The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[anonymous-user]

Condi said:

Annoying things, facts, arn't they....?

That’s what always happens. TB sees the sexed up analysis of a newspaper article in wattsupwiththat or the gwpf and can’t read the original as it’s conveniently behind a paywall.

He can’t link to wattsupwiththat or breitbart as they’re known advocacy blogs, so tries to link to the original article (which he hasn’t even read) and has usually been twisted and politicised by his bloggs where he saw it.

Sometimes he even changes the wording slightly so it’s not obviously from wattsupwiththat.

[rscott]

El stovey said:

turbobloke said:

For those who can't access the FT article, there's second-hand coverage here from carbonbrief. It's not as neutral but reasonably live and earthy, scroll down beneath the global warming advocacy.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-brief/national-g...

That’s the problem when you get your info from advocacy blogs like carbon brief and breitbart and wattsupwiththat the actual (more neutral) articles are usually always behind paywalls.

Because you constantly have to hide where you got it from, your links never work.

Best just go back to just posting wattsupwiththat and gwpf links, where you found it and at least then posters might see some of the article and be able to see bias applied by the blogs.

You missed it then - the report quoted in the FT and then in Carbon Brief is based on work co-written by a GWPF contributor .

[anonymous-user]

rscott said:

You missed it then - the report quoted in the FT and then in Carbon Brief is based on work co-written by a GWPF contributor .

[Gadgetmac]

Condi said:

El stovey said:

Wattsupwiththat from breitbart.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/09/michael-moo...

Gibbs is a film producer.

I see, thanks.

So, in short, nothing to do with what is being discussed, comments from someone who knows little about the subject (and is trying to promote his film), and published on a website with known bias.

Usual service is resumed.

He won’t respond, he just jumps from posting one soundbite taken from Breitbart, the GWPF, the Heartland Institute etc to the next.

Call him out on it and he says its an ad hom.

It’s just Spam, he’s so obviously in the pay of some interested concern or another.

[rscott]

El stovey said:

rscott said:

You missed it then - the report quoted in the FT and then in Carbon Brief is based on work co-written by a GWPF contributor .

turbowaffle spam link said:

Gibson cites analysis co-written with Dr Capell Aris, a contributor to the climate sceptic lobby-group Global Warming Policy Foundation.

[vonuber]

Gadgetmac said:

He won’t respond, he just jumps from posting one soundbite taken from Breitbart, the GWPF, the Heartland Institute etc to the next.

Call him out on it and he says its an ad hom.

It’s just Spam, he’s so obviously in the pay of some interested concern or another.

You do have to wonder who it is (paying for) behind the majority of AGW stuff.

[Condi]

rscott said:

El stovey said:

rscott said:

You missed it then - the report quoted in the FT and then in Carbon Brief is based on work co-written by a GWPF contributor .

turbowaffle spam link said:

Gibson cites analysis co-written with Dr Capell Aris, a contributor to the climate sceptic lobby-group Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Must be the same Dr Capell Aris who used to be a director of a failed energy consultancy business, the same Dr Capell Aris who was also a director of a failed radio navigation computer business, who used to work as a reactor physicist, but somehow ended up in the control room of Dinorwig and Ffestiniog (not many reactors there!), and the same Dr Capell Aris who doesn't say where is doctorate is from or in what subject.

[anonymous-user]

vonuber said:

Gadgetmac said:

He won’t respond, he just jumps from posting one soundbite taken from Breitbart, the GWPF, the Heartland Institute etc to the next.

Call him out on it and he says its an ad hom.

It’s just Spam, he’s so obviously in the pay of some interested concern or another.

You do have to wonder who it is (paying for) behind the majority of AGW stuff.

The heartland institute seems to be somehow linked to most of them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Inst...

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 20th August 14:12

[rscott]

El stovey said:

vonuber said:

Gadgetmac said:

He won’t respond, he just jumps from posting one soundbite taken from Breitbart, the GWPF, the Heartland Institute etc to the next.

Call him out on it and he says its an ad hom.

It’s just Spam, he’s so obviously in the pay of some interested concern or another.

You do have to wonder who it is (paying for) behind the majority of AGW stuff.

The heartland institute seems to be somehow linked to most of them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Inst...

Edited by El stovey on Tuesday 20th August 14:12

Aris has also worked for Scientific Alliance

[Gadgetmac]

rscott said:

El stovey said:

vonuber said:

Gadgetmac said:

He won’t respond, he just jumps from posting one soundbite taken from Breitbart, the GWPF, the Heartland Institute etc to the next.

Call him out on it and he says its an ad hom.

It’s just Spam, he’s so obviously in the pay of some interested concern or another.

You do have to wonder who it is (paying for) behind the majority of AGW stuff.

The heartland institute seems to be somehow linked to most of them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Inst...

