have a cheap alternative. We lost 40 years of technological advance in nuclear. We
are only now picking up development we were doing 40 or 50 years ago. If
not for the green lobby, this would now be mature technology.
On 3 Jun 2025 at 16:57:14 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation >>>> from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and gas, >>>> and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources than >>>> a nuclear reactor,.
So you say. Yet without any decent evidence.
Do the fucking sums yourself and dont be so lazy.
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today, especially for new projects.
On 6/4/25 06:48, RJH wrote:
On 3 Jun 2025 at 16:57:14 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation >>>>> from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and
gas,
and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources
than
a nuclear reactor,.
So you say. Yet without any decent evidence.
Do the fucking sums yourself and dont be so lazy.
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets
today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE:Â Â Â Renewables
Capital Cost:Â Â Â Renewables
Maintenance/Operation:Â Â Â Renewables
Reliability:Â Â Â Nuclear
Baseload Capability:Â Â Â Nuclear
Reliability and baseload are two reasons why nuclear is probably going
to be a
part of the overall provision - maybe 20% at current levels of
consumption.
It's more expensive than the alternatives, though.
Nuclear has the potential to become much cheaper. There is a path to the technology becoming cheaper, not just cheaper than gas, but cheaper than
coal ever was.
The potential for renewable is very tightly bounded by the energy
available. For countries like the UK, renewables will always be
expensive, more expensive than energy traditionally was. That is why you
need "efficiency". Home insulation/efficiency is expensive, it only
makes sense if heating is expensive. There is nothing inherently
virtuous in saving energy, the sun wastes a huge amount, and has been
wasting a huge amount for billions of years.
By damaging the reputation of nuclear power and stifling the only real
cheap alternative to fossil fuels, the green lobby is responsible for perpetuating CO2 emissions. Poor people, most of the people in the
world, will only stop burning fossil fuels when they have a cheap alternative. We lost 40 years of technological advance in nuclear. We
are only now picking up development we were doing 40 or 50 years ago. If
not for the green lobby, this would now be mature technology.
What's interesting to me is understanding how we can make people care about waste, and take steps to avoid it. Not holding my breath 🙂
Although I still think waste is wrong the problem is less with the relatively small level examples like pilot lights, and more the large scale consumers who
have no real interest in conserving energy or cutting costs - the 'energy decadent' as they're called by academics, apparently.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
Although I still think waste is wrong the problem is less with the relatively
small level examples like pilot lights, and more the large scale consumers who
have no real interest in conserving energy or cutting costs - the 'energy
decadent' as they're called by academics, apparently.
I see the academics who label people as the ‘energy decadent’ carefully refrained from referring to such people as the ‘energy bourgeoisie’.
On 04/06/2025 11:48, Spike wrote:
I see the academics who label people as the ‘energy decadent’ carefully >> refrained from referring to such people as the ‘energy bourgeoisie’.
Fucking academics. Always full of moral virtue
People on council estates don't have time for moral virtue. They just
want cheaper electricity.
That's why they are voting Reform...
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/06/2025 11:48, Spike wrote:
I see the academics who label people as the ‘energy decadent’ carefully >>> refrained from referring to such people as the ‘energy bourgeoisie’.
Fucking academics. Always full of moral virtue
People on council estates don't have time for moral virtue. They just
want cheaper electricity.
That's why they are voting Reform...
Ah, the Kamala Harris syndrome. The working class wanted low inflation and secure jobs, but she was offering wokery and gender issues, which are of no interest to them. So they voted elsewhere…
On 4 Jun 2025 at 08:17:19 BST, Pancho wrote:
On 6/4/25 06:48, RJH wrote:Potential, yet realised. And at risk of repeating myself, there are costs beyond the economic.
On 3 Jun 2025 at 16:57:14 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation >>>>>> from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and gas, >>>>>> and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources than >>>>>> a nuclear reactor,.
So you say. Yet without any decent evidence.
Do the fucking sums yourself and dont be so lazy.
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE: Renewables
Capital Cost: Renewables
Maintenance/Operation: Renewables
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
Reliability and baseload are two reasons why nuclear is probably going to be a
part of the overall provision - maybe 20% at current levels of consumption. >>> It's more expensive than the alternatives, though.
Nuclear has the potential to become much cheaper. There is a path to the
technology becoming cheaper, not just cheaper than gas, but cheaper than
coal ever was.
