On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:43:48 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Of course I'm an energy addict! Who, honestly, can claim not to be?

The problem is not necessarily being an energy addict per se, but
being a fossil fuel (oil in particular, coal also) addict.

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed

Only according to classical physics.

Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.

And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

--
Max Demian

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:45:36 GMT, Stephen wrote:

but it was very close to a couple of nuclear power stations
(probably
now closed) so the distribution losses would actually be rather
low.

it is still running, but nt for much longer

http://www.magnoxnorthsites.com/abou...ylfa/facts-and
-figures

1GW, enough for two big cities it says and it will have been doing it
for 39 years when it finally closes. I don't really believe the "day
in, day out" but I guess with 4 sets and two reactors it could well
have been producing something all the time just not full or near full
ouput.

The really big windmills are 2MW so you need 1500 "jumbo jets on a
stick" spread out over the country to have even a hope in hell of
matching this one nuke station.

even then the pumped scheme is a bit bigger scale than the local
nuclear station - Dinorwic can generate at over 2 GW.

But not for very long.

all this green electricity that seems a lot more reliable than all
those dinky toy wind turbines....

Dinorwic is an impressive site, the speed that it can get synced and
online at full power is quite amazing. But it can't run for very long
before the water up top runs out. It's there for the peaks not the
base load. It is also an essential part of the grids "black start"
should that ever be needed.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Moreover, if you think Britain carries any weight in this area, you're
sadly and utterly mistaken. Look at how small we are on the map. We have
just 1% of the world's population, and are responsible for just 2% of its
pollution. As President Mugabe said about Gordon Brown, we are just a tiny
little dot.

I think this is an exceptionally powerful argument. Who the hell do we
think we are? When the chips are down, nobody gives a **** what Britain
says or does, and to believe otherwise is extreme hubris.

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the USA don't
seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty remote. If they don't
agree swingeing cuts and implement them, anything we do in Britain is
totally irrelevant, so it's pointless trying, and paying a high price for
doing so.

Quite. We may simply succeed in destroying all the things that make our
lives enjoyable, whilst making not the slightest jot of difference to the
fate of the planet.

When it comes to climate change, it is very misleading to say "every little
bit helps", because it doesn't. It's the big bits that help, not the little
bits (the Pareto thing I mentioned elsewhere). The major polluters (which
doesn't include us) must all agree to make the necessary cuts. If they
don't, then there's ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in us doing so in isolation.

Take a look at this to see where we stand:

http://www.solcomhouse.com/toptenco2.htm

We are responsible for 1.7% of the total CO2 production. Also note that our
per capita CO2 production is only 50% higher than in China.

SteveT

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the point?

The grass roots environmental movment overlaps significantly with the
extreme left. These people believe that if you can't level up you should
level down. They are also happy with centralised control and micromanagment
of our lives, so they find the idea of imposing lifestyle changes quite
attractive.

The environmental movement has become an umbrella for other movements that
have become less popular or credible, such as the communists, CND, young
socialists, etc.

So to answer your question, there doesn't need to be a valid reason for
making us live squalid but low carbon lives.

Bill

"Jerry" wrote in message
...


That would depend on how the climate changes, *for us* (as you
say) the problem will not be rising sea water levels per se, it
will be if we can carry on feeding the population, people could
well die of starvation in the UK if there are crop failures and
famine.

Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m over the next
few years, so the indiginous people of the UK will be competing with those
of an alien culture for food.No doubt there will be race riots, which the
BBC will report as white agression.

Bill

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes

Dinorwic is an impressive site, the speed that it can get synced and
online at full power is quite amazing. But it can't run for very long
before the water up top runs out. It's there for the peaks not the
base load.

Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:14:51 +0100, No Spam Please suggested:

"Halmyre" asked in message
...

I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative reference
when they want to comment on levels of illumination?

Las Vegas?

My exact same thoughts. Some facts and figures at

http://green.thefuntimesguide.COM/2007/04/las_vegas_energy_use.php

Is it not the case that without the Hoover Dam, the bright lights of
Las Vegas would not be possible?


and pump water from the Colorado river

Steve Terry

In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted, which
instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as you say, not
strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain will
make a significant difference.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Max Demian
writes
"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed

Only according to classical physics.

