Switch off at the socket?
 

er the car scrappage scheme isn't a "green" measure it's an economic
one to help the car companies through the downturn without giving
them a direct cash hand out.

The government justified it in a number of ways, including claiming that it
was environmentally friendly. Do a bit of googling and you will see the
published documentation. It includes claims as to how quickly the
initiative would save the additional CO2 used during manufacture of the
cars.

If the real figure is 60 years rather than 6 (I may recall that wrongly, but
it was about that), then it changes the whole thing, and it would almost
certainly not have been implemented. Could you imagine the political
outrage?

SteveT

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
Instead of pointing out how
drab life would be without it, perhaps you should ask yourself what
different sacrifices you would be willing to make to keep it?

Exactly my point!! Thank you. NOBODY in authority is asking that question,
and it needs asking! That's just what Bill was saying, too.

Your response shows all the symptoms of energy
addiction, just as theirs did of tobacco and alcohol addiction.

Of course I'm an energy addict! Who, honestly, can claim not to be? Can
you? Energy is lovely stuff, and lets us do all sorts of wonderful things.
We would all miss it dreadfully, so let's not pretend otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned, paving over that marvellous water feature in the
Old Market Square, Nottingham, would be a very sad loss indeed.

SteveT

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:18:29 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Stephen wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:38:14 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
scribeth thus
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "alexander.keys1"
wrote:

There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy
due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are
on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to
save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy-
saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a
'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is
zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV
receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always
switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer
appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk.

They can't switch the power stations off overnight, so they may as
well power the 1W my TV takes to be in standby.

I seem to remember that some hydro electric plant is powered down and
some gas fired .. but coal is rather long winded to slow down and
restart..

basically anything that is high power and heat driven doesnt
appreciate lots of heating up and cooling down.

used to be some of the really big generators needed to be left
spinning while cooling off......

They use the spare overnight power to pump the water back up in a stored
hydro power station so that it's full in the morning when everyone turns
their kettles on, so it isn't wasted.

except you only get back maybe 75% of what you put into the pumping
during generation.

And then you lose some more pushing all the power to N Wales and
getting it back again to somewhere useful.


but it was very close to a couple of nuclear power stations (probably now
closed) so the distribution losses would actually be rather low.

it is still running, but nt for much longer
http://www.magnoxnorthsites.com/abou...ts-and-figures

even then the pumped scheme is a bit bigger scale than the local
nuclear station - Dinorwic can generate at over 2 GW.

http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm

all this green electricity that seems a lot more reliable than all
those dinky toy wind turbines....

tim


--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

Switch off at the socket?
 

Java Jive wrote:
But if, following your bad example, we say to the Chinese: "You are
producing too much CO2!" they will just say to us: "Per capita, you
produce twice as much as us! Don't lecture to us at least until
you've taken your own population in hand!"

We won't ever get out of this hole by pointing the finger at each
other crying like children: "It's not me, Miss, it's him!". The only
way we are ever going to get out of it is by acting together each to
do what we can. Your post is counter-productive to that process.

Well, I'm terribly sorry about that, but the point I was replying to was:

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

and that's what I dealt with.

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the USA don't
seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty remote. If they don't
agree swingeing cuts and implement them, anything we do in Britain is
totally irrelevant, so it's pointless trying, and paying a high price for
doing so. It's like volunteering to starve ten years before anyone else
sees the need.

Moreover, if you think Britain carries any weight in this area, you're sadly
and utterly mistaken. Look at how small we are on the map. We have just 1%
of the world's population, and are responsible for just 2% of its pollution.
As President Mugabe said about Gordon Brown, we are just a tiny little dot.

Sure, we'll join in if and when the big boys organise themselves, but if
they don't we're doomed anyway, so we might as well party in the meantime.



On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:48:29 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

If the whole of the UK sank overnight, never to inconvenience another
electron, China's increase in electricity generation at present
rates would negate that in under a year.