The potential for renewable is very tightly bounded by the energy
available. For countries like the UK, renewables will always be
expensive, more expensive than energy traditionally was.
Incorrect.
That is why you
need "efficiency". Home insulation/efficiency is expensive, it only
makes sense if heating is expensive.
In the case of new build, incorrect. Last time I read, Exeter is down to less 4% of build cost. If you're saying that's a reason not to do it, fill your boots.
On retrofit, it varies.
There is nothing inherently
virtuous in saving energy, the sun wastes a huge amount, and has been
wasting a huge amount for billions of years.
Eh?!
By damaging the reputation of nuclear power and stifling the only real
cheap alternative to fossil fuels, the green lobby is responsible for
perpetuating CO2 emissions. Poor people, most of the people in the
world, will only stop burning fossil fuels when they have a cheap
alternative. We lost 40 years of technological advance in nuclear. We
are only now picking up development we were doing 40 or 50 years ago. If
not for the green lobby, this would now be mature technology.
The 'green lobby' (whoever that is) is not anti-nuclear.
Look around - especially the southern hemisphere. And tell me renewables don't
benefit low income communities.
On 6/4/25 11:18, RJH wrote:
On 4 Jun 2025 at 08:17:19 BST, Pancho wrote:
On 6/4/25 06:48, RJH wrote:Potential, yet realised. And at risk of repeating myself, there are costs
On 3 Jun 2025 at 16:57:14 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over regulation >>>>>>> from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with coal and gas, >>>>>>> and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use more resources than
a nuclear reactor,.
So you say. Yet without any decent evidence.
Do the fucking sums yourself and dont be so lazy.
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE: Renewables
Capital Cost: Renewables
Maintenance/Operation: Renewables
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
Reliability and baseload are two reasons why nuclear is probably going to be a
part of the overall provision - maybe 20% at current levels of consumption.
It's more expensive than the alternatives, though.
Nuclear has the potential to become much cheaper. There is a path to the >>> technology becoming cheaper, not just cheaper than gas, but cheaper than >>> coal ever was.
beyond the economic.
We have nuclear power plants, they work. They could be better, but even
if we built the same again, we could do it much cheaper.
Costs beyond economic, isn't a sensible remark.
You can use money as a
metric, an approximation for nuclear waste, and nuclear proliferation.
It might help people focus their thoughts.
The potential for renewable is very tightly bounded by the energy
available. For countries like the UK, renewables will always be
expensive, more expensive than energy traditionally was.
Incorrect.
OK, give me a sketch of a solution for the UK, where renewable power is cheaper and reliable.
That is why you
need "efficiency". Home insulation/efficiency is expensive, it only
makes sense if heating is expensive.
In the case of new build, incorrect. Last time I read, Exeter is down to less
4% of build cost. If you're saying that's a reason not to do it, fill your >> boots.
Exeter?
Many houses aren't new build. Things like double glazing need
replacement, and are problematic, windows blow before the frames go bad.
On retrofit, it varies.
There is nothing inherently
virtuous in saving energy, the sun wastes a huge amount, and has been
wasting a huge amount for billions of years.
Eh?!
The sun is hugely inefficient, The Earth only receives 0.00000005% of
the sun's energy, the rest is wasted. In effect, efficiency is a false
goal. You should consider costs, sustainability, etc...
The green lobby is the green movement. People who call themselves green
By damaging the reputation of nuclear power and stifling the only real
cheap alternative to fossil fuels, the green lobby is responsible for
perpetuating CO2 emissions. Poor people, most of the people in the
world, will only stop burning fossil fuels when they have a cheap
alternative. We lost 40 years of technological advance in nuclear. We
are only now picking up development we were doing 40 or 50 years ago. If >>> not for the green lobby, this would now be mature technology.
The 'green lobby' (whoever that is) is not anti-nuclear.
and try to affect government policy. Surely that is obvious?
The green lobby has been demonising nuclear since the 70s. Green party
UK still has a policy of phasing out nuclear. A few counter examples
doesn't contract the overall thrust of the movement.
Look around - especially the southern hemisphere. And tell me renewables don't
benefit low income communities.
No one has said solar isn't useful in some circumstances, but I don't
know of any country powering heavy industry off solar? You know, steel, ammonia production etc.
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today, especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE: Renewables
Capital Cost: Renewables
Maintenance/Operation: Renewables
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets
today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE:Â Â Â Renewables
Capital Cost:Â Â Â Renewables
Maintenance/Operation:Â Â Â Renewables
Reliability:Â Â Â Nuclear
Baseload Capability:Â Â Â Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be at
the top of your list?
