Switch off at the socket?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:13:37 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:

Remember that most people in the UK locate their Christmas trees
inside the house and also have the lights on during the few hours
of effective sunlight most people get (on a good day) at that
time of year (just after the winter equinox, assuming that
everyone keeps to the traditional calibration period)...

It's the Winter Solstice, not Equinox.
--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
: wrote:
:
: Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find
out what the
: big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big
difference
: early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to
tackle the big
: stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they
can save the
: planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the
wall.
:
: 60 million people doing anything would easily have a big
effect.
:

No it would not, 60% of Zero percent is still a big fat ZERO, all
that has been achieved is 60 million people *thinking* they have
done something to "Save the World"...

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

snip
:
: Yes, the car scrappage scheme was crazy.

It was on ecological grounds, it made every sense on economic
ground to try and get some money moving round within the motor
industry, their suppliers and financers.
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

JJ, I think we are in what is known as "violent agreement" here! At least,
pretty close to it.

SteveT

Switch off at the socket?
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out
what the big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a
big difference early on. If you want to make a big difference you
need to tackle the big stuff. My major concern is that the public
now thinks they can save the planet by using CFLs and switching
their telly off at the wall.

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

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?
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...

The point is that the savings are much less than the green pundits claim.
Yes, there are savings, and any savings are worthwhile. We don't differ
there.
I agree with every word of your post (that I've snipped) and I applaud the
way you've expressed it. But are 'any' savings worthwhile? Everything has a
cost, and if a measure has a large cost in terms of the quality of life and
a very small benefit in terms of CO2 reduction, it might not be worthwhile.
We might be able to achieve the same degree of CO2 reduction by a less
painful method.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out what
the
big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big difference
early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to tackle the big
stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they can save the
planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the wall.

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

That's a ludicrously unscientific assertion.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Did you know that the figure used by the UK government in the car
scrappage white paper for the CO2 impact of manufacturing a new car is
ONE TENTH that claimed by Ford? If Ford are correct, and making a new
car actually generates ten times as much CO2 as the government believes,
then the car scrappage scheme would be an environmental faux pas.

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.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:10:22 +0100, Jerry wrote:

... all that has been achieved is 60 million people *thinking* they have
done something to "Save the World"...

Yeah, someone using "Save the World" instead of "Save the Planet".
The planet will survive quite happily pretty much no matter we do to
it, the question is are we likely to be part of it? If we want to be
part of it we need to save our world. 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.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 16, 4:13*pm, "Jerry"
wrote:

Christmas trees with no lights?

:
: Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered
: LED lights.

In Australia!...

Which of the bit you snipped did you have difficulty with?

Non of it, unlike you (well, what I could understand, what are
"nones", I assume you mean Gnomes?...).

[Quoting corrected]

Har bloody har. Read it in context and it's quite clear that "the
nones" was a typo for "the ones". Try spelling "None" correctly before
complaining about other peoples typos.


Remember that most people in the UK locate their Christmas trees
inside the house and also have the lights on during the few hours

So what did people do before electric light was invented or before
they could afford cheap imported christmas tree lights?

I must admit, talk of fountains put me more in mind of civic schemes
than things in the home or garden.

of effective sunlight most people get (on a good day) at that
time of year (just after the winter equinox

There you go again, you see, none of us are perfect when it comes to
typing the right words ;-)

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Everything has a cost, and if a measure has a large cost in terms of the
quality of life and a very small benefit in terms of CO2 reduction, it
might not be worthwhile. We might be able to achieve the same degree of
CO2 reduction by a less painful method.

I agree completely, and it opens up a whole new aspect to the debate. Take,
for instance, the Christmas illuminations in your local town. Or the
Christmas lights they put round the tree in the village green.

Most people would agree that they are beautiful and joyful, and a pleasure
to behold. But they generate CO2, and don't actually do anything very
useful, so from an environmental point of view they should be amongst the
first things to go.

Here in Nottingham, where I live, there is a large water feature in the
central square. It has a number of small fountains, plus other features to
do with the movement of water. I love it and it attracts lots of people who
stand and admire it, or sit nearby eating their lunchtime sandwiches.

