Switch off at the socket?
 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
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.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can make no
difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are in a
global context?

Switch off at the socket?
 

"pete" wrote in message
...
: 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
: : ...
: :
snip
:
: : 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).

Only if you have 6ft ceilings! There is absolutely no need to
keep the ceiling level to the same temp as mid height, there is
*possibly* an argument for wanting to keep the lower 1/4 or 1/3
to the same level as the middle quarters or third hence why
people tend to put radiators (and as you suggested elsewhere,
make use of radiator shelves) at the lower height or even use UF
heating.

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.

Exactly but, like a shop doorway [1], a buffer zone exists (in
this case vertical rather than horizontal as in a doorway), use a
room fan - and you destroy that buffer and make the whole room
the same temp that then requires a greater amount of heat to get
to an over all even temp.

[1] for either of two reasons, heating or air conditioning,
keeping warm air in or out depending on climate

: 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.

No they no not have lower ceiling to reduce heating costs, they
have them to make houses cheaper, when we lived in our Victorian
area house (complete with 12ft ceilings) the cost of heating
wasn't that much different to that of the modern brand new house
we then moved into that had 8ft ceilings (adjusted figures to
take into account different fuels and inflation etc.). Of course
if we were careless as to how we used the heating in that
Victorian house, such as allowing the house fabric to cool down,
it cost a fortune to reheat or keep to the constant 68 deg C we
desired. I would also point out that the upper 3rd floor was
heated solely by convection from the lower floors, only in the
depth of winter did we need to boost the heating in those rooms
with an alternate heat source.

: 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

You will always heat the ceiling, unless you live on a different
planet with different laws of physics... :~)

: usefully warm the occupants - without the need to add extra
heat into
: the room.

Impossible with our laws of physics.
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

snip trolling

**** all left to reply to...

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, snip trolling racists crap

Irrelevant, climate change could mean that the UK couldn't even
feed it's indigenous 1945 population level never mind it's 1970
or 2007 population level. Kindly take you BNP style clap-trap
elsewhere.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Kennedy McEwen wrote:
snip
:
: Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that
Britain
: will make a significant difference.
:
: No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain
can make no
: difference whatsoever.
:
: When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we
are in a
: global context?
:

That is not completely true, who was it who said Yaw-yaw is
better that war-war, if the UK (or the EU, assuming that it can
decide with it's self...) can show the way and get others to
follow - but you are correct in saying that it's utterly
pointless in the UK (or even the EU) taking unilateral measures.
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Stephen" wrote in message
...
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....

There is nothing green about dinorwic as far as co2 is concerned.
It is a net producer of co2, far more than the nuclear plant .

It is just a "rechargeable battery" nothing more.


It is there to satisfy peaks in demand and uses more energy to recharge
overnight than it can ever deliver during the day. In doing so it may reduce
the co2 output from the total generating capacity, it may not depending on
the conditions at the time.

To be more green we would just drop the supplies to some areas when the peak
demand got to high, however the customers may revolt.

Switch off at the socket?
 

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.

Not false at all! Every generator connected to the grid is phase-locked to
the grid and is thus bound to run at the same, grid, frequency.

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.

Sudden load changes cause a dip or rise in grid frequency. There are
tolerances on how much the frequency can vary and the controllers switch on,
or off, additional sources to keep the frequency within those limits.

SteveT

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

"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

I hope not we have already spent more than the Manhattan project and I don't
want to see fusion research stopped.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Max Demian 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.)

That's ridiculous. Storing energy doesn't create or destroy it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
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.

All the generators that are connected together most certainly *have*
exactly the same frequency. All of them. Can you imagine the
destruction that would result if they didn't?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/