Switch off at the socket?
 

J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:31:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe.
*Usable* energy is not.

Good point to make.

And when all of the usable energy is used up, what will the final
temperature of The Universe be? ;)

isn't it 2.7 absolute or summat?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , J G Miller wrote:
The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.
No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

In other words, selling bits of paper they knew to be worthless.

If you or I did this, it would be called fraud, but somehow the big
financial institutions can dress it up in fancy language and get away
with it.

The governments has always sold worthless bits of paper ever since paper
currency became the norm, and the government has always been able to act
like a legalised Mafia, which is, after all, what a governemnet actually
is. The top Mafia that self legalises itself, as the price you pay for
making all the others illegal. and 'Protecting' you from the ones
outside its jurisdiction..

Rod.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:44:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

In other words, selling bits of paper they knew to be worthless.

Yes, of course -- why do you think banks and other financial institutions
are so keen to sell on debt? It is called hedging the risk, or
as some might say, distributing or even sharing (as in passing on)
the future losses to others.

If you or I did this, it would be called fraud, but somehow the big
financial institutions can dress it up in fancy language and get away
with it.

See, for example,

http://www.amazon.co.UK/Hedging-Instruments-Risk-Management-Derivatives/dp/0071443126

But remember that the whole financial system is built on perception and
trust -- how much is that GBP 10 note in your pocket actually worth, or
that stock certificate for 100 shares in Northern Rock plc?

One day the piece of paper is very valuable because others are prepared
to exchange it for lots of other pieces of paper or digits in a computer
database, and sometimes the item has even less value than the paper on
which it is printed.

Talking of digits in a computer database, do many banks have the active
account balances stored in nothing more than magnetic or optical media
or the last printed statement?

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:51:49 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:51:31 +0100, Mark wrote:

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

Or that the UKofGB&NI is a sufficiently affluent and large mass market
for the multinational corporations to target with their goods and services.

Well, in my industry (medical x-ray) the multinationals have long ago
ceased to give any credibility to the idea that the sun shines out of
the Ar*ehole of the British Empire.

The value of the UK market to them is strictly just (however many)
units sold here per year. All the international trade shows have moved
out of the country and our status is lower than all the ex-soviet
eastern bloc countries which are now re-equipping with EU money which
largely has come from the UK.

Derek

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Jerry
writes

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant but closet resists like you Bill just can't understand
that simple fact

Its a well known fact that Bill is a closet resist. He resists going
into the closet and resists coming out of the closet. ;-)

--
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 , Norman Wells
writes

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea how
big the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made
extractor would be?

Yes, at surface density, it is equivalent to a uniform layer a little
less than 5 miles thick over the surface of the globe, some 200million
square miles, making the atmosphere approximately 1billion cubic miles
at surface density.

How many would we need do you think?

That depends on how fast you think we need to do it. The argument,
whether you believe it or not, is that we have managed to cause the
problem simply by a few hundred large CO2 producers over a couple of
hundred years. So a similar number of capture units should be capable
of sweeping it all up in a similar time, probably faster.

At a few hundred feet per minute a single atmospheric extraction unit
with a scrubber area of only 1 square mile, would take around 20,000 to
remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, so a distributed system of 50 such
systems around the planet would clear the problem in less time that it
took to create it in the first place - and we don't WANT to get rid of
all of the CO2 or we'd be in for a very cold future.

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

No, because trees rely on natural air movement to access the atmosphere,
not forced air movement. And they tend to decay or be burned, releasing
their captured CO2 in the timescale.
--
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?
 

Owain wrote:
but in Britain
we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon Beacons.


Ah, well.

Perhaps we'd get some decent competition to the lazy unwelcoming
hostelries at the Clachaig and Kingshouse.

Bring em on.

--
Ron

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry coughed up some electrons that declared:

if you were put in a position were you had to
kill a *White* Anglo-Saxon person to stop your family starving
you would do so

I'd considered it until I realised you don't get much meat on a ratboy. And
the chavettes are way too fatty even by my standards.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:31:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe.
*Usable* energy is not.

