On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:07:12 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


Wind power is intermittent. You can't call on it when demand needs it.

I continue to fail to see why that keeps being presented as a reason not
to use it when it _is_ there. Yes, you need 100% (or almost 100%)
alternative capacity for when the wind isn't blowing, so anyone who
_relies_ on wind is just plain daft

It's largely a matter of economics...

If you build a conventional power station you expect to get a return on
your investment based on running your generators for, plucking a figure
out of the air, 80% of the time.

If you're building backup for a wind turbine then that 80% will drop
dramatically. If it doesn't then there is no point in using wind in the
first place. But then that means it'll take much longer before the
building the backup becomes a profitable exercise. It may even get to the
point where you don't earn all your outlay back in the lifetime of the
backup itself and the only way for the backup generator to make a profit
is to essentially have it subsidised by the taxpayer.

You can have any mix of power you like... as long as you're prepared to
accept & pay for the results.

BW

In message ,
Bambleweeny57 writes:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:07:12 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


Wind power is intermittent. You can't call on it when demand needs it.

I continue to fail to see why that keeps being presented as a reason not
to use it when it _is_ there. Yes, you need 100% (or almost 100%)
alternative capacity for when the wind isn't blowing, so anyone who
_relies_ on wind is just plain daft

It's largely a matter of economics...

If you build a conventional power station you expect to get a return on
your investment based on running your generators for, plucking a figure
out of the air, 80% of the time.

If you're building backup for a wind turbine then that 80% will drop
dramatically. If it doesn't then there is no point in using wind in the
first place. But then that means it'll take much longer before the
building the backup becomes a profitable exercise. It may even get to the
point where you don't earn all your outlay back in the lifetime of the
backup itself and the only way for the backup generator to make a profit
is to essentially have it subsidised by the taxpayer.

I see where you're going, and will have to admit that _for a cold start_
(no capacity of any sort), you _might_ have a point (though see below).

However, we're not starting from a zero point - we already _have_ the
"backup" capacity. Granted, lots of it is coming to the end of its life,
especially nuclear (with the standards as currently enforced, anyway)
....

You can have any mix of power you like... as long as you're prepared to
accept & pay for the results.
[]
Indeed. (All power is free - you just have to pay someone to get at it -
such as dig it up.) But I still suspect that - for the amount where it
is likely to be generating for a significant proportion of the time,
which for the UK is likely to be a small amount of the total consumption
- it _is_ worth building at least _some_ windmills (and that "some"
equates to "more than we have so far"). At present levels of
consumption, I'd be surprised if it ever represents a significant
percentage of the whole, but I don't think that's a reason to not build
_any_. (And, strangely, the perfectly valid point that backup capacity
has to be available is _helped_ by the smallness of the proportion: you
_won't_ have _lots_ of capacity sitting idle, since the wind isn't going
to provide a _lot_ of the capacity anyway, unlike say in Denmark.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:46:30 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:



I see where you're going, and will have to admit that _for a cold start_
(no capacity of any sort), you _might_ have a point (though see below).

However, we're not starting from a zero point - we already _have_ the
"backup" capacity. Granted, lots of it is coming to the end of its life,
especially nuclear (with the standards as currently enforced, anyway)
Yes, we already have backup capacity but its already "spoken for" by a
combination of variations in load and redundant capacity to cover for
maintenance and failure. Shaving a few points off that backup capacity
just increases the scope for large scale, systematic failure.


You can have any mix of power you like... as long as you're prepared to
accept & pay for the results.
[]
Indeed. (All power is free - you just have to pay someone to get at it -
such as dig it up.) But I still suspect that - for the amount where it
is likely to be generating for a significant proportion of the time,
which for the UK is likely to be a small amount of the total consumption
- it _is_ worth building at least _some_ windmills (and that "some"
equates to "more than we have so far"). At present levels of
consumption, I'd be surprised if it ever represents a significant
percentage of the whole, but I don't think that's a reason to not build
_any_.
If it never represents a significant percentage of the whole it's only
ever going to be a distraction from the real issue of how we cater for
our energy need for the next 50 years.

(And, strangely, the perfectly valid point that backup capacity
has to be available is _helped_ by the smallness of the proportion: you
_won't_ have _lots_ of capacity sitting idle, since the wind isn't going
to provide a _lot_ of the capacity anyway, unlike say in Denmark.)

Denmark uses about 20% wind generation capacity in "in country" power.
However, it is connected to the continental European grid so it has
access to a massive source/sink to counter the variability of wind.

BW

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:46:30 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


I see where you're going, and will have to admit that _for a cold start_
(no capacity of any sort), you _might_ have a point (though see below).

However, we're not starting from a zero point - we already _have_ the
"backup" capacity. Granted, lots of it is coming to the end of its life,
especially nuclear (with the standards as currently enforced, anyway)
Yes, we already have backup capacity but its already "spoken for" by a
combination of variations in load and redundant capacity to cover for
maintenance and failure. Shaving a few points off that backup capacity
just increases the scope for large scale, systematic failure.


