OT: Snowy Hydro

[Sylvia Else]

<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-16/snowy-hydro-scheme-funding-boost-to-secure-electricity-supply/8358502>

"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time. That is why it's not used for base
load - it would empty its reservoirs.

Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts. That wouldn't use much
of the water in the scheme of things, but I seriously question whether
the proposal is the cheapest solution.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

Stupider than anyone Else

"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.

That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.

** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".

Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.

** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

That wouldn't use much
of the water in the scheme of things, but I seriously question whether
the proposal is the cheapest solution.

** Probably is, when you take into account the limited life of the thousand batteries and the electronic converters needed to turn DC into AC.



.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Phil Allison wrote:

Typo correction:


** Probably is, when you take into account the limited life of the thousands of batteries and the electronic converters needed to turn DC into AC.



... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 16/03/2017 3:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-16/snowy-hydro-scheme-funding-boost-to-secure-electricity-supply/8358502


"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time. That is why it's not used for base
load - it would empty its reservoirs.

Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts. That wouldn't use much
of the water in the scheme of things, but I seriously question whether
the proposal is the cheapest solution.

Sylvia.

**Yep, it's fucked, but we're stuck with those neanderthals in the
Lieberal Party. They'll do ANYTHING, except use the abundant Sunshine in
this country to generate electricity. They're even talking about nukes
for fuck's sake! The US has finally managed to safely bury 2 years'
worth of high level waste. Only 48 years' worth of waste to go... I'd be
happy with nukes, provided they bury the waste in the pollie's
backyards. Still, they won't discuss, geo-thermal, Solar/thermal or
Solar PV/battery systems. All have been shown to work and provide
electricity at competitive prices.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 16/03/2017 6:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

Stupider than anyone Else


"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.


That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.
During the day, the marginal excess capacity is gas generation. I
doesn't make economic sense to use gas to pump water just so that that
water can be used to displace gas generation on another day.

At night, the marginal generation is sometimes coal based. While it does
make sense to use coal during the night to pump water that can be used
later to displace gas, it also substitutes a more polluting form of
generation for a less polluting one.

In any case, we're not short of generating capacity per se, we're short
of peak generating capacity that's only required in extreme weather. All
building additional hydro-generating capacity using pumped storage will
achieve is to discourage investment in other capacity for use for a
significant part of the day. It doesn't nothing to address the extreme
peak capacity issue.

That wouldn't use much
of the water in the scheme of things, but I seriously question whether
the proposal is the cheapest solution.


** Probably is, when you take into account the limited life of the thousand batteries and the electronic converters needed to turn DC into AC.



... Phil


The cheapest solution to the problem we actually have is probably diesel.

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 16/03/2017 7:33 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 16/03/2017 6:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Stupider than anyone Else


"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.


That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of
excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.
During the day, the marginal excess capacity is gas generation. I
doesn't make economic sense to use gas to pump water just so that that
water can be used to displace gas generation on another day.

At night, the marginal generation is sometimes coal based. While it does
make sense to use coal during the night to pump water that can be used
later to displace gas, it also substitutes a more polluting form of
generation for a less polluting one.

In any case, we're not short of generating capacity per se, we're short
of peak generating capacity that's only required in extreme weather. All
building additional hydro-generating capacity using pumped storage will
achieve is to discourage investment in other capacity for use for a
significant part of the day. It doesn't nothing to address the extreme
peak capacity issue.

**Yeah, it does. It sucks up surplus energy from coal fired power
stations and stores that energy by raising the level of water. Can it
deal with the most extreme days? Nope. The extra couple of GWh will help
though. Trouble is that you can bet Trumbull's idea is at least a decade
away. We need a solution quicker than that.

> The cheapest solution to the problem we actually have is probably diesel.

**Nope. Not even close. Gas is much cheaper.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 16/03/2017 7:40 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 16/03/2017 7:33 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16/03/2017 6:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Stupider than anyone Else


"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.


That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so
much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of
excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.
During the day, the marginal excess capacity is gas generation. I
doesn't make economic sense to use gas to pump water just so that that
water can be used to displace gas generation on another day.

At night, the marginal generation is sometimes coal based. While it does
make sense to use coal during the night to pump water that can be used
later to displace gas, it also substitutes a more polluting form of
generation for a less polluting one.

In any case, we're not short of generating capacity per se, we're short
of peak generating capacity that's only required in extreme weather. All
building additional hydro-generating capacity using pumped storage will
achieve is to discourage investment in other capacity for use for a
significant part of the day. It doesn't nothing to address the extreme
peak capacity issue.


**Yeah, it does. It sucks up surplus energy from coal fired power
stations and stores that energy by raising the level of water. Can it
deal with the most extreme days? Nope. The extra couple of GWh will help
though. Trouble is that you can bet Trumbull's idea is at least a decade
away. We need a solution quicker than that.

