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/

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
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

That states that energy can be destroyed by converting it to mass, and
created by converting mass into energy.

Classical physics regards mass and energy to be separately conserved.

--
Max Demian

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "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.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

--
Max Demian

Switch off at the socket?
 

Steve Thackery coughed up some electrons that declared:

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.

Though I heard from a mate at NG that oscillations are possible (though not
wanted obviously). They had at the old London control centre an instrument
nicknamed the Scottish Wobble Meter. It measured phase differences between
somewhere in Scotland and presumably somewhere the south end of the grid.

I know this because he related one day having to fix it - or rather the
photocopier that was interfering with it causing it to slowly oscillate
giving the control room men an impending heart attack.

On an aside - if you google for National Grid Blackstart you get to some
very interesting documents that show why no-one wants the whole lot to pop.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "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.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy without
converting it to mass.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Steve T wrote "savings are much less than the green pundits claim."

British Gas recently gave me a 'Real Time Electricity Monitor". I plugged
it in and it, typically, registered about 17 watts. This was lower than
expected and didn't move when I put on a few 100 watt lights. I suspected
it was faulty and returned it for replacement. When the replacement arrived
I plugged it in it, typically, registered about 33 watts usage - even with a
few lights on.

I spoke to someone from the 'Electricity Efficiency Team'. He tried to tell
me that the reading was an average reading over any hour. I pointed out
that the measurement unit was watts not watts/hour. He then went away to
the manufacturers who came back with the concept of 'power factor' (you can
read about it at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power) and that, because of PF,
consumers were charged only for the power actually used and that this varied
according to the type of appliance and that this is less than the rated
wattage of appliances. My schoolboy knowledge of a watt being voltage
divided by amperage is obviously wrong.

I cannot get my head around the concept of power factor and, as there seems
to be no answer for the large discrepancy in the reading between the two
meters the whole thing seems to be a bit of a fudge. Anyway, assuming all
this to be true how does my consumer meter know how much electricity is
being effectively used.

Bringing this back to the previous post, if the concept of power factor
really does effectively reduce the actual amount of power used why are we
being urged to replace tungsten bulbs in favour of the new bulbs. The
difference in wattage may be far greater overstated than the actual
difference.

Bill Ridgeway

Switch off at the socket?
 

This energy isn't wasted. Its given off as heat, which is quite useful
in a domestic house.

.... if and only if you are living in cold regions.... :)

--
@[email protected] Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.5
^ ^ 20:41:03 up 1 day 4:20 0 users load average: 3.55 3.76 3.73
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

Switch off at the socket?
 

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.

It also reduces the fire risk when you left home or are sleeping!

--
@[email protected] Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.5
^ ^ 20:44:03 up 1 day 4:23 0 users load average: 3.99 3.67 3.68
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

Switch off at the socket?
 

[email protected] coughed up some electrons that declared:



"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "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.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Phone call for you - some bloke called Albert...

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

You'd be hard pushed to measure it though.

eg, a 60Ah 12V car battery might be claimed to store 60*3600*12 joules of
useful energy. That's about 2.6MJ

That is equivalent to a mass of 2.88E-11 kg, or 28.8 nanogrammes

Cheers

Tim

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:26:28 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

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?

We still in the G7, G8, G10, G15 etc... Someone must think our views
are not insignificant.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article ,
Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B) wrote:
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.

It also reduces the fire risk when you left home or are sleeping!

why not just throw the main breaker on the consumer unit? You'd save
having to go round turning off all the individual switches and further
reduce the fire risk ;-)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:33:02 +0100, Bill R wrote:

My schoolboy
knowledge of a watt being voltage divided by amperage is obviously
wrong.
You're knowledge is correct for DC circuits and AC circuits with 100%
resistive load only.
When you start to add inductive and capacitative loads into an AC circuit
it affects the phase relationship between the voltage and current. Simple
measurement tools take no account of phase, just RMS values for current &
voltage so don't show true power consumed.

Bringing this back to the previous post, if the concept of power factor
really does effectively reduce the actual amount of power used why are
we being urged to replace tungsten bulbs in favour of the new bulbs.
The difference in wattage may be far greater overstated than the actual
difference.
The concept of power factor doesn't change the actual mount of power used
just how its measured.

BW

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:22:00 +0100, brightside S9
wrote:

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.

Influential people are needed to sell that, maybe
maybe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stm
is a start.

We either do it voluntarily, or the planet will do it for us or cause us
to do it to ourselves. The first signs of the planet doing it are in
evidence now.
It wouldn't take much for there to be global war once the first real
wobble occurs. The financial system will go first (like it nearly did last
year) and once that has gone everything else goes downhill rapidly.
Lots of people will die though starvation or being killed by someone else
in competition for resources.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:33:02 +0100, Bill R wrote:

I spoke to someone from the 'Electricity Efficiency Team'. He tried to tell
me that the reading was an average reading over any hour. I pointed out
that the measurement unit was watts not watts/hour.