On 05/06/2025 08:41, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most
markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE:Â Â Â Renewables
Capital Cost:Â Â Â Renewables
Maintenance/Operation:Â Â Â Renewables
Reliability:Â Â Â Nuclear
Baseload Capability:Â Â Â Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be
at the top of your list?
I would even question the maintenance category.
What is easier and cheaper to maintain - centralised generating stations
or tens of thousands of individual generators often in the most
inaccessible places including at sea?
On 05/06/2025 08:41, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most
markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE:Â Â Â Renewables
Capital Cost:Â Â Â Renewables
Maintenance/Operation:Â Â Â Renewables
Reliability:Â Â Â Nuclear
Baseload Capability:Â Â Â Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be
at the top of your list?
I would even question the maintenance category.
What is easier and cheaper to maintain - centralised generating stations
or tens of thousands of individual generators often in the most
inaccessible places including at sea?
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets
today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE:Â Â Â Renewables
Capital Cost:Â Â Â Renewables
Maintenance/Operation:Â Â Â Renewables
Reliability:Â Â Â Nuclear
Baseload Capability:Â Â Â Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be at
the top of your list?
On 05/06/2025 08:41, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets
today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE: Renewables
Capital Cost: Renewables
Maintenance/Operation: Renewables
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be at
the top of your list?
Id go for
Winner: Nuclear
LCOE: nuclear
Capital cost. Nuclear
Maintanceoperation: Nuclear
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
I mean sure Renewable UK are going to tell you that a 1GW wind farm
that lasts 20 years and only actually produces 1/3rd of its rated output
on average, needs servicing very 6 weeks or so, and needs a whole gas
power station as backup when the wind drops and a 1GW undersea cable to connect it to a grid, and a 1GW battery to replace the rotating inertia
of a thermal power station and a 1GW extra grid capacity to take its occasional electricity down to a town where its needed, is *on its own* cheaper than a 1GW nuclear power station that lasts 60 years, gets
serviced once a year and needs no backup, battery or grid extension at
all. Even including the cost of retiring it to green field when its life
is over...
But the point is, they are not comparing apples with apples. And they
are not calculating the overall cost to the country of ALL the extra
bits and bobs to make this heath Robinson grid actually work.
Because *they* don't have to pay for them. *WE* the consumer and
taxpayer, do.
They are in fact *lying*.
And people sadly believe their lies
On 6/5/25 09:15, alan_m wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:41, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most
markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE:Â Â Â Renewables
Capital Cost:Â Â Â Renewables
Maintenance/Operation:Â Â Â Renewables
Reliability:Â Â Â Nuclear
Baseload Capability:Â Â Â Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be
at the top of your list?
I would even question the maintenance category.
What is easier and cheaper to maintain - centralised generating
stations or tens of thousands of individual generators often in the
most inaccessible places including at sea?
Yes and question LCOE.
Long term, I think nuclear will also have lower capital costs. It is
just intrinsically cheaper to build small/compact energy sources. The
current high cost of nuclear is a development cost, rather than a mass production cost. Even things like floating wind turbines will always
have a high mass production cost, due to the sheer number required and
the supporting infrastructure required.
On 5 Jun 2025 at 13:10:14 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:41, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets >>>> today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE: Renewables
Capital Cost: Renewables
Maintenance/Operation: Renewables
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be at
the top of your list?
Id go for
Winner: Nuclear
LCOE: nuclear
Capital cost. Nuclear
Maintanceoperation: Nuclear
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
I mean sure Renewable UK are going to tell you that a 1GW wind farm
that lasts 20 years and only actually produces 1/3rd of its rated output
on average, needs servicing very 6 weeks or so, and needs a whole gas
power station as backup when the wind drops and a 1GW undersea cable to
connect it to a grid, and a 1GW battery to replace the rotating inertia
of a thermal power station and a 1GW extra grid capacity to take its
occasional electricity down to a town where its needed, is *on its own*
cheaper than a 1GW nuclear power station that lasts 60 years, gets
serviced once a year and needs no backup, battery or grid extension at
all. Even including the cost of retiring it to green field when its life
is over...
Staggering lack of understanding. Not least that there's more than one source >of renewable energy.
And again (and as usual) no substantiation of figures.
