From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 30/12/2025 20:33, Paul wrote:

On Mon, 12/29/2025 5:40 PM, Spike wrote:

Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:

Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

Just received this, for comparison:

Cheapest Electricity in North America:
1. Quebec 7.8-o EfAo Hydro
2. Manitoba 10.2-o EfAo Hydro
3. British Columbia 11.7-o EfAo Hydro
4. New Brunswick 13.9-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro
5. Ontario 14.1-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro
6. Newfoundland 14.8-o EfAo Hydro
7. Nevada (USA) ~16.4-o ryCN+A Solar / Gas
8. Louisiana (USA) ~16.9-o rc+ Gas
9. Idaho (USA) ~17.1-o EfAo Hydro
10. Tennessee (USA) ~18.2-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro

Most Expensive Energy in North America:
1. Hawaii ~54.2-o EfcoN+A Imported Oil
2. California ~43.9-o EfoN Wildfire Costs / Grid
3. Connecticut ~41.8-o rc+ Gas / Grid Fees
4. Massachusetts ~41.7-o rc+ Gas Constraint
5. Rhode Island ~38.8-o rc+ Gas Dependence
6. Maine ~38.3-o rUi Grid Upgrades
7. New Hampshire ~38.1-o rc+ Gas Dependence
8. New York ~37.3-o EfAON+A Urban Delivery Costs
9. Alaska ~37.2-o rYaN+A Remote Generation
10. Vermont ~32.8-o rUi Import Reliance

Sources: Hydro-Quebec Annual Comparison Report & US Energy Information >>>> Administration (EIA) Residential Data. Rates adjusted to CAD.

Comparing it to the UK prices, we are being well and truly ripped off, even >>> if you believe the Ofgen numbers.

We need to be drilling, fracking, and digging coal, while developing
Nuclear power.

I usually listen to half an hour of the morning Today programme on BBC R4, >> from 0600 onwards. When those that run businesses are interviewed in that
section of the programme, many complain of the extraordinary high price of >> UK electricity, which puts them at a serious competitive disadvantage when >> compared to other countries. We have been promised cheap renewable
electricity for twenty years and yet thererCOs no end in sight to the rip-off
prices. About six months ago the CEO of a major energy retailer interviewed >> for the programme let the cat out of the bag by admitting that cheap
renewables were for rCOthe medium to long termrCO - in other words, forget >> about cheap electricity.

The good news (if there is really any such news to be had),
is that people are building bigger batteries. I read of some
project a couple days ago, aiming for 1.8GW sizing for a battery.
Once the idea makes the rounds, it might become more common,
a facility with larger dimension. And then more of that fine
"perfectly free" power can be made available a 8PM on a windless
night.

1GW for how long? 3 minutes?

Why do they never quote capacity?

Because it completely makes nonsense of 'grid scale storage'

I can get a horsepower out of a battery the side of a fag packet, But
only for a minute and a half...

Lithium isn't the only chemistry suited to making stationary storage,
and lithium has been falling in price for a while now. Yet the retail price of batteries, the curve for that has not followed the price of making them. And the latest propaganda piece was complaining about "the Chinese will corner the market". Which is surely true when the shirkers stop building
the battery factory building and... give up. It's a foregone conclusion,
that at least for some tech types, the Chinese will win and they will
set the price.

Its true that energy to weight is not crucial on stationary batteries,
but thee fact that prices have not come down when everything else has
got cheaper is a sign that no really better technology exists.

This mad rush to justify renewable energy with promises that
'breakthrough technology' for storage is 'just around the corner' is as
much bollocks - indeed more bollocks - than nuclear fusion.

Renewables are already more expensive than nuclear power which doesn't
need large scale grid storage.


<gushing renewable bollocks snipped>

The fact is that no renewable technology is cost, emissions, or low environmental impact competitive *overall*, with nuclear.

And its only kept alive by total lack of regulatory oversight and
massive subsidies on renewables, and punitive regulations and no
subsidies at all on nuclear.

