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

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of.

You need to get out more.

There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage
by pumping water up at time of excess supply from the baseload coal
generators and return that power to the system at times of excess
demand by letting the water down again. Like the Australian Snowy
system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE Australian grid
and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.

I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage.

If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.

No,

Yep.

I simply don't equate pumped storage w/ electricity storage

Then you are just plain wrong. That is precisely what they are.

they're separate forms...

Nope.

one _uses_ the (temporarily) excess power to refill the power supply, the other would be a storage of the electric
power itself to be used later.

They are BOTH storage of electrical power to be used later.

They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no hills,
(b) no surface water.

Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.

Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains.

You never said anything about the US High Plains in that stupid claim you made that
"as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

There would have to be even more currently nonexistent transmission lines built to supply the power to somewhere there
is sufficient elevation difference and water to complete the system and that ain't within anywhere close. CO has
elevation but very little excess water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have minimal elevations. Catch-22.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have
a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea,

No one ever said it was.

that _STILL_ is an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the wind farm system

Not when its already in place to allow constant loads on
coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

Well, except it isn't...

which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.

Wrong, as always when its already in place to allow constant
loads on coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

Except it isn't...


Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.

AND it aint the only one either.

Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still ain't the same thing...

Corse it is.

Except it isn't...

--

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

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill technology do not require us to build more
fossil fuel plants, and because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to buffer their
output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of.

You need to get out more.

There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage by pumping water up at time of excess supply
from the baseload coal generators and return that power to the system at times of excess demand by letting the
water down again. Like the Australian Snowy system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE
Australian grid and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.

I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage.

If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.

No,

Yep.

I simply don't equate pumped storage w/ electricity storage

Then you are just plain wrong. That is precisely what they are.

they're separate forms...

Nope.

one _uses_ the (temporarily) excess power to refill the power supply, the other would be a storage of the electric
power itself to be used later.

They are BOTH storage of electrical power to be used later.

They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no
hills, (b) no surface water.

Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.

Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains.

You never said anything about the US High Plains in that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have a single
large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

There would have to be even more currently nonexistent transmission
lines built to supply the power to somewhere there is sufficient
elevation difference and water to complete the system and that
ain't within anywhere close. CO has elevation but very little excess
water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have minimal elevations. Catch-22.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have
a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea,

No one ever said it was.

that _STILL_ is an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the wind farm system

Not when its already in place to allow constant loads on
coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

Well, except it isn't...

It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a
single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.

And that one I listed has wind farms too.

which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.

Wrong, as always when its already in place to allow constant
loads on coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

Except it isn't...

It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a
single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.

And that one I listed has wind farms too.

Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.

AND it aint the only one either.

Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still ain't the same thing...

Corse it is.

Except it isn't...

Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that stupid claim either.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on
the High Plains where there are (a) no hills,
(b) no surface water.

Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.

Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains. There would have to be
even more currently nonexistent transmission lines built to supply the
power to somewhere there is sufficient elevation difference and water to
complete the system and that ain't within anywhere close. CO has
elevation but very little excess water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have
minimal elevations. Catch-22.

Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea, that _STILL_ is
an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the
wind farm system which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.

Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.

AND it aint the only one either.

Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still
ain't the same thing...


There's pumped storage and there's pumped storage. The kind we usually hear
about involve pumping lots of water to an elevated reservoir, and I can see
how it might not be a great choice in areas with little water. On the other
hand, there is compressed air energy storage, and last I knew, there was air
just about everywhere. Not a real widespread technology at the moment, but
there is a 110-MW system in Alabama that's been commercial since 1991.

dpb wrote:

max wrote:
...

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.


The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't
have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of.


Google "Ludington pumped storage"

Also, I didn't say wind "requires" more fossil and it can replace a
fraction of peak demand.