You can have any mix of power you like... as long as you're prepared to
accept & pay for the results.
[]
Indeed. (All power is free - you just have to pay someone to get at it -
such as dig it up.) But I still suspect that - for the amount where it
is likely to be generating for a significant proportion of the time,
which for the UK is likely to be a small amount of the total consumption
- it _is_ worth building at least _some_ windmills (and that "some"
equates to "more than we have so far"). At present levels of
consumption, I'd be surprised if it ever represents a significant
percentage of the whole, but I don't think that's a reason to not build
_any_.
If it never represents a significant percentage of the whole it's only
ever going to be a distraction from the real issue of how we cater for
our energy need for the next 50 years.

(And, strangely, the perfectly valid point that backup capacity
has to be available is _helped_ by the smallness of the proportion: you
_won't_ have _lots_ of capacity sitting idle, since the wind isn't going
to provide a _lot_ of the capacity anyway, unlike say in Denmark.)

Denmark uses about 20% wind generation capacity in "in country" power.
However, it is connected to the continental European grid so it has
access to a massive source/sink to counter the variability of wind.


for which it pays through the nose, and generates MORE carbon as a result.
BW

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:02:01 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:03:15 +0100, Derek Geldard wrote:

Not true, in fact. All radioactive isotopes decay according to their
half lives. When they're gone, they're gone.

"Half life", the period of time it takes for half of the orginal
substance to have decayed. After that time it's another equal period
for the next half to decay, still leaving you with 1/4 of the orginal
amount.

However it doesn't take many half lives for activity to decay to a
level lower than the natural background, whence it will become
undetectable - and it will still keep on decaying.

In the medical isotope industry it is reckoned that all radiactivity
may be taken to have ceased after 6 half lives. If the half life is 6
hours (TC99m) then effectively it's all gone after 36 hours and a big
dose can safely be injected into a patient for a radionuclide scan.
After 10 half lives the activity is down to about 0.5 per million of
what you started with.

If it's 12,000 years it will be rather longer, but decay it will.

An isotope also has a bilogical half life which is the rate that it
would be eliminated from the body by normal bodily functions.

Of course it depends on the substance how long the half life is, they
vary from seconds to thousands of years but most are fairly short and
the level of radiation decreases over time as well. The nature of the
radiation is important as well, alpha particles are easyly stopped
for example.

Common misconception, along with "If an isotope has a long half life
it's not very radioactive", -erm no 1 millicurie is 1 millicurie .

NB. if high energy Alpha emitting isotopes are absorbed into the body
they do tremendous damage at the cellular level because alpha
particles are electrically charged and lose all their energy over a
very short distance (hence the low penetrating capability). The most
damage is caused when a speck of alpha emitting material lodges in the
body and goes on year in year out irradiating the same tiny volume of
body tissue, cell damage leading to cancer is very likely.

This has been a discussion of "Internal contamination" hazards and the
conclusion is that humans beings should be segregated absolutely from
high level waste, Not all isotopes are dangerous and not all waste is
high level. Low level waste can be such items as disposable
laboratory gloves, aprons and overshoes and represents no hazard
whatsoever.

The green****ologists choose to confabulate internal contamination
hazards with external irradiation hazards and geting lethal doses from
the detonation of atomic weapons or criticality accidents, one or two
of which occurred in early experiments around the time of WW2 to
create the first nuclear chain reactions.


This cannot be said for some of the very unpleasant carcinogenic and
teratogenic not to say just plain poisonous chemicals in toxic wastes.

Aye, that just sit more or less for ever.
AFAIAA not one single person has died in the UK from a civil nuclear
accident. - in all time - period.

And plenty have been killed in the production of coal, oil and gas.

Coal power stations release far more radioactivity than Nuclear plant.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes:
[]
ROI is not critical if its to fight GW.
What is critical is that it saves CO2.
Wind power saves little, if any, CO2 over its expected life.
There is no issue with wind power, it just doesn't do what is required as
a solution to GW.

By CO2, you can only - in this context - mean energy.

Are you seriously saying that a windmill generates less energy in its
working life than is used in total to create, maintain, and (arguably)
decommission it?

Well they quote lifetimes of about 30 years and payback periods of about 20
years, but that assumes they work as quoted.
The actual production of existing wind generators appears to be somewhat
less than ideal.

Then there is the minor issue of backup for calm days and its associated
CO2, unless you have suddenly decided that power cuts are acceptable.
I believe that the power system is being reworked ATM to ensure the power
cuts only affect those that don't vote labour, but I may be mistaken. ;-)


If so (and it is possible), then the fact needs wider circulation. (Though
I'd want to see pretty foolproof proof.)

It also makes me wonder why people are building them; OK, subsidies and so
on, but it suggests there would never be sufficient ROI - and business
just doesn't work like that.

ROI is cash, not CO2.
If you factor in grants, rising fuel prices, etc. you can make a business
case for building them.
It does not mean that they save any CO2 over their lifetime.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:09:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:43:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Uranium for instance can be safely kept in a cardboard box under the bed.

And breathing in the radon gas is not a hazard?

You also forget that aside from the radioactive hazards of uranium,
it is a toxic metal.

Only in the same way lead is - i. e. if you eat it. I don't think many
people will be doing so. (For a start, it's a lot harder than lead.)

OK, Plutonium then.