Watts/hour is meaningless. There is nothing wrong with averaging watts over
any particular time period, if that's how the device is designed to operate.
It obviously will underread for the first hour and obviously won't react
instantaneously to changes in load.

He then went away to
the manufacturers who came back with the concept of 'power factor'

That's manufacturer's talking ********.

My schoolboy knowledge of a watt being voltage divided by amperage is
obviously wrong.

It certainly is, seeing as watts = volts x amps.
Volts divided by amps is ohms.
Are you Dave Plowman? He gets simple formulae such as this completely
arse about tit. (He thinks power = energy x time .... it isn't)

I cannot get my head around the concept of power factor

It's a measure of the phase difference between voltage and current.
Real power is volts x amps x cos(phase difference)
and power factor = cos(phase difference)

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
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*.

If it isn't exactly the same everywhere then some generators would be
effectively driving the others backwards as motors, with enormous power
losses through the grid. Clearly the grid is not in the same phase
everywhere, due to the inductive load, but the frequency has to be
pretty much spot on.
--
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?
 

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:35:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

I looked at this and the 'official' one. They disagreed significantly.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
: Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m
over the next
: few years, snip trolling racists crap
The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots. What's racist
about saying that?

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.
So saying that the population will rise as a result of immigration is BNP
style clap-trap is it? Well the government and their advisers must all be in
the BNP then, because that's what they say.
What we have here is an attempt to prevent discussion of a serious problem
(population and immigration) by calling someone a racist.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"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


Ah, the old rationale that 'if everybody cant have it, no one should be
allowed to have it at all' argument.

The 'Mugabe' solution to life's problems.

I have often felt it should be applied to politicians, only.

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.

The energy to capture all that CO2 will need a dozen nuclear power
plants to drive it.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Max Demian
writes
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
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

That states that energy can be destroyed by converting it to mass, and
created by converting mass into energy.

No it doesn't, it unifies mass and energy as different manifestations of
the same thing and defines how they are transferred from one
manifestation to the other.
--
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:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:23:57 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

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.

That is an absurd comparison.

Is it?

In terms of population we are
comparatively small (though incomparably bigger than the Turks and
Cayman Islands or Tuvalu), but as members of the UN Security Council,
of the EU, the leading member of the Commonwealth, through the
'Special Relationship' with the US, as a post-imperial power, as a
leading financial centre, and as a democratic developed nation with a
(sort of) free press and a large on-line presence in the world's
leading language(1), we have a great deal of world influence beyond
what you suggest.

Oh yeah? Is that why, when we signed up enthusistically to the Kyoto
Protocol on climate change, the USA, China and India conspicuously avoided
doing so?

Is that why, when we enshrine into law reductions in our carbon emissions by
certain dates, absolutely no-one follows us?

Get real. We have little or no influence whatsoever.

1: I'm not talking about numbers of speakers, but the fact that
English is the language of science, international communications, etc.
As an example of which, a map of the last 500 hits of my own small
site ranges from Honolulu in the West to Japan in the East, with
particular clusterings in the US and Europe. Although there are none
at the moment, I've noticed recently activity in places like Iran and
even China where Satellite TV may be the only way for people to get
uncensored news (at least, I'm guessing that's why, I don't really
know). Generally of course, I get most hits from the English speaking
world, but that includes countries like India.

The internet means that anything you or I say in ...

uk.d-i-y, uk.media.tv.misc, uk.tech.digital-tv, uk.tech.broadcast

... can and will be read by others across the globe.

And you think it makes a ha'porth of difference what is said in any of
those?


Are you proud of
your contribution in that light? What sort of message do you think
are sending out?

I am sending out the truth, and of course I'm proud of that.

Are you suggesting that I should lie instead, or at least suppress the
truth? Because, if you are, you need to tread rather carefully. Who then
dictates what should be said and not said, and what is their agenda?


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.

This is just mere worthless verbiage. You haven't answered my point
that the EU's environmental standards have a disproportionate
influence because we are the biggest market for high end manufactured
goods, which are therefore built to our standards, including
environmental ones.

That's because we're not and they aren't.

I suggest you stop living in the eighteenth century and get up to speed.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Dave Liquorice wrote:
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*.

It does.

The frequency will
be close but not exact,

Its exact. ALL the generators are synched and more or less phase
synched..as you feed power to a set, its phase advances from lagging
(being spun by the grid) to leading) its feeding power TO the grid).

Propagation delays down UK sized grids is not an issue. It is in the USA
though.


the many sets that supply power to the grid
are not connected by a hard physical link

They are.

but by a relatively elastic
one of the long reactive grid distribution lines.


Not that reactive compared with the power. That dioes efect the phase a
bit, but teh frequency is not so affected.