Good point to make.

And when all of the usable energy is used up, what will the final
temperature of The Universe be? ;)

isn't it 2.7 absolute or summat?


Better pack a fleece, then.

And a head-torch, it might be dark.

--
Ron

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry coughed up some electrons that declared:


Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...

Please feel free to refute the Wikipedia article I cited with a sound
reasoned argument, because it fits with everything I was taught by doctors
and professors in the subject field.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:


The degree of ignorance of even the simplest science never fails to
astonish me, even among those who think their educational attainments mean
something.

All you have done is claim that a particular statement is wrong. You haven't
AFAICS provided a scientific argument *why* is it wrong or cited any
material that backs up your assertion. What makes your claim better than
the other sources here and externally?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Ron Lowe coughed up some electrons that declared:

Owain wrote:
but in Britain
we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon Beacons.


Ah, well.

Perhaps we'd get some decent competition to the lazy unwelcoming
hostelries at the Clachaig and Kingshouse.

Bring em on.



And the welsh burning the english owned houses wouldn't do the CO2 budget
much good either...

ducks

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

: The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots.
What's racist
: about saying that?

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant

Humans are instinctively tribal. For 30,000 years it was essential for
survival. So we have racism and football. That's why dividing a school into
four houses motivates the kids. It's irrational but it's deeply ingrained.
It's so much a part of human behaviour that we often don't even notice it.
So when there's a shortage of essentials the anti-immigration lobby and the
racists will be able to mobilise sufficient people to start big trouble.
This is what always happens historically. It's almost irrelevant that in
fact that the overpopulation of the UK really is largely caused by
immigration. What matters is the fact of overpopulation. If the
overpopulation had been caused by water soluble rubber johnnies it wouldn't
make any difference -- the rabble rousers would still set the baying mob on
the Asians, the Jews, or in Chester, the Welsh.

but closet resists like you Bill
Come again love?

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Jerry
writes

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant but closet resists like you Bill just can't understand
that simple fact

Its a well known fact that Bill is a closet resist. He resists going into
the closet and resists coming out of the closet. ;-)

Round here, a closet is a fool. "Yer daft closet!"

Of course my grandparents' generation used the word for the room (or shed)
with the lavatory in it.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
: The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots.
What's racist
: about saying that?

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant

Humans are instinctively tribal. For 30,000 years it was essential for
survival. So we have racism and football. That's why dividing a school into
four houses motivates the kids. It's irrational but it's deeply ingrained.
It's so much a part of human behaviour that we often don't even notice it.
So when there's a shortage of essentials the anti-immigration lobby and the
racists will be able to mobilise sufficient people to start big trouble.
This is what always happens historically. It's almost irrelevant that in
fact that the overpopulation of the UK really is largely caused by
immigration. What matters is the fact of overpopulation. If the
overpopulation had been caused by water soluble rubber johnnies it wouldn't
make any difference -- the rabble rousers would still set the baying mob on
the Asians, the Jews, or in Chester, the Welsh.


Or in Bangor, the English..

I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and used to
make heating oil. Is there a name for that?


but closet resists like you Bill
Come again love?


He couldn't manage the first time..

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Or 86 million windmills.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jerry wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

[ in reply to someone else ]
well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who
looks a
dickhead?


The you and the other five, were is the proof that you (and they)
are correct?

Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...

Because relativity says its so. ANY release of energy is accompanied
by a loss of mass.

Its vanishingly small for typical mechanical and chemical energy, but
its there just the same.

If it isn't, relativity is falsified, and there is a huge hue and cry
out for an alternative.

Then you have completely misuderstood relativity. Energy and mass are
interconvertible but only under specific circumstances you will not find on
earth outside nuclear reactions. If release of energy is accompanied by a
reduction in mass then what you've got is nuclear fission. If you haven't
got nuclear fission then you don't get reduction of mass.

