Switch off at the socket?

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

There are some examples of the sort of thing I meant here ...

http://www.windandsun.co.uk/Projects...ct-gallery.htm

... 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

"2008 has seen the Hebridean isle of Eigg literally come out of the
dark ages, with one of the greenest power schemes in the country, a
£1.5m solar, wind and hydro generating station. Eigg residents have
gone from lacking a technology that defines the modern age, to
possessing one that the rest of us are still struggling to develop. It
is an inspiring example."


Its utter bull****, and I bet it was funded by EU grants.

No it really happened - but the story only briefly mentions the "back up
diesel generation".

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Java Jive wrote:
Mackay again, p197/210

Denmark’s solution

Here’s how Denmark copes with the intermittency of its wind power. The
Danes effectively pay to use other countries’ hydroelectric facilities
as storage facilities. Almost all of Denmark’s wind power is exported
to its European neighbours, some


SOME. Not all. David is as guilty here as those he points out elsewhere
who mix their facts to get the desired effect.

All that means is tht the rest of Europe is subsidising Denmark (nothing
new there, then) so they can look smug and claim to be greener than
thou, as usual.


of whom have hydroelectric power,
which they can turn down to balance things out.

That's not a very good way of getting your ROI on a hydro scheme is it?

Having it doing nothing whilst you buy expensive electricity over long
transmissions lines from Denmark. 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.



The saved
hydroelectric power is then sold back to the Danes (at a higher price)
during the next period of low wind and high demand. Overall, Danish
wind is contributing useful energy, and the system as a whole has
considerable security thanks to the capacity of the hydro system.


As I said, David never did the sums on cost benefit or efficiency: His
basic starting point was technical feasibility.

He is a physicist. I am an engineer.

And engineer, is as Neville Shute once remarked 'a man who can do for
sixpence what any damned fool can do for a quid' or words to that effect.

On a level playing field, windpower is uneconomic., nuclear power is
very economic.

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

No one wants to invest in a technology that is subject to 100 times
higher safety standards than any other, whose very existence can be
placed in doubt at a political whim, and where a rabble of the Great
Unwashed can be relied upon to make it almost impossible to construct.

Or extract huge penalties from it whilst handing them to windmills.

charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

There are some examples of the sort of thing I meant here ...

http://www.windandsun.co.uk/Projects...ct-gallery.htm

... 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

"2008 has seen the Hebridean isle of Eigg literally come out of the
dark ages, with one of the greenest power schemes in the country, a
£1.5m solar, wind and hydro generating station. Eigg residents have
gone from lacking a technology that defines the modern age, to
possessing one that the rest of us are still struggling to develop. It
is an inspiring example."


Its utter bull****, and I bet it was funded by EU grants.

No it really happened - but the story only briefly mentions the "back up
diesel generation".


I didn' mena it hadn't happened. I meant the way it was reported.."Eigg
residents have gone from lacking a technology that defines the modern
age, to possessing one that the rest of us are still struggling to develop"

Should have read "to possessing one that the rest of us are still
struggling to avoid"

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:54:16 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

As I understand it, most or their wind e goes to Norway and Sweden at
time of surplus, and they get back hydro e at time of low wind output.

But this is precisely the problem. Denmark's windpower does not work on
its own. It has to have storage and/or backup generation to keep the
lights on. That backup is mainly outside Denmark (Norway & Sweden as you
helpfully point out).

On that basis you cannot look at Denmark in isolation and use their
windpower as a model for others - you have to look at entire grid they
are part of.

BW

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

There are some examples of the sort of thing I meant here ...

http://www.windandsun.co.uk/Projects...ct-gallery.htm

... 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

"2008 has seen the Hebridean isle of Eigg literally come out of the
dark ages, with one of the greenest power schemes in the country, a
£1.5m solar, wind and hydro generating station. Eigg residents have
gone from lacking a technology that defines the modern age, to
possessing one that the rest of us are still struggling to develop. It
is an inspiring example."


Its utter bull****, and I bet it was funded by EU grants.

