Switch off at the socket?

Which is misleading as everyone else is talking about electricity
consumption.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:46:20 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

FFS read what is written. "total energy needs as a country".

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:
FACT: We need 43 of them to supply the whole country.


FICTION.


On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:50:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
we need 3000 like that to supply the whole country.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:
Yet I post much less nonsense than you ... Perhaps it's because I have
a 1st Class Hons in Maths ...

Nah, the ability to lie like that, you must have majored in politics..



On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:54:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
The reasons power stations are built of large capacity, is because it is
more efficient. I wont worry you with the technical details of why this
is so, because you have demonstrated that maths and engineering is
something ypu really do not understand.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:
You seem to living in another world. Noone here seems to be agreeing
with you at all.


Good lord. Are pou always seeing your won refelcetion everyehwere?

WE have established there is less than 2GW total hydro in this country,
and there are no suitable sites for much more.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:56:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:
Adequately answered by others.
who agree. We have almost no hydro POTENTIAL at all. every suitable site
has already been utilised.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Your own contributions to this thread have not exactly been notable
for scientific accuracy ...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:03:15 +0100, Derek Geldard
wrote:

Not true, in fact. All radioactive isotopes decay according to their
half lives. When they're gone, they're gone.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:06:43 +0100, Derek Geldard
wrote:

You should have gone to "Leeds Metropolitan University". You could
have studied something useful and got a Ist class Honours degree in
"International Hospitality Management" there (Pizza-ology to you). or
Croydon and done "Geography with Dance".

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:06:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

... and our total energy needs as a country running at an
estimated
300GW,
FACT: Our current electricity consumption is 46 GW.

FFS read what is written. "total energy needs as a country".


we know he cant do sums. Now we know he cant read either.

Electricity production is only a small fraction of the total energy
consumed by the country. I suspect the biggest consumer is transport
and that is virtually all powered by fossil fuel.

Top posting is a PITA and your .sig is broken.


And he doesn't know how to use usenet either.

Java Jive wrote:
Which is misleading as everyone else is talking about electricity
consumption.


Oh you poor thing.

Everybody patently is not.

John Rumm wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

FACT: Our current electricity consumption is 46 GW, not 300GW

Could you clarify what you mean by that exactly?

IIUC, our total annual electricity production (including nett imports)
is something just under 400GWh[1].

Oops, sorry, make that TWh!

[1]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=uk+electric
http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes5_2.xls




This is mor epertinetnt
http://www.nce.co.uk/home/energy/mix...995144.article

"The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Berr’s
Energy Market Outlook published in December 2008 estimates that 47GW of
new capacity would need to be built by 2020. This represents about 57%
of current total capacity and requires an average new capacity
deployment rate of roughly 4GW per year. This level of power
construction has only ever been achieved three times: in 1967 when 5.6
GW of new capacity was commissioned; in 1971 when 4.7GW was commissioned
and in 1974 when 4.24GW of capacity came onstream. “A sustained period
of new build at this rate represents a significant challenge,” says the
report. “It is possible that supply chain constraints will act as a
barrier to the market’s ability to deliver this amount of new
construction.”#

Hard to reconcile with "FACT: Our current electricity consumption is
46 GW"

Unless he means right now on a warm early autimnm day with everyone down
the pub, and no TV's switched on, its dipped to its annual low.

somewhere someone posted a link to the actual instantaneous frequency
and power being drawn off the grid. I couldn't find it tho.


Oh I did.

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Elect...d/Demand60.htm

Along with a host of other things like the grid having to build £3bn
worth of infrastructure so windpower can be effectively used.

Something like a 10% surcharge on all green electricity.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:50:26 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Your own contributions to this thread have not exactly been notable
for scientific accuracy ...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:03:15 +0100, Derek Geldard
wrote:

Not true, in fact. All radioactive isotopes decay according to their
half lives.

You are saying that's not correct ?

When they're gone, they're gone.

That also is absolutely correct, although I was quoted out of context.
When the last atom has disintegrated - it's gone.

The comment was made in the context of the green ****ers constant
attempt to confabulate what's left after 6, 60, or 600 or however many
half lives by stating "it's still radioactive", "it's still there".

It's not. After a small number of half lives (in medical and lab
applications usually taken to be 6) it will have decayed below the
level at which it can be detected or can interact with human tissue in
any way. For all intents and purposes it may as well be regarded as
"gone", and "gone" ulimately it will be.

Naturally radioactivity in reactor or weapons quantities will take
longer to decay , but by the same token is easier to detect and to
protect. You are not going to find someone on the Clapham Omnibus
carrying a few curies of weapons grade uranium in a bucket.

Is English not your first language ?


On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:06:43 +0100, Derek Geldard
wrote:

You should have gone to "Leeds Metropolitan University". You could
have studied something useful and got a Ist class Honours degree in
"International Hospitality Management" there (Pizza-ology to you). or
Croydon and done "Geography with Dance".


Are you saying this is also is also incorrect ?

Hint: it is not incorrect.

You may not like it but it is absolutely correct.

http://www.whatuni.com/degrees/courses/Postgraduate-details/International-Hospitality-Management-MSc-PgDip-PgCert-course-details/31696026/5257/cdetail.html


http://snipurl.com/wazzock [www_whatuni_com]

That's the MSc course BTW. ;-)

Derek

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:01:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I am getting pretty bored with your inability to do maths, read and
maintain logical argument, do honest research without speciously
introducing straw men at every turn.

But,

- world uranium output is what it is because no more is currently
needed. There is plenty more there.The use of CURRENT production to
imply a limit on FUTURE production is basically worthy only of a
green****er or politician.


-300GW is a figure obtained by taking the governments figures for total
energy consumption, and multiplying it by appropriate efficiency figures
to map it into putative electrical generation figures. Its pretty much
the same as taking the current peak electrical demand and dividing it by
the 27% or so of energy that is actually currently used to generate
electrical power. I.e. we need ABOUT 4 times the current generating
capacity to eliminate fossil fuels from everything we do. Now whereas
windmillers like to take peak output and map that to percentage of
current electrical generation, handily neglecting the fact that
electrical generation is only about 1/4 of what we burn CO2 wise, and
windmills never operate at their peak for long, I actually am trying to
sole an energy supply problem. Not win contracts for windmills. The lot
has to go. All fossil fuel, apart from stuff that simply cant be done in
any other way. Mainly military and aircraft use.

Thereby making us strategically independent of oil and gas producing
countries.

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.


And with a little stockpiling able to be self sufficient for a lot
longer than we are with no gas or oil or coal now, and would ever be
with windmills, which require a LOT if imported materials to construct them.


The state that this goverment has got this country into, out of
incompetance and rthe need to placate the lily-livered lefties
because they need their vote, I seriously doubt we could maintain a
country full of windmills because we don't have the capability to make
the replacement parts inside the country if ever the chips were down.

Derek