Nope, it is also an axiom in modern physics: E=mc^2
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
snip
The only way we are ever going to get out of it is by acting together
each to do what we can.


Only way we are ever going to get out of it is if we put the goal
of Nuclear fusion on the same resource and priority footing
as the Manhattan project

Steve Terry

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

That would depend on how the climate changes, *for us* (as you
say) the problem will not be rising sea water levels per se, it
will be if we can carry on feeding the population, people could
well die of starvation in the UK if there are crop failures and
famine.

Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m over the
next few years, so the indiginous people of the UK will be competing with
those of an alien culture for food.No doubt there will be race riots,
which the BBC will report as white agression.
Bill

If we adopted the revisions to benefits the Dutch did nearly ten years ago,
i'm sure we would see a very quick downturn of immigration as they did.

Steve Terry

On Sep 16, 9:45*pm, "Jerry"
wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in
messagenews:nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.kq3avn2.pminews@srv 1.howhill.co.uk...

snip
: The planet will look after
: itself in the long term, but that may well mean that we won't
have
: suitable conditions for survival, with or without technology.
:

Well that's a mute point,

Do you think Swans are going to suffer, or will they survive, not
needing all the technology like we do?

MBQ

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:35:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Dinorwic is an impressive site, the speed that it can get synced
and
online at full power is quite amazing. But it can't run for very
long
before the water up top runs out. It's there for the peaks not the
base load.

Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

Hum interesting but I think based on a false premise that the grid
has the *exactly* the same frequency *everywhere*. The frequency will
be close but not exact, the many sets that supply power to the grid
are not connected by a hard physical link but by a relatively elastic
one of the long reactive grid distribution lines.

I wonder what effect having lots of load that came on/off in response
to the (supposed) overall demand and supply ratio would have on grid
stability? With the time lag that it takes to bring ramp up supply
from coal/oil stations you couldn't really have stuff switching in
much less than 1/2hr IMHO and you wouldn't want all these things
doing a switch at the same time (a few minutes) relative to a
supposed dip/rise in grid frequency.

As I said interesting but not as simple to do as it first appears.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:25:27 +0100, Jerry wrote:

"pete" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Jerry wrote:
:
: "pete" wrote in message
: ...
:
: [ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the
: heating of a room ]
:
: :
: : The problem with the heat from TF bulbs is that it's mostly
at
: ceiling
: : height, since that's where most bulbs hang from. What people
: need
: : is heat at body (whether seated or standing) height, to keep
: them warm.
:
: Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have
even
: been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the
air
: temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level
then
: more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain
: were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually,
even
: heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at
: ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat
exchange
: such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM.
:
: Well, if you have a 100W TF light suspended from the ceiling,
the heat
: from that bulb will rise to the top of the room. The occupants
won't get
: any direct benefit from that 100Watts. Not unless they're
exceptionally
: tall - in which case their heads will get a little warmer.

People do not heat their person but the room though...

: As you say, you may get some small improveent from that heat
adding to
: the temperature gradient in the room, but it won't be anything
like the
: 100Watts the bulb is putting out. You'd be far better off
putting in a
: CFL (or 6) and installing a small fan to move the warm air off
the ceiling
: if only temporarily, so that it can usefully warm the room's
occupants.

No you would not, the fan will actually cause the ambient
temperature to fail, due to the air movement, you will actually
need to use more heat to keep to the same ambient temperature!
Only use a fan if you have to either distribute heated (or cooled
air) or need air movement for other reasons.

And that's precisely what you're trying to acheive (distribute the
heat - in this case from the warm ceiling area to the cooler lower
parts fo the room). Rooms don't have a single temperature. Even if
you remove all the draughts, you still have the heat in a room rising
to the top of the room.
Whereas the people occupy the lower (and therefore cooler) part of
the room. Typically 0 - 3 feet if they're seated, 0 - 6 if they are
standing. There's nothing to be gained from heating the air higher up
than that - which is one reason modern houses have lower ceilings.
Using a fan assists convection (as does having a shelf above a radiator)
in getting the warm air off the ceiling and down to where it can
usefully warm the occupants - without the need to add extra heat into
the room.

Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:50:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Well, I'm terribly sorry about that, but the point I was replying to
was:

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

and that's what I dealt with.

That's fair enough

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the USA
don't seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty remote.
If they don't agree swingeing cuts and implement them, anything we
do in Britain is totally irrelevant, so it's pointless trying, and
paying a high price for doing so. It's like volunteering to starve
ten years before anyone else sees the need.

And my point is that if everone takes that attitude, we're doomed,
because no agreement will ever be reached if everyone is saying: "No,
you must jump first!"

Absolutely. But Britain jumping first will have no effect at all. That's
my point. We're as significant in that respect as the Cayman Islands or
Tuvalu.


Moreover, if you think Britain carries any weight in this area,
you're sadly and utterly mistaken. Look at how small we are on the
map. We have just 1% of the world's population, and are responsible
for just 2% of its pollution. As President Mugabe said about Gordon
Brown, we are just a tiny little dot.

But we are part of the EU, which we *can* influence, and if you ask
anyone who knows anything about modern business, who sets all the
environmental standards that matter, they'll say: "The EU!"

And we are part of 'The World' too, which actually includes China, India,
the USA, Russia and Brazil. So, all we have to do is get everyone to agree,
and then we'll be alright.

Off you go then.


Sure, we'll join in if and when the big boys organise themselves,
but if they don't we're doomed anyway, so we might as well party in
the meantime.

A totally selfish, almost criminally so, attitude, the prevalence of
which, more than any lack of technical solutions (although there are
serious problems with most of them) is what makes me pessimistic about
the future. Technology, we can change, our genetic selfishness, we
cannot.

So, what sort of hippy world do you inhabit then? One where an
insignificant child makes a futile gesture and the rest of the world turns
its eyes to a distant horizon and says 'In the child there is wisdom, yes,
that is the way we must follow', or what?

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted, which
instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as you say,
not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can make no
difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are in a
global context?

"pete" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:25:27 +0100, Jerry wrote:
: "pete" wrote in message
: ...
: : On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Jerry wrote:
: : "pete" wrote in message
: : ...
: :
snip
:
: : As you say, you may get some small improveent from that heat
: adding to
: : the temperature gradient in the room, but it won't be
anything
: like the
: : 100Watts the bulb is putting out. You'd be far better off
: putting in a
: : CFL (or 6) and installing a small fan to move the warm air
off
: the ceiling
: : if only temporarily, so that it can usefully warm the room's
: occupants.
:
: No you would not, the fan will actually cause the ambient
: temperature to fail, due to the air movement, you will
actually
: need to use more heat to keep to the same ambient
temperature!
: Only use a fan if you have to either distribute heated (or
cooled
: air) or need air movement for other reasons.
:
: And that's precisely what you're trying to acheive (distribute
the
: heat - in this case from the warm ceiling area to the cooler
lower
: parts fo the room).

Only if you have 6ft ceilings! There is absolutely no need to
keep the ceiling level to the same temp as mid height, there is
*possibly* an argument for wanting to keep the lower 1/4 or 1/3
to the same level as the middle quarters or third hence why
people tend to put radiators (and as you suggested elsewhere,
make use of radiator shelves) at the lower height or even use UF
heating.

Rooms don't have a single temperature. Even if
: you remove all the draughts, you still have the heat in a room
rising
: to the top of the room.

Exactly but, like a shop doorway [1], a buffer zone exists (in
this case vertical rather than horizontal as in a doorway), use a
room fan - and you destroy that buffer and make the whole room
the same temp that then requires a greater amount of heat to get
to an over all even temp.

[1] for either of two reasons, heating or air conditioning,
keeping warm air in or out depending on climate

: Whereas the people occupy the lower (and therefore cooler) part
of
: the room. Typically 0 - 3 feet if they're seated, 0 - 6 if they
are
: standing. There's nothing to be gained from heating the air
higher up
: than that - which is one reason modern houses have lower
ceilings.