So, 60 million people saving, say, even an unlikely quarter of their
domestic electricity consumption, which in itself is only a third of
all the electricity consumption in the UK, would be negated by China
in under a month. And China is just one of the countries of the
world increasing its power consumption year on year. Add in India,
Brazil and Russia, and you're probably talking of delaying global
warming if everyone here 'did something', by 10 days at most.

You may call that a 'big effect'. I call it trivial.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:43:48 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Of course I'm an energy addict! Who, honestly, can claim not to be?

The problem is not necessarily being an energy addict per se, but
being a fossil fuel (oil in particular, coal also) addict.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed

Only according to classical physics.

Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)

And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

--
Max Demian

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:45:36 GMT, Stephen wrote:

but it was very close to a couple of nuclear power stations
(probably
now closed) so the distribution losses would actually be rather
low.

it is still running, but nt for much longer

http://www.magnoxnorthsites.com/abou...ylfa/facts-and
-figures

1GW, enough for two big cities it says and it will have been doing it
for 39 years when it finally closes. I don't really believe the "day
in, day out" but I guess with 4 sets and two reactors it could well
have been producing something all the time just not full or near full
ouput.

The really big windmills are 2MW so you need 1500 "jumbo jets on a
stick" spread out over the country to have even a hope in hell of
matching this one nuke station.

even then the pumped scheme is a bit bigger scale than the local
nuclear station - Dinorwic can generate at over 2 GW.

But not for very long.

all this green electricity that seems a lot more reliable than all
those dinky toy wind turbines....

Dinorwic is an impressive site, the speed that it can get synced and
online at full power is quite amazing. But it can't run for very long
before the water up top runs out. It's there for the peaks not the
base load. It is also an essential part of the grids "black start"
should that ever be needed.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Moreover, if you think Britain carries any weight in this area, you're
sadly and utterly mistaken. Look at how small we are on the map. We have
just 1% of the world's population, and are responsible for just 2% of its
pollution. As President Mugabe said about Gordon Brown, we are just a tiny
little dot.

I think this is an exceptionally powerful argument. Who the hell do we
think we are? When the chips are down, nobody gives a **** what Britain
says or does, and to believe otherwise is extreme hubris.

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the USA don't
seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty remote. If they don't
agree swingeing cuts and implement them, anything we do in Britain is
totally irrelevant, so it's pointless trying, and paying a high price for
doing so.

Quite. We may simply succeed in destroying all the things that make our
lives enjoyable, whilst making not the slightest jot of difference to the
fate of the planet.

When it comes to climate change, it is very misleading to say "every little
bit helps", because it doesn't. It's the big bits that help, not the little
bits (the Pareto thing I mentioned elsewhere). The major polluters (which
doesn't include us) must all agree to make the necessary cuts. If they
don't, then there's ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in us doing so in isolation.

Take a look at this to see where we stand:

http://www.solcomhouse.com/toptenco2.htm

We are responsible for 1.7% of the total CO2 production. Also note that our
per capita CO2 production is only 50% higher than in China.

SteveT

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the point?

The grass roots environmental movment overlaps significantly with the
extreme left. These people believe that if you can't level up you should
level down. They are also happy with centralised control and micromanagment
of our lives, so they find the idea of imposing lifestyle changes quite
attractive.

The environmental movement has become an umbrella for other movements that
have become less popular or credible, such as the communists, CND, young
socialists, etc.

So to answer your question, there doesn't need to be a valid reason for
making us live squalid but low carbon lives.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Jerry" wrote in message
...


That would depend on how the climate changes, *for us* (as you
say) the problem will not be rising sea water levels per se, it
will be if we can carry on feeding the population, people could
well die of starvation in the UK if there are crop failures and
famine.

Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m over the next
few years, so the indiginous people of the UK will be competing with those
of an alien culture for food.No doubt there will be race riots, which the
BBC will report as white agression.

Bill