But that is not a 'sustainble' position.
--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 30/12/2025 20:49, alan_m wrote:

On 30/12/2025 20:33, Paul wrote:

I don't know if there are any current price estimates for
"renewable source plus one day storage" and then what price
the lekky would be. Normally, contract prices are set for
"free" lekky without a battery, which is not a useful thing to be
pricing out. We need to know what it would cost, if the power could
be dispatched any time.

There are published costs for the current large battery installations
and they are not insignificant when compared to the average domestic
demand. Add the costs of the infrastructure upgrades needed to support
new solar and wind farms in places where the grid doesn't exist or in
rural locations where historically the grid has only had to supply a relatively small demand. In the UK we are unlikely to see any
significant reduction in our electricity bills in the next decade or more.

Not until we go nuclear, no.
The whole renewable farce is coming apart at the seams.
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

- Leo Tolstoy


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 30/12/2025 21:16, Sam Plusnet wrote:

On 30/12/2025 19:28, Andrew wrote:

On 30/12/2025 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 29/12/2025 20:21, Brian wrote:

We need to be drilling, fracking, and digging coal, while developing
Nuclear power.

+1

Err, no. Whatever coal we have is under important stuff
likes roads, houses, hospitals and factories. We have
limited easily accessible coal deposits

Apart from which coal can be mined in Oz and shipped
half way round the world to the UK and landed at about
a third of the cost of deep mining it here.

Do you *really* want Scargill and others back in charge
of energy policy ?.

No-one is going to start sinking a new deep coal mine here in the UK[1],
and all the deep mines we used to have are now unrecoverable.

[1] I speak with some authority[2] because my great Grandfather moved
from the Forest of Dean to Derbyshire, to sink a new deep mine there.

[2] No, that isn't a serious statement.

Totally agree, but there are a few potential open cast locations I believe.
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

- Leo Tolstoy


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 07:14, RJH wrote:

Trying to explain electricity prices by reference to one variable is a pretty limited way of looking at things.

So the renewable advocates would have you believe

But ultimately ALL the last two decades' rise in energy prices van be
traced back to the drive for renewable energy.

Just like climate is all ultimately about sunlight
--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 09:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:

TNP can tell you about electricity generation in the Republic of Ireland,
where a study of generation from a mix of gas and wind showed that the
cheapest method was to run gas flat out all the time, and flog the
unreliable wind power to the Brits.

-aCheapest to run gas flat out in the middle of a hot summer's night ?

Depends. The cost benefit is of course well understood by Eirgrid.
It is cost effective to shut down less efficient gas plant for weeks at
a time, but not for hours at a time.
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

- Leo Tolstoy


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:

TNP can tell you about electricity generation in the Republic of Ireland, >>> where a study of generation from a mix of gas and wind showed that the
cheapest method was to run gas flat out all the time, and flog the
unreliable wind power to the Brits.

-a-aCheapest to run gas flat out in the middle of a hot summer's night ?

Depends. The cost benefit is of course well understood by Eirgrid.
It is cost effective to shut down less efficient gas plant for weeks at a time, but not for hours at a time.

And their report seems to suggest ramping down for hours at a time.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 12:26, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:

TNP can tell you about electricity generation in the Republic of
Ireland,
where a study of generation from a mix of gas and wind showed that the >>>> cheapest method was to run gas flat out all the time, and flog the
unreliable wind power to the Brits.

-a-aCheapest to run gas flat out in the middle of a hot summer's night ?

Depends. The cost benefit is of course well understood by Eirgrid.
It is cost effective to shut down less efficient gas plant for weeks
at a time, but not for hours at a time.

-aAnd their report seems to suggest ramping down for hours at a time.

When you have a surplus, something has to give. You have to pay the
windmills to shut down, but not the gas plant. In that case the consumer
pays instead.
--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 12:26, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:

TNP can tell you about electricity generation in the Republic of Ireland, >>>>> where a study of generation from a mix of gas and wind showed that the >>>>> cheapest method was to run gas flat out all the time, and flog the
unreliable wind power to the Brits.

-a-aCheapest to run gas flat out in the middle of a hot summer's night ? >>>

Depends. The cost benefit is of course well understood by Eirgrid.
It is cost effective to shut down less efficient gas plant for weeks at >>> a time, but not for hours at a time.