No they no not have lower ceiling to reduce heating costs, they
have them to make houses cheaper, when we lived in our Victorian
area house (complete with 12ft ceilings) the cost of heating
wasn't that much different to that of the modern brand new house
we then moved into that had 8ft ceilings (adjusted figures to
take into account different fuels and inflation etc.). Of course
if we were careless as to how we used the heating in that
Victorian house, such as allowing the house fabric to cool down,
it cost a fortune to reheat or keep to the constant 68 deg C we
desired. I would also point out that the upper 3rd floor was
heated solely by convection from the lower floors, only in the
depth of winter did we need to boost the heating in those rooms
with an alternate heat source.

: Using a fan assists convection (as does having a shelf above a
radiator)
: in getting the warm air off the ceiling and down to where it
can

You will always heat the ceiling, unless you live on a different
planet with different laws of physics... :~)

: usefully warm the occupants - without the need to add extra
heat into
: the room.

Impossible with our laws of physics.
--
Regards, Jerry.

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

snip trolling

**** all left to reply to...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
:
: "Jerry" wrote in message
: ...
:
:
: That would depend on how the climate changes, *for us* (as
you
: say) the problem will not be rising sea water levels per se,
it
: will be if we can carry on feeding the population, people
could
: well die of starvation in the UK if there are crop failures
and
: famine.
:
: Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m
over the next
: few years, snip trolling racists crap

Irrelevant, climate change could mean that the UK couldn't even
feed it's indigenous 1945 population level never mind it's 1970
or 2007 population level. Kindly take you BNP style clap-trap
elsewhere.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Kennedy McEwen wrote:
snip
:
: Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that
Britain
: will make a significant difference.
:
: No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain
can make no
: difference whatsoever.
:
: When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we
are in a
: global context?
:

That is not completely true, who was it who said Yaw-yaw is
better that war-war, if the UK (or the EU, assuming that it can
decide with it's self...) can show the way and get others to
follow - but you are correct in saying that it's utterly
pointless in the UK (or even the EU) taking unilateral measures.
--
Regards, Jerry.

"Stephen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:18:29 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Stephen wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:38:14 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
scribeth thus
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "alexander.keys1"
wrote:

There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy
due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that
are
on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to
save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an
energy-
saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a
'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is
zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV
receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always
switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer
appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk.

They can't switch the power stations off overnight, so they may as
well power the 1W my TV takes to be in standby.

I seem to remember that some hydro electric plant is powered down and
some gas fired .. but coal is rather long winded to slow down and
restart..

basically anything that is high power and heat driven doesnt
appreciate lots of heating up and cooling down.

used to be some of the really big generators needed to be left
spinning while cooling off......

They use the spare overnight power to pump the water back up in a
stored
hydro power station so that it's full in the morning when everyone
turns
their kettles on, so it isn't wasted.

except you only get back maybe 75% of what you put into the pumping
during generation.

And then you lose some more pushing all the power to N Wales and
getting it back again to somewhere useful.


but it was very close to a couple of nuclear power stations (probably now
closed) so the distribution losses would actually be rather low.

it is still running, but nt for much longer
http://www.magnoxnorthsites.com/abou...ts-and-figures

even then the pumped scheme is a bit bigger scale than the local
nuclear station - Dinorwic can generate at over 2 GW.

http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm

all this green electricity that seems a lot more reliable than all
those dinky toy wind turbines....

There is nothing green about dinorwic as far as co2 is concerned.
It is a net producer of co2, far more than the nuclear plant .

It is just a "rechargeable battery" nothing more.


It is there to satisfy peaks in demand and uses more energy to recharge
overnight than it can ever deliver during the day. In doing so it may reduce
the co2 output from the total generating capacity, it may not depending on
the conditions at the time.

To be more green we would just drop the supplies to some areas when the peak
demand got to high, however the customers may revolt.

Hum interesting but I think based on a false premise that the grid
has the *exactly* the same frequency *everywhere*. The frequency will
be close but not exact, the many sets that supply power to the grid
are not connected by a hard physical link but by a relatively elastic
one of the long reactive grid distribution lines.