But the point is, they are not comparing apples with apples. And they
are not calculating the overall cost to the country of ALL the extra
bits and bobs to make this heath Robinson grid actually work.
Because *they* don't have to pay for them. *WE* the consumer and
taxpayer, do.
They are in fact *lying*.
And people sadly believe their lies
Both sides have their fun.
Staggering lack of understanding. Not least that there's more than one source of renewable energy.
And again (and as usual) no substantiation of figures.
Staggering lack of understanding. Not least that there's more than one source of renewable energy.Indeed, I learnt that from you
And again (and as usual) no substantiation of figures
On 05/06/2025 14:00, RJH wrote:
Staggering lack of understanding. Not least that there's more than one
source
of renewable energy.
And again (and as usual) no substantiation of figures.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Neither of you have given any figures at all here.
Andy
Many houses aren't new build. Things like double glazing need
replacement, and are problematic, windows blow before the frames go bad.
On 05/06/2025 15:26, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/06/2025 14:00, RJH wrote:All my calculations are here.
Staggering lack of understanding. Not least that there's more than one
source
of renewable energy.
And again (and as usual) no substantiation of figures.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Neither of you have given any figures at all here.
Andy
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf
Yes it was written a long time ago, and its rather kind to wind and
solar. I didnt include the cost of batteries or grid upgrades
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE: Renewables
Capital Cost: Renewables
Maintenance/Operation: Renewables
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be at
the top of your list?
On 5 Jun 2025 at 16:07:33 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/06/2025 15:26, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/06/2025 14:00, RJH wrote:All my calculations are here.
Staggering lack of understanding. Not least that there's more
than one source
of renewable energy.
And again (and as usual) no substantiation of figures.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Neither of you have given any figures at all here.
Andy
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf
Yes it was written a long time ago, and its rather kind to wind and
solar. I didnt include the cost of batteries or grid upgrades
I will accommodate the error :-) But it's not there for me:
The requested URL /downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf was
not found on this server.
The requested URL /downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf was
not found on this server.
It Works For Me (tm).
To me, the most important is reliability. If it isn't available when you
need it, it isn't reliable. Without large-scale battery storage, solar
only works half of the time at best, and windmills don't work when
there's no or little wind.
Only nuclear fits that. What are we going to do when the current ones
reach the end of their (probably already-extended) life, and haven't
built enough to replace them?
It costs more to maintain, and it's just not possible to install things
like double glazing or cavity wall insulation. Thatch incidentally isn't
as warm as you might think - I've been in the loft on a windy day, could
feel the wind blowing through it.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 16:47:18 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
To me, the most important is reliability. If it isn't available when you
need it, it isn't reliable. Without large-scale battery storage, solar
only works half of the time at best, and windmills don't work when
there's no or little wind.
Only nuclear fits that. What are we going to do when the current ones
reach the end of their (probably already-extended) life, and haven't
built enough to replace them?
Nuclear does shut down, in an unplanned fashion:
"A report released by the French Court of Auditors highlighted the issues regarding the safety and operation of nuclear power plants because of the increasingly unstable supply of the water necessary for cooling reactors. Drought and low water levels caused some plants to be turned off temporarily last summer. The auditors warned that the 56 existing reactors, as well as the
planned ones, must be analyzed in the context of climate extremes such as prolonged droughts and rising water temperatures in rivers."
Just saying...
On 04/06/2025 15:14, Pancho wrote:
Many houses aren't new build. Things like double glazing need
replacement, and are problematic, windows blow before the frames go bad.
Then you have people like me. I live in an historical artefact - a
timber framed thatched cottage. It's Listed so it's not just me that
thinks it's nice.
It costs more to maintain, and it's just not possible to install things
like double glazing or cavity wall insulation. Thatch incidentally isn't
as warm as you might think - I've been in the loft on a windy day, could
feel the wind blowing through it.
On 05/06/2025 18:14, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 16:47:18 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
To me, the most important is reliability. If it isn't available when
you need it, it isn't reliable. Without large-scale battery storage,
solar only works half of the time at best, and windmills don't work
when there's no or little wind.
Only nuclear fits that. What are we going to do when the current ones
reach the end of their (probably already-extended) life, and haven't
built enough to replace them?
Nuclear does shut down, in an unplanned fashion:
"A report released by the French Court of Auditors highlighted the
issues regarding the safety and operation of nuclear power plants
because of the increasingly unstable supply of the water necessary for cooling reactors. Drought and low water levels caused some plants to be turned off temporarily last summer. The auditors warned that the 56 existing reactors, as well as the planned ones, must be analyzed in the context of climate extremes such as prolonged droughts and rising water temperatures in rivers."