Having the potential energy in the water is one thing. Having the
generating capacity to use it is another. They're proposing to build
extra capacity, but if they use it at any time other than when extreme
conditions are running us out of capacity, then they're displacing other
capacity. Since they displace the capacity with the highest marginal
cost, they're displacing gas generation. When potential investors see
gas generation being displaced on a regular basis, they'll decide not to
build any more gas generation. So all that's been achieved is to use
coal fired generation instead of gas generation.

The cheapest solution to the problem we actually have is probably diesel.

**Nope. Not even close. Gas is much cheaper.

Gas is cheaper as a fuel, but diesel generators themselves are cheaper.
Since they wouldn't be used much the cost of the generator is more
significant than the cost of the fuel.

Sylvia.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2017-03-16, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 16/03/2017 6:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Stupider than anyone Else


"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.


That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.
During the day, the marginal excess capacity is gas generation. I
doesn't make economic sense to use gas to pump water just so that that
water can be used to displace gas generation on another day.

Don't use gas, use solar... gotta build it first though.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 17/03/17 10:39, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 17/03/2017 9:28 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:


That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so
much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of
excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.


** That is complete BOLLOCKS.

Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops.

Power generation equals power consumption, second by second, always.

No. Not if you measure power as heat generated in the coal-fired boilers
and consumption as power extracted from the generators.

The heat production has a huge time-constant - like 24 hours - so you
cannot simply increase heat for each daily power peak. You have to run
with enough for the peak, and waste or store the extra in-between.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 16/03/17 23:17, keithr0 wrote:

On 3/16/2017 5:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Stupider than anyone Else


"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.
That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.
** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.
With water from the lower ones.
It's a huge "water battery".
Its called pumped storage, it has been going on in the Snowies for more
than 50 years.
Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.
** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of
excess power in the grid at any time of day.
That wouldn't use much
of the water in the scheme of things, but I seriously question whether
the proposal is the cheapest solution.
** Probably is, when you take into account the limited life of the
thousand batteries and the electronic converters needed to turn DC
into AC.
Pumped storage wouldn't work in South Australia coz its flat

Not necessarily, though it would take longer than 100 days. See

<https://theconversation.com/snowy-hydro-gets-a-boost-but-seawater-hydro-could-help-south-australia-74442>

Clifford Heath

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 17/03/17 14:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 16/03/2017 10:24 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 17/03/17 10:39, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17/03/2017 9:28 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:


That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so
much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of
excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.


** That is complete BOLLOCKS.

Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops.

Power generation equals power consumption, second by second, always.

No. Not if you measure power as heat generated in the coal-fired boilers
and consumption as power extracted from the generators.

That doesn't seem a very sensible measure of generation, since some of
the heat is unavoidably lost due to the laws of thermodynamics.


The heat production has a huge time-constant - like 24 hours - so you
cannot simply increase heat for each daily power peak. You have to run
with enough for the peak, and waste or store the extra in-between.

Coal fired generators are run with very slow changes in power output for
that reason. Variations in overall load are handled by other generation
with quicker response times.

No. The heat is released into the atmosphere instead of wasting water.
It's a simple matter of diverting the combusted gases away from the
boiler.

 

[keithr0]

On 3/16/2017 6:40 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 16/03/2017 7:33 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16/03/2017 6:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Stupider than anyone Else


"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.


That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so
much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of
excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.
During the day, the marginal excess capacity is gas generation. I
doesn't make economic sense to use gas to pump water just so that that
water can be used to displace gas generation on another day.

At night, the marginal generation is sometimes coal based. While it does
make sense to use coal during the night to pump water that can be used
later to displace gas, it also substitutes a more polluting form of
generation for a less polluting one.

In any case, we're not short of generating capacity per se, we're short
of peak generating capacity that's only required in extreme weather. All
building additional hydro-generating capacity using pumped storage will
achieve is to discourage investment in other capacity for use for a
significant part of the day. It doesn't nothing to address the extreme
peak capacity issue.


**Yeah, it does. It sucks up surplus energy from coal fired power
stations and stores that energy by raising the level of water. Can it
deal with the most extreme days? Nope. The extra couple of GWh will help
though. Trouble is that you can bet Trumbull's idea is at least a decade
away. We need a solution quicker than that.

The cheapest solution to the problem we actually have is probably diesel.

**Nope. Not even close. Gas is much cheaper.


This seems a better idea

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/plans-for-a-24-hour-solar-thermal-plant-earn-environmental-approval-in-chile/

 

[keithr0]

On 3/16/2017 5:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

Stupider than anyone Else


"In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.

