Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

Hi,
I doubt anyone will agree with me but do people think that it would be
better if we all went over to satellite television reception?

If you think of all the power required for terrestrial transmismitters
from the primaries alone, you're talking about 14.4MW of power running
continually. That figure is taken from the bbc.co.uk/reception page.
Now I would hazard a guess that TX's are 50% efficient at the very best,
probably more like 30%, but even at the previous figure you're talking
about the consumption being double, 28.8MW. Is that a small Gas fired
power stations output?

Anyone any idea of how much CO^2 that is responsible for? Now there is
an argument that receivers will draw more power for satellite, but with
the number of freeview boxes that will be sold going through the roof,
the power requirements are only going to go up.

The only drawback I can see that it may be a little more difficult for
those with multiple TV's, but there is a hard-wired network in each
house to ship this over. It's called the ring main using multicast IP.

A satellite is completely self sufficient, being solar or Pu powered.

Opinions?

Sincerely,

Rob.

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

On Dec 17, 12:23 pm, Robert Wilson
wrote:

[snip]

Opinions?

Firstly, the quoted ERP for TV transmitters is not the actual power
radiated. It's the power 'up the feeder' multiplied by the transmitter
aerial's gain, typically about 7-10 dB (5 to 10 times).

Secondly the power consumed by the transmitter network, is a drop in
the ocean compared with the total power consumed by 20 million
receivers. As D-Sat receivers seem more power hungry than DTT ones,
and are essentially still active in standby 24/7 I suspect terrestrial
delivery might well work out 'greener' ?

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

On Dec 17, 12:45 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:23 pm, Robert Wilson
wrote:

[snip]

Opinions?

Firstly, the quoted ERP for TV transmitters is not the actual power
radiated. It's the power 'up the feeder' multiplied by the transmitter
aerial's gain, typically about 7-10 dB (5 to 10 times).

Secondly the power consumed by the transmitter network, is a drop in
the ocean compared with the total power consumed by 20 million
receivers. As D-Sat receivers seem more power hungry than DTT ones,
and are essentially still active in standby 24/7 I suspect terrestrial
delivery might well work out 'greener' ?

What is the environmental cost of launching the satellites up in
geostationary orbit?

Mind you, the economic cost of a satellite TV channel must be very
low. There are channels there that seem to be paid for simply by the
cost of one incoming premium rate phone call.

Robert

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

Robert Wilson wrote:
Hi,
I doubt anyone will agree with me but do people think that it would be
better if we all went over to satellite television reception?

If you think of all the power required for terrestrial transmismitters
from the primaries alone, you're talking about 14.4MW of power running
continually. That figure is taken from the bbc.co.uk/reception page.
Now I would hazard a guess that TX's are 50% efficient at the very
best, probably more like 30%, but even at the previous figure you're
talking about the consumption being double, 28.8MW. Is that a small
Gas fired power stations output?

Anyone any idea of how much CO^2 that is responsible for? Now there
is an argument that receivers will draw more power for satellite, but
with the number of freeview boxes that will be sold going through the
roof, the power requirements are only going to go up.

The only drawback I can see that it may be a little more difficult for
those with multiple TV's, but there is a hard-wired network in each
house to ship this over. It's called the ring main using multicast
IP.
A satellite is completely self sufficient, being solar or Pu powered.

Opinions?

Sincerely,

Rob.

How much CO2 would be released by putting the satellite into orbit every
12-15 years?

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:48:45 -0000, Adrian A wrote:

How much CO2 would be released by putting the satellite into orbit every
12-15 years?

How much CO2 would not be released into the atmosphere if we culled the
useless half of humanity?

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:48:45 -0000, Adrian A wrote:

How much CO2 would be released by putting the satellite into orbit every
12-15 years?

How much CO2 would not be released into the atmosphere if we culled the
useless half of humanity?
Yes but happens when were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease
contracted from a dirty telephone?

Rob.

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:48:37 +0000, Robert Wilson
wrote:

How much CO2 would not be released into the atmosphere if we culled the
useless half of humanity?

Yes but happens when were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease
contracted from a dirty telephone?

Now everyone has their own personal communications device, that's infinitely
improbable... probably.

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:48:45 -0000, Adrian A wrote:

How much CO2 would be released by putting the satellite into orbit every
12-15 years?

How much CO2 would not be released into the atmosphere if we culled the
useless half of humanity?

How much hot air would be expended deciding who was for the chop?

Bill

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

Adrian A wrote:
Robert Wilson wrote:

Hi,
I doubt anyone will agree with me but do people think that it would be
better if we all went over to satellite television reception?

If you think of all the power required for terrestrial transmismitters
from the primaries alone, you're talking about 14.4MW of power running
continually. That figure is taken from the bbc.co.uk/reception page.
Now I would hazard a guess that TX's are 50% efficient at the very
best, probably more like 30%, but even at the previous figure you're
talking about the consumption being double, 28.8MW. Is that a small
Gas fired power stations output?

Anyone any idea of how much CO^2 that is responsible for? Now there
is an argument that receivers will draw more power for satellite, but
with the number of freeview boxes that will be sold going through the
roof, the power requirements are only going to go up.

The only drawback I can see that it may be a little more difficult for
those with multiple TV's, but there is a hard-wired network in each
house to ship this over. It's called the ring main using multicast
IP.
A satellite is completely self sufficient, being solar or Pu powered.

Opinions?

Sincerely,

Rob.


How much CO2 would be released by putting the satellite into orbit every
12-15 years?


The rocket that propels the satellite is powered by oxygen and hydrogen
and the resultant waste product is water.

There of course maybe CO2 emissions related the production of the rocket
and satellite and fuel.

--
I'm afraid Mr.Zarnywoop is too cool to see you now...
He's on an intergalactic cruise in his office.

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:44:26 +0000, Zarnywoop
wrote:

The rocket that propels the satellite is powered by oxygen and hydrogen
and the resultant waste product is water.

Not on all of them. Paraffin is often used as fuel for instance. Also,
even when hydrogen and oxygen is used, most of the thrust for the
first stage comes from solid-fuelled boosters.

Cheers,

Colin.

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

In article , Robert Wilson wrote:
A satellite is completely self sufficient, being solar or Pu powered.

Opinions?

Doesn't it also need to carry a supply of chemical fuel or gas for its
manoeuvreing thrusters? Satellites don't just stay perfectly positioned
for ever; they need adjustment from time to time. This alone must mean
they have a finite life, unless somebody can devise a means of sending
up a refill, but I suspect the refill-to-replacement ratio is probably
even worse than for inkjet printers.

Rod.

Terrestrial Television transmissions and CO^2 emissions.
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Robert Wilson wrote:
A satellite is completely self sufficient, being solar or Pu powered.

Opinions?

Doesn't it also need to carry a supply of chemical fuel or gas for its
manoeuvreing thrusters? Satellites don't just stay perfectly positioned
for ever; they need adjustment from time to time. This alone must mean
they have a finite life, unless somebody can devise a means of sending
up a refill, but I suspect the refill-to-replacement ratio is probably
even worse than for inkjet printers.

Rod.


I had'nt thought of that one. It would be fun of someone with knowledge
of these things could do some conrete number for us to compare.

Regards,

Rob.