wrote
wrote
Jeff wrote
wrote

I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses.
Non switching regulators typically throw away half or
more of the power. The trend is away from them.

Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads. ;-)

Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is
no demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.

Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature
and current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.

Correct.

If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent
light fixture with an old fashioned transformer,

Thats not a transformer, thats a ballast, electrically very different.

it hardly changes power consumption at all.

Wrong. Those take very little power when turned off.

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep...

Nope...

solves C sequestration,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

can regenerate more fuel than burned,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

etc., etc., etc., ...

There is no etc., etc., etc., ... with nukes and being green.

In spades with the main downside with nukes, the immense cost
of dealing with the hulk once its no longer used, if you're actually
stupid enough to not just encase it in concrete and leave it there.

Even just the concrete involved with any nuke is very ungreen.

George wrote:
Jeff wrote:
George wrote:
Pipedown wrote:
This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be
scraping the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well
at least I hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should
be getting most of our electricity from various green sources.



"Bill" wrote in message
...
The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
things like this can add up.)

So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
the power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all
the time...




I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards
efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as
driving normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for
personal transportation. I good example of that is todays GM
announcement that they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.

And possibly discontinuing the Hummer.

Can you imagine the pain this market driven force is causing GM? And
for that matter the workforce.


A buddy and I went to the New York car show earlier this year and GMs
entire focus was on big, piggy fluffed up trucks. We asked their
representative if he didn't feel silly offering such vehicles and he
told us that GM had made big investments into alternative energy and
$1/gallon fuel from recycled tires was coming soon...

Hmmm, I wonder how many miles you can get on a set of Hummer ties?

Jeff


But rational analysis should have told all the car manufacturers
that the ramp up in sales (propped along by all kinds of gimmicks) was
unsustainable. Now, there's a word for the future, "unsustainable".

Jeff

In article , "Rod Speed" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jeff wrote

In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home
electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.

And is dubious with some of the home electronics like TVs and
computers, which just happen to be the main uses of power in
the average home even with just the home electronics.

TVs and computers are the main uses of power in the average home?

Didnt say anything like that.

I said that those are the main power users OF THE HOME ELECTRONICS.

Ummm... no, you didn't. It's right the "...TVs and computers, which just
happen to be the main uses of power in the average home ..."

Now that may not be what you *meant* ... but it is what you *said*.

wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEM PLATE=DEFAULT

Thats not nuke electricity generation.

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep...

Nope...

solves C sequestration,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

can regenerate more fuel than burned,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

etc., etc., etc., ...

There is no etc., etc., etc., ... with nukes and being green.

In spades with the main downside with nukes, the immense cost
of dealing with the hulk once its no longer used, if you're actually
stupid enough to not just encase it in concrete and leave it there.

Even just the concrete involved with any nuke is very ungreen.

Not really if you make any rational comparison of the _quantities_ per
MWe...

--

SMS wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from coal,
and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by that
approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Yes, if you're looking at it strictly in terms of CO2 emissions, that's true.

No matter how much we can reduce electricity use, no matter how much
we generate on-site at home with photo-voltaics, it still makes more sense to generate the remainder using something
other than oil, natural gas, or coal.

It's rather ironic that the suburban life style of individual houses, and low density population, actually lends
itself well to distributed generation.

No it doesnt. These are never economic if the grid is available.

In my area, you can lease solar panels for $70 per month,
including installation, and the monthly savings off your electric bill will be more than that (or your meter will run
backwards and you'll be selling power back to the utility).

That only happens when the economics is artificially skewed by legislation.

George wrote:
....
They might do better by just quietly turning off the lights in the plant
and forgetting they ever offered such a stupid vehicle for non military
use.
....
And how would that be better for GM, precisely?

--

Jeff wrote:
dpb wrote:
Jeff wrote:
George wrote:
Pipedown wrote:
This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be
scraping the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well
at least I hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should
be getting most of our electricity from various green sources.



"Bill" wrote in message
...
The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
things like this can add up.)

So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are
doing.)

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
the power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all
the time...




I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards
efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as
driving normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for
personal transportation. I good example of that is todays GM
announcement that they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.