-a-aAnd their report seems to suggest ramping down for hours at a time.

When you have a surplus, something has to give. You have to pay the windmills to shut down, but not the gas plant. In that case the consumer pays instead.

They were ramping down for a few hours at a time even with no windmills.
As opposed to "run gas flat out all the time".
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On Wed, 12/31/2025 6:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 30/12/2025 20:33, Paul wrote:

On Mon, 12/29/2025 5:40 PM, Spike wrote:

Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:

Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

Just received this, for comparison:

Cheapest Electricity in North America:
1. Quebec 7.8-o EfAo Hydro
2. Manitoba 10.2-o EfAo Hydro
3. British Columbia 11.7-o EfAo Hydro
4. New Brunswick 13.9-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro
5. Ontario 14.1-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro
6. Newfoundland 14.8-o EfAo Hydro
7. Nevada (USA) ~16.4-o ryCN+A Solar / Gas
8. Louisiana (USA) ~16.9-o rc+ Gas
9. Idaho (USA) ~17.1-o EfAo Hydro
10. Tennessee (USA) ~18.2-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro

Most Expensive Energy in North America:
1. Hawaii ~54.2-o EfcoN+A Imported Oil
2. California ~43.9-o EfoN Wildfire Costs / Grid
3. Connecticut ~41.8-o rc+ Gas / Grid Fees
4. Massachusetts ~41.7-o rc+ Gas Constraint
5. Rhode Island ~38.8-o rc+ Gas Dependence
6. Maine ~38.3-o rUi Grid Upgrades
7. New Hampshire ~38.1-o rc+ Gas Dependence
8. New York ~37.3-o EfAON+A Urban Delivery Costs
9. Alaska ~37.2-o rYaN+A Remote Generation
10. Vermont ~32.8-o rUi Import Reliance

Sources: Hydro-Quebec Annual Comparison Report & US Energy Information >>>>> Administration (EIA) Residential Data. Rates adjusted to CAD.

Comparing it to the UK prices, we are being well and truly ripped off, even
if you believe the Ofgen numbers.

We need to be drilling, fracking, and digging coal, while developing
Nuclear power.

I usually listen to half an hour of the morning Today programme on BBC R4, >>> from 0600 onwards. When those that run businesses are interviewed in that >>> section of the programme, many complain of the extraordinary high price of >>> UK electricity, which puts them at a serious competitive disadvantage when >>> compared to other countries. We have been promised cheap renewable
electricity for twenty years and yet thererCOs no end in sight to the rip-off
prices. About six months ago the CEO of a major energy retailer interviewed >>> for the programme let the cat out of the bag by admitting that cheap
renewables were for rCOthe medium to long termrCO - in other words, forget >>> about cheap electricity.

The good news (if there is really any such news to be had),
is that people are building bigger batteries. I read of some
project a couple days ago, aiming for 1.8GW sizing for a battery.
Once the idea makes the rounds, it might become more common,
a facility with larger dimension. And then more of that fine
"perfectly free" power can be made available a 8PM on a windless
night.

1GW for how long? 3 minutes?

Why do they never quote capacity?

Because it completely makes nonsense of 'grid scale storage'

I can get a horsepower out of a battery the side of a fag packet, But only for a minute and a half...

Lithium isn't the only chemistry suited to making stationary storage,
and lithium has been falling in price for a while now. Yet the retail price >> of batteries, the curve for that has not followed the price of making them. >> And the latest propaganda piece was complaining about "the Chinese will
corner the market". Which is surely true when the shirkers stop building
the battery factory building and... give up. It's a foregone conclusion,
that at least for some tech types, the Chinese will win and they will
set the price.

Its true that energy to weight is not crucial on stationary batteries, but thee fact that prices have not come down when everything else has got cheaper is a sign that no really better technology exists.

This mad rush to justify renewable energy with promises that 'breakthrough technology' for storage is 'just around the corner' is as much bollocks - indeed more bollocks - than nuclear fusion.

Renewables are already more expensive than nuclear power which doesn't need large scale grid storage.