I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
he was misquoted.

** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.


That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".

Its called pumped storage, it has been going on in the Snowies for more
than 50 years.

Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.


That wouldn't use much
of the water in the scheme of things, but I seriously question whether
the proposal is the cheapest solution.


** Probably is, when you take into account the limited life of the thousand batteries and the electronic converters needed to turn DC into AC.

Pumped storage wouldn't work in South Australia coz its flat, and any
new pumped storage in the Snowies will probably take the best part of 10
years to come online.

 

[Phil Allison]

Phil Allison wrote:

That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.

** That is complete BOLLOCKS.

Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops.

In any case, we're not short of generating capacity per se, we're short
of peak generating capacity that's only required in extreme weather.

** More complete BOLLOCKS.

The Snowy provides peak load power every day.

Pumping goes on every night.

Stop posting you mad, unsupported guesses as facts.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Sylvia Else wrote:

That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.


** That is complete BOLLOCKS.

Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops.

Power generation equals power consumption,

** You are playing fucking absurd word games again.

Capacity might be "installed capacity" ie the MW rating of various power generators - OR it might mean the available power output from the grid system at a particular time.

If the latter type of "capacity" is not all being used at some time, then there is excess power AVAILABLE.

Whatever, what you have posted is a load of pig ignorant garbage.

FOAD you ridiculous autistic.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Sylvia Else wrote:

** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.


** That is complete BOLLOCKS.

Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops.

Power generation equals power consumption,


** You are playing fucking absurd word games again.

No I'm not.

** Yes YOU ARE - you absurd, autistic mental case.

These distinctions are important. People cause and have all
sorts of confusion when they conflate power with capacity.

** Available power = the same fucking thing !!!

No need exists to post the word " available" all the time as it is blindingly obvious from the context.

You said
"Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops."

** You have quoted me out of context.

I know fuckwit autistics cannot fathom the very idea of *context* but you need to stop punishing others for YOUR glaring metal disability.

If you meant that there is excess capacity
when the load drops, you should have said that,

** No need to - it was blindingly obvious from the previous context.

Only an crazed, pedantic, autistic retard would miss it.

ALSO - you are being a fucking smartarse by insisting on using power industry jargon when doing so is inappropriate on this NG.

You know you annoy everyone with this crap but continue anyhow cos it gives you some sick pleasure.

You really are one stupid, vile cretin.



..... Phil

 

[Adrian Jansen]

On 16/03/2017 6:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

Gas is cheaper as a fuel, but diesel generators themselves are cheaper.
Since they wouldn't be used much the cost of the generator is more
significant than the cost of the fuel.

Sylvia.

Gas turbines will run on any fuel. We are not talking about tiddly
piston driven engines here.

--
Regards,

Adrian Jansen

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 17/03/2017 9:28 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:


That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.


** That is complete BOLLOCKS.

Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops.

Power generation equals power consumption, second by second, always.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 17/03/2017 10:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:




That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
output, it can do so for less time.


** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.

With water from the lower ones.

It's a huge "water battery".


Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.


** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.


** That is complete BOLLOCKS.

Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops.

Power generation equals power consumption,


** You are playing fucking absurd word games again.

No I'm not. These distinctions are important. People cause and have all
sorts of confusion when they conflate power with capacity. You said
"Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops."

No mention of capacity there. If you meant that there is excess capacity
when the load drops, you should have said that, and you'd have been
closer to the mark, but in reality there is always excess capacity in
the system, since otherwise you end up with a collapse of the grid. The
market operator directs that loads be shed before the point is reached
where there's no excess capacity.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 17/03/2017 11:24 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:




** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.


** That is complete BOLLOCKS.

Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops.

Power generation equals power consumption,


** You are playing fucking absurd word games again.

No I'm not.


** Yes YOU ARE - you absurd, autistic mental case.


These distinctions are important. People cause and have all
sorts of confusion when they conflate power with capacity.

** Available power = the same fucking thing !!!

No need exists to post the word " available" all the time as it is blindingly obvious from the context.



You said
"Excess power generation occurs all the time, whenever the load drops."


** You have quoted me out of context.

I know fuckwit autistics cannot fathom the very idea of *context* but you need to stop punishing others for YOUR glaring metal disability.


If you meant that there is excess capacity
when the load drops, you should have said that,


** No need to - it was blindingly obvious from the previous context.

Only an crazed, pedantic, autistic retard would miss it.

ALSO - you are being a fucking smartarse by insisting on using power industry jargon when doing so is inappropriate on this NG.

You know you annoy everyone with this crap but continue anyhow cos it gives you some sick pleasure.

You really are one stupid, vile cretin.



.... Phil

And so Phil loses it again, in just four posts.

Sylvia.