Not false at all! Every generator connected to the grid is phase-locked to
the grid and is thus bound to run at the same, grid, frequency.

I wonder what effect having lots of load that came on/off in response
to the (supposed) overall demand and supply ratio would have on grid
stability? With the time lag that it takes to bring ramp up supply
from coal/oil stations you couldn't really have stuff switching in
much less than 1/2hr IMHO and you wouldn't want all these things
doing a switch at the same time (a few minutes) relative to a
supposed dip/rise in grid frequency.

Sudden load changes cause a dip or rise in grid frequency. There are
tolerances on how much the frequency can vary and the controllers switch on,
or off, additional sources to keep the frequency within those limits.

SteveT

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
snip
The only way we are ever going to get out of it is by acting together
each to do what we can.


Only way we are ever going to get out of it is if we put the goal
of Nuclear fusion on the same resource and priority footing
as the Manhattan project

I hope not we have already spent more than the Manhattan project and I don't
want to see fusion research stopped.

In article , Max Demian wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed

Only according to classical physics.

Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.

And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

That's ridiculous. Storing energy doesn't create or destroy it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

Hum interesting but I think based on a false premise that the grid
has the *exactly* the same frequency *everywhere*. The frequency will
be close but not exact, the many sets that supply power to the grid
are not connected by a hard physical link but by a relatively elastic
one of the long reactive grid distribution lines.

All the generators that are connected together most certainly *have*
exactly the same frequency. All of them. Can you imagine the
destruction that would result if they didn't?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Max Demian
writes
"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed

Only according to classical physics.

Nope, it is also an axiom in modern physics: E=mc^2

That states that energy can be destroyed by converting it to mass, and
created by converting mass into energy.

Classical physics regards mass and energy to be separately conserved.

--
Max Demian

"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

--
Max Demian

Steve Thackery coughed up some electrons that declared:

Hum interesting but I think based on a false premise that the grid
has the *exactly* the same frequency *everywhere*. The frequency will
be close but not exact, the many sets that supply power to the grid
are not connected by a hard physical link but by a relatively elastic
one of the long reactive grid distribution lines.

Not false at all! Every generator connected to the grid is phase-locked
to the grid and is thus bound to run at the same, grid, frequency.

Though I heard from a mate at NG that oscillations are possible (though not
wanted obviously). They had at the old London control centre an instrument
nicknamed the Scottish Wobble Meter. It measured phase differences between
somewhere in Scotland and presumably somewhere the south end of the grid.

I know this because he related one day having to fix it - or rather the
photocopier that was interfering with it causing it to slowly oscillate
giving the control room men an impending heart attack.

On an aside - if you google for National Grid Blackstart you get to some
very interesting documents that show why no-one wants the whole lot to pop.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy without
converting it to mass.

Steve T wrote "savings are much less than the green pundits claim."

British Gas recently gave me a 'Real Time Electricity Monitor". I plugged
it in and it, typically, registered about 17 watts. This was lower than
expected and didn't move when I put on a few 100 watt lights. I suspected
it was faulty and returned it for replacement. When the replacement arrived
I plugged it in it, typically, registered about 33 watts usage - even with a
few lights on.

I spoke to someone from the 'Electricity Efficiency Team'. He tried to tell
me that the reading was an average reading over any hour. I pointed out
that the measurement unit was watts not watts/hour. He then went away to
the manufacturers who came back with the concept of 'power factor' (you can
read about it at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power) and that, because of PF,
consumers were charged only for the power actually used and that this varied
according to the type of appliance and that this is less than the rated
wattage of appliances. My schoolboy knowledge of a watt being voltage
divided by amperage is obviously wrong.

I cannot get my head around the concept of power factor and, as there seems
to be no answer for the large discrepancy in the reading between the two
meters the whole thing seems to be a bit of a fudge. Anyway, assuming all
this to be true how does my consumer meter know how much electricity is
being effectively used.

Bringing this back to the previous post, if the concept of power factor
really does effectively reduce the actual amount of power used why are we
being urged to replace tungsten bulbs in favour of the new bulbs. The
difference in wattage may be far greater overstated than the actual
difference.