<gushing renewable bollocks snipped>

The fact is that no renewable technology is cost, emissions, or low environmental impact competitive *overall*, with nuclear.

And its only kept alive by total lack of regulatory oversight and massive subsidies on renewables, and punitive regulations and no subsidies at all on nuclear.

But that is not a 'sustainble' position.

I think my point was, that renewable generators ("raw suppliers") should
not be allowed to bid for power generation, without having (at the least)
a battery bank buffer before the connection to the grid.

The Nevada site has this feature, out of necessity. The site is too big,
to be yoyoing up and down when a cloud passes. Just the connection to the
grid has to be tamed. The battery is not there as a one-day buffer.

Renewables are a source of "statistical power", and with crummy little "statistical connections" to the grid (being located all over the surface
of the planet, makes grid planning impossible).

A power quote then, should include some of these costs, to level the
playing field with other sources where more control is evident. Then their contract quotes, might be closer to the level of aggravation they cause.

When a hydro power project here (which has pretty good generation characteristics)
was built, one of the transmission lines set up to sell the excess power, costs a cool one billion (selling the excess power, is how it could afford to be built).
Part of the transmission line went under water. And when budgeting to do the project, that had to be taken into account in the overall financing. Nobody volunteered
to build that for free. None of the power companies individually, would have the
assets to do that. If ten smaller wind plants had been built instead, say, then the wind operators would expect the power companies, to pay for a one billion line for them. Whereas larger projects, the transmission facilities are part
of the package deal.

And when people complained, that the transmission facility was bidirectional, some said "wouldn't it be cheaper if it was one-way only?". Then, when the turn-up of the system was late, that transmission line needed to run in reverse, to keep those clever commenters warm :-) I think their comment today would be closer to "money well spent".

Power on our East coast is still pretty flaky. PEI right now, I think
is a bit short of power, and politics plays a part. I think it's just
one city, with a not very good connection to the rest of the grid.

The low quote you see for Manitoba, it's not a given that can continue. Strangely, there is a "re-licensing process" for the hydro stations,
and opponents are lining up to take shots at the licensing process.
The system cannot generate power without a license. Most of the generation capacity in Manitoba, involves just one river.
There are all sorts of not very visible factors at play here. And
the end result, might be that the Manitoba figure becomes "magically
more expensive" in a few years.

And there is still one province using coal, but it's not on that chart.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On Tue, 12/30/2025 2:28 PM, Andrew wrote:

On 30/12/2025 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 29/12/2025 20:21, Brian wrote:

We need to be drilling, fracking, and digging coal, while developing
Nuclear power.

+1

Err, no. Whatever coal we have is under important stuff
likes roads, houses, hospitals and factories. We have
limited easily accessible coal deposits

Apart from which coal can be mined in Oz and shipped
half way round the world to the UK and landed at about
a third of the cost of deep mining it here.

Do you *really* want Scargill and others back in charge
of energy policy ?.

That's why in the States, they do "mountain-topping",
cut the top off a hill and extract the coal, and avoid any
deep mining situations (which might be more expensive).

I don't think anyone is in a rush to go underground every day.

One of the mines here recently, had a collapse underground, the
news article made all sorts of puffy comments about the
"recovery experts have been dispatched", but there was no news
from the people actually underground, and it's not clear
that they made it to a safe-station. Mining is still dangerous
and that was a potash mine.

OK, here's an update.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/one-dead-in-collapse-k3-underground-mine-esterhazy-sask-mosaic-9.7016448

(One dead)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/unifor-pursues-answers-in-death-of-esterhazy-k3-underground-mine-worker-9.7023243

Nothing has really changed in the mines. It ain't robots down there, quite yet.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On Tue, 12/30/2025 2:24 PM, Andrew wrote:

On 29/12/2025 10:38, Davey wrote:

Just received this, for comparison:

Cheapest Electricity in North America:
1. Quebec 7.8-o EfAo Hydro
2. Manitoba 10.2-o EfAo Hydro
3. British Columbia 11.7-o EfAo Hydro
4. New Brunswick 13.9-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro
5. Ontario 14.1-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro
6. Newfoundland 14.8-o EfAo Hydro
7. Nevada (USA) ~16.4-o ryCN+A Solar / Gas
8. Louisiana (USA) ~16.9-o rc+ Gas
9. Idaho (USA) ~17.1-o EfAo Hydro
10. Tennessee (USA) ~18.2-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro

Most Expensive Energy in North America:
1. Hawaii ~54.2-o EfcoN+A Imported Oil
2. California ~43.9-o EfoN Wildfire Costs / Grid
3. Connecticut ~41.8-o rc+ Gas / Grid Fees
4. Massachusetts ~41.7-o rc+ Gas Constraint
5. Rhode Island ~38.8-o rc+ Gas Dependence
6. Maine ~38.3-o rUi Grid Upgrades
7. New Hampshire ~38.1-o rc+ Gas Dependence
8. New York ~37.3-o EfAON+A Urban Delivery Costs
9. Alaska ~37.2-o rYaN+A Remote Generation
10. Vermont ~32.8-o rUi Import Reliance

Sources: Hydro-Quebec Annual Comparison Report & US Energy Information
Administration (EIA) Residential Data. Rates adjusted to CAD.

Hmm. All the places where National Grid operates in the USA
seem to be the 'expensive' areas ? :-(

Where does the National Grid operate in the US?

We own and operate electricity distribution networks in upstate New York and Massachusetts. We own and operate electricity transmission facilities across the Northeast; including upstate New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. We own and operate gas distribution networks across the Northeastern US.
<<

What national grid ?

It's broken up into grid sections.

There should be a vertical line in the map, which is plesiochronous. Both
sides are (nominal) 60Hz, but not necessarily in-phase with one another.
There would be an attempt to "cycle-count" on either side of the dividing
line, so that wall clocks all keep decent time. But you can't run a wire
from one side of the street to the other, because the wire would burn off.
The instantaneous phase would not allow it.

This map shows both Canada and USA, and some amount of interconnect runs from Canada to the USA. In particular, Quebec Hydro has a fair amount of capacity that goes South.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmission_grid#/media/File:NERC-map-en.svg

There are "local issues" not discussed at that map level. Not all of those "colours" are as uniform as they look. Maybe they share frequency and phase, but not necessarily bulk power transfer. It could be that the distances involved, are not practical for the transmission facility type.

Rural populations not connected to the grid and running off diesel, would
not show on that map (even as tiny dots).

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 17:23, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 12:26, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:

TNP can tell you about electricity generation in the Republic of
Ireland,
where a study of generation from a mix of gas and wind showed that >>>>>> the
cheapest method was to run gas flat out all the time, and flog the >>>>>> unreliable wind power to the Brits.

-a-aCheapest to run gas flat out in the middle of a hot summer's night ? >>>>

Depends. The cost benefit is of course well understood by Eirgrid.
It is cost effective to shut down less efficient gas plant for weeks
at a time, but not for hours at a time.

-a-aAnd their report seems to suggest ramping down for hours at a time.

When you have a surplus, something has to give. You have to pay the
windmills to shut down, but not the gas plant. In that case the
consumer pays instead.

-aThey were ramping down for a few hours at a time even with no windmills. As opposed to "run gas flat out all the time".

They were, but now they run flat out and export the surplus to GB. By
and large.

Or import the deficit.
--
"It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's" Joew Walsh

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 19:00, Paul wrote:

On Wed, 12/31/2025 6:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The fact is that no renewable technology is cost, emissions, or low
environmental impact competitive *overall*, with nuclear.

And its only kept alive by total lack of regulatory oversight and
massive subsidies on renewables, and punitive regulations and no
subsidies at all on nuclear.

But that is not a 'sustainble' position.

I think my point was, that renewable generators ("raw suppliers")
should not be allowed to bid for power generation, without having (at
the least) a battery bank buffer before the connection to the grid.

There would be no renewable energy at all if they had to do that.
Of course I entirely agree that would be perfectly fine

The Nevada site has this feature, out of necessity. The site is too
big, to be yoyoing up and down when a cloud passes. Just the
connection to the grid has to be tamed. The battery is not there as a
one-day buffer.