Derek

dennis@home wrote:


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes:
[]
ROI is not critical if its to fight GW.
What is critical is that it saves CO2.
Wind power saves little, if any, CO2 over its expected life.
There is no issue with wind power, it just doesn't do what is
required as a solution to GW.

By CO2, you can only - in this context - mean energy.

Are you seriously saying that a windmill generates less energy in its
working life than is used in total to create, maintain, and (arguably)
decommission it?

Well they quote lifetimes of about 30 years and payback periods of about
20 years, but that assumes they work as quoted.
The actual production of existing wind generators appears to be somewhat
less than ideal.

Then there is the minor issue of backup for calm days and its associated
CO2, unless you have suddenly decided that power cuts are acceptable.
I believe that the power system is being reworked ATM to ensure the
power cuts only affect those that don't vote labour, but I may be
mistaken. ;-)


If so (and it is possible), then the fact needs wider circulation.
(Though I'd want to see pretty foolproof proof.)

It also makes me wonder why people are building them; OK, subsidies
and so on, but it suggests there would never be sufficient ROI - and
business just doesn't work like that.

ROI is cash, not CO2.
If you factor in grants, rising fuel prices, etc. you can make a
business case for building them.

No, not compared with nuclear. They always cost more to build, and
produce less.

They ONLY exist commercially *because they are SUBSIDISED*.



It does not mean that they save any CO2 over their lifetime.

Java Jive wrote:
I agree, it's ridiculous. This issue is discussed at some length in
Mackay's book that everyone's been quoting. One of the best short to
medium term bets seems to be hydro-electric pumped storage.


Until you actually do the numbers.

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:09:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:43:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Uranium for instance can be safely kept in a cardboard box under the bed.
And breathing in the radon gas is not a hazard?

You also forget that aside from the radioactive hazards of uranium,
it is a toxic metal.

Only in the same way lead is - i. e. if you eat it. I don't think many
people will be doing so. (For a start, it's a lot harder than lead.)

OK, Plutonium then.

Unlikely to eat that either.

Derek

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
I agree, it's ridiculous. This issue is discussed at some length in
Mackay's book that everyone's been quoting. One of the best short to
medium term bets seems to be hydro-electric pumped storage.

Many years ago, when on family holiday in Macfarlane country (family
connections) my stepfather by virtue of his position* got us shown
round Loch Sloy and the power station there, and explained that the
idea was that you used the water to cover surges in demand, and pumped
it back into the reservoir when demand was slack, eg at night.

I now see that Loch Sloy is mentioned as a potential site for this in
Mackay's book - the only thing surprising to me about that was that
I thought it was already in use for pumped storage, perhaps simply
because that was where I first heard about it.

The only Scottish pumped storage is Ben Cruachan.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Java Jive wrote:
One of the biggest legacy problems that we face from the history of
careless fossil-fuels consumption is that we're left with a
centralised grid system that works to very tight constraints. It's
difficult (but not impossible) for intermittent sources of power like
wind and sun to meet such constraints.


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.


Also wind has peculiar problems of its own ...

One of the key economic indicators for wind is the loading factor,
which, IIRC, is a measure of the percentage of time on average that
the wind will be blowing at the right sort of strength to generate.
Ideally, you want to site your windmills where the wind is constant
and predictable. The most constant and predictable places are the
north and west coasts where the prevailing wind comes straight off the
Atlantic. But most people live in the South and East of the country,
so grid losses are then a significant factor.

Also, with offshore and inshore wind, some of the machinery has had to
be replaced as manufacturers hadn't factored in the corrosive power of
salt laden air sufficiently into some designs.

Also, we need a hell of a lot of wind farms if that is all we intend
to rely on, more than most people would consider as an acceptable
'blot on the landscape', and we'd need to build them very, very
quickly, but IIRC the only UK manufacturer has just closed.

Nevertheless, we should certainly be doing what we can with wind.

No we shouldn't. Its like saying 'well we cant gold plate everything,
but we ought to gold plate as much as we can'

When we dont need gold plate at all.

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.


Quite a few remote areas in the Highlands & Islands rely quite a lot
on wind, I think some exclusively or almost so, so it can be done.


I dont think anyone relies on wind.

Its unreliable.

Java Jive wrote:
I note that yet again you provide no supporting evidence for your
assertions.

Mackay p168/178: "nuclear power’s price is dominated by the cost of
power-station construction and decommissioning, not by the cost of the
fuel."


Correct. That's what I said.

As power-station construction is in the immediate future, it's cost
can be reasonably accurately estimated although ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...r.nuclearpower

"""
Much has been made by the nuclear industry of the new reactor,
Olkiluoto 3, being built by French construction giant, Bouygues
Travaux Publics, some 155 miles north west of Helsinki in Finland
(next to two other reactors built in 1978 and 1980) as a model for the
nuclear energy renaissance they would like to see develop globally.
But the reactor has had serious problems in construction, with
concrete and welding problems, as well as a serious fire, with the
result that it is already two years behind schedule. This is bad news
for the showcase 1,600 MW EPR (European pressurised prototype
reactor), which is based on a design concept developed by nuclear
giant Areva, a Franco-German consortium formed by Framatome ANP and
Siemens. Olkiuoto 3's original budget of £2.5bn has already overrun by
an extra £1bn.
"""


Still cheaper than windmills.

