On 18/06/2014 01:13, Johny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:39:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 17/06/2014 02:44, Johny B Good wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:48:46 +0100, "harryagain"

8

Well ****-fer-brains, run on gas it's a lot less CO2 than petrol or diesel.
I already pointed out the summer heat problem.
You wouldn't run them in summer.


I hate to have to say this but, for once, Harry does make an
excellent point. :-)


Well it appears its OK to generate CO2 in winter so all we need to do is
burn fossil fuel in winter and find some way to store the energy for
summer.

Running a micro CHP system in winter actually reduces your net CO2
contribution since you're burning, to a very close approximation, the
same amount of gas that an 80% efficient boiler would have used only
the 20% loss is now being realised as useful electrical energy which
reduces the demand on the national grid, reducing the carbon emissions
at the coal or gas fired power stations.

I would surprised if much of that 20% is actually recoverable though...

And compared with the option of running a 90%+ efficiency boiler,
without the added complexity (and potential unreliability and capital
costs) of the electrical generation element, its a less clear choice.

(and that is before you consider the extra instability introduced into
the grid by even more non dispatchable generation, coupled with the
requirement the generation capacity be paid for and duplicated elsewhere).

Perhaps if you replace the room thermostat with remote control by smart
grid. That way the national grid can fire up your boiler when it needs
its./ If you are lucky that might sometimes correspond to when you want
your house heated!

These greens always have the wrong answer for everything.

Sadly, that's depressingly true. They seem to lack the necessary
pragmatism and vision required to make more truly optimum choices in
regard of energy production solutions. If they could remove their
heads from up their collective arses and 'wake up and smell the
coffee', they'd be hollering the loudest for an accelerated LFTR
development program.

To be fair, one or two of them are beginning to.

Whilst Fusion has now finally reached the break even point, even if
it's only for 150 picoseconds at a time, it may take yet another 50
years before this techology can be converted into an effective source
of energy.

In the meantime, further research on this front will continue to
demand vast amounts of energy to continue the Fusion Energy
development program. If we don't invest in an interim nuclear power
program such as the very promising LFTR technology very soon, we could
end up 'being caught short' as the looming energy crisis starts to
make itself felt in the developed world.

Indeed. The nice thing about LFTR is that much of the difficult
engineering has already been done and proven. The main outstanding bits
are the fuel cycle processing and online refuelling IIUC. Just think you
will then have the likes of harry telling us its too dangerous to use
all that nuclear waste for fuel, that previously they were telling us it
was too dangerous to store, (when they weren't telling us there was no
way to do so!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/