And possibly discontinuing the Hummer.

The word used was "sell" in all reporting I saw...

Right you are.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,2133975.story

"At this point, we are considering all options for the Hummer brand,"
Wagoner said. "Everything from a complete revamp of the product lineup
to partial or complete sale of the brand."

No possible buyer has been named for the division, which was for a few
years -- when gasoline cost less than $3 a gallon -- one of GM's
strongest. Last week, GM stock hit a 26-year low, falling to $17.38. At
11:15 this morning, the stock was unchanged at $17.43.

Can you imagine the pain this market driven force is causing GM?
And for that matter the workforce.

But rational analysis should have told all the car manufacturers
that the ramp up in sales (propped along by all kinds of gimmicks)
was unsustainable. Now, there's a word for the future, "unsustainable".

Market forces will direct--if allowed.

Of course.

But, have you not noticed the destruction wrought? The lack of any
standards or accountability for securitizing sub prime loans springs
immediately to mind. That little fiasco is going to dwarf the S&L
cleanup in scope.

It also seems likely that if the government had pushed SUVs with the
100% write down on up to $100K that that little bubble wouldn't be
bursting so large now.

Capital markets benefit by sensible regulation. '29 springs to mind.
Thats why post credit meltdown, that the Fed is now inside all the large
investment banks, watching...

The key word here is "sensible". Most of what I hear isn't...

--

dpb wrote
SMS wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from coal,
and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by that
approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Yes, if you're looking at it strictly in terms of CO2 emissions, that's true.

In virtually any manner you wish to compare it has less total impact than any alternative technology on a per MWe
basis.

That doesnt make it a green source.

It's rather ironic that the suburban life style of individual houses,
and low density population, actually lends itself well to distributed
generation. In my area, you can lease solar panels for $70 per month, including installation, and the monthly savings
off your electric bill will be more than that (or your meter will run backwards and you'll be selling power back to
the utility).

I'd be interest to know where that is and what/who is doing this...
doesn't sound economically viable to me based on what data I
know of on cost/kwh from solar generation...

It does happen in some places where legislation artificially skews
the economics. Most obviously in Germany where the price the
power companys are forced to pay for electricity does skew the
economics enough to make it economically viable for the consumer.

Thats just a hidden subsidy tho, industry pays a significantly
higher price for the electricity it uses to pay for that.

Doug Miller wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Miller wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jeff wrote

In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home
electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.

And is dubious with some of the home electronics like TVs and
computers, which just happen to be the main uses of power in
the average home even with just the home electronics.

TVs and computers are the main uses of power in the average home?

Didnt say anything like that.

I said that those are the main power users OF THE HOME ELECTRONICS.

Ummm... no, you didn't.

Yes I did.

It's right the "...TVs and computers, which just happen
to be the main uses of power in the average home ..."

Pity that had the words EVEN WITH JUST THE HOME ELECTRONICS
on the end of it, which you have just carefully deleted.

Now that may not be what you *meant* ... but it is what you *said*.

No it isnt.

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep...

Nope...

solves C sequestration,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

can regenerate more fuel than burned,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

etc., etc., etc., ...

There is no etc., etc., etc., ... with nukes and being green.

In spades with the main downside with nukes, the immense cost
of dealing with the hulk once its no longer used, if you're actually
stupid enough to not just encase it in concrete and leave it there.

Even just the concrete involved with any nuke is very ungreen.

Not really if you make any rational comparison of the _quantities_ per MWe...

Thats not what being a green source is about.

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep...

Nope...

solves C sequestration,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

can regenerate more fuel than burned,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

etc., etc., etc., ...

There is no etc., etc., etc., ... with nukes and being green.

In spades with the main downside with nukes, the immense cost
of dealing with the hulk once its no longer used, if you're actually
stupid enough to not just encase it in concrete and leave it there.

Even just the concrete involved with any nuke is very ungreen.

Not really if you make any rational comparison of the _quantities_ per MWe...

Thats not what being a green source is about.