Outside of nuclear reactions, all you have is energy conservation and mass
conservation, and they are entirely separate. One form of energy can be
converted into another, but not into mass, and mass can never be converted
into energy.

Storing electrical energy in a battery is actually a conversion of
electrical energy into chemical energy. Discharging the battery is the
reverse. Mass is not involved in any way, even infinitessimally. If you
think it is, you are just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article ,
Ron Lowe wrote:
Owain wrote:
but in Britain
we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon Beacons.


Ah, well.

Perhaps we'd get some decent competition to the lazy unwelcoming
hostelries at the Clachaig and Kingshouse.

I've always found Kingshouse very welcoming - what were you doing wrong?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:12:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

isn't it 2.7 absolute or summat?

Sounds about right.

However on doing a quick web search that in fact
is the estimated current background temperature.

According to

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8749

the posters there think the final temperature would be below 1 K.

And according to Wikipedia, any guess is dependent on whether one
uses a closed or ever expanding model of the universe.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
: Jerry coughed up some electrons that declared:
:
:
: Claiming that you're correct just because others agree
doesn't
: mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong
but
: because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on
the
: talk pages think that they are correct the page holds
incorrect
: information...
:
: Please feel free to refute the Wikipedia article I cited with a
sound
: reasoned argument, because it fits with everything I was taught
by doctors
: and professors in the subject field.

I just said some pages, not all, but what would stop someone
changing that page and then citing it here as being 'wrong' [1] -
that is how daft WP is!

[1] with luck the changes will be picked up upon by knowledgeable
people and reverted back but there is no certainty it will.
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
writes

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea
how big the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made
extractor would be?

Yes, at surface density, it is equivalent to a uniform layer a little
less than 5 miles thick over the surface of the globe, some 200million
square miles, making the atmosphere approximately 1billion cubic miles
at surface density.

How many would we need do you think?

That depends on how fast you think we need to do it. The argument,
whether you believe it or not, is that we have managed to cause the
problem simply by a few hundred large CO2 producers over a couple of
hundred years. So a similar number of capture units should be capable
of sweeping it all up in a similar time, probably faster.

At a few hundred feet per minute a single atmospheric extraction unit
with a scrubber area of only 1 square mile, would take around 20,000
to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, so a distributed system of 50
such systems around the planet would clear the problem in less time
that it took to create it in the first place - and we don't WANT to
get rid of all of the CO2 or we'd be in for a very cold future.

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

No, because trees rely on natural air movement to access the
atmosphere, not forced air movement. And they tend to decay or be
burned, releasing their captured CO2 in the timescale.

How much energy do you think that will involve? How will these 'scrubbers'
work exactly, and how will they be powered? To extract anything that
constitutes just 0.04% of the atmosphere by passing it _all_ through
scrubbers, at speeds sufficient to suck in all the atmosphere of the planet
rather than wait for it to come to you, seems enormously wasteful.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip
:
: I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and
used to
: make heating oil. Is there a name for that?
:

Suicide?...

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and used to
make heating oil. Is there a name for that?

Extraordinary rendition, isn't it?

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:21:05 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and used to
make heating oil. Is there a name for that?

Extraordinary rendition, isn't it?

LOL!




--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Switch off at the socket?
 

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.

There are some *hoary* old chestnuts coming out in this debate.

"It's not worth taking any action, ever, because China cancels it all
out, always" is, if you will forgive me saying so, not the freshest of
arguments.

--

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip
:
: I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and
used to
: make heating oil. Is there a name for that?
:

Suicide?...


Nope.

Definitely not fat, and stupid..no. Even total modesty wouldn't have me
describing myself thus. Not on a permanent basis anyway,..

Or were you talking to yourself?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and used to
make heating oil. Is there a name for that?

Extraordinary rendition, isn't it?

First funny thing you have said all day.,.:-)

Switch off at the socket?
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Or 86 million windmills.


