On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:37:31 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

A 150W halogen on a PIR or two is much better, it wastes less energy, it
is brighter, it is whiter, and you can see intruders as it goes from
dark to light suddenly.

Intruders that then run off and hide the deep shadow outside of the
brightly lit area from the halogen... "Security" lighting is no good
if it gives people places to hide, you either need to light up the
entire area to the same high level or just have low level light so
they can be seen but there are no deep shadows to hide in.

Work/play lighting is different but a single source bright isn't good
for that as you get the deep shadows when you have the light level
high enough to be useful.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:37:31 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"charles" wrote in message
. ..


But a 150W halogen lamp would actually suffice for many. Our back garden
is amply lit by one - stays on for maybe a couple of minutes as needed.
Others in the area light similarly sized gardens with 500W left on for
hours/all night.

"but a 150w halogen"? Why not use a 40w sodium? We use two in our
Village
Hall car park.

Because you can't turn the sodium lights off and on quickly so the silly
buggers leave them on all the time causing light pollution and wasting
energy.
A 150W halogen on a PIR or two is much better, it wastes less energy, it is
brighter, it is whiter, and you can see intruders as it goes from dark to
light suddenly.

And they light all the cats' noctural travels. You wouldn't want poor
kitty to **** in your garden in the dark?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:37:31 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

A 150W halogen on a PIR or two is much better, it wastes less energy, it
is brighter, it is whiter, and you can see intruders as it goes from
dark to light suddenly.

Intruders that then run off and hide the deep shadow outside of the
brightly lit area from the halogen... "Security" lighting is no good
if it gives people places to hide, you either need to light up the
entire area to the same high level or just have low level light so
they can be seen but there are no deep shadows to hide in.

Security lighting is no good if you are so used to it being on you don't
look.
With the PIR you know something has set it off and it will come on again as
soon as they move.


Work/play lighting is different but a single source bright isn't good
for that as you get the deep shadows when you have the light level
high enough to be useful.

You only get deep shadows if you put the light in the wrong place, if its at
head height near where you stand you won't see any shadows, pretty well like
holding your torch next to your ear.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:50:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Galloway Hydro Electric Scheme 106.5 MW
Better. But still no banana.

But better than the 150+ wind turbines that would be required
scattered across the country to even have a hope of providing that
amount of power more or less 24/7.


Quite.
Hydro is great when it can be done. Mostly, in this country, it cant.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:05:41 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

So you'd advise me to cut our the heavy drinking?

For the sake of your liver.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:06:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

... and our total energy needs as a country running at an
estimated
300GW,

FACT: Our current electricity consumption is 46 GW.

FFS read what is written. "total energy needs as a country".

Electricity production is only a small fraction of the total energy
consumed by the country. I suspect the biggest consumer is transport
and that is virtually all powered by fossil fuel.

Top posting is a PITA and your .sig is broken.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:11:46 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Yet I post much less nonsense than you ... Perhaps it's because I have
a 1st Class Hons in Maths ...


Nah.

You should have gone to "Leeds Metropolitan University". You could
have studied something useful and got a Ist class Honours degree in
"International Hospitality Management" there (Pizza-ology to you). or
Croydon and done "Geography with Dance".

Derek

John Rumm wrote:


A 150W linear halogen is not a straight replacement in a 500W fitting
alas - the bulb is shorter.


I seem to remember that there are direct replacement 150W halogen tubes
(though the 'default' 150W lamps are shorter at 78mm). Indeed (now I
search) there are - e.g.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/LATH150L.html

Also, 200W and 300W options at the same 117mm size. (And I see 100W 78mm
lamps - which would do me if I need to get a new lamp sometime.)

--
Rod

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:06:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

... and our total energy needs as a country running at an
estimated
300GW,
FACT: Our current electricity consumption is 46 GW.

FFS read what is written. "total energy needs as a country".


we know he cant do sums. Now we know he cant read either.

Electricity production is only a small fraction of the total energy
consumed by the country. I suspect the biggest consumer is transport
and that is virtually all powered by fossil fuel.

