On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 08:20:40 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"The Other Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 08:26:14 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:

Capcitive reactance in the mains is extirely cancellled out by the
massively
greater inductive reactance.
(Due to motors etc)

So all that money, in excess of a billion quid in England and Wales, spent
on
static VAR compensators, shunt reactors, capacitor banks, etc is simply a
waste
of money then?

You better get onto OFGEM straight away and get them to investigate this
massive
waste of money.

Just so you know where they are when you have a word with OFGEM, have a
look at
page 17 of this document. Look for the things in magenta and green.

http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/B9B5D93B-9BDE-4C8D-B5A5-0F34FCED0E99/47005/NETSSYS2011AppendixA.pdf

Please let us know how you get on with OFGEM. You may want to let the
Daily
Mail know while you are at it. They are well known and have an
international
reputation for accurate, non biased reporting of 'facts' They will love
your
story.

I see you are full of **** too

Power factor correction consists of banks of capacitors (mostly),
to correct the lagging power factor caused by inductive loads. (eg Motors)
It can be done coincidently bu other means, not usually viable.

Severely lagging power factor cause excessive current (and losses) in the
distribution system.
So there is a financial penalty imposed. Usually by a peak load charge
which is measured in Kva not Kw.
So it becomes fanancially worthwhile to correct the powerfactor.

Harry, the diagram illustrated all the reactive correction capability on the
transmission network, not the distribution network or on a customers premises.
For reference the blue lines are 400kV, the black ones 275kV. While there can
be financial penalties for individual industrial and commercial consumers the
choice as to make corrections to their power factor is theirs alone.

Your statement that

"Capcitive reactance in the mains is extirely cancellled out by the massively
greater inductive reactance."

Is incorrect.


--