Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:43:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Oner of the biggest legacy bvnefits we have left from a fossil fiuel
scenario, is we have learnt how not to waste resources on building 3-6
times as much capacity as we need.

No, we have learnt how to build systems whe

1) Power is centrally generated at relatively small numbers of
stations remote from the point of use, so transmission losses are
high.


almost as high as 3%.

Now have a wind farm off the scottish coast supplying London, or best of
all, and undersea link to MOROCCO. so you can go 'green'.

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


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.

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

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. Its a huge
advantage pof proper power staions that they can deliver what teh users
need.

Not a disadvantage.

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. 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.


We could have built a more distributed system whe

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.

Transmission takes very little out of the system.

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.

3) Equipment could be more tolerant to fluctuations in supply.


Modern electronic power supplies are, anyway.


4) Energy could be used more efficiently.


Yes, but that has nothing to do with how its generated.


However, we have what we have, and, except 2 as far as other
technologies can fit in, and of course 4, I'm not trying to recommend
changing the system's operating characteristics now that it's in
place.

When we dont need gold plate at all.

Gold plate is no more relevant here than your bank account was in
another subthread.

We need either to reduce our demand for electricity by using it more
efficiently, avoiding waste, doing without "all the useless things in
the world that could not be done without"(1), etc, or we need more of
it, and one possible additional source is proving to be wind, as
linked below.

1 Jane Austen "Sanditon"

The Green**** love affair with windmills stems from one basic
assumption, there is no other technology that is low to zero carbon that
can do the job. There is. It's called nuclear power.

But since most of green**** are old CND marchers and generalised bearded
lunatics, brought up on sovbloc propaganda that 'nuclear power=nuclear
weapons (which of course ot did then, largely) they cant bear to lose
face and admit that the old enemy, is in fact their best friend.

A typically irrational entrenched attitude based on stereotypes,
resorting to which is usually a sure sign that an argument is lost. Do
you really think this is the best way to promote ANYTHING, especially
anything as controversial as nuclear power?

I dont think anyone relies on wind.

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.