Top posting is a PITA and your .sig is broken.


And he doesn't know how to use usenet either.

Java Jive wrote:
Which is misleading as everyone else is talking about electricity
consumption.


Oh you poor thing.

Everybody patently is not.

John Rumm wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

FACT: Our current electricity consumption is 46 GW, not 300GW

Could you clarify what you mean by that exactly?

IIUC, our total annual electricity production (including nett imports)
is something just under 400GWh[1].

Oops, sorry, make that TWh!

[1]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=uk+electric
http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes5_2.xls




This is mor epertinetnt
http://www.nce.co.uk/home/energy/mix...995144.article

"The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Berr’s
Energy Market Outlook published in December 2008 estimates that 47GW of
new capacity would need to be built by 2020. This represents about 57%
of current total capacity and requires an average new capacity
deployment rate of roughly 4GW per year. This level of power
construction has only ever been achieved three times: in 1967 when 5.6
GW of new capacity was commissioned; in 1971 when 4.7GW was commissioned
and in 1974 when 4.24GW of capacity came onstream. “A sustained period
of new build at this rate represents a significant challenge,” says the
report. “It is possible that supply chain constraints will act as a
barrier to the market’s ability to deliver this amount of new
construction.”#

Hard to reconcile with "FACT: Our current electricity consumption is
46 GW"

Unless he means right now on a warm early autimnm day with everyone down
the pub, and no TV's switched on, its dipped to its annual low.

somewhere someone posted a link to the actual instantaneous frequency
and power being drawn off the grid. I couldn't find it tho.


Oh I did.

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Elect...d/Demand60.htm

Along with a host of other things like the grid having to build £3bn
worth of infrastructure so windpower can be effectively used.

Something like a 10% surcharge on all green electricity.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:50:26 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Your own contributions to this thread have not exactly been notable
for scientific accuracy ...

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.

You are saying that's not correct ?

When they're gone, they're gone.

That also is absolutely correct, although I was quoted out of context.
When the last atom has disintegrated - it's gone.

The comment was made in the context of the green ****ers constant
attempt to confabulate what's left after 6, 60, or 600 or however many
half lives by stating "it's still radioactive", "it's still there".

It's not. After a small number of half lives (in medical and lab
applications usually taken to be 6) it will have decayed below the
level at which it can be detected or can interact with human tissue in
any way. For all intents and purposes it may as well be regarded as
"gone", and "gone" ulimately it will be.

Naturally radioactivity in reactor or weapons quantities will take
longer to decay , but by the same token is easier to detect and to
protect. You are not going to find someone on the Clapham Omnibus
carrying a few curies of weapons grade uranium in a bucket.

Is English not your first language ?


On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:06:43 +0100, Derek Geldard
wrote:

You should have gone to "Leeds Metropolitan University". You could
have studied something useful and got a Ist class Honours degree in
"International Hospitality Management" there (Pizza-ology to you). or
Croydon and done "Geography with Dance".


Are you saying this is also is also incorrect ?

Hint: it is not incorrect.

You may not like it but it is absolutely correct.

http://www.whatuni.com/degrees/courses/Postgraduate-details/International-Hospitality-Management-MSc-PgDip-PgCert-course-details/31696026/5257/cdetail.html


http://snipurl.com/wazzock [www_whatuni_com]

That's the MSc course BTW. ;-)

Derek

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:01:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I am getting pretty bored with your inability to do maths, read and
maintain logical argument, do honest research without speciously
introducing straw men at every turn.

But,

- world uranium output is what it is because no more is currently
needed. There is plenty more there.The use of CURRENT production to
imply a limit on FUTURE production is basically worthy only of a
green****er or politician.


-300GW is a figure obtained by taking the governments figures for total
energy consumption, and multiplying it by appropriate efficiency figures
to map it into putative electrical generation figures. Its pretty much
the same as taking the current peak electrical demand and dividing it by
the 27% or so of energy that is actually currently used to generate
electrical power. I.e. we need ABOUT 4 times the current generating
capacity to eliminate fossil fuels from everything we do. Now whereas
windmillers like to take peak output and map that to percentage of
current electrical generation, handily neglecting the fact that
electrical generation is only about 1/4 of what we burn CO2 wise, and
windmills never operate at their peak for long, I actually am trying to
sole an energy supply problem. Not win contracts for windmills. The lot
has to go. All fossil fuel, apart from stuff that simply cant be done in
any other way. Mainly military and aircraft use.