And why not, pray tell? Being less intrusive on the environment of the
_OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
disposal is the epitome of "green". Granted that's not what the
shortsighted politically active "greenies" consider but for the most
part they have very myopic viewpoints and wish a lot instead of making
considered evaluations of the whole process and end results including,
of course, reliability and economic considerations.

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.
There are similar issues w/ solar albeit not quite as variable but the
night time shutdown is absolute--at least it is predictable. The point
is, while these sources are of value and have low direct input fuel
costs, they definitely have other costs in their deployment that cannot
be ignored in a global analysis of what is or isn't "green".

--

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
SMS wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from coal,
and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by that
approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Yes, if you're looking at it strictly in terms of CO2 emissions, that's true.

In virtually any manner you wish to compare it has less total impact than any alternative technology on a per MWe
basis.

That doesnt make it a green source.

In any rational definition of "green" as being the minimal _TOTAL_
impact it does. (See other response)

It's rather ironic that the suburban life style of individual houses,
and low density population, actually lends itself well to distributed
generation. In my area, you can lease solar panels for $70 per month, including installation, and the monthly savings
off your electric bill will be more than that (or your meter will run backwards and you'll be selling power back to
the utility).

I'd be interest to know where that is and what/who is doing this...
doesn't sound economically viable to me based on what data I
know of on cost/kwh from solar generation...

It does happen in some places where legislation artificially skews
the economics. Most obviously in Germany where the price the
power companys are forced to pay for electricity does skew the
economics enough to make it economically viable for the consumer.

Thats just a hidden subsidy tho, industry pays a significantly
higher price for the electricity it uses to pay for that.

That is the only way I know of it being so, yes. I was curious if there
were something other than that model although I suspect I know the answer.

--

In article , dpb wrote:

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.

This is the most bull**** pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever
seen.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep...

Nope...

solves C sequestration,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

can regenerate more fuel than burned,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

etc., etc., etc., ...

There is no etc., etc., etc., ... with nukes and being green.

In spades with the main downside with nukes, the immense cost
of dealing with the hulk once its no longer used, if you're actually stupid enough to not just encase it in
concrete and leave it there.

Even just the concrete involved with any nuke is very ungreen.

Not really if you make any rational comparison of the _quantities_ per MWe...

Thats not what being a green source is about.

And why not, pray tell?

Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.

We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.

Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
disposal is the epitome of "green".

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

Granted that's not what the shortsighted politically active "greenies" consider but for the most part they have very
myopic viewpoints and wish a lot instead of making considered evaluations of the whole process and end results
including, of course, reliability and economic considerations.

And they hate nukes, so they aint green at all.

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.

Just because wind generation isnt as green as it might be doesnt make nukes green.

There are similar issues w/ solar albeit not quite as variable but the night time shutdown is absolute--at least it is
predictable. The
point is, while these sources are of value and have low direct input
fuel costs, they definitely have other costs in their deployment that
cannot be ignored in a global analysis of what is or isn't "green".

Thats not what green is about, thats about how viable a particular technology is.

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
SMS wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Yes, if you're looking at it strictly in terms of CO2 emissions, that's true.

In virtually any manner you wish to compare it has less total
impact than any alternative technology on a per MWe basis.

That doesnt make it a green source.

In any rational definition of "green" as being the minimal _TOTAL_ impact it does.

Wrong. Thats not what green is about.

(See other response)

See my comments on that.

It's rather ironic that the suburban life style of individual houses, and low density population, actually lends
itself well to distributed generation. In my area, you can lease solar panels for $70 per
month, including installation, and the monthly savings off your
electric bill will be more than that (or your meter will run
backwards and you'll be selling power back to the utility).

I'd be interest to know where that is and what/who is doing this...
doesn't sound economically viable to me based on what data I
know of on cost/kwh from solar generation...

It does happen in some places where legislation artificially skews
the economics. Most obviously in Germany where the price the
power companys are forced to pay for electricity does skew the
economics enough to make it economically viable for the consumer.

Thats just a hidden subsidy tho, industry pays a significantly
higher price for the electricity it uses to pay for that.

That is the only way I know of it being so, yes. I was curious if there were something other than that model although
I suspect I know the answer.

Yeah, it someone had fixed the economics, there would be plenty yapping about it.

max wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.