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.


If the load goes up, the generators across the country slow down, the
frequency drops and so does the voltage. Hot standby units, basically
idling at full grid frequency, but not actually delivering power, can
have the steam valves cranked open, and start to add their bit.




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

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Norman Wells
writes
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.

Nope. Atmospheric extraction and carbon capture is an area where the UK
could make a significant impact. The atmosphere tends to have a habit of
circulating on a global scale, so our small geographic area eventually
accesses all of the planet's atmosphere. Indeed, any atmospheric
extraction plant in any country would be insignificantly smaller than
the UK, so our limited size is not an issue. The UK has extracted so
much of its underground resources that there are many suitable voids for
the indefinite storage of liquid and solid carbon deposits.

However, any small country could, with the right technology, investment
and political will (which is the most likely barrier in the UK), punch
well above its weight with carbon capture. Indeed, with the appropriate
carbon trading agreements in place, it could be as profitable a business
as any currently vomiting CO2 across the planet.
--
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?
 

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:26:28 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

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?

We still in the G7, G8, G10, G15 etc... Someone must think our views
are not insignificant.

Then tell us exactly what we've achieved as regards 'global' warming and
climate change. How much of the ice-caps have re-frozen due to 9our
efforts? By how many seconds has our influence delayed global catastrophe?

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:26:57 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
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*.

If it isn't exactly the same everywhere then some generators would be
effectively driving the others backwards as motors, with enormous power
losses through the grid.

If that ever happens, run and hide!

I think what happens in practice is that if a generator goes out of
phase slightly there will be a motor effect to "push" it back into
phase.

Clearly the grid is not in the same phase
everywhere, due to the inductive load, but the frequency has to be
pretty much spot on.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
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.



WE can set an example that it can be done. And we know it SHOULD be
done. There are more arguments for dumping fossil fusls than climate change.

Firstly, it decouples us from a politically unstable suite of regimes
whose ONLY significance economically is they have oil, but whose
governments abuse the income derived in many cases to foment terrorism
and other things: stop buying oil, and the funds to the whole radical
Islamic movement dry up.

Secondly, countries with e.g. Uranium, arer all by and large Western
(USA, canada, Australia) or African/S American. There is precious little
uranium in the Islamic world.

Thirdly, the cost of stockpiling oil enough to survive a global
conflict, even a trade war, is massive: yet uranium for power stations
is (fairly) easily stored in relatively large amounts (typical 1GW
station uses IIRC 50 tons a year) on the power station sites. Note that
this is not refined enough to be weapons grade. At teh very worst it
could be made to melt and release a lot of radioactive material. It
cannot go 'bang'

Fourth;ly, nuclear power is currently highly cost effective at oil
prices $50 a barrel and interest rates 5%. And because the actual
uranium imports are less than 1% of the actual costs, that means every
nuclear power stain built saves billions in imported oil, gas or coal.
If you like those billions are spent on at least European, and mainly
British, workers, to build the things, not gentlemen in fancy dress to
spend on funding a Madrassa in Pakistan.

Finally, it sets an example of massively lowered CO2 production, that
enables the UK to take the moral high ground, especially with the fossil
fuel exporting countries it no longer needs..and also to bargain with
tehm for lower fossil fuel prices for those applications (chiefly
transport, especially air transport) for which electricity cannot
effectively do the job.


There is another side effect too, since the fuel cost is very low,
nuclear stations might as well be run 24x7 and the excess power used off
peak at almost free prices to do other things. I've written about this
before, but a high grid frequency and a high voltage means the grid is
running below peak. These are easily sensed right down to domestic type
scenarios, and could be used to switch in things like hot water heating,
and battery charging at very cheap rates. And indeed industrial
processes like synthesising fuel from water and CO2. Or running freight
trains at night...






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?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
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?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Owain wrote:
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "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.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?


Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe. *Usable*
energy is not. Google entropy and IIRC enthalpy.


Theres enough energy in my body to run the country for a day, probably.
However there is no way to get it transferred into anything useful.

Gravity is it seems to me the only dis-entropic force: It concentrates
material sufficiently densely for fusion reactions to work, these leads
to super dense materials forming up to and including fissile ones, and
these make good power sources.

Apart from them the universe runs on fusion power.


Owain

Switch off at the socket?
 

Max Demian wrote:
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
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

That states that energy can be destroyed by converting it to mass, and
created by converting mass into energy.


Rather it states that mass is actually an expression of energy.

Classical physics regards mass and energy to be separately conserved.


Which, neglecting nuclear reactions, is a good enough approximation.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Max Demian wrote:
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "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.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

VERY slightly.

Switch off at the socket?
 

[email protected] wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "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.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.


Oh, but they DO.

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the difference
in weight between a discharged and charged lithium batery. Much less
than a microgram IIRC.