Mostly batteries are there to simulate the rotational inertia of a power station, Ni battery has more than a few minutes of full power in it.

As to 'clouds passing over' you have never been to Nevada then?

I've seen a little mist in the morning, but nary a cloud. Once a year it
drops 12" of rain. And people drown.

Renewables are a source of "statistical power", and with crummy
little "statistical connections" to the grid (being located all over
the surface of the planet, makes grid planning impossible).

A power quote then, should include some of these costs, to level the
playing field with other sources where more control is evident. Then
their contract quotes, might be closer to the level of aggravation
they cause.

They have done everything to avoid that, because they are hovering on
the edge of viability even with the massive subsidies.
The truth is renewable energy - at least in the UK - basically doesn't
make any sense. Not as a low cost low carbon supplier of electricity.
Hydro nuclear and a little gas is the ideal mix.
But Siemens and the Kremlin had the EU in its pocket, and so the
'renewable obligation' was born....Never mind the cost,m never mind the
actual carbon foot print, never mind the dead birds and loss of
habitat....as long as you bought German windmills. And solar panels.

When a hydro power project here (which has pretty good generation characteristics) was built, one of the transmission lines set up to
sell the excess power, costs a cool one billion (selling the excess
power, is how it could afford to be built). Part of the transmission
line went under water. And when budgeting to do the project, that had
to be taken into account in the overall financing. Nobody
volunteered to build that for free. None of the power companies
individually, would have the assets to do that. If ten smaller wind
plants had been built instead, say, then the wind operators would
expect the power companies, to pay for a one billion line for them.
Whereas larger projects, the transmission facilities are part of the
package deal.

Yep. That is the problem with all renewables - even hydro - they tend to
be a long way away from the demand.

More costs that are never mentioned.

And when people complained, that the transmission facility was
bidirectional, some said "wouldn't it be cheaper if it was one-way
only?". Then, when the turn-up of the system was late, that
transmission line needed to run in reverse, to keep those clever
commenters warm :-) I think their comment today would be closer to
"money well spent".

People who simply do not know are 'led to believe'. And that
disinformation is tacitly accepted by all and sundry.

Power on our East coast is still pretty flaky. PEI right now, I
think is a bit short of power, and politics plays a part. I think
it's just one city, with a not very good connection to the rest of
the grid.

Ah, you are in Canada - hydro + nuclear. Best mix of all.

The low quote you see for Manitoba, it's not a given that can
continue. Strangely, there is a "re-licensing process" for the hydro stations, and opponents are lining up to take shots at the licensing
process. The system cannot generate power without a license. Most of
the generation capacity in Manitoba, involves just one river. There
are all sorts of not very visible factors at play here. And the end
result, might be that the Manitoba figure becomes "magically more
expensive" in a few years.

And there is still one province using coal, but it's not on that
chart.

Trying to get reliable low cost electricity to a nation is actually
hard. on account of so many conflicts of interest...

Paul

--
rCLit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph StalinrCOs Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984.rCY

Vaclav Klaus

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 19:08, Paul wrote:

Do you*really* want Scargill and others back in charge of energy
policy ?.

That's why in the States, they do "mountain-topping", cut the top off
a hill and extract the coal, and avoid any deep mining situations
(which might be more expensive).

Indeed. It makes a hell of a mess, but when its all over, it re-greens
itself or becomes a nice lake.

I don't think anyone is in a rush to go underground every day.

I went down a coal mine. Once. Quite enough thank you.

One of the mines here recently, had a collapse underground, the news
article made all sorts of puffy comments about the "recovery experts
have been dispatched", but there was no news from the people actually underground, and it's not clear that they made it to a safe-station.
Mining is still dangerous and that was a potash mine.

OK, here's an update.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/one-dead-in-collapse-k3-underground-mine-esterhazy-sask-mosaic-9.7016448

(One dead)

Yuo. You dont want to know how many people die in the coal and gold
mines of South Adrica.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/unifor-pursues-answers-in-death-of-esterhazy-k3-underground-mine-worker-9.7023243

Nothing has really changed in the mines. It ain't robots down there,
quite yet.