Edited by El stovey on Tuesday 20th August 14:12

Aris has also worked for Scientific Alliance

And somehow every branch (like the aforementioned GWPF, CFact, Heartland blah blah blah) leads back ultimately to funding supplied by either big oil (usually Exxon) or sources who don’t wish to be revealed - which also usually turns out to be big oil when caught with their pants down or when a whistle blower comes forward.

[turbobloke]

The regulator has powers to levy substantial penalties, up to10% of a company's UK turnover.

We have no choice but to wait and see what and where the penalties, if any, are imposed.

Lightning has been around for rather a long time, and cumulonimbus isn't regulated.

[vonuber]

El stovey said:

The heartland institute seems to be somehow linked to most of them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Inst...

Edited by El stovey on Tuesday 20th August 14:12

Blimey, what a delightful organisation that is.

[Condi]

This relates to last Saturday, breaking a record recorded less than a week earlier.

[Evanivitch]

I'm not sure there was any solar at 2am...

[Edit] Misread that!

[Nickgnome]

Evanivitch said:

I'm not sure there was any solar at 2am...

[Edit] Misread that!

I expect there was somewhere around the globe.

Not too many of us (UK) watching the TV or making tea then either.

[Gary C]

Had a look at the data from how our station performed during the low frequency event

As the frequency fell, the load increased instantly by ~10MW under the action of govenor droop (was probably more, but my data only has a reolution of 30s, but does go back to 1988 !) even though the turbine speed setpont falls in response to the reduction in boiler pressure. As boiler pressure continued to fall, our station responds by reducing the turbine speed setpoint, so as the reduction overcame the action of the droop, load then fell after 2;30s by 15MW below the initial steady generation figure.

As expected, the intial response of the genset, is to increase generation under the turbine droop, this responds almost instantly and uses the stored pressure in the boilers.

[turbobloke]

The blackout jury is still out, meanwhile some notes from Dr John Constable GWPF Energy Editor.

Summary
-NG’s version of events is not entirely convincing so far
-the system has been going through 'difficult days'
-Friday 9th was one, and it didn’t end well
-the system frequency trace wasn't quite consistent with the narrative offered and implied
-narrative partly driven by desire to exonerate wind power in general / Hornsea in particular
-at the same time as a Times article on the 16th the DT reported that on the next 2 nights there had been more 'system disturbance' -frequency dropped below operational limits again
-in response the Control Room had made Hornsea reduce output
-Hornsea was paid £100,000 for this, as conventional output was increased
-rather than an ultra-rare one off, problems appeared to be persisting with Hornsea part of those problems
-impact of the blackout story was being weakened by confused and incomplete commentary
-Sunday saw a report in the DT concerning Colin Gibson former Power Networks Director at NG
-together with a former colleague Dr C Aris, CG had raised concerns that National Grid allowed a 'hazardous decline in system inertia'
-and that this decline had resulted from high levels of asynchronous generation
-CG pointed to this as the root of inadequacies leading to the blackout

Constable article:
https://www.thegwpf.com/telling-the-story-of-a-bla...

Related article from 18th August mentioned above:
Former National Grid Director Says Ministers Should Impose Limits on New Wind and Solar Farms to Help Avoid Power Cuts

[WatchfulEye]

Gary C said:

Had a look at the data from how our station performed during the low frequency event

Do you get a reduction in reactor load due to the effect of frequency on the circulators?

Or is this a negligible effect.?

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

The blackout jury is still out, meanwhile some notes from Dr John Constable GWPF Energy Editor.

Summary
-NG’s version of events is not entirely convincing so far
-the system has been going through 'difficult days'
-Friday 9th was one, and it didn’t end well
-the system frequency trace wasn't quite consistent with the narrative offered and implied
-narrative partly driven by desire to exonerate wind power in general / Hornsea in particular
-at the same time as a Times article on the 16th the DT reported that on the next 2 nights there had been more 'system disturbance' -frequency dropped below operational limits again
-in response the Control Room had made Hornsea reduce output
-Hornsea was paid £100,000 for this, as conventional output was increased
-rather than an ultra-rare one off, problems appeared to be persisting with Hornsea part of those problems
-impact of the blackout story was being weakened by confused and incomplete commentary
-Sunday saw a report in the DT concerning Colin Gibson former Power Networks Director at NG
-together with a former colleague Dr C Aris, CG had raised concerns that National Grid allowed a 'hazardous decline in system inertia'
-and that this decline had resulted from high levels of asynchronous generation
-CG pointed to this as the root of inadequacies leading to the blackout

Constable article:
https://www.thegwpf.com/telling-the-story-of-a-bla...

Related article from 18th August mentioned above:
Former National Grid Director Says Ministers Should Impose Limits on New Wind and Solar Farms to Help Avoid Power Cuts

I see you mention Dr Aris - would you know what his doctorate was in?

[Gary C]

WatchfulEye said:

Gary C said:

Had a look at the data from how our station performed during the low frequency event

Do you get a reduction in reactor load due to the effect of frequency on the circulators?

Or is this a negligible effect.?

We do, but its quite small over the time period involved and not noticable in this case.