Thereby making us strategically independent of oil and gas producing
countries.

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.


And with a little stockpiling able to be self sufficient for a lot
longer than we are with no gas or oil or coal now, and would ever be
with windmills, which require a LOT if imported materials to construct them.


The state that this goverment has got this country into, out of
incompetance and rthe need to placate the lily-livered lefties
because they need their vote, I seriously doubt we could maintain a
country full of windmills because we don't have the capability to make
the replacement parts inside the country if ever the chips were down.

Derek

On 2009-09-28, Java Jive wrote:
Thank you John. As you are being polite ...

My sig is like it is for a reason, but tell me what you'd like changed
and I'll see whether I can agree.

If you fix your sigsep (see other posts), all you need to do
is stop top posting, and you might get out of my killfile
(not that I expect being in it would bother you unduly).

--
David Taylor

In article ,
John Rumm writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Would you care to elaborate on that? (Not disagreeing: just curious.)
[]

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

Changes include increasing the size of the earth wire since the original
spec could leave spurs inadequately protected under fault conditions
with re-wireable fuses. Switching from re-wireable fuses to cartridge
fuses and then MCBs, routine inclusion of RCDs, sleeving of plug pins
etc. Each of these have made improvements along the way. As have better
understanding of cable heating a cooling modes, and the influence the
way they are installed can have.

The other factor, which has been a big one in the UK, but is almost
completely missing in most of the world, has been the competition
between different electrical accessory manufacturers to produce
products which are safer than those from their competitors, in order
to gain a competitive advantage based on increased safety. This has
resulted in steady safety leapfrogging between manufacturers, and
long term, an across the board increase in the quality and ease of
use of electrical accessories.

This was actually pointed out to me by an engineer working for a US
wiring accessory manufacturer, who was very envious of the market in
the UK. He said he can't sell a 75c socket in the US no matter how
good it is, because someone else sells a 50c one, and everyone there
buys on price alone. Contrast that with the UK where manufacturers
such as MK and Crabtree which invest in safety design manage to grab a
larger portion of the market than the dirt cheap low end manufacturers,
because investment in safety sells here.

I wonder if this competitive safety between manufacturers was actually
started by the competition to design what became the 13A plug back in
the 1930's? It does seem to stem from around then in old adverts.
Conversely, if you take a stroll around the electrical isles of Home
Depot (the US equivalent of B&Q), it is like looking back at the wiring
accessories we used to use in the 1930's.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:24:14 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

We have hydro plants on streams that can generate a couple
kilowatts
Sounds like Scottish Power generate more than a *couple of kilowatts* to
me from hydro electric schemes --

Lanark Hydro Electric Scheme 17 MW
Galloway Hydro Electric Scheme 106.5 MW

Sloy 152MW
Foyers 300MW

Ben Cruachan 440MW
Dinorwig 1728 MW
Ffestiniog 360 MW

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:01:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I am getting pretty bored with your inability to do maths, read and
maintain logical argument, do honest research without speciously
introducing straw men at every turn.

But,

- world uranium output is what it is because no more is currently
needed. There is plenty more there.The use of CURRENT production to
imply a limit on FUTURE production is basically worthy only of a
green****er or politician.


-300GW is a figure obtained by taking the governments figures for total
energy consumption, and multiplying it by appropriate efficiency figures
to map it into putative electrical generation figures. Its pretty much
the same as taking the current peak electrical demand and dividing it by
the 27% or so of energy that is actually currently used to generate
electrical power. I.e. we need ABOUT 4 times the current generating
capacity to eliminate fossil fuels from everything we do. Now whereas
windmillers like to take peak output and map that to percentage of
current electrical generation, handily neglecting the fact that
electrical generation is only about 1/4 of what we burn CO2 wise, and
windmills never operate at their peak for long, I actually am trying to
sole an energy supply problem. Not win contracts for windmills. The lot
has to go. All fossil fuel, apart from stuff that simply cant be done in
any other way. Mainly military and aircraft use.