... however, decommissioning will take place in the fairly distant
future, so it true cost cannot be accurately estimated. Who is going
to pay for it? Currently UK decommissioning is paid for by the
taxpayer.


Thats because the stations were built 50 years ago.

Modern stations are REQUIRED to leave 15% in some form of guaranteed
fund for decommissioning, that being the approximate cost.

They ONLY exist commercially *because they are SUBSIDISED*.

The same article itemises other examples of hidden subsidies and ends:

"""
Back in Britain, in the September edition of Prospect, Tom Burke,
formerly executive director at Friends of the Earth, pens a
excoriating critique of the optimism of the nuclear sector that an
atomic renaissance is within their grasp. He wrote:


well he would, wouldn't he?

You shouldl see the lies that greenies tell in Mackays book, assuming
you actually have read it, rather than cherry picked the bits that at
first glance appear to suit your arguments.


The government has pledged that there will be no subsidies for new
nuclear construction. But this was never credible,

It has not and will not subsidise it. Its sold British energy - or its
stake in it - to EDF. EDF will build stations without any subnsidies.


and it is already
possible to detect signs of retreat. In 2006 the government bravely
promised to 'make sure that the full costs of new nuclear waste are
paid by the market'. By 2008 this had mutated into the more nuanced:
'The government will [set] a fixed unit price [for] waste disposal at
the time when approvals for the station are given.' This effectively
caps the costs of nuclear waste disposal to the operator and transfers
the risk of cost overruns on to the taxpayer.


More snide lies from the green****ers.

How MUCH are the scottish windpower lobby expecting te ENGLISH taxzpayer
to spend ion national grid extensions so their unwanted intermittent
power can be carried to English consumers at 3 times the price of
nuclear power?

EVERY time a windmill turns, you spend a penny on the electricity, and
tuppence on taxes to get it to you.


Burke concludes: "It is hard to argue that this is not a subsidy."
"""


Thats rich. EVERTYTHING about windpower is a subsidy.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:38:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Only in a few places does geography favour you and allow cost effective
pumped storage to work.

I dont know of an and I cant think of any possible new sites.

Obviously the head of water needs to be up a mountain.

The lake at Dinorwic was built in a disused quarry.

A disused quarry on top of a mountain, that's something everyday you
don't see. And how many of these did you say we would need ?

Total reliqance on renewables would have an impact on the landscape more
or less akin to that which happened when the ice age retreated and
humans settled here and totally deforested the place. It would be
industrialisation of the landscape on a scale so massive it would be
completely unrecognisable. Forget trees, wilderness and beauty spots.
The whole landscape would be covered with power grids, windmills, solar
panels and every mountain would have to have a lake and a dam.

David reckons ten percent of the land area would need to be covered with
SOMETHING. at 100% efficiency.


All such "Wastelands" currently have a sparse population eeking out a
miserable,very basic existence, but surviving.

What incentive could we conceivably offer them for them to accept all
this crap electrical generating hardware, when all they have by way of
compensation is a beautiful unspoiled environment, so that we in the
cities 300 -600 miles away can live comfortable (nay luxurious) lives
with 9 to 5 desk jobs in "marketing" with electric cars and electric
central heating with air conditioning.

Now currently 23% of te land is used for agriculture. So what happens
when another 20% goes to develop power generation?

Or 100 nuclear power stations on coats and estuaries. Yup, we can
deliver electricity to supply the whole countries TOTAL energy needs
with 100 large nuclear power stations.

You tell me which makes more sense.


What would have made more sense would have been for the politicians
not to have paddled us up this **** creek to keep green**** and the
other ultra lefties happy for the sake of clutching on to their vote
as a drowning man would clutch at a straw ...

Derek

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
Mackay again, p197/210

Denmark's solution

Here's how Denmark copes with the intermittency of its wind power. The
Danes effectively pay to use other countries' hydroelectric facilities
as storage facilities. Almost all of Denmark's wind power is exported
to its European neighbours, some of whom have hydroelectric power,
which they can turn down to balance things out. The saved
hydroelectric power is then sold back to the Danes (at a higher price)
during the next period of low wind and high demand. Overall, Danish
wind is contributing useful energy, and the system as a whole has
considerable security thanks to the capacity of the hydro system.

How do you know they're only buying hydro power?

Bill

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.

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:38:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Only in a few places does geography favour you and allow cost effective
pumped storage to work.

I dont know of an and I cant think of any possible new sites.

Obviously the head of water needs to be up a mountain.

The lake at Dinorwic was built in a disused quarry.

A disused quarry on top of a mountain, that's something everyday you
don't see. And how many of these did you say we would need ?

Total reliqance on renewables would have an impact on the landscape more
or less akin to that which happened when the ice age retreated and
humans settled here and totally deforested the place. It would be
industrialisation of the landscape on a scale so massive it would be
completely unrecognisable. Forget trees, wilderness and beauty spots.
The whole landscape would be covered with power grids, windmills, solar
panels and every mountain would have to have a lake and a dam.