Just saying...
Everything fails now and again, but that was a failure of unforeseen circumstances due to climate change; it wasn't the reactor which failed
per se. In any case, it would make little difference if the power plant
was coal, oil, or gas - all require water cooling. If water cooling
becomes a critical issue, it would make sense to locate new reactors by
the coast and use seawater cooling.
Solar, by it's nature, fails at least 50% of the time (there's only an average of 12 hours of light a day, and only a fraction of that will
provide full output). Wind is more reliable, but even that fails if it's
too weak or too strong. Those are effectively inbuilt design faults.
It seems to me that the problem we are facing is not so much with power generation, but with energy storage.
It seems to me that the problem we are facing is not so much with power generation, but with energy storage.
On 5 Jun 2025 at 13:10:14 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I mean sure Renewable UK are going to tell you that a 1GW wind farm
that lasts 20 years and only actually produces 1/3rd of its rated output
on average, needs servicing very 6 weeks or so, and needs a whole gas
power station as backup when the wind drops and a 1GW undersea cable to
connect it to a grid, and a 1GW battery to replace the rotating inertia
of a thermal power station and a 1GW extra grid capacity to take its
occasional electricity down to a town where its needed, is *on its own*
cheaper than a 1GW nuclear power station that lasts 60 years, gets
serviced once a year and needs no backup, battery or grid extension at
all. Even including the cost of retiring it to green field when its life
is over...
Staggering lack of understanding. Not least that there's more than one source of renewable energy.
And again (and as usual) no substantiation of figures.
And we’re told, as a justification, that ’the wind always blows somewhere’,
On 05/06/2025 23:08, Spike wrote:
And we’re told, as a justification, that ’the wind always blows somewhere’,
But that doesn't help unless near 100% of your wind turbines are always located at the position where the wind is blowing.
Perhaps they all
could be placed on the back of trucks and moved to the Land's End one
day then John O'Groats a day later.
To me, the most important is reliability. If it isn't available when you
need it, it isn't reliable. Without large-scale battery storage, solar
only works half of the time at best, and windmills don't work when
there's no or little wind.
Only nuclear fits that. What are we going to do when the current ones
reach the end of their (probably already-extended) life, and haven't
built enough to replace them?
On 5 Jun 2025 at 16:07:33 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Link works for me
On 05/06/2025 15:26, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/06/2025 14:00, RJH wrote:All my calculations are here.
Staggering lack of understanding. Not least that there's more than one >>>> source
of renewable energy.
And again (and as usual) no substantiation of figures.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Neither of you have given any figures at all here.
Andy
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf
Yes it was written a long time ago, and its rather kind to wind and
solar. I didnt include the cost of batteries or grid upgrades
I will accommodate the error :-) But it's not there for me:
The requested URL /downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf was not found on this server.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 16:47:18 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
To me, the most important is reliability. If it isn't available when you
need it, it isn't reliable. Without large-scale battery storage, solar
only works half of the time at best, and windmills don't work when
there's no or little wind.
Only nuclear fits that. What are we going to do when the current ones
reach the end of their (probably already-extended) life, and haven't
built enough to replace them?
Nuclear does shut down, in an unplanned fashion:
"A report released by the French Court of Auditors highlighted the issues regarding the safety and operation of nuclear power plants because of the increasingly unstable supply of the water necessary for cooling reactors. Drought and low water levels caused some plants to be turned off temporarily last summer. The auditors warned that the 56 existing reactors, as well as the
planned ones, must be analyzed in the context of climate extremes such as prolonged droughts and rising water temperatures in rivers."
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/06/2025 15:14, Pancho wrote:
Many houses aren't new build. Things like double glazing need
replacement, and are problematic, windows blow before the frames go bad.
Then you have people like me. I live in an historical artefact - a
timber framed thatched cottage. It's Listed so it's not just me that
thinks it's nice.
It costs more to maintain, and it's just not possible to install things
like double glazing or cavity wall insulation. Thatch incidentally isn't
as warm as you might think - I've been in the loft on a windy day, could
feel the wind blowing through it.
A silly question I've never considered before... how does rain work in a thatched cottage? Is there some kind of underlayment to prevent water penetrating? Or just rely on the thickness of the thatch catching any
water? If you can feel the wind blowing through the thatch, presumably
water can penetrate too?