This is the most bull**** pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever
seen.

In what way? I'll be glad to share the data (again) and discuss it any
way you please...

--

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep...

Nope...

solves C sequestration,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

can regenerate more fuel than burned,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

etc., etc., etc., ...

There is no etc., etc., etc., ... with nukes and being green.

In spades with the main downside with nukes, the immense cost
of dealing with the hulk once its no longer used, if you're actually stupid enough to not just encase it in
concrete and leave it there.

Even just the concrete involved with any nuke is very ungreen.

Not really if you make any rational comparison of the _quantities_ per MWe...

Thats not what being a green source is about.

And why not, pray tell?

Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.

We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.

Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
disposal is the epitome of "green".

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

Granted that's not what the shortsighted politically active "greenies" consider but for the most part they have very
myopic viewpoints and wish a lot instead of making considered evaluations of the whole process and end results
including, of course, reliability and economic considerations.

And they hate nukes, so they aint green at all.

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.

Just because wind generation isnt as green as it might be doesnt make nukes green.

There are similar issues w/ solar albeit not quite as variable but the night time shutdown is absolute--at least it is
predictable. The
point is, while these sources are of value and have low direct input
fuel costs, they definitely have other costs in their deployment that
cannot be ignored in a global analysis of what is or isn't "green".

Thats not what green is about, thats about how viable a particular technology is.

If the "greens" have any serious ideas of affecting CO2, we'll find out
shortly as the present 20+ license applications pending at the NRC wend
their way thru...

I suspect we'll find they're still only obstructionists at heart...

--

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from coal, and even if we stop doing that
because of the CO2 produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep...

Nope...

solves C sequestration,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

can regenerate more fuel than burned,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

etc., etc., etc., ...

There is no etc., etc., etc., ... with nukes and being green.

In spades with the main downside with nukes, the immense cost
of dealing with the hulk once its no longer used, if you're actually stupid enough to not just encase it in
concrete and leave it there.

Even just the concrete involved with any nuke is very ungreen.

Not really if you make any rational comparison of the _quantities_ per MWe...

Thats not what being a green source is about.

And why not, pray tell?

Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.

We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.

Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
disposal is the epitome of "green".

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

Granted that's not what the shortsighted politically active
"greenies" consider but for the most part they have very myopic viewpoints and wish a lot instead of making
considered evaluations of the whole process and end results including, of course, reliability and economic
considerations.

And they hate nukes, so they aint green at all.

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X
to 4X the needed capacity to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes shorter), there has to be that backup
generation somewhere, somehow to make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some other
generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.

Just because wind generation isnt as green as it might be doesnt make nukes green.

There are similar issues w/ solar albeit not quite as variable but
the night time shutdown is absolute--at least it is predictable. The point is, while these sources are of value and
have low direct input
fuel costs, they definitely have other costs in their deployment that cannot be ignored in a global analysis of what
is or isn't "green".

Thats not what green is about, thats about how viable a particular technology is.

If the "greens" have any serious ideas of affecting CO2, we'll find out shortly as the present 20+ license
applications pending at the NRC wend their way thru...

Nope, they are completely irrelevant to the success or otherwise of those applications.

I suspect we'll find they're still only obstructionists at heart...

Or that they just mindlessly hate nukes.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:10:48 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:


[snip]


I had one (early) DVD player that, when turned off, merely turned off the LED on
the front panel. The power supply was still fully supplying power to the board
and drive, even when turned off.



Current ones (at least should) turn off the video output(s) too. This
allows you to use an automatic audio/video switch.

I would expect motors to be off as well.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message
from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive,
please ignore it. If you don't know how to
ignore a posting, complain to me and I will
demonstrate."

In article , "Rod Speed" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Miller wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jeff wrote

In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home
electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.

And is dubious with some of the home electronics like TVs and
computers, which just happen to be the main uses of power in
the average home even with just the home electronics.

TVs and computers are the main uses of power in the average home?

Didnt say anything like that.

I said that those are the main power users OF THE HOME ELECTRONICS.

Ummm... no, you didn't.

Yes I did.

It's right the "...TVs and computers, which just happen
to be the main uses of power in the average home ..."