It was getting closer. even in the 1960s, with coal cutters running
along the face and conveyor belts behind, and letting the rock fall
behind the face.

Some of the robots being developed for nuclear decommissioning will
probably spill over into mining soon.

And Ukraine has really brought unmanned tech along a whole 40 years.
--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Sir Roger Scruton

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 19:32, Paul wrote:

There are "local issues" not discussed at that map level. Not all of those "colours" are as uniform as they look. Maybe they share frequency and phase, but not necessarily bulk power transfer. It could be that the distances involved, are not practical for the transmission facility type.

The purpose of the original grids was never bulk transfer of power, but
more and exchange of temporary surpluses and deficits.

USA/Canada is too big to allow 60Hz synchronisation overall. Its split
into zones IIRC and connected by HVDC links as appropriate
--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 21:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 19:00, Paul wrote:

On Wed, 12/31/2025 6:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The fact is that no renewable technology is cost, emissions, or low
environmental impact competitive *overall*, with nuclear.

And its only kept alive by total lack of regulatory oversight and
massive subsidies on renewables, and punitive regulations and no
subsidies at all on nuclear.

But that is not a 'sustainble' position.

I think my point was, that renewable generators ("raw suppliers")
should not be allowed to bid for power generation, without having (at
the least) a battery bank buffer before the connection to the grid.

There would be no renewable energy at all if they had to do that.
Of course I entirely agree that would be perfectly fine

The Nevada site has this feature, out of necessity. The site is too
big, to be yoyoing up and down when a cloud passes. Just the
connection to the grid has to be tamed. The battery is not there as a
one-day buffer.

Mostly batteries are there to simulate the rotational inertia of a power station, Ni battery has more than a few minutes of full power in it.

As to 'clouds passing over' you have never been to Nevada then?

I've seen a little mist in the morning, but nary a cloud. Once a year it drops 12" of rain. And people drown.

Then they should cover the Atacama desert in Northern Chile with
PV panels. In Calama it hardly ever rains there.

The Atacama Desert is the world's driest nonpolar desert, with average rainfall often less than 15 mm (0.6 inches) per year, and some areas
receiving only 1-3 mm (0.04-0.12 inches) annually, with some weather
stations never recording rain, and periods of centuries without
significant precipitation. This extreme dryness, particularly in central areas, is due to a combination of the cold Humboldt Current, a
rain-shadow effect from the Andes, and high-pressure systems, creating hyperarid conditions.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 19:08, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 12/30/2025 2:28 PM, Andrew wrote:

On 30/12/2025 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 29/12/2025 20:21, Brian wrote:

We need to be drilling, fracking, and digging coal, while developing
Nuclear power.

+1

Err, no. Whatever coal we have is under important stuff
likes roads, houses, hospitals and factories. We have
limited easily accessible coal deposits

Apart from which coal can be mined in Oz and shipped
half way round the world to the UK and landed at about
a third of the cost of deep mining it here.

Do you *really* want Scargill and others back in charge
of energy policy ?.

That's why in the States, they do "mountain-topping",
cut the top off a hill and extract the coal, and avoid any
deep mining situations (which might be more expensive).

Err, don't they just blast the mountain tops off with
massive amounts of explosive ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 19:32, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 12/30/2025 2:24 PM, Andrew wrote:

On 29/12/2025 10:38, Davey wrote:

Just received this, for comparison:

Cheapest Electricity in North America:
1. Quebec 7.8-o EfAo Hydro
2. Manitoba 10.2-o EfAo Hydro
3. British Columbia 11.7-o EfAo Hydro
4. New Brunswick 13.9-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro
5. Ontario 14.1-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro
6. Newfoundland 14.8-o EfAo Hydro
7. Nevada (USA) ~16.4-o ryCN+A Solar / Gas
8. Louisiana (USA) ~16.9-o rc+ Gas
9. Idaho (USA) ~17.1-o EfAo Hydro
10. Tennessee (USA) ~18.2-o rUcN+A Nuclear / Hydro