Or are you just saying that your loft is ventilated like almost every other loft (which is why people put insulation on the loft floor)? ie it's the ventilation that's leaky, not the thatch?
Theo
It seems to me that the problem we are facing is not so much with power generation, but with energy storage.
Rather than storage why not build a reliable generation source that can
meet demand 365 days a year. Long term storage for the Grid doesn't make sense, either practically or financially.
On 05/06/2025 23:08, Spike wrote:
And we’re told, as a justification, that ’the wind always blows
somewhere’,
But that doesn't help unless near 100% of your wind turbines are always located at the position where the wind is blowing. Perhaps they all
could be placed on the back of trucks and moved to the Land's End one
day then John O'Groats a day later.
On 05/06/2025 23:08, Spike wrote:
And we’re told, as a justification, that ’the wind always blows
somewhere’,
But that doesn't help unless near 100% of your wind turbines are always located at the position where the wind is blowing. Perhaps they all
could be placed on the back of trucks and moved to the Land's End one
day then John O'Groats a day later.
On 03/06/2025 12:41, alan_m wrote:
On 03/06/2025 12:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/06/2025 08:27, RJH wrote:
On 3 Jun 2025 at 07:53:02 BST, Andy Burns wrote:
alan_m wrote:JOOI, is the waste of energy/resources of no concern? It in no way
still having a old cast iron boiler with a pilot light may have used >>>>>> extra gas equivalent to the price of newer boiler replacements.
This time of year, the boiler spends part of 1 hour providing hot
water,
during the other 23 hours the smartmeter tells me that the pilot light >>>>> is using 157 watts which comes out at 26p/day (less than the standing >>>>> charge) or £95/year.
Getting rid of the pilot light itself would be about a 25 year
payback,
OK there would be an efficiency increase too with a condensing boiler. >>>>
informs
your choice of boiler?
The world is awash with energy, in the form of nuclear fuel and that
uses small resources too.
I spend my energy (sic!) campaigning for a sane energy policy. Not
making sure the kettle has exactly one mugful of water in it.
In the end cost of fuel reflects energy shortage. Ex of government
interference.
I could probably save maybe £300 a year fuel on a new boiler costing
£3000. That's almost worth doing - its not a bad ROI
But I couldn't give a toss about any EcoCrapâ„¢. I have no 'libral'
friends to impress with how green I am.
The failure of EU energy policy is that it failed to make the 'wrong'
decisions expensive.
Instead of taxing carbon fuel (howls of anguish from German industry)
they made Renewables obligatory (yelps of delight from German
windmill manufacturers).
None of it was actually designed to reduce emissions. It was designed
to placate a very stupid Green party in a PR electorate and keep
German industry profitable.
In the end the free market is the best way to arrive at the correct
technology, with as little government interference as possible.
If you remove subsidies for renewables, and deliberate over
regulation from nuclear, you end up with nuclear being on a par with
coal and gas, and renewables totally uneconomic. Beacause they use
more resources than a nuclear reactor,.
If you apply careful taxation to the thing you decide is socially
expensive in environmental terms as people believe (I dont) CO2 is,
then you end up favouring nuclear power as the cheapest.
That is what a rational energy policy that wanted tor educe
dependence on resources and minimise emissions should have led to.
And the reason it didn't is the EU.
And that's why I voted to leave. Of course May and subsequently Boris
and now Starmer have signed up to the EU energy policyu anyway,
But I don't think Farage will. And against all the odds, I think he
will be the next PM.
And we will finally get some sort of genuine Brexit.
So no. I don't give a fuck about EcoCrapâ„¢ because the whole thing is
a marketing fraud created by profiteering businesses with the ear of
governments.
Re Eds GreenCrapâ„¢ is now on the back burner at best, if not in the
trash bin, die to it all being completely unaffordable.
Maybe, finally, we will get the cheap nuclear power that is so easy
to achieve once you get governments fingers out of the markets.
Slighty OT but why is nuclear is so expensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Plxrsryxw
What an unusually rational politician.
And he is right.
At some level the labour productivity of anyone involved in building a nuclear power stations is actually the worst industry in the world.
It takes months to get permission to change a single screw
On 05/06/2025 23:08, Spike wrote:
And we’re told, as a justification, that ’the wind always blows
somewhere’,
But that doesn't help unless near 100% of your wind turbines are always located at the position where the wind is blowing. Perhaps they all
could be placed on the back of trucks and moved to the Land's End one
day then John O'Groats a day later.