Pity that had the words EVEN WITH JUST THE HOME ELECTRONICS
on the end of it, which you have just carefully deleted.

Now that may not be what you *meant* ... but it is what you *said*.

No it isnt.

Not much point in continuing to argue with someone who denies having written
his own words.

Bye.

On Jun 2, 4:02*pm, "Pipedown" wrote:
This may seem extreme to most of us living on the grid but if one were to be
living off the grid maybe using solar and batteries, this kind of stuff
makes a measurable difference. *For that matter if you have a gas range and
it only needs 110V, you could put it on a wall switch and avoid modifying
the range.

I can't imagine the OP with an electric range but for some reason he
evidently does. *For newer ranges with electronic controls, this would not
be possible as the clock is integrated into all the controls.

"Bill" wrote in message

...



The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps running
and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things like this can
add up.)

So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the
power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And sometimes has to be reset if/when a power glitch occurs. Darn it!
Up til now, and noting that 'modern stoves' are almost impossible to
buy without an 'electronic-digital clock/timer' have been able to
survive, from 1956 to the present, using a series of new and used
(usually donated free) kitchen cooking stoves.
However have kept a couple of old-fashioned electromechanical clocks
from scrapped stoves so as to have on hand if/when it becomes
necessary to acquire an electronic clock model!
Advantage of the older clocks is even if the power goes off for a few
minutes, the clock restarts by itself and the roast is not left
uncooked or the cake in the oven is not spoiled.
Then when next one notices just adjust the clock time if using it as a
time piece is important.
And yes; in a school and church hall cafeteria the stove clock timer
was frequently being bumped by cooking pots on the top of the stove,
oven stopped working causing frequent calls for assistance. Usually
myself! So disconnected it!

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
....
If the "greens" have any serious ideas of affecting CO2, we'll find out shortly as the present 20+ license
applications pending at the NRC wend their way thru...

Nope, they are completely irrelevant to the success or otherwise of those applications.

Not in any reasonable sense--to make up for the generation lost by
switching away from combustion it's going to take more than your
definition of green; hence, nuclear will be a major contributor to the
reduction in greenhouse gases, specifically CO, if there is going to be
any significant reduction (or even maintaining nearly the present level)
as there simply aren't going to be enough alternative generation sources
available in time.

You can say it isn't green if you want, but it's a nonfunctional
definition for accomplishing anything.

--

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
....

I didn't see all this bs earlier so final comments...

And why not, pray tell?

Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.

We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.

That we don't currently is only owing to the shortsightedness of a
former administration that decreed the NRC would not process the
licensing application for the reprocessing facility GE was planning to
build in Barnwell, SC, area.

The same administration followed that gem w/ the cancellation of the
CRBRP demonstration project outside Oak Ridge, TN.

At my former employer, we were designing for Pu and Th reload fuel
cycles in conventional PWRs in the early to mid-'70s. Needless to say,
the above two actions precluded going further.

So, that we don't currently use breeders in commercial power generation
in the US is only a political decision, not a technical one. Also note
I didn't say we currently were breeding only that it is feasible; hence
renewable.

Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
disposal is the epitome of "green".

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

The discussion is of power generation, not population control so the
comparison is of no value.

--

In article , wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:03:28 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:
wrote:
I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend is
away from them.

Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads.
;-)


Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is no
demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.

Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature and
current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.

If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent light fixture with
an old fashioned transformer, it hardly changes power consumption at
all.

On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.

The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and the
remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed. But the
overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , SMS wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"val189" wrote in message
I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the
power
strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...
Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights, oven light, and
rip out the range hood while you're at it.

Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?

I think he's talking about electronics plugged into the strips, not the
strips themselves

Just don't turn off a power strip that has a desktop computer plugged
into it. The power supply provides +5V Standby to the motherboard's RTC
(real time clock) and CMOS RAM (which holds configuration data). When
the computer is unplugged (or during a power failure) the small,
non-rechargeable, lithium coin cell battery, maintains the RTC and CMOS
RAM. Often these are soldered in, not in a battery holder, and difficult
to replace. These batteries are not intended to supply power to the RTC
and CMOS RAM for long periods of time (unlike computers of 15 years ago
where the power supply didn't provide any power when the system was
turned off, and they used a much higher capacity battery).