No it really happened - but the story only briefly mentions the "back up
diesel generation".


I didn' mena it hadn't happened. I meant the way it was reported.."Eigg
residents have gone from lacking a technology that defines the modern
age, to possessing one that the rest of us are still struggling to
develop"

Should have read "to possessing one that the rest of us are still
struggling to avoid"

but, in their isolated position, it's probably a sensible way to go. They
aren't using electricity to power factories - only a few homes. The
alternative was to have the ferry bringing drums of diesel every day.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article ,
Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:54:16 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

As I understand it, most or their wind e goes to Norway and Sweden at
time of surplus, and they get back hydro e at time of low wind output.

But this is precisely the problem. Denmark's windpower does not work on
its own. It has to have storage and/or backup generation to keep the
lights on. That backup is mainly outside Denmark (Norway & Sweden as you
helpfully point out).


and Germany, too

On that basis you cannot look at Denmark in isolation and use their
windpower as a model for others - you have to look at entire grid they
are part of.

BW

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
In message , Richard Tobin
writes:
In article , J. P. Gilliver
(John) wrote:

(Remember, of course, that all elements are radioactive, and have a
half life. It's just that most have such long half lives that we don't
normally _consider_ them radioactive.)

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

That is, for there being no completely stable isotopes?

-- Richard

Hmm, I thought I had, but on further investigation, it seems I'm
probably wrong - though I would argue that "stable" is not the same as
"has never been seen to decay".

Actually, it follows from the standard view of Quantum Mechanics that no
type of nucleus can be absolutely 'stable' - i.e. we can't guarantee it
will never 'decay' into something else. The point here is that any energy
bound system has an ongoing chance of suddenly parting due to QM effects.
Think of it as one part of the nucleus QM 'tunnelling' its way out of the
energy well/barrier of the system.

IIUC The only nominal exception as a nucleus is the hydrogen nucleus as it
is a single proton. But it is argued that even protons should sometimes
decay.

But as you say, in practice when the chance is very low, then the isotope
is assumed stable as the relevant long 'half llfe' values are meaninglessly
long for all practical purposes and may not have been measureable.

You can probably find a discussion of this in books on QM or nuclear
physics. But I dunno as I haven't had to read one in years! :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Derek Geldard
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:02:01 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:


Of course it depends on the substance how long the half life is, they
vary from seconds to thousands of years but most are fairly short and
the level of radiation decreases over time as well. The nature of the
radiation is important as well, alpha particles are easyly stopped for
example.

Common misconception, along with "If an isotope has a long half life
it's not very radioactive", -erm no 1 millicurie is 1 millicurie .

It may be even a more common misconception to confuse the millicurie with a
unit of mass. :-)

Yes, 1 millicurie is 1 millicurie. But if one isotope has a half life
billions of times lower than another, then one gram of one of them would
have to be matched with many tons of the other (all at a similar distance
to you) to irradiate you with the same number of particles per time.

How many milllicuries does the Earth contain? Does the large number of the
answer mean we must all leave the Earth immediately because we are being
fried? :-)

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

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:54:16 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

As I understand it, most or their wind e goes to Norway and Sweden at
time of surplus, and they get back hydro e at time of low wind output.

But this is precisely the problem. Denmark's windpower does not work on
its own. It has to have storage and/or backup generation to keep the
lights on. That backup is mainly outside Denmark (Norway & Sweden as you
helpfully point out).

On that basis you cannot look at Denmark in isolation and use their
windpower as a model for others - you have to look at entire grid they
are part of.


Which study was done and at lest one antagonist concluded there was a
net *increase* in CO2 emissions on account of Denmark being so keen on wind.


That's why I am desperate to remove ALL power subsidies, and restrictive
penalties, and simply tax carbon fuels: that way the lowest cost
solutions will be the lowest carbon ones.

I bet you would find windpower still could not compete with carbon fuels
then. And certainly not nuclear.




BW

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:05:21 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:


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


Current (new) stations are much better.

Derek