Switch off at the socket?
 

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes

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.

Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Switch off at the socket?
 

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:14:51 +0100, No Spam Please suggested:

"Halmyre" asked in message
...

I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative reference
when they want to comment on levels of illumination?

Las Vegas?

My exact same thoughts. Some facts and figures at

http://green.thefuntimesguide.COM/2007/04/las_vegas_energy_use.php

Is it not the case that without the Hoover Dam, the bright lights of
Las Vegas would not be possible?


and pump water from the Colorado river

Steve Terry

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted, which
instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as you say, not
strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain will
make a significant difference.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Max Demian
writes
"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.

Nope, it is also an axiom in modern physics: E=mc^2
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
snip
The only way we are ever going to get out of it is by acting together
each to do what we can.


Only way we are ever going to get out of it is if we put the goal
of Nuclear fusion on the same resource and priority footing
as the Manhattan project

Steve Terry

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"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

If we adopted the revisions to benefits the Dutch did nearly ten years ago,
i'm sure we would see a very quick downturn of immigration as they did.

Steve Terry

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 16, 9:45*pm, "Jerry"
wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in
messagenews:[email protected] 1.howhill.co.uk...

snip
: The planet will look after
: itself in the long term, but that may well mean that we won't
have
: suitable conditions for survival, with or without technology.
:

Well that's a mute point,

Do you think Swans are going to suffer, or will they survive, not
needing all the technology like we do?

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:35:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

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.

Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

Hum interesting but I think based on a false premise that the grid
has the *exactly* the same frequency *everywhere*. The frequency will
be close but not exact, the many sets that supply power to the grid
are not connected by a hard physical link but by a relatively elastic
one of the long reactive grid distribution lines.

I wonder what effect having lots of load that came on/off in response
to the (supposed) overall demand and supply ratio would have on grid
stability? With the time lag that it takes to bring ramp up supply
from coal/oil stations you couldn't really have stuff switching in
much less than 1/2hr IMHO and you wouldn't want all these things
doing a switch at the same time (a few minutes) relative to a
supposed dip/rise in grid frequency.

As I said interesting but not as simple to do as it first appears.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:25:27 +0100, Jerry wrote:

"pete" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Jerry wrote:
:
: "pete" wrote in message
: ...
:
: [ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the
: heating of a room ]
:
: :
: : The problem with the heat from TF bulbs is that it's mostly
at
: ceiling
: : height, since that's where most bulbs hang from. What people
: need
: : is heat at body (whether seated or standing) height, to keep
: them warm.
:
: Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have
even
: been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the
air
: temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level
then
: more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain
: were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually,
even
: heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at
: ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat
exchange
: such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM.
:
: Well, if you have a 100W TF light suspended from the ceiling,
the heat
: from that bulb will rise to the top of the room. The occupants
won't get
: any direct benefit from that 100Watts. Not unless they're
exceptionally
: tall - in which case their heads will get a little warmer.

People do not heat their person but the room though...

: As you say, you may get some small improveent from that heat
adding to
: the temperature gradient in the room, but it won't be anything
like the
: 100Watts the bulb is putting out. You'd be far better off
putting in a
: CFL (or 6) and installing a small fan to move the warm air off
the ceiling
: if only temporarily, so that it can usefully warm the room's
occupants.

No you would not, the fan will actually cause the ambient
temperature to fail, due to the air movement, you will actually
need to use more heat to keep to the same ambient temperature!
Only use a fan if you have to either distribute heated (or cooled
air) or need air movement for other reasons.

And that's precisely what you're trying to acheive (distribute the
heat - in this case from the warm ceiling area to the cooler lower
parts fo the room). Rooms don't have a single temperature. Even if
you remove all the draughts, you still have the heat in a room rising
to the top of the room.
Whereas the people occupy the lower (and therefore cooler) part of
the room. Typically 0 - 3 feet if they're seated, 0 - 6 if they are
standing. There's nothing to be gained from heating the air higher up
than that - which is one reason modern houses have lower ceilings.
Using a fan assists convection (as does having a shelf above a radiator)
in getting the warm air off the ceiling and down to where it can
usefully warm the occupants - without the need to add extra heat into
the room.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:50:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

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.

That's fair enough

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.

And my point is that if everone takes that attitude, we're doomed,
because no agreement will ever be reached if everyone is saying: "No,
you must jump first!"

Absolutely. But Britain jumping first will have no effect at all. That's
my point. We're as significant in that respect as the Cayman Islands or
Tuvalu.


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.

But we are part of the EU, which we *can* influence, and if you ask
anyone who knows anything about modern business, who sets all the
environmental standards that matter, they'll say: "The EU!"

And we are part of 'The World' too, which actually includes China, India,
the USA, Russia and Brazil. So, all we have to do is get everyone to agree,
and then we'll be alright.

Off you go then.


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.

A totally selfish, almost criminally so, attitude, the prevalence of
which, more than any lack of technical solutions (although there are
serious problems with most of them) is what makes me pessimistic about
the future. Technology, we can change, our genetic selfishness, we
cannot.

So, what sort of hippy world do you inhabit then? One where an
insignificant child makes a futile gesture and the rest of the world turns
its eyes to a distant horizon and says 'In the child there is wisdom, yes,
that is the way we must follow', or what?