My computer has an Asus A7N8X-E "deluxe" motherboard for the AMD "Athlon
XP" processor. That is maybe 5 years old. I got it the same day I got a
"3200+" processor. The battery is removable and replaceable. I have that
computer on a power strip that I often turn off.

- Don Klipstein )

Doug Miller wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Miller wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Miller wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jeff wrote

In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home
electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.

And is dubious with some of the home electronics like TVs and
computers, which just happen to be the main uses of power in
the average home even with just the home electronics.

TVs and computers are the main uses of power in the average home?

Didnt say anything like that.

I said that those are the main power users OF THE HOME ELECTRONICS.

Ummm... no, you didn't.

Yes I did.

It's right the "...TVs and computers, which just happen
to be the main uses of power in the average home ..."

Pity that had the words EVEN WITH JUST THE HOME ELECTRONICS
on the end of it, which you have just carefully deleted.

Now that may not be what you *meant* ... but it is what you *said*.

No it isnt.

Not much point in continuing to argue with someone
who denies having written his own words.

No point in bothering with a terminal ****wit that selectively
quotes what I actually did say in a desperate and flagrantly
dishonest attempt to bull**** its way out of its predicament.

Bye.

Dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out, liar.

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote

If the "greens" have any serious ideas of affecting CO2, we'll find out shortly as the present 20+ license
applications pending at the NRC wend their way thru...

Nope, they are completely irrelevant to the success or otherwise of those applications.

Not in any reasonable sense--to make up for the generation lost by switching away from combustion it's going to take
more than your definition of green;

Its not my definition, its the generally accepted use of that term.

hence, nuclear will be a major contributor to the reduction in greenhouse gases, specifically CO, if there is going to
be any significant reduction (or even maintaining nearly the present level) as there simply aren't going to be enough
alternative generation sources available in time.

Sure, but that doesnt mean that the US system will have a clue on that basic stuff.

You can say it isn't green if you want, but it's a nonfunctional definition for accomplishing anything.

It doesnt have to be called green to be able to accomplish something useful.

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote

I didn't see all this bs earlier so final comments...

It aint bull****, its fact.

And why not, pray tell?

Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.

We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.

That we don't currently is only owing to the shortsightedness of a former administration that decreed the NRC would
not process the licensing application for the reprocessing facility GE was planning to build in Barnwell, SC, area.

Nope, breeders arent used for power nukes anywhere in the world.

The same administration followed that gem w/ the cancellation of the CRBRP demonstration project outside Oak Ridge,
TN.

At my former employer, we were designing for Pu and Th reload fuel cycles in conventional PWRs in the early to
mid-'70s. Needless to say, the above two actions precluded going further.

Irrelevant to the rest of the world.

So, that we don't currently use breeders in commercial power
generation in the US is only a political decision, not a technical one.

Pity about the rest of the world.

Also note I didn't say we currently were breeding only that it is feasible; hence renewable.

Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
disposal is the epitome of "green".

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

The discussion is of power generation, not population control so the comparison is of no value.

Wrong, as always. We were discussing what constitutes green.

You havent got a clue about what that means.

Nukes are nothing like green.

They are however the best way to generate power if you care about CO2 emissions.

Rod Speed wrote:
....
Wrong, as always. We were discussing what constitutes green.
....in the context of power generation

You havent got a clue about what that means.

I know very well how it is used by certain advocates. Whether it is a
working definition is another matter. I choose to look at an entire
system rather than whether or not some label is or isn't meaningful.

You'll also note I've used "green", not green if you've been watching
carefully...

As for breeders, again I have only expounded on what is feasible (even
more so than relying on your acceptance of the conventional green
definition) as being a renewable source, not that it is presently being
used. You really need to read what is actually said rather than what
you think is said.

--


--

wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 05:42:51 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote:

wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'
Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEM PLATE=DEFAULT
Thats not nuke electricity generation.


That doesn't make a BIT of difference.

It makes a HUGE difference.