David reckons ten percent of the land area would need to be covered with
SOMETHING. at 100% efficiency.


All such "Wastelands" currently have a sparse population eeking out a
miserable,very basic existence, but surviving.

What incentive could we conceivably offer them for them to accept all
this crap electrical generating hardware, when all they have by way of
compensation is a beautiful unspoiled environment, so that we in the
cities 300 -600 miles away can live comfortable (nay luxurious) lives
with 9 to 5 desk jobs in "marketing" with electric cars and electric
central heating with air conditioning.

Now currently 23% of te land is used for agriculture. So what happens
when another 20% goes to develop power generation?

Or 100 nuclear power stations on coats and estuaries. Yup, we can
deliver electricity to supply the whole countries TOTAL energy needs
with 100 large nuclear power stations.

You tell me which makes more sense.


What would have made more sense would have been for the politicians
not to have paddled us up this **** creek to keep green**** and the
other ultra lefties happy for the sake of clutching on to their vote
as a drowning man would clutch at a straw ...


It all goes back to the Cold War. Soviet money went into trying to
disaffect populations from governments to halt the nuclear weapons
campaign. CND was one way or another, an organisation funded by the
Soviets to make everybody so scared of nuclear anything that they would
be the only ones left with a Bomb.

So its ingrained in the Left, who used to be funded by the same place,
that a weak defenceless country, without any nuclear power stations that
could breed plutonium, was what was the ideal society should be.

Put like that, it wasn't a message that could be sold, so a campaign of
fear, uncertainty and doubt was launched against everything nuclear.

The result, alongside the essentially soviet style government we have
today, is what was desired..long after it was desired by the Soviets.

They no longer care, apart from ensuring we need lots of cheap gas to
back up windmills.

Green**** and to an extent FOE and things like the Animal Rights
movement are simply the logical descendants of those sorts of movements
and people.

More or less well meaning but very naive people, who believe a bunch of
lies pushed down at them by some very cynical people, and some utter
fanatics, to whom the truth is simply what people can be persuaded to
believe.


It wasn't worth risking confronting them with nuclear energy, so it got
dropped from the political agenda. At the price of capital vis a vis the
cost of coal, oil and gas, it wasn't cost effective anyway.

Now the supplies of coal oil and gas are scarcer, the world is competing
with the West on price, and CO2 is coming back to haunt us, it suddenly
becomes the best option.

BUT the history of FUD is still in peoples minds. There is no rational
case against nuclear power, but there is a huge IRRATIONAL one. There is
no rational case FOR windmills, but there is a huge irrational one.

Its sold as a 'back to nature' clean power. Its anything but. Its
industrialisation of the landscape on a scale that has never been
attempted. Its unbelievably inefficient of manpower and physical
resources. But its proponents seek to make those its BENEFITS fer chrissake.






Derek

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

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.

No it really happened - but the story only briefly mentions the "back up
diesel generation".

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Java Jive wrote:
Mackay again, p197/210

Denmark’s solution

Here’s how Denmark copes with the intermittency of its wind power. The
Danes effectively pay to use other countries’ hydroelectric facilities
as storage facilities. Almost all of Denmark’s wind power is exported
to its European neighbours, some


SOME. Not all. David is as guilty here as those he points out elsewhere
who mix their facts to get the desired effect.

All that means is tht the rest of Europe is subsidising Denmark (nothing
new there, then) so they can look smug and claim to be greener than
thou, as usual.


of whom have hydroelectric power,
which they can turn down to balance things out.

That's not a very good way of getting your ROI on a hydro scheme is it?

Having it doing nothing whilst you buy expensive electricity over long
transmissions lines from Denmark. Now we see the fundamental hypocrisy
in your position. Windpower it seems DOES need long lossy lines after
all, when you claimed in your last post that this was one of its
advantages, Local generation.



The saved
hydroelectric power is then sold back to the Danes (at a higher price)
during the next period of low wind and high demand. Overall, Danish
wind is contributing useful energy, and the system as a whole has
considerable security thanks to the capacity of the hydro system.


As I said, David never did the sums on cost benefit or efficiency: His
basic starting point was technical feasibility.

He is a physicist. I am an engineer.

And engineer, is as Neville Shute once remarked 'a man who can do for
sixpence what any damned fool can do for a quid' or words to that effect.

On a level playing field, windpower is uneconomic., nuclear power is
very economic.

The field is tilted way against nuclear and way pro wind, that's all.

No one wants to invest in a technology that is subject to 100 times
higher safety standards than any other, whose very existence can be
placed in doubt at a political whim, and where a rabble of the Great
Unwashed can be relied upon to make it almost impossible to construct.

Or extract huge penalties from it whilst handing them to windmills.

charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

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.

No it really happened - but the story only briefly mentions the "back up
diesel generation".


I didn' mena it hadn't happened. I meant the way it was reported.."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"

Should have read "to possessing one that the rest of us are still
struggling to avoid"

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:54:16 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

As I understand it, most or their wind e goes to Norway and Sweden at
time of surplus, and they get back hydro e at time of low wind output.

But this is precisely the problem. Denmark's windpower does not work on
its own. It has to have storage and/or backup generation to keep the
lights on. That backup is mainly outside Denmark (Norway & Sweden as you
helpfully point out).

