OneGuyFromBarlick

Looks pretty much like a classic generation graph for all south orientated panels. Probably a bit flatter coming up to the peak and down from it with a lower peak. You get it over a longer period, it all comes at once with all the panels facing the same way. 16 panels with 8 facing 2 ways, beats 10 facing one way. Your generation meter is probably reading similar on yours after 4 years as mine is after 6. (12219 kWh as I write this).

Mine's reading 11065 kWh but they were fitted in November 2014, so it's in the right ball park. Thanks for telling me your figures, it confirms that all is well. When we came here we had no idea what was normal for FIT readings and the previous owners had moved to Scotland and didn't leave any information on the set up (although they provided much detail and documentation for everything else!).

Two energy related matters caught my eye yesterday.

1. Coal fired power stations yesterday evening provided 26 % of our energy needs. Big news when the figure was zero - no mention today. These are the stations remember which are all to be closed down.

2. All the offshore wind generators will soon need new 'propellers' since the edges cannot cope with the sea air.

Now today we hear of a shortage of gas supply. Perhaps we'll have to frack eventually?

Or find more ways of using less electricity.

Later...I've just read that 866,000 people in the UK now have smart meters that don't work (i.e. defined as `dumb') because they've switched providers; and the providers are still installing those duff Smet1 meters.

The grid is running coal pretty much flat out because of the high demand and presumably to relieve the gas shortage. Blame the cold weather.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

We've been burning well over 100kWh a day gas this week (41 m3 in 4 days) , you can bet everyone else is using it thick and fast too.

I can't find anything about Offshore wind turbine blades on any mainstream sites. Blade repair and refurbishment is an ongoing maintenance item,

There is this: https://www.thegwpf.com/type-failure-or ... hore-wind/ .

The GWPF are climate change denialists in all but name.

Changing some meters is hardly the end of the world.

Or we could go down the 'that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence' route

Pluggy wrote: ↑01 Mar 2018, 16:58 Blade repair and refurbishment is an ongoing maintenance item,

I'm not looking for an argument, and I can't recall where I saw it, but what I saw was very similar to the site you refer to, which in fact says -

Recent reports indicate that major repairs are required on 500 offshore wind turbines in United Kingdom waters, and nearly two hundred more at sites off the Danish and German coasts. Whether this is type failure or just normal wear and tear is as yet unclear, and is, according to Danish news reports, in dispute.

It now appears that all 108 wind turbines have erosion problems on the leading edges of their blades, requiring removal and reconditioning. Renewable Energy News (renews, issue 377, available only to subscribers), is reporting that this will entail the application of a rubber covering, a process that will take three to ten days per turbine. Work is expected to start later this year and will stretch into 2019.

It'll be Spring in three weeks time and we can forget all about it.

Bit like the leaking gland on the carrier, normal operation and maintenance misinterpreted by polemicists with no knowledge grasping at straws....
The only reason the coal-fired stations were available is because it's not long since they were taken off-line. This escape route won't be available next time there is a surge, for whatever reason.
Just think what this local difficulty is doing for the economy...... "Events Dear Boy".
Later.... The dangers of being reliant on outside gas supplies is brought home this morning by the fact that the spot price we are paying for gas has gone up 7X, that's right, seven times what it was a few days ago. The CEO of IMIO one of the companies heavily involved in fracking was saying this morning that the 25% from wind and the 25% from coal saved us yesterday. Given a calm day and no coal stations what do we have?

Pluggy wrote: ↑01 Mar 2018, 16:58 The GWPF are climate change denialists in all but name.

That's an understatement, as Pluggy probably knows. See this page on their web site: LINK Below is an example from that `Who We Are' page. Note their use of the term `climate alarmism' - that's what they blame on scientists when it's themselves who are the alarmists.
-------------------------------------------------------------
For balanced science & policy research
Climate science and climate policies are faced by rising doubt and criticism. There is growing concern about the integrity of climate scientists and the maltreatment of sceptical researchers. The Forum will be campaigning for more balanced and more transparent assessments of climate science and policy research.
For open & sceptical science
Climate alarmism suffers from a manifest lack of scientific scrutiny. Instead of carefully assessing the quality and reliability of climate data, many climate scientists cherry-pick numbers and interpretations that seem to confirm their alarmist conviction. Reliable and trustworthy science requires a sober and detached consideration of all relevant evidence. The Forum will campaign for an open scientific debate which allows for all reasonable arguments and criticism to be voiced and published.
Against bias and alarm
The coverage of climate change in the news media has been strongly biased in favour of alarm. For far too long, scientific organisations and the mainstream media have failed to give appropriate space to authoritative critics of climate alarmism. The Forum will campaign for more objective media reporting.
------------------------------------------------------------

Trump hasn't been making a complete a*sehole of himself, Brexit is following the same old downward trend to oblivion , Not much happening in Syria and no aircraft have fallen out of the sky, cue slack news day - wait, the weather is cold and there's a gas shortage..........

And Vlad the Impaler has developed enough new nuclear weapons to destroy the Solar System. The Beast from the East?

Regarding closing coal power stations, from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... ed_Kingdom it looks the ones closing are pushing 50 years old. In my book they should have been shut long ago. At the moment 12 GW of coal power is coming from a total coal capacity of about 14GW and its been at 100 % a time or two in the last week. It comes back to a lack of a coherent energy policy and investment. Many of the nuke stations are living on borrowed time too. On the plus side peak load isn't high as it was not so long ago although much of that is non centrally metered renewables (all solar and about a third of wind). They don't show as generating, just a lack of load.