Thereby making us strategically independent of oil and gas producing
countries.

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.


And with a little stockpiling able to be self sufficient for a lot
longer than we are with no gas or oil or coal now, and would ever be
with windmills, which require a LOT if imported materials to construct them.


The state that this goverment has got this country into, out of
incompetance and rthe need to placate the lily-livered lefties
because they need their vote, I seriously doubt we could maintain a
country full of windmills because we don't have the capability to make
the replacement parts inside the country if ever the chips were down.


Let alone the sort of dedicated all weathers get the job done at any
cost sort of professional technicians to keep em working.

Can YOU see the usual council estate chav up a ladder in the North sea
on a freezing rain lashed January night, saying 'pass up the spare ball
race, while I tap this one out gently: Mustn't leave Southend without
'Big Brother, must we?'



Derek

Java Jive wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:04:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:
FACT: Our current electricity consumption is 46 GW.
FACT It actually peaks at around 65GW and represents less than a third
of where carbon based energy goes.

FACT: That is still a lot less than the misleading figure of 300GW
you have been giving in this subthread about electricity generation.


FACT electrical generation accounts for less than 30% of the UK's total
energy consumption.

Thickhead.

FACT if we are to get rid of CO2 emissions, there is only one way
currently being proposed to run almost everything. Electrical generation.

If all you want to do is make green noises, says so and we can ignore you.

Others here are trying to make this an essentially carbon neutral
economy without dropping the standard of living and population levels
back to the stone age. (Hint: even a steel knife takes a LOT of CO2 to
make).

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:43:45 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:48:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

WE have established there is less than 2GW total hydro in this country,

Not true. See the link below

and there are no suitable sites for much more.

Not true. For example, these are just some I've stumbled across
researching posts in the last couple of days or so ...


And how many did you come across in the last couple of days or so
which postulated a contrary opinion ?

Derek

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:37:44 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

A terrorist would have to knock out a hell of a lot of windmills
scattered over the country to make a difference. It would be a lot
easier to fly some planes into some nuclear power stations.

This is an extremely valid security reason for not putting all of one's
energy producing eggs in the same basket.

Diversity is the key to future stability and sufficiency in electrical
power/heating generation from roof top solar cells, micro-hydroelectric
schemes, to CHP, to clean coal power stations, and nuclear power stations.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:52:36 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Contrast that with the UK where manufacturers such as MK
and Crabtree which invest in safety design manage to grab a larger
portion of the market than the dirt cheap low end manufacturers

That is if you are still able to find somewhere convenient that sells them,
eg B&Q last year stopped stocking MK products, no doubt because the profits
on lower volume sales were insufficient to warrant the potential cost of
shelf space etc which they took up.

So maybe B&Q is starting to look more like Home Depot with el cheapo
electrical components?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.


Be fair. The delicate bits of windmills are 50ft in the air, safe from
the average chav. And to damage enough of them to make any difference
to our supply situation would take a _lot_ of effort. There are
_thousands_ of them.

Andy

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:09:47 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

Done. Does it work any better now?

You forgot the carriage return after the --space
so that your =========== is on the line following the --space

And thank you for finally doing something about it.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:14:47 +0100, Paul Martin suggested:

for each half life, you can flip a coin for each
atom to see whether it will have gone off.

Or maybe ask Bill Wright to take one of his unwanted domestic cats
and put it in a box [I maintain that under such circumstances a black
box is more tasteful] with a single atom of an unstable isotope which
when it decays triggers the release of a poison gas in the box?

In message , J G Miller
writes
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:52:36 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Contrast that with the UK where manufacturers such as MK
and Crabtree which invest in safety design manage to grab a larger
portion of the market than the dirt cheap low end manufacturers

That is if you are still able to find somewhere convenient that sells them,
eg B&Q last year stopped stocking MK products, no doubt because the profits
on lower volume sales were insufficient to warrant the potential cost of
shelf space etc which they took up.