My point was (and still is) that one cannot build a 100(say) MWe wind
farm and expect to get 100 MWe from it in the same sense one can build
an equivalent 100 MWe of conventional (fossil or nuclear) generation.
Hence, the idea many promote that simply building wind farms eliminates
the need for conventional generation is imo even more intellectually
dishonest.

--




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

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Don Klipstein wrote:

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.

Asus is a top of the line motherboard, so you'd expect them to have a
replaceable battery. The boards sold for use in name brand computers are
decontented to save ever penny possible, literally (I used to work for a very
large Taiwanese motherboard company's U.S. office). This includes using a very
low capacity back-up battery, and soldering it in.

I've seen a lot of motherboards, and I can't remember ever seeing a soldered in
battery.

Bob F wrote:

"SMS" wrote in message
...

Don Klipstein wrote:


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.

Asus is a top of the line motherboard, so you'd expect them to have a
replaceable battery. The boards sold for use in name brand computers are
decontented to save ever penny possible, literally (I used to work for a very
large Taiwanese motherboard company's U.S. office). This includes using a very
low capacity back-up battery, and soldering it in.


I've seen a lot of motherboards, and I can't remember ever seeing a soldered in
battery.


Hi,
Some has soldered ones. Any how they last quite long time.
On mother board there are two time functions. One real time, one is
watch dog timer.

In article , Bob F wrote:

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Don Klipstein wrote:

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.

Asus is a top of the line motherboard, so you'd expect them to have a
replaceable battery. The boards sold for use in name brand computers
are decontented to save ever penny possible, literally (I used to work
for a very large Taiwanese motherboard company's U.S. office). This
includes using a very low capacity back-up battery, and soldering it in.

I've seen a lot of motherboards, and I can't remember ever seeing a soldered in
battery.

I remember seeing one out of dozens of motherboards. I forget what the
motherboard was.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , I, Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Bob F wrote:

"SMS" wrote in message
.. .
Don Klipstein wrote:

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.

Asus is a top of the line motherboard, so you'd expect them to have a
replaceable battery. The boards sold for use in name brand computers
are decontented to save ever penny possible, literally (I used to work
for a very large Taiwanese motherboard company's U.S. office). This
includes using a very low capacity back-up battery, and soldering it in.

I've seen a lot of motherboards, and I can't remember ever seeing a
soldered in battery.

I remember seeing one out of dozens of motherboards. I forget what the
motherboard was.

- Don Klipstein )

Now I think I remember: I think it was on a 486 motherboard that I got
in 1994 in a no name computer pieced together by a small computer store.

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Bob F) says...

I've seen a lot of motherboards, and I can't remember ever seeing a soldered in
battery.

Back in 8088 days, motherboards often had a rechargeable battery
soldered in. Solid state circuitry was not as efficient back then, and
a motherboard clock would quickly discharge an alkaline or silver button
battery.

Slightly earlier than that, there were no motherboard clocks. If you
wanted a system clock, it was on an expansion card.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

On Jun 1, 9:17 pm, metspitzer wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:41:55 -0700, David Nebenzahl

wrote:
On 6/1/2008 5:23 PM Rod Speed spake thus:

And if you care about what a wall wart uses, the only thing that
makes any sense at all is to replace the ones that are the dinosaur
transformer based wall warts with proper modern switch mode wall
warts instead and save virtually all of the power those use, and have
the convenience of being able to leave them plugged in all the time.

Well, yes, that would be an improvement.

One suggestion made earlier in this group was to plug your charging
devices into a power strip that has an on/off switch. (forget about
the fact that the plugs are not designed to only take up one outlet
space)

Every little bit does help, and it is the right thing to do.

I don't really think Al Gore is doing his part, but that is another
story.

Al Gore's Home Energy Use Up 10%

Since June, 2007 the former VP's personal electricity consumption was
up 10% according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

Gore's energy usage is under a microscope because of his worldwide
push to slow global climate change through energy conservation.

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours
(kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households
for a month.


More at
http://tinyurl.com/3oe8yq