Switch off at the socket?

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:43:55 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The reality is that we are surrounded with large amounts of materials
with very long half lives. Including our own bodies.

Apparently people born in the 1950s have a higher level of carbon-14
in their bodies than the rest of the population.

That's why they weigh more.

Bill

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:33:02 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

In the standard model, protons don't decay.

Is Wikipedia correct in its assertion that

QUOTE
Proton decay has not been observed.
There is currently no evidence that proton decay occurs.
UNQUOTE

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:04:25 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

That's why they weigh more.

Yes and possibly they are a little slower than others, since rates of
reactions for molecules with atoms of heavier isotopes are very slightly
slower.

This effect is best observed with heavy water, since the difference in
mass of the hydrogen is double, and why it is toxic and drinking heavy
water is not a good idea.

http://www.straightdope.COM/columns/read/2135/is-heavy-water-dangerous

Java Jive wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:10:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

almost as high as 3%.

I confess I've heard *widely* varying estimates of this, but this
seems to agree with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...28UK%29#Losses

"Although losses in the national grid are low, there are significant
further losses in onward electricity distribution to the consumer,
causing a total distribution loss of about 7.7%.[6] However losses
differ significantly for customers connected at different voltages;
connected at high voltage the total losses are about 2.6%, at medium
voltage 6.4% and at low voltage 12.2%"

Of course, most of us are at the low voltaage/high loss end, but, as
that's a local loss, I guess that would probably apply to all sources
except micro-sources at each home.

All forms of renewable energy will lead to higher transmission losses.
Pumped storage is at best 70-80% efficient.

Last time I looked, nuclear, gas, and coal were only around 30%
efficient at turning steam into electricity.


45-55%.

2) Relatively few large scale technologies are used, making them
difficult to replace with alternatives.

That's as specious as saying that its a shame we can only breathe air,
and not water.

That's a completely irrational non-sequitor. We don't have biological
mechanisms that dictate how we must convert resources into
electricity, like we do dictating how we breathe.

We dont NEED any alternatives if what we have works very well.

But it won't, see my other post.


Completely refuted.

3) The frequency and voltage of supply need to be kept within
expensively tight tolerances to avoid things breaking down.
They don't actually. Not from a generating point of view. Its the
consumers whose lightbulbs would pop and whose clocks would run slow
that first caused teh whiole thing to be stabilised.

That was what I meant.

4) Cheap energy has encouraged waste.
Nothing encourages waste, but why not? cheapness is a mark of something
that doesn't need to be a huge concern.

If it's not a huge concern, then why is everyone except yourself very
concerned about it? That should tell you something.


If its so expensive, why are you still using it? that should tell you
something.

Energy is NOT expensive. Its bloody CHEAP. Except windpower which is
subsidised to MAKE it cheap.

I am concerned because it wont stay that way much longer. Fortunately
nuclear power is competitive at current ,market rates of oil and gas, so
the economic incentives PROVIDED the investors are sure that they are
NOT going to be shut down at a political whim, are very attractive.




Cheap energy has also meant
that twits like you can live a life of luxury and comfort that your
grandparents could only dream of, and have time to write this crap online.

Bah! Pots and kettles!


You have no idea how frugal I am.

1) Transmission losses could be much lower.
No, we couldn't.
If we built more stations, it costs more, uses more materials, and uses
more fuel. BIG stations with condensers stuck on e.g. rivers are more
efficient than a small onea. There are significant economies of scale.
both in cost, materials used and actual output efficiencies.

Considerations which apply most strongly to fossil-fuel sources in
centralised systems.


Which is why they are better more efficient and cheaper than localised
generation. Or windmills.


2) A greater range of generating technologies could be used.
The generating technology of a windmill is the same as a power station
anyway, its juts 3-6 times more iron and copper to achieve the samme result.

That's serious, it's true, but must be viewed as an investment in
reducing CO2 emissions overall.

3) Equipment could be more tolerant to fluctuations in supply.
Modern electronic power supplies are, anyway.

My experience suggests that there is no difference between the
reliability of moderrn PSUs and those of, say 20 years ago. Far too
many of them failed and still fail.


Er.. that is a complete non sequitur.
An SMPS capable of working from 40v to 400v is possible. IT doesn't help
however, because to do the same job it simply pulls the same power out
anyway. If that power isn't going in, then reducing voltage to shed load
doesn't work. You end up not with brownoiuts, but blackouts.

Whether its reliable or not has nothing to do with it.


4) Energy could be used more efficiently.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with how its generated.

But does very much affect the amount we need to generate.


WE are already very efficient with energy use especially electrical
energy use. Very little is wasted to do a job that its not supposed to
do. I.e. an electrical heater is 100% efficient, electric motors are in
the 70-97% sort of range, electric LIGHTS are up around 15% for the most
efficient, and we don't use a vast amount of that electricity that way.