--

SMS wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"val189" wrote in message

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
the power
strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...

Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights, oven light, and
rip out the range hood while you're at it.

Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?


I think he's talking about electronics plugged into the strips, not
the strips themselves


Just don't turn off a power strip that has a desktop computer plugged
into it. The power supply provides +5V Standby to the motherboard's RTC
(real time clock) and CMOS RAM (which holds configuration data). When
the computer is unplugged (or during a power failure) the small,
non-rechargeable, lithium coin cell battery, maintains the RTC and CMOS
RAM. Often these are soldered in, not in a battery holder, and difficult
to replace. These batteries are not intended to supply power to the RTC
and CMOS RAM for long periods of time (unlike computers of 15 years ago
where the power supply didn't provide any power when the system was
turned off, and they used a much higher capacity battery).

Those little cells typically can power the clock and CMOS for a heck of
a long time; I wouldn't sweat it.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

George wrote:

Pipedown wrote:

This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be scraping
the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well at least I
hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should be getting
most of our electricity from various green sources.



"Bill" wrote in message
...

The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things
like this can add up.)

So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
the power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all
the time...




I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards
efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as driving
normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for personal
transportation. I good example of that is todays GM announcement that
they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.

I think they're closing four, but out of how many?

I still think the answer is treadmills in prisons. :-)

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

max wrote:

In article , dpb wrote:


Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.


This is the most bull**** pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever
seen.

Huh? I think he makes a valid point -- facilities must be designed for
peak demand, not average demand.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

wrote in message
Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
kitchen appliances in general. I don't need or want extra clocks
in my kitchen. The only reason my coffee maker has one is that the
coffee makers with clocks have an auto-shutoff that I consider a
safety freature. I really don't like that there are 2 LEDs on there
that do nothing of value, but stay lit all the time.

Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down and shuts if
off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use over other cooking
apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that? You could step back 20
years and put in a windup timer but I don't see any real savings there.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
wrote
Jeff wrote
wrote

I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses.
Non switching regulators typically throw away half or
more of the power. The trend is away from them.

Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads. ;-)

Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is
no demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.

Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature
and current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.

Correct.

If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent
light fixture with an old fashioned transformer,

Thats not a transformer, thats a ballast, electrically very different.

it hardly changes power consumption at all.

Wrong. Those take very little power when turned off.

Those who claim you are a fool are apparently correct.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote
wrote
wrote
Jeff wrote
wrote

I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses.
Non switching regulators typically throw away half or
more of the power. The trend is away from them.

Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads. ;-)

Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is
no demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.

Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature
and current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.

If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent light fixture with an
old fashioned transformer, it hardly changes power consumption at all.

On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.

The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and
the remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed.
But the overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.

My point was that the power consumption is not cut in
half by removing one of the tubes. If you turn on a two
tube fixture with NO tubes in it, it will draw power as well.

Nope, it doesnt with the traditional ballast that fools like you dont realise isnt a transformer.

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Being less intrusive on the environment of the OVERALL process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
disposal is the epitome of "green".

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

The discussion is of power generation, not population control so the comparison is of no value.

Wrong, as always. We were discussing what constitutes green.

...in the context of power generation

Nope, the epitomy of green wasnt.

You havent got a clue about what that means.

I know very well how it is used by certain advocates.

Thats how its used by anyone with a clue.

Whether it is a working definition is another matter.

It isnt even a definition, working or otherwise.

I choose to look at an entire system rather than whether or not some label is or isn't meaningful.

Pity nukes still arent anything like green even if you do that.

You'll also note I've used "green", not green if you've been watching carefully...

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.

As for breeders, again I have only expounded on what is feasible

It aint what is feasible that makes something green, its what is actually done that matters.

(even more so than relying on your acceptance of the conventional green definition) as being a renewable source, not
that it is presently being used.

Pity that when current power generation by nukes isnt done with breeders,
its completely silly to claim that nuke power is green, as you did.

You really need to read what is actually said rather than what you think is said.

You really need to retake Bull****ting 101.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEM PLATE=DEFAULT

Thats not nuke electricity generation.

That doesn't make a BIT of difference.

Wrong, as always.