Most Expensive Energy in North America:
1. Hawaii ~54.2-o EfcoN+A Imported Oil
2. California ~43.9-o EfoN Wildfire Costs / Grid
3. Connecticut ~41.8-o rc+ Gas / Grid Fees
4. Massachusetts ~41.7-o rc+ Gas Constraint
5. Rhode Island ~38.8-o rc+ Gas Dependence
6. Maine ~38.3-o rUi Grid Upgrades
7. New Hampshire ~38.1-o rc+ Gas Dependence
8. New York ~37.3-o EfAON+A Urban Delivery Costs
9. Alaska ~37.2-o rYaN+A Remote Generation
10. Vermont ~32.8-o rUi Import Reliance

Sources: Hydro-Quebec Annual Comparison Report & US Energy Information
Administration (EIA) Residential Data. Rates adjusted to CAD.

Hmm. All the places where National Grid operates in the USA
seem to be the 'expensive' areas ? :-(

Where does the National Grid operate in the US?

We own and operate electricity distribution networks in upstate New York and Massachusetts. We own and operate electricity transmission facilities across the Northeast; including upstate New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. We own and operate gas distribution networks across the Northeastern US.
<<

What national grid ?

It's the name of a UK FTSE100 company that used to be known as
the Central Electricity Generating Board before privatisation.

Now the generators are all privately owned, and National Grid PLC
runs the distribution network (amongst other tasks).

By getting a stake in the USA it has probably avoided being
re-nationalised. Too many (mostly) Labour supporters would like
it to be.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 22:12, Andrew wrote:

On 31/12/2025 19:08, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 12/30/2025 2:28 PM, Andrew wrote:

On 30/12/2025 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 29/12/2025 20:21, Brian wrote:

We need to be drilling, fracking, and digging coal, while developing >>>>> Nuclear power.

+1

Err, no. Whatever coal we have is under important stuff
likes roads, houses, hospitals and factories. We have
limited easily accessible coal deposits

Apart from which coal can be mined in Oz and shipped
half way round the world to the UK and landed at about
a third of the cost of deep mining it here.

Do you *really* want Scargill and others back in charge
of energy policy ?.

That's why in the States, they do "mountain-topping",
cut the top off a hill and extract the coal, and avoid any
deep mining situations (which might be more expensive).

Err, don't they just blast the mountain tops off with
massive amounts of explosive ?

Pretty much yes. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 22:19, Andrew wrote:

What national grid ?

It's the name of a UK FTSE100 company that used to be known as
the Central Electricity Generating Board before privatisation.

Now the generators are all privately owned, and National Grid PLC
runs the distribution network (amongst other tasks).

By getting a stake in the USA it has probably avoided being
re-nationalised. Too many (mostly) Labour supporters would like
it to be.

Yes, and there is some merit to that, It is a natural monopoly and needs gummint regulation at the very least.

And in the end a heavily regulated utility that has its profits limited
is hardly different from a nationalised company.

The problem is that once nationalised Miliband would fuck it up beyond
all recognition.
--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.d-i-y

On 31/12/2025 21:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 17:23, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 12:26, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 31/12/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:

TNP can tell you about electricity generation in the Republic of >>>>>>> Ireland,
where a study of generation from a mix of gas and wind showed that the >>>>>>> cheapest method was to run gas flat out all the time, and flog the >>>>>>> unreliable wind power to the Brits.

-a-aCheapest to run gas flat out in the middle of a hot summer's night ? >>>>>

Depends. The cost benefit is of course well understood by Eirgrid.
It is cost effective to shut down less efficient gas plant for weeks >>>>> at a time, but not for hours at a time.

-a-aAnd their report seems to suggest ramping down for hours at a time. >>>>

When you have a surplus, something has to give. You have to pay the
windmills to shut down, but not the gas plant. In that case the consumer >>> pays instead.

-a-aThey were ramping down for a few hours at a time even with no windmills. >> As opposed to "run gas flat out all the time".

They were, but now they run flat out and export the surplus to GB. By and large.

Or import the deficit.

https://www.smartgriddashboard.com/all/interconnection/?duration=week

shows Ireland importing almost all the time -even when Octopus Tracker
went over 30p on Thursday.

When has Ireland been exporting substantial amounts of electricity?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2