Oh no, no more than 20,000 at most.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jerry wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

[ in reply to someone else ]
well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who
looks a
dickhead?


The you and the other five, were is the proof that you (and they)
are correct?

Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...

Because relativity says its so. ANY release of energy is accompanied
by a loss of mass.

Its vanishingly small for typical mechanical and chemical energy, but
its there just the same.

If it isn't, relativity is falsified, and there is a huge hue and cry
out for an alternative.

Then you have completely misuderstood relativity. Energy and mass are
interconvertible but only under specific circumstances you will not find
on earth outside nuclear reactions. If release of energy is accompanied
by a reduction in mass then what you've got is nuclear fission. If you
haven't got nuclear fission then you don't get reduction of mass.


Oh dear me no.

You do. Its just almost unmeasurable, due to the fact that C squared is
a frigging big number.

Outside of nuclear reactions, all you have is energy conservation and
mass conservation, and they are entirely separate. One form of energy
can be converted into another, but not into mass, and mass can never be
converted into energy.


Oh yes it can, it is and it does, BUT the changes are virtually
undetectable.


Storing electrical energy in a battery is actually a conversion of
electrical energy into chemical energy. Discharging the battery is the
reverse. Mass is not involved in any way, even infinitessimally. If
you think it is, you are just wrong, wrong, wrong.

No, you are wrong wrong wrong.

A chemical compound does not weigh QUITE the same as its elements taken
separately.

If you use the pseudo relativistic Newtonian model of electrons orbiting
the nucleus in the valency shells, they have changed their orbits when
involved in a compound. That change amounts to a quanta of energy gained
or lost and a corresponding quantum of mass gained or lost.


You can see the effect described and IIRC tested in terms of light
pressure on a sail ..photons - things with no rest mass at all, are
emitted by even chemical reactions, and can exert momentum changes on
things.

Switch off at the socket?
 

J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:12:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

isn't it 2.7 absolute or summat?

Sounds about right.

However on doing a quick web search that in fact
is the estimated current background temperature.

According to

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8749

the posters there think the final temperature would be below 1 K.

And according to Wikipedia, any guess is dependent on whether one
uses a closed or ever expanding model of the universe.

Ah. A bit like how much money will we end up with at the end of the
world. 2.7p or 1p, depending on whether infinite economic expansion is
possible (the Ponzi cosmology) or the latter, the Malthus cosmology..

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
writes

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea
how big the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made
extractor would be?

Yes, at surface density, it is equivalent to a uniform layer a little
less than 5 miles thick over the surface of the globe, some 200million
square miles, making the atmosphere approximately 1billion cubic miles
at surface density.

How many would we need do you think?

That depends on how fast you think we need to do it. The argument,
whether you believe it or not, is that we have managed to cause the
problem simply by a few hundred large CO2 producers over a couple of
hundred years. So a similar number of capture units should be capable
of sweeping it all up in a similar time, probably faster.

At a few hundred feet per minute a single atmospheric extraction unit
with a scrubber area of only 1 square mile, would take around 20,000
to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, so a distributed system of 50
such systems around the planet would clear the problem in less time
that it took to create it in the first place - and we don't WANT to
get rid of all of the CO2 or we'd be in for a very cold future.

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

No, because trees rely on natural air movement to access the
atmosphere, not forced air movement. And they tend to decay or be
burned, releasing their captured CO2 in the timescale.

How much energy do you think that will involve? How will these
'scrubbers' work exactly, and how will they be powered? To extract
anything that constitutes just 0.04% of the atmosphere by passing it
_all_ through scrubbers, at speeds sufficient to suck in all the
atmosphere of the planet rather than wait for it to come to you, seems
enormously wasteful.

well you could use the wind that all the sucking does to power the
windmills to generate the power needed to do the sucking!

After all, with your worldview, perpetual motion is a snap, surely?

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:37:56 +0100, "[email protected]"
wrote:



"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.

true, but not the whole storey.