Odd, I bought some MK parts at B&Q a couple of weeks back, I distinctly
remember because they were the same price as "brand x" so I checked the
stock numbers, which were different, in case they'd been put in the
wrong shelving bin.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Conversely, if you take a stroll around the electrical isles of Home
Depot (the US equivalent of B&Q), it is like looking back at the wiring
accessories we used to use in the 1930's.

Whenever I see most foreign, and particularly america, plugs it seems
so much that they haven't evolved past the two-nails-bashed-through-a
piece-of-wood stage, whereas the BS1363 was actually /designed/.

--
JGH

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:42:54 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

Done again, ok now?

Yay! round of applause

You might want to tidy up the formatting so that the "Please always"
is not at the end of the "===" line, which looks rather untidy.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:57:27 -0700, J G Harston chauvinistically opined:

Whenever I see most foreign, and particularly america, plugs it seems so
much that they haven't evolved past the two-nails-bashed-through-a
piece-of-wood stage, whereas the BS1363 was actually /designed/.

For those who want to see whether the plugs of other countries really
are like that, or are in fact designed to a national standard, and even
trans-national compatibility, may view the photographs at

http://www.powercords.co.UK/standard.htm

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:53:02 +0100, Bof wrote:

I distinctly remember because they were the same price as "brand x"
so I checked the stock numbers, which were different, in case they'd
been put in the wrong shelving bin.

And why do you think the price had been reduced?

End of stock clearance.

B&Q do still stock some MK products but no longer the 13 ampere safety plug
or 13 ampere tough plug -- I should have made this distinction clear in
my original comment.

A search for MK plug on their web site reveals

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?isSearch=true&fh_search=mk+plug&x=0&y=0

no domestic MK plugs.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:50:31 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

I've noticed from others' replies that someone contributing to this
thread called Derek is blocked,

A tragedy from which the world may very well survive, and a matter
which is of no consequence to me.

But since you are so ignorant of the simple everyday conventions of
Usenet I feel it is my duty to make sure that you are aware that is
generally seen as the usenet equivalent of sticking your fingers in
your ears and running round shouting -Nah Nah, na Nah Nah, I can't
hear you.

It is also generally regarded as bad form to kill file someone and
then afterwards, whilst skulking behind your kill file, to make a show
of telling everybody what you have done.


and IIRC possibly one other. Noone
making a major contribution to it though. But you say 'us' - you're
not blocked, and from what I can remember your posts have been more
even-handed than not.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:56:40 +0100, Paul Martin
wrote:

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
You seem to living in another world. Noone here seems to be agreeing
with you at all.

You've obviously got a few of us blocked, then?

Derek

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:56:35 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

I'd must rather have such people f*cking the occasional windmill than
the occasional nuclear power station in a manner similar to THORP.

THORP is not a power station. In fact I don't think there is a
functioning, as in feeding the grid, nuclear power station at that
site now.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:59:10 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

No, others here in this subthread have been discussing electricity,
particularly wrt windmills, hydro, and nuclear. AFAIAA, you are the
only one sowing confusion by trying to widen the debate to cover all
energy use such as transport, etc.

It's hardly confusion, more natural extension.

If we accept the goal is substantial reduction in CO2 production then we
have to address all power requirements, not just the currently
electricity needs.

As we phase out gas for heating and cooking or petrol and diesel for
transport what replaces them. AFAIK electricity is the only alternative
either directly through wires & batteries or indirectly through hydrogen.

BW

In message , J G Miller
writes
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:53:02 +0100, Bof wrote:

I distinctly remember because they were the same price as "brand x"
so I checked the stock numbers, which were different, in case they'd
been put in the wrong shelving bin.

And why do you think the price had been reduced?

TBH I've absolutely no idea whether the price had been reduced or not, I
just saw MK at the same price as "brand x"


End of stock clearance.

B&Q do still stock some MK products but no longer the 13 ampere safety plug
or 13 ampere tough plug -- I should have made this distinction clear in
my original comment.