Bill Ridgeway

This energy isn't wasted. Its given off as heat, which is quite useful
in a domestic house.

.... if and only if you are living in cold regions....

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.5
^ ^ 20:41:03 up 1 day 4:20 0 users load average: 3.55 3.76 3.73
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

alexander.keys1 wrote:
There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy
due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are
on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to
save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy-
saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a
'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is
zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV
receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always
switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer
appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk.

It also reduces the fire risk when you left home or are sleeping!

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.5
^ ^ 20:44:03 up 1 day 4:23 0 users load average: 3.99 3.67 3.68
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:



"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Phone call for you - some bloke called Albert...

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

You'd be hard pushed to measure it though.

eg, a 60Ah 12V car battery might be claimed to store 60*3600*12 joules of
useful energy. That's about 2.6MJ

That is equivalent to a mass of 2.88E-11 kg, or 28.8 nanogrammes

Cheers

Tim

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:26:28 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted, which
instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as you say,
not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can make no
difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are in a
global context?

We still in the G7, G8, G10, G15 etc... Someone must think our views
are not insignificant.

--
(\__/) 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.]

In article ,
Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B) wrote:
alexander.keys1 wrote:
There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy
due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are
on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to
save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy-
saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a
'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is
zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV
receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always
switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer
appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk.

It also reduces the fire risk when you left home or are sleeping!

why not just throw the main breaker on the consumer unit? You'd save
having to go round turning off all the individual switches and further
reduce the fire risk ;-)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:33:02 +0100, Bill R wrote:

My schoolboy
knowledge of a watt being voltage divided by amperage is obviously
wrong.
You're knowledge is correct for DC circuits and AC circuits with 100%
resistive load only.
When you start to add inductive and capacitative loads into an AC circuit
it affects the phase relationship between the voltage and current. Simple
measurement tools take no account of phase, just RMS values for current &
voltage so don't show true power consumed.

Bringing this back to the previous post, if the concept of power factor
really does effectively reduce the actual amount of power used why are
we being urged to replace tungsten bulbs in favour of the new bulbs.
The difference in wattage may be far greater overstated than the actual
difference.
The concept of power factor doesn't change the actual mount of power used
just how its measured.

BW

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:22:00 +0100, brightside S9
wrote:

But the population is rising at an unsustainable rate anyway.

That's the really fundamental problem we have and very few people seem
to be addressing it.

Influential people are needed to sell that, maybe
maybe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stm
is a start.

We either do it voluntarily, or the planet will do it for us or cause us
to do it to ourselves. The first signs of the planet doing it are in
evidence now.
It wouldn't take much for there to be global war once the first real
wobble occurs. The financial system will go first (like it nearly did last
year) and once that has gone everything else goes downhill rapidly.
Lots of people will die though starvation or being killed by someone else
in competition for resources.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:



"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Phone call for you - some bloke called Albert...

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

Seriously, no there isn't.
The energy is within the chemical bonds and doesn't require any extra mass
to hold it.
If you seriously think it increases the mass can you tell us which subatomic
particle it creates and how?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:33:02 +0100, Bill R wrote:

I spoke to someone from the 'Electricity Efficiency Team'. He tried to tell
me that the reading was an average reading over any hour. I pointed out
that the measurement unit was watts not watts/hour.

Watts/hour is meaningless. There is nothing wrong with averaging watts over
any particular time period, if that's how the device is designed to operate.
It obviously will underread for the first hour and obviously won't react
instantaneously to changes in load.

He then went away to
the manufacturers who came back with the concept of 'power factor'

That's manufacturer's talking ********.

My schoolboy knowledge of a watt being voltage divided by amperage is
obviously wrong.

It certainly is, seeing as watts = volts x amps.
Volts divided by amps is ohms.
Are you Dave Plowman? He gets simple formulae such as this completely
arse about tit. (He thinks power = energy x time .... it isn't)

I cannot get my head around the concept of power factor

It's a measure of the phase difference between voltage and current.
Real power is volts x amps x cos(phase difference)
and power factor = cos(phase difference)