Dinorwic is there to improve the operation of the grid as a whole.

What it does is allow the grid to operate with a higher base load from
the more efficient plants and do something useful with the excess as
the load varies.

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.

Yes - because the big stations take a lot of time to bring up and even
longer to shut down cleanly.

The biggest innovation in Dinorwic was not using it as a battery, but
how fast it can react to load changes.

Operating the grid with dinorwic in place is supposed to be equivalent
to having another 2 big nuclear stations in operation

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.

the assumption here is that shedding load doesnt cause side effects,
and can be done quickly enough without causing stability issues to the
grid itself.

In reality there are lots of sites where unexpected shudowns cause
issues (data centres, hospitals ?).

also many sites where power continuity is critical have backup
generators - now those really are inefficient compared.

then we have all those widely varying input devices that cause
instability and so cannot be relied on within the base generation -
windmills for example.....
--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

Switch off at the socket?
 

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:52:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

After all, it was primarily built as a source of weapons-grade plutonium,
not to supply electricity, which was just a public cover story,
and the programme stated that it was sometimes drawing power from the
grid rather than supplying power to it!

Excellent points to keep in mind, and presumably the government thought
that it was in the best interests of the citizens of the UKofGB&NI to
produce plutonium rather than electric power.

It would seem that the French do thing differently though, as France
produces 77% of its electricity by nuclear power, and thus they are
not held hostage to coal, gas, and oil supplies in the same way as
UKofGB&NI electric power generators.


The important thing is the French have run their Nuclear power industry
on military lines, if something needs fixing it's done.

The EU now want it privatised, which is worrying as Three mile island
was run that way.

Remember the theme of the movie the China Syndrome was it costs
money to do things properly, so under a privatised regime it's tempting
to cut corners.

Whereas the Russian way is, what corners?

Steve Terry

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice 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.

Wonder why we're helping other countries when we're in such a state
ourselves?

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:14:48 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

No, because trees rely on natural air movement to access the
atmosphere, not forced air movement. And they tend to decay or be
burned, releasing their captured CO2 in the timescale.

How much energy do you think that will involve? How will these 'scrubbers'
work exactly, and how will they be powered?

Electricity... coming from power stations... powered by coal or gas.
It's bleedin' obvious innit?

Switch off at the socket?
 

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...
"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.


Nonsense, Manhattan between 1942 and 1945 took over 130,000 people,
70,000,000 pounds of silver from the U.S. Treasury reserves was used for
coils, and god know how many other resources

Projects at over thirty US sites, cash cost was only around $2B, but in real
terms
probably around 10% of the US's war time production capability.

If we put 10% of the industrialised worlds resources into fusion,
it would either be proved or disproved very quickly

But it's accountants that run the 21st century

Steve Terry

Switch off at the socket?
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.


Or with the Severn and Mersey tidal barriers only 8 nuclear power stations

Steve Terry

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Bill Wright
writes

Of course my grandparents' generation used the word for the room (or shed)
with the lavatory in it.

Derr, isn't that the origin of "coming out of the closet", as in
"cottaging"?
--
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 , The Natural Philosopher
writes
I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and used to
make heating oil. Is there a name for that?

Common sense. ;-)

At school, over 40 years ago, we used to debate the dubious value of
exams and whether being sent to the glue factory on failure should be
real or allegorical.

I still think we'll have to do it sooner or later, its only conflict and
plague that have avoided it so far and we haven't had enough of that
lately.
--
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 , Norman Wells
writes

How much energy do you think that will involve?

Does it matter, as long as the CO2 it produces is less than the CO2
taken out of the atmosphere during the life of the facility?

BTW, this is only one atmospheric extraction concept.

Simply dropping the mean ocean temperature by 1/500th degC compensates
for the entire annual anthropgenic CO2 production (a fact that itself
questions the anthropogenic argument). There are may ways of
implementing that and the oceans have a huge area.
--
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)