On 05/06/2025 08:41, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE:Â Â Â Renewables
Capital Cost:Â Â Â Renewables
Maintenance/Operation:Â Â Â Renewables
Reliability:Â Â Â Nuclear
Baseload Capability:Â Â Â Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be at
the top of your list?
To me, the most important is reliability. If it isn't available when you need it, it isn't reliable. Without large-scale battery storage, solar only works half of the time at best, and windmills don't work when there's no or little wind.
Only nuclear fits that. What are we going to do when the current ones reach the end of their (probably already-extended) life, and haven't built enough to replace them?
On Thu, 6/5/2025 11:47 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:41, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE:Â Â Â Renewables
Capital Cost:Â Â Â Renewables
Maintenance/Operation:Â Â Â Renewables
Reliability:Â Â Â Nuclear
Baseload Capability:Â Â Â Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be at
the top of your list?
To me, the most important is reliability. If it isn't available when you need it, it isn't reliable. Without large-scale battery storage, solar only works half of the time at best, and windmills don't work when there's no or little wind.
Only nuclear fits that. What are we going to do when the current ones reach the end of their (probably already-extended) life, and haven't built enough to replace them?
Our SMR project has started here.
300MW BWR at 7 billion a pop, built on a site that
already has nukes and has the grid connections for
the project. Um, that doesn't sound particularly
cheap somehow.
and involves a long term loan. It's not clear where
the money was borrowed from. The conversion to other
currencies is also listed here, for comparative purposes.
There hasn't been any squealing yet about being over-budget.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/what-is-the-budget-for-canadas-first-smr-project
On another project unrelated to that,
On Thu, 6/5/2025 11:47 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:41, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 06:48, RJH wrote:
Just as an outline:
Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear energy in most markets today,
especially for new projects.
Category: Winner
LCOE: Renewables
Capital Cost: Renewables
Maintenance/Operation: Renewables
Reliability: Nuclear
Baseload Capability: Nuclear
If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be at
the top of your list?
To me, the most important is reliability. If it isn't available when you need
it, it isn't reliable. Without large-scale battery storage, solar only works >> half of the time at best, and windmills don't work when there's no or little >> wind.
Only nuclear fits that. What are we going to do when the current ones reach >> the end of their (probably already-extended) life, and haven't built enough >> to replace them?
Our SMR project has started here.
300MW BWR at 7 billion a pop, built on a site that
already has nukes and has the grid connections for
the project. Um, that doesn't sound particularly
cheap somehow. It's being done by private industry,
and involves a long term loan. It's not clear where
the money was borrowed from. The conversion to other
currencies is also listed here, for comparative purposes.
There hasn't been any squealing yet about being over-budget.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/what-is-the-budget-for-canadas-first-smr-project
On another project unrelated to that, the project
final cost was 3x the estimate, and just the price of
the bidirectional power line to move the power costs
$1 billion. And worth it, as the line was reversed at
first, to move power from a "Have" situation to a "Have not".
The line is running in the forward direction today. That's
the only good part of the story, demoing that bidirectional
capabilities on your interties, are useful. Even if you only
use the capability one time, for a year or so, it's worth it.
Part of that line, goes underwater (you wouldn't do that in
your bath).
Paul
' . . . replacing the project with wind, solar, and battery storage would require 5,600 to 8,900 MW of capacity at a cost of 13.5–18.4 cents per kWh compared with the 14.9 cents'.
On 07/06/2025 05:34, RJH wrote:
' . . . replacing the project with wind, solar, and battery storage would
require 5,600 to 8,900 MW of capacity at a cost of 13.5–18.4 cents per kWh >> compared with the 14.9 cents'.
If the battery is expected to last 20 years don't you also have to
factor in the capacity loss of perhaps 1% to 1.5% per year so on day one
have to build in an excess in capacity of 20%? Is this included in the
cost analysis?
how does rain work in aThe straw or reed thatch are steeply inclined cylinders, water hits one
thatched cottage? Is there some kind of underlayment to prevent water penetrating? Or just rely on the thickness of the thatch catching any
water?
And we’re told, as a justification, that ’the wind always blows somewhere’,
but no such claimant ever refers to the Weibull Modulus of wind speed and
how that affects the energy output of wind turbines.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 57:12:46 |
| Calls: | 9,812 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,190,894 |