Aiden, no need, my reference was as a lead.
My comment and point was to put more emphasis on the overthrowing of the ruling entities and that they come in many forms, not just as politicians.
They are more dangerous than the pollies as they hide behind the skirts of the pollies, only to make their sick and overbearing demands through the govt.
ALL of these scumbags need to be eliminated.
I care not who does the eliminating and by what means.
The more painful the better.
Thereby sending a message to all the scum waiting next in line to occupy the positions of previous scum.

ALTRAV,
I know what your point was, but I think you missed mine. Overthrowing is not a good strategy unless you can replace it with something better. 'Tis all very well saying you're sending a message to the scum waiting in line; you're unaware of the real message you're sending: you're an obstacle they'll need to deal with!

Reform is nearly always better than overthrow.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, what's the point of your last post? 525MW is a truly unremarkable figure! Indeed it's about double that now.

Why do you bother posting a blogger's 14000 battery figure when the calculations are based on achieving a flat output rather than anything even remotely related to Britain's electricity needs?

Paying to have power stations not running but available when needed is a good strategy even if its not working in America at the moment. But if there are (non fire related) supply problems in America at the moment, it would be good if you could post more information so we know what pitfalls to avoid.

Aidan, I understand but I am not suggesting I do it alone.
But imagine if, say, half the population actually took up arms against these people.
Even the military would be powerless, and even then, I don't think they would take up arms against their own, especially when the public would outnumber them many fold.
Look I know it's a far-fetched idea.
One can dream.
It happened once, so there is a precedent, even if it is not likely in a Western Democracy.
When I see so much ignorance, arrogance, greed, averace and so many other bad things going on around me it is all I can do to imagine a day when things will be better.
As I said, I can dream.

I've given up on trying to understand the graph and underlying figurings.

If intermittent sources provided 100% of annual electrical energy (MWh) consumption, by definition it could not do so at a constant rate. Peaks above 100% must charge storage for when the sources deliver less than this.

Because the round trip of using over-peak to top up under-peak energy production is only partially efficient, about 75%, the loss must be compensated by producing 25% in excess of the energy consumption.

The generation build may be cheap enough, but what about its regular replacement. Does its longevity and efficiency remain sufficient to call it cheap generation? And what about storage? How much will it cost per unit stored, and, how much storage is enough given that weather doesn't run like clockwork, not just over short periods but over longer ones, and with climate change throwing up further surprises?

These uncertainties do not fit with modern civilization's reliability needs. The belief it will be scalable, feasible and viable, especially given the need to electrify so much more than we already have (e.g. urban transport and synthetic fuel production for shipping and long-range transport) is fantasy when compared to existent and imminent nuclear options.

Aiden, the reason for mentioning the current wind o/p in SA is because
many people have never seen the variation and it is generally a
surprise to them that it varies over such a wide range.
Re the 14,000 figure it is the first I have seen anywhere and did not
really surprise me. You tend to poo poo anything that does not fit
your conception without even making a valid criticism of their effort.

ALTRAV,
It sounds like you want a civil war!
http://youtu.be/akIHev3cb1E

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
As that statistic was less than half SA's maximum wind output, but it goes a lot lower, it did not give any indication of the variation you mentioned.

I don't applaud effort for its own sake, and I make no apologies for recognising that calculations based on false assumptions often have negative value as they dissuade people from pursuing the best alternatives.

Using batteries to completely level the output from Britain's non-disatchable renewables is a totally worthless objective. Traditional baseload power is not what's needed. The 14000 battery figure was completely unrelated to any genuine requirements (demand is far from flat) so it appears to be an attempt to unfairly discredit battery storage and/or wind and solar power rather than examining the circumstances in which they could be of use.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,
I think my Sunday, 29 July 2018 6:45:37 PM post is the best explanation of the graph etc.

Looking at the wild oscillations in the 5 minute electricity wholesale prices, I'd be surprised if batteries weren't economically viable already. Of course batteries would affect the market by reducing those oscillations, so their economic viability of many more batteries is a separate issue.

Existing nuclear power options are expensive. Imminent ones promise to be much cheaper, but so do renewable sand storage. Synthetic fuel production is best done at times when there's excess power, whether it's from renewables or nuclear.