On that basis you cannot look at Denmark in isolation and use their
windpower as a model for others - you have to look at entire grid they
are part of.

BW

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

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.

No it really happened - but the story only briefly mentions the "back up
diesel generation".


I didn' mena it hadn't happened. I meant the way it was reported.."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"

Should have read "to possessing one that the rest of us are still
struggling to avoid"

but, in their isolated position, it's probably a sensible way to go. They
aren't using electricity to power factories - only a few homes. The
alternative was to have the ferry bringing drums of diesel every day.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article ,
Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:54:16 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

As I understand it, most or their wind e goes to Norway and Sweden at
time of surplus, and they get back hydro e at time of low wind output.

But this is precisely the problem. Denmark's windpower does not work on
its own. It has to have storage and/or backup generation to keep the
lights on. That backup is mainly outside Denmark (Norway & Sweden as you
helpfully point out).


and Germany, too

On that basis you cannot look at Denmark in isolation and use their
windpower as a model for others - you have to look at entire grid they
are part of.

BW

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
In message , Richard Tobin
writes:
In article , J. P. Gilliver
(John) wrote:

(Remember, of course, that all elements are radioactive, and have a
half life. It's just that most have such long half lives that we don't
normally _consider_ them radioactive.)

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

That is, for there being no completely stable isotopes?

-- Richard

Hmm, I thought I had, but on further investigation, it seems I'm
probably wrong - though I would argue that "stable" is not the same as
"has never been seen to decay".

Actually, it follows from the standard view of Quantum Mechanics that no
type of nucleus can be absolutely 'stable' - i.e. we can't guarantee it
will never 'decay' into something else. The point here is that any energy
bound system has an ongoing chance of suddenly parting due to QM effects.
Think of it as one part of the nucleus QM 'tunnelling' its way out of the
energy well/barrier of the system.

IIUC The only nominal exception as a nucleus is the hydrogen nucleus as it
is a single proton. But it is argued that even protons should sometimes
decay.

But as you say, in practice when the chance is very low, then the isotope
is assumed stable as the relevant long 'half llfe' values are meaninglessly
long for all practical purposes and may not have been measureable.

You can probably find a discussion of this in books on QM or nuclear
physics. But I dunno as I haven't had to read one in years! :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Derek Geldard
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:02:01 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:


Of course it depends on the substance how long the half life is, they
vary from seconds to thousands of years but most are fairly short and
the level of radiation decreases over time as well. The nature of the
radiation is important as well, alpha particles are easyly stopped for
example.

Common misconception, along with "If an isotope has a long half life
it's not very radioactive", -erm no 1 millicurie is 1 millicurie .

It may be even a more common misconception to confuse the millicurie with a
unit of mass. :-)

Yes, 1 millicurie is 1 millicurie. But if one isotope has a half life
billions of times lower than another, then one gram of one of them would
have to be matched with many tons of the other (all at a similar distance
to you) to irradiate you with the same number of particles per time.

How many milllicuries does the Earth contain? Does the large number of the
answer mean we must all leave the Earth immediately because we are being
fried? :-)

The reality is that we are surrounded with large amounts of materials with
very long half lives. Including our own bodies.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:54:16 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

As I understand it, most or their wind e goes to Norway and Sweden at
time of surplus, and they get back hydro e at time of low wind output.

But this is precisely the problem. Denmark's windpower does not work on
its own. It has to have storage and/or backup generation to keep the
lights on. That backup is mainly outside Denmark (Norway & Sweden as you
helpfully point out).

On that basis you cannot look at Denmark in isolation and use their
windpower as a model for others - you have to look at entire grid they
are part of.


Which study was done and at lest one antagonist concluded there was a
net *increase* in CO2 emissions on account of Denmark being so keen on wind.


That's why I am desperate to remove ALL power subsidies, and restrictive
penalties, and simply tax carbon fuels: that way the lowest cost
solutions will be the lowest carbon ones.

I bet you would find windpower still could not compete with carbon fuels
then. And certainly not nuclear.




BW

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:05:21 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:


Last time I looked, nuclear, gas, and coal were only around 30%
efficient at turning steam into electricity.


Current (new) stations are much better.

Derek

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
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.

2) Relatively few large scale technologies are used, making them
difficult to replace with alternatives.

Lets get this right, you think that it was wrong to reduce our past CO2
emissions by building big, efficient power stations?
You think we should have had lots of small inefficient power stations
scattered about with no grid to cover them for faults and overloads?
Are you sure that is what you meant?

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:10:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
snip
Last time I looked, nuclear, gas, and coal were only around 30%
efficient at turning steam into electricity.


But what you have to remember is literary tones of unused (thank god)
weapons grade uranium and plutonium has been manufactured at great
cost to the taxpayers of the USA and Russia over the last 60 years
that's now available for years of power generation

It's the biggest army surplus sale in history

Steve Terry

In message , "dennis@home"
writes:
[]
Are you seriously saying that a windmill generates less energy in its
working life than is used in total to create, maintain, and (arguably)
decommission it?

Well they quote lifetimes of about 30 years and payback periods of
about 20 years, but that assumes they work as quoted.