"It comes back to a lack of a coherent energy policy and investment." That's the key phrase and I agree with Pluggy. The whole concept of mega-generating stations is out of date. It was dodgy 20 years ago, by the time it is online it will be a white elephant........

There's a survey of the views on smart meters of nearly 11,000 people here...
`Energy smart meters: Great tech or a pain in the neck?' MoneySavingExpert.com

I note that in a forum on the same site it mentions how the energy companies use SIM card technology to remotely connect to the meters. There are difficulties in some areas due to lack of mobile signal but this is being sorted by the companies using `machine to machine roaming SIMs' which allow the connection to find a network that's available. Now why isn't this available to all of us so that we can get good mobile connection wherever we live? An example of a company supplying the technology to energy companies for use with smart meters is here: LINK

Could `machine to machine roaming SIMs' be a euphemism for sneaking a ride on the nearest active wi-fi router?

That's the plan, there are also moves afoot to standardise the smart meters. There is a problem at the moment in that one suppliers meters won't necessarily work if you swap providers. They all do the same thing so they are moving to standardise the technology. Can't see why they didn't agree that before rollout but I suppose that's what you get with deregulation of the market, round plugs square holes.

PanBiker wrote: ↑16 Mar 2018, 08:44 That's the plan, there are also moves afoot to standardise the smart meters. There is a problem at the moment in that one suppliers meters won't necessarily work if you swap providers. They all do the same thing so they are moving to standardise the technology. Can't see why they didn't agree that before rollout but I suppose that's what you get with deregulation of the market, round plugs square holes.

I was baffled as to why it wasn't standardised first, it seems a massive waste of money to do it now. All the meters currently out there are SMET1 and will only work with the supplier who fitted it (apparently). One would have thought it would have been as simple as changing a SIM card in the meters (apparently not). SMET2 meters are compatible with a centralised 'system' (apparently) which will allow consumers to switch suppliers and take the smart technology with them. If you want to switch now, and continue using a smart meter, your new supplier has to fit a new meter, what a waste of money that will be...

Stanley wrote: ↑16 Mar 2018, 04:31 Could `machine to machine roaming SIMs' be a euphemism for sneaking a ride on the nearest active wi-fi router?

No, the smart meters use mobile data signal through a SIM card, not broadband through a router. A few years ago the Business Secretary Sajid Javid had proposed that the problem for domestic users of mobile phones could be solved by the firms automatically switching users to different signals when their own networks dropped out. The mobile operators poured cold water on the idea and said they'd rather extend their own coverage and create `bilateral network-sharing agreements'. A few such agreements were made for business users and one Lancashire company said it would do it for domestic but critics warned it would be too expensive. LINK

You may want to re-evaluate your opinions on Energy after recent research, I certainly have :

A youtube video I watched last night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
This isn't some of the outright cr*p on youtube, its a TED talk. The speakers at least have a clue.
In the light of recent research and including deaths from pollution and accidents, It turns out that Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy generation in terms of energy produced. It beats the darling renewables by a good margin, solar by a factor of 10 (presumably people falling off roofs) and wind by a factor of 4.. Coal is top of the list. at around 2500 times worse than nuclear. Hydro is seconf best in Europe, but it fares worse on a world scale after a Dam collapsed in China in 1975 and killed 171,000.

These are figures pulled from an unrelated website Corrected is in terms of Fukushima and more recent research on pollution. Excuse the dodgy formatting.

The page can be viewed here : https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/d ... ource.html

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED

Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Solar problems may also relate to the extraction and processing of necessary raw materials and related environmental pollution

Those figures don't surprise me Pluggy. I have always argued that in terms of deaths caused by the technology, coal is by far the most deadly even if you only use the data from the last 50 years. Bit like the current frenzy about nerve gas, it's the fear factor that drives the opposition.

Pluggy wrote: ↑16 Mar 2018, 13:54 Hydro is seconf best in Europe, but it fares worse on a world scale after a Dam collapsed in China in 1975 and killed 171,000.

On the old OG site I wrote a long post about the giant dams built in China and how they are much more dangerous than nuclear energy plants. Hydro will become more more tricky and dangerous with climate change because the flow of water from mountains will be more erratic, causing drought in summer and flooding in winter. This will be a result of the decline in glaciers and snow which currently act as a reservoir, storing up the water in frozen form during winter and trickling it out down the rivers over the warmer months. Instead it will all come rushing out as water in winter, overflowing or collapsing the dams and leaving empty dam reservoirs in summer.

I agree about the dangers Tiz. The big problem with coal is the effect of the pollution caused by burning it not the initial death toll so on balance, per unit of electricity generated I think it will always be the worst with biomass not far behind.
I'll bet we are paying through the nose for gas imports today!

Apparently it's not as easy as it might seem for Putin to block our gas supplies because it doesn't come direct. Russian gas goes into other countries in Europe and then we get ours from them. So he'd have to deprive Europe of gas in order to block us, and that would be a big hit to his income.

Gas from Russia per BBC around 1.4% of UK consumption , with 3 commercial loads of CNG last year, which I suppose were a small earner from Russia.
Still worrying that the UK strategic gas reserve storage was closed down on cost grounds. Of course if Europe went with any UK sanctions then would be
gas shortfall as Europe would have to up costly imports - probably from the wonderful democracy of Qatar.

Tiz, I agree about the blocking. I was thinking more of how the spot market reacts to need, it's an opportunity to jack up the price as happened in the last cold spell..... The advantages of the market system.......
Yet again, remember Nye Bevan and 'the commanding heights of the economy'.