Energy is not being wasted in industrial processes., Its if anything
being wasted by people buying more stuff than they need, its true, but
you be the government that tells them they can only eat certain things,
only buy one mobile phone every ten years, only leave the house one day
a week, and then only by certified public transport. etc etc.



... from which, although this isn't one of the ones I remember
hearing about previously, it'll certainly do:

http://www.windandsun.co.uk/Projects/eigg.htm

Its utter bull****

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

and I bet it was funded by EU grants.

Most early nuclear work was similarly funded by subsidies and grants
from one source or another.


So was all wind work.

But no new nuclear is being subsidised.

Not true of windmills.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:57:12 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

If you start with a finite number of radioactive atoms you'll
halve the
number every half-life period

On average. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. It's random.

, at some point there'll be one atom left and when that decays it's
all gone.

On average. Maybe. It's random.

Quite. If the half life is say 1 year after 1 year there is a 50%
*probabilty* that the lone atom might have decayed. Even after
hundreds of years you can't say that that lone atom *will* have
decayed just that the probabilty of it happening is pretty high(*)
but you can't say when it will happen.

IIRC the original assertion was that the radiation would never fall to
zero. If there's just one atom left and it doesn't decay then it
releases no radiation. Once that last atom has decayed there's also no
radiation.



--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Java Jive wrote:
Ok, it was a good few years ago when I last looked. Source? Numbers?


Top posting. crap sig file. Who is this dickhead?

Anyway its standard knowledge. Overall thermal efficiencies of most
steam plant has been around 45% or more from at least the 60's onwards.

Java Jive wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:41:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote
SOME. Not all. David is as guilty here as those he points out elsewhere
who mix their facts to get the desired effect.

Source for this information?

Now we see the fundamental hypocrisy
in your position. Windpower it seems DOES need long lossy lines after
all, when you claimed in your last post that this was one of its
advantages, Local generation.

No, I claimed in my last post that the grid system was too
centralised, whereas it would be more useful in our present concern
for it to be more decentralised.

There is nothing centralised about the grid.

It is the least centralised electricity network in the world, probably.


Once again you are arguing from assumptions that are complete and utter
hogwash.

Even my house, is on an 11KV *ring* Not a spur, a RING.
..




On a level UK playing field, we have plenty of wind and rain, some
sun, and no uranium ore.


WE have totally inadequate wind rain and places to generate hydro pwer.


The field is tilted way against nuclear and way pro wind, that's all.

Whereas historically it has been the other way about.

It has not.

Ever.

Java Jive wrote:
Absolutely, just as we would have to look at our hydro potential in
tandem with our wind potential.

we have almost no hydro potential whatsoever.

Since it is if the geography is right, one of THE cheapest ways to
generate power, every hydro site that makes sense already HAS a power
station.

J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:43:55 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The reality is that we are surrounded with large amounts of materials
with very long half lives. Including our own bodies.

Apparently people born in the 1950s have a higher level of carbon-14
in their bodies than the rest of the population.


hasn't killed us yet has it?

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
Bambleweeny57 writes:
[]
Yes, we already have backup capacity but its already "spoken for" by a
combination of variations in load and redundant capacity to cover for
maintenance and failure. Shaving a few points off that backup capacity
just increases the scope for large scale, systematic failure.
[]
If it never represents a significant percentage of the whole it's only
ever going to be a distraction from the real issue of how we cater for
our energy need for the next 50 years.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, on the earlier area: I
think a small amount is worth having, and because it _is_ such a smaller
amount, the threat it poses to the stability of the rest is small -
it'll just mean the rest of the system will use slightly less fuel for
some of the time.


why should I subsidise a horse and cart, so that it is there if the car
breaks down?


On the second point, we are definitely in agreement: since there's no
way wind is going to contribute more than a few per cent, we definitely
have to give our attention to where the rest is going to come from. (As
I see it, in the medium term - the rest of my lifetime, roughly - for
this country, nuclear is going to be at least a significant part. That
and carbon-based sources!) As for wind, it might be a distraction, but
conversely it might also help concentrate people's mind on the problem:
most people are not thinking about it enough (or at all in most cases).
There's no real way to know.

(And, strangely, the perfectly valid point that backup capacity
has to be available is _helped_ by the smallness of the proportion: you
_won't_ have _lots_ of capacity sitting idle, since the wind isn't going
to provide a _lot_ of the capacity anyway, unlike say in Denmark.)

Denmark uses about 20% wind generation capacity in "in country" power.
However, it is connected to the continental European grid so it has
access to a massive source/sink to counter the variability of wind.
[]
Another poster has said that, however, they have scaled back their
alternative capacity to the point where they _have_ to import (and just
_hope_ there is someone to sell to them) when it's not windy enough.
Whether this is so, I don't know.