I assume that's payback in money, not CO2. (Though I'm not sure which
way that moves this discussion!)

The actual production of existing wind generators appears to be
somewhat less than ideal.

Same for all technologies, of course - certainly nuclear seem to have
more downtime than was expected, though how much of that is due to the
stringency of safety regulations is [endlessly )-:] debatable. We don't
often _hear_ about the down time of coal, oil, and gas stations, but I'd
be very dubious of any claims that it's negligible! If anything, I would
expect it to be _somewhat_ lower, simply because we've been making them
the longest, but even there there are new technologies to be tried
(fluidised beds?), such that unexpected breakdowns will still happen.

Then there is the minor issue of backup for calm days and its
associated CO2, unless you have suddenly decided that power cuts are
acceptable.
I believe that the power system is being reworked ATM to ensure the
power cuts only affect those that don't vote labour, but I may be
mistaken. ;-)

(-: I fear we are going to have power cuts in the near future - 5-15
years? And I suspect that, once we've had a few of those, public
opposition to windfarms, nuclear stations, tidal barrages, and even
carbon-bad stations (i. e. more coal-fired ones), will largely evaporate
- though it will be too late, of course.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
[]
EVERY time a windmill turns, you spend a penny on the electricity, and
tuppence on taxes to get it to you.

I may, but someone on Egg may not ...

Burke concludes: "It is hard to argue that this is not a subsidy."
"""

I _think_ the post you snipped that from was talking about nuclear at
that point; IIRR it was something to do with Thorpe.


Thats rich. EVERTYTHING about windpower is a subsidy.

I fear the anti-windies are as bad as the pro-windies: complete dislike
(which, I must say, seems to actually approach hate) of wind is as daft
as relying on it. There are certainly places where it is worth doing:
Egg, as discussed, previously had to import diesel by ferry. Of course,
they still do, and they still have to keep the diesel station in working
order - but they have to import _less_ diesel. For them, where the
transport costs of importing the alternative are relatively high (and
where it's fairly windy most of the time), wind is certainly worth
doing. For how much of the rest of the country it is viable, we can
argue endlessly - but to say that it is none, seems at least unwise.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , Java Jive
writes:
[]
Also, we need a hell of a lot of wind farms if that is all we intend
to rely on, more than most people would consider as an acceptable

How many times do we have to say this: WE ARE NOT GOING TO RELY ON IT AS
THE ONLY SOURCE.

'blot on the landscape', and we'd need to build them very, very
quickly, but IIRC the only UK manufacturer has just closed.

See previous post on how quickly people's minds will change (not just as
regards wind) once they've had a few power cuts (I don't just mean the
odd here and there, I mean for a week or two). Not that I think there'd
be a lot of point in _many_ places inland putting up windmills - only on
hilltops, really (where, of course, they are the worst eyesore, I know).

Nevertheless, we should certainly be doing what we can with wind.
Quite a few remote areas in the Highlands & Islands rely quite a lot
on wind, I think some exclusively or almost so, so it can be done.

Well, I hope not exclusively, or they'll have some nasty surprises ...
(I don't think there are anywhere near enough suitable places to build
pumped-storage to take out the lulls).
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

(Remember, of course, that all elements are radioactive, and have a
half life. It's just that most have such long half lives that we don't
normally _consider_ them radioactive.)

[...]

Actually, it follows from the standard view of Quantum Mechanics that no
type of nucleus can be absolutely 'stable' - i.e. we can't guarantee it
will never 'decay' into something else.

That's not what "radioactive" means.

IIUC The only nominal exception as a nucleus is the hydrogen nucleus as it
is a single proton.

If you consider such reactions, then nucleii can fuse as well as
split. Since iron (mass 56) has the most energetically favourable
configuration, the universe will eventually tend to iron, not
hydrogen.

But it is argued that even protons should sometimes decay.

In the standard model, protons don't decay. In some theories they
do, but there is as yet no evidence for that.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In message ,
Bambleweeny57 writes:
[]
Yes, we already have backup capacity but its already "spoken for" by a
combination of variations in load and redundant capacity to cover for
maintenance and failure. Shaving a few points off that backup capacity
just increases the scope for large scale, systematic failure.
[]
If it never represents a significant percentage of the whole it's only
ever going to be a distraction from the real issue of how we cater for
our energy need for the next 50 years.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, on the earlier area: I
think a small amount is worth having, and because it _is_ such a smaller
amount, the threat it poses to the stability of the rest is small -
it'll just mean the rest of the system will use slightly less fuel for
some of the time.

On the second point, we are definitely in agreement: since there's no
way wind is going to contribute more than a few per cent, we definitely
have to give our attention to where the rest is going to come from. (As
I see it, in the medium term - the rest of my lifetime, roughly - for
this country, nuclear is going to be at least a significant part. That
and carbon-based sources!) As for wind, it might be a distraction, but
conversely it might also help concentrate people's mind on the problem:
most people are not thinking about it enough (or at all in most cases).
There's no real way to know.

(And, strangely, the perfectly valid point that backup capacity
has to be available is _helped_ by the smallness of the proportion: you
_won't_ have _lots_ of capacity sitting idle, since the wind isn't going
to provide a _lot_ of the capacity anyway, unlike say in Denmark.)