Having now taken a look
http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?isSearch=true&fh_search=MK&x=0&y=0
seems like 'some' is currently around 170 MK products


--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:26:08 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:37:44 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

A terrorist would have to knock out a hell of a lot of windmills
scattered over the country to make a difference. It would be a lot
easier to fly some planes into some nuclear power stations.

This is an extremely valid security reason for not putting all of one's
energy producing eggs in the same basket.

Enough is "sufficient unto the day".

Cost and viability are also security issues.


Diversity is the key to future stability and sufficiency in electrical
power/heating generation from roof top solar cells, micro-hydroelectric
schemes, to CHP, to clean coal power stations, and nuclear power stations.

Derek

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:33:06 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

Be fair. The delicate bits of windmills are 50ft in the air, safe from
the average chav.

The delicate bit is the hollow steel tube that the turbine sits on.
Give that a hard enough whack and it'll just crumple, as several have
done spontaneously...

And to damage enough of them to make any difference to our supply
situation would take a _lot_ of effort. There are _thousands_ of them.

Even if you took 'em all out it still wouldn't make much difference.
Might have to ask Drax for another few percent of their capacity.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:37:44 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.

A terrorist would have to knock out a hell of a lot of windmills
scattered over the country to make a difference.

Juts goes to show what a trivial impact windmills actually have.

BW

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:00:52 +0100, Calum wrote:

We have hydro plants on streams that can generate a couple
kilowatts Sounds like Scottish Power generate more than a
*couple of
kilowatts* to me from hydro electric schemes --

Lanark Hydro Electric Scheme 17 MW
Galloway Hydro Electric Scheme 106.5 MW

Sloy 152MW
Foyers 300MW

Ben Cruachan 440MW
Dinorwig 1728 MW
Ffestiniog 360 MW

Those last three (at least) are pumped storage. Dinorwig can run at
full output for not much more than 12hrs, Ben Cruachan can do 22 hrs
but has to keep 12hrs in reserve for black start eventalities. Not
sure about Ffestininog.

Would be interesting to know how long the other hydro plants can run
before they empty their reservoirs or if they have catchment areas
large enough to keep them topped up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:22:51 +0100, Bof wrote:

seems like 'some' is currently around 170 MK products

Why are none of them available for home delivery?

Could it be that they are the remnants of the stock line still available
at some stores which have not yet sold out of the item, and thus are
no longer available from the central distribution depot (from where
home delivery items would be dispatched)?

Or is that a bogus explanation?

In message , Paul
Martin writes:
In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

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.

Subsidising wind power is distorting the market. It's a political move
that smacks of the short term thinking that is endemic in high level
decisions these days.

Agreed. There is some justification for subsidising new technologies
initially, but not when they have reached a certain level - which I
would say wind power has reached. Though I am pro wind, I think it
should compete on an equal basis.
--
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. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:06:32 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

You can not supply enough hydro electric power in the UK for it to
solve
our energy problems.
Nobody has claimed that hydro electric power generation *alone* can
provide
the total electrical energy requirements of the UKofGB&NI.

Ah the old chestnut, 'if it cant do it all, that doesn't make it not
worth doing'

Calling it an old chestnut doesn't make it an invalid point.

True enough IF, and its a very big IF, its not promoted as being THE
answer, it is sufficiently cheap to compete fairly with other

Agreed on those two points ...

technologies, and it does not have huge implications in terms of
environmental impact.

.... but not on that one, because it is so subjective. They _all_ have
enviro impact - hydro with dams, tidal changes flows, solar covers the
area with cells or mirrors, nuclear irradiates (or risks doing so), wind
needs lots of windmills/turbines, and carbon-based warm the planet.

IF you have the right geography, the second condition can be met by
hydro power. There will always be arguments about the third,
drastically modifying the natural landscape to create artificial dams.

In the case of windpower, it cannot even compete on cost grounds, let
alone environmental impact. Except in a very few cases where to install
other technology by dint of geography is even MORE expensive.

(My points above are general, not specific to any one "solution".)
--
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. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.