But again, it isn't actually useful for anything, and no doubt uses quite a
bit of energy. So, again, from an environmental point of view it ought to
be switched off and paved over.

Museums and art galleries are pretty useless too. Maybe we should shut all
of those. Oh, and cinemas, mustn't forget them. And really, we don't
actually need tellies at all. We could stand around a piano and sing.

My point is that, by following the "don't produce CO2 wastefully or
unnecessarily" agenda single-mindedly, we may well end up with an
appallingly drab and joyless lifestyle. Do we really want to make those
sacrifices?

I'll lay my cards on the table, he I love what my car will do for me.
On-demand, anywhere-to-anywhere, any-time personal mobility is a truly
fabulous benefit of modern living, as far as I'm concerned. The lifestyle
cost to me of doing without it would be enormous.

I would like to see far more consideration being given to the very issue
Bill raises: the "benefits" of energy saving devices such as CFLs also have
associated lifestyle costs (inconveniently slow warm up, much dimmer than it
implies on the box). I wish the debate were more nuanced, such that these
lifestyle costs were properly acknowledged and factored in to the decision
making processes.

If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the point?

SteveT

Switch off at the socket?
 

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

snip trolling

Switch off at the socket?
 

On 16/09/09 18:07, Zero Tolerance wrote:

"Steve Thackery" wrote:

you find out what the big contributors are, and tackle them first,
thus making a big difference early on.

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

If we assume 2/3 of the UK population have a mobile, and leave the
charger plugged in 24x7, when it only takes an hour to actually charge
the phone and wastes 500mW for the other 23 hours a day, the nation
could save about 170GWh over the course of a year, that sounds quite a
lot doesn't it? At least £21m worth of wasted electricity.

But given that the total UK electricity consumption in 2006 was
398,327GWh it would only represent a saving of 0.04% of the nation's
electricity consumption, does it still sound like a lot? For the sake of
50p a year I'll leave mine plugged in I think.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...

snip
:
: If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the
point?
:

If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live on,
being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
(probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a drab
'miserable' *life*...
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...

snip
:
: If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the
point?
:

If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live on,
being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
(probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a drab
'miserable' *life*...
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

8

Yes, the car scrappage scheme was crazy. Apropos of which, I recently
sent the following question to the scientific discussion programme
'Home Planet', but unfortunately they ducked it:

Where does it say they are saving CO2?
I don't remember anyone claiming it would.
It does reduce other pollution by significant amounts.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On 2009-09-16, Jerry wrote:

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...

snip
:
: If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the
point?
:

If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live on,
being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
(probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a drab
'miserable' *life*...

But the population is rising at an unsustainable rate anyway.

Whatever we do is unable to reduce the CO2 emissions produced
by trying to keep up with an ever growing demand for energy
caused by an ever growing population.

If we just hypothetically killed 9/10ths of the population
(entirely at random, to avoid arguments about racism etc),
we'd be doing far more to ensure our children had a planet
to live on AND the ability to enjoy that life.

But slowly removing every "non-essential" CO2 producing
activity from our lifes, but still producing too much
CO2 and running out of resources and food... what
is the point?

The only "essential" part of life, pretty much by definition,
is reproduction. But that could well be what ends it...

--
David Taylor

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in
message
ll.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, if man can survive in outer space, the
actual question will be how many could survive using the same
sort of technology here on earth, as long as the building blocks
of life survive then so could man...
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Owain" wrote in message
...
: On 16 Sep, 21:01, "Jerry" wrote:
: If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live
on,
: being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
: (probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a
drab
: 'miserable' *life*...
:
: I don't think many people are actually going to die slow
painful
: deaths. Well, not in Britain. Life might be rather miserable in
low
: lying places in the developing countries or the USA, but in
Britain
: we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon
Beacons.
:

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.
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In uk.d-i-y David Taylor wrote:
On 2009-09-16, Jerry wrote:
: If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the
point?
:

If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live on,
being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
(probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a drab
'miserable' *life*...

But the population is rising at an unsustainable rate anyway.

That's the really fundamental problem we have and very few people seem
to be addressing it.

--
Chris Green

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

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?