Denmark uses about 20% wind generation capacity in "in country" power.
However, it is connected to the continental European grid so it has
access to a massive source/sink to counter the variability of wind.
[]
Another poster has said that, however, they have scaled back their
alternative capacity to the point where they _have_ to import (and just
_hope_ there is someone to sell to them) when it's not windy enough.
Whether this is so, I don't know.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:41:24 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Ok, it was a good few years ago when I last looked. Source? Numbers?

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:30:44 +0100, Derek Geldard
wrote:

Current (new) stations are much better.


Drax will be Ca 40% by 2011

http://www.draxgroup.plc.uk/corporate_responsibility/climatechange/efficiency/


It is claimed that CHP can increase productive heat usage by another
18%

http://www.ice.org.uk/downloads//heat_report.pdf

Although I actually had gas fired combined cycle steam turbine
stations in mind such as Glanford Brigg

http://www.ice.org.uk/downloads//heat_report.pdf

New coal burning technology claims 47% already achieved and 55%
possible. This and more here :

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/documents/biee_2005_paper_-_watson_-_final.pdf

Derek

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:43:55 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The reality is that we are surrounded with large amounts of materials
with very long half lives. Including our own bodies.

Apparently people born in the 1950s have a higher level of carbon-14
in their bodies than the rest of the population.

In message , John
Rumm writes:
[]
That was true. The design has evolved since however. As luck would
have it, it turns out that ring circuits are very well suited to
modern usage patterns.
Would you care to elaborate on that? (Not disagreeing: just
curious.)
[]

The design evolving, or being well suited to modern usage?

Sorry, I meant the latter.
[]
In terms of suitability for current use; modern use (outside of the
kitchen anyway) is typified by large numbers of lowish power devices
scattered about. A few higher power items used intermittently. Its what
is known as a highly diverse load. Which is a statistical way of
looking at it and saying that although the peak load may massively
exceed the circuit capacity, reality will mean that you never use the
peak capacity (i.e. every appliance on at once).

(Bit like traffic capacity on telecomm.s systems - Erlangs and the
like.) Yes, I would say the vast majority (outside the kitchen/utility
room, as you say) of consumption in the modern home probably comes to
well under a kW on any one circuit most of the time, and in fact - I
hadn't thought of this until now - the power consumed in the power
circuit will be comparable to that in the lighting circuit. (At least
while there are lots of filament bulbs left.) Few people use _any_
high-current appliances apart from cooking and washing; the most is
likely to be power tools _used for a short time_, and the _occasional_
use of a fan heater or similar. (With exceptions such as when drying out
after a flood, and the like - which is likely to require alternative
supplies anyway as the house ones would be compromised.)

Hence what you need are lots of socket outlets, spread over a wide
area, with enough current capacity to supply the low level background
mix of things, plus a handful of larger intermittent loads dotted

(To merge with another thread - things that certainly don't need BS1363
plugs. Though if the gentleman with the oriental-sounding name gets his
folding one off the ground ... though they'll still be bulky.)

about. A modern ring can cover 100m^2 of floor area, and will
frequently have 20 or more double sockets. It can feed a sustained load
of 7kW, or peak well above that for short durations without sustaining
any cable damage or tripping its protective device. Its also easier to
wire (thinner cable) than an equivalent radial, and handles the most
common failure modes of a circuit "better" than a radial.

I think the "easier to wire (thinner cable)" is probably one of the best
things in its favour.

Care still needs to be exercised to choose the right circuit though for
the application, and to plan the layout. No point installing a ring for
example if you are powering a large number of long term fixed loads
that will use 90% of the circuit capacity all the time, or if you are
going to end up with most of the high current appliances all lumped
right at one end of it.

Exactly. It is the "one size fits all" aspect that bugs me - enshrined
in regulations that more or less insist on a ring for any substantial
new build.


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:26:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Zero Tolerance
writes:
Osram 15w (75w equiv) - 900 lumens
Philips 20w (100w equiv) - 1200 lumens

Bloggs 60W (60W equivalent - i. e. a filament bulb) - ? lumens?

Somewhere between 700-900 lumens, according to the first page of a
(not necessarily particularly scientific) google search.

--

In message , Zero Tolerance
writes:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:26:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Zero Tolerance
writes:
Osram 15w (75w equiv) - 900 lumens
Philips 20w (100w equiv) - 1200 lumens

Bloggs 60W (60W equivalent - i. e. a filament bulb) - ? lumens?

Somewhere between 700-900 lumens, according to the first page of a
(not necessarily particularly scientific) google search.

Thanks for that - useful to know. (And suggests the Osram claim above is
probably on the optimistic side.)

Now, let's get those figures onto the box, with equal prominence to the
consumption figure.

(We could even have a "lumens per watt" figure, but I think just the two
- lumens and watts - should be the prominent ones.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:43:55 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The reality is that we are surrounded with large amounts of materials
with very long half lives. Including our own bodies.

Apparently people born in the 1950s have a higher level of carbon-14
in their bodies than the rest of the population.

That's why they weigh more.

Bill