Earth Hour headache for power suppliers

[Sylvia Else]

On 28/03/2010 5:55 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:

On 28/03/2010 5:04 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 4:16 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4badf098$0$1490$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html



It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading blackouts
(preferably not on the eastern seabord of Australia, given that that's
where I live).

Sylvia.

Nuh. Nothing that a good operator couldn't handle. He'd have to put his
coffee and sports mag down for a bit.



That view seems well supported by the graph I posted. The media article
referred to dispatching increased frequency control sevices, and running
the voltage at the lower end of its permitted range. I can only assume
the AEMO were preparing for a much larger popular support for Earth Hour
than it actually got. Maybe in future years they'll just ignore it.

Sylvia.

Coal fired turbines take about 72 hours to ramp up / down. They normally
run at an average = to market demand, during peak times the operators of
the power stations (hello Macquarie Generation) wait for the price of
power on the national grid to rise a little bit then they switch on the
Gas powered turbines and make a half a mil and then switch em back off
as the peak subsides.

That's for ordinary dispatched supply, but in addition there are
frequency control services, which are generators whose power output is
adjusted on the fly to maintain the frequency - essentially they're
adjusting to match second by second variations in demand. Running
generators that way is more expensive, so owners have to be paid extra
to do it, and AEMO only contracts for the maximum amount of variation it
expects to see.

Sylvia.

 

[John Tserkezis]

David L. Jones wrote:

It's failed miserably then!

With all the publicity it gets, it can hardly be called a failure.
It's actually quite a brilliant and successful idea as far as awareness
plans go.

Though some people simply don't get the idea of irony. Our building is
plastered with the Earth Hour posters, however, one of the occupants is
a company that makes coal and gas power stations.

Being in IT, and having been in electronics engineering, I fully
support that (the manufacturing, not the earth hour bullshit).

Turning off the lights doesn't actually DO anything productive.
Lighting (at least the ones that are under normal control) form only a
small percentage of the total power outlay, so even if *everyone* turned
off *every* light it will do nothing for the longer term issues we're
going to have to cover. Less so since it's only an hour.

Google "earth hour sponsors" and have a gander as to what the media is
saying on this, or more importantly, what they're NOT saying.

Not to mention the exemptions, where wikipedia says:
"Essential cultural events like Canadian hockey matches will carry on
regardless of Earth Hour. According to the Vancouver Sun, "TV,
particularly when tuned to the Canucks, is classified as an essential
use of power."

So there you have it. Fuck the planet, hockey is more important. Or,
translated to English, 'nobody cares except the media', presumably
because they're going to make a buck out of it.

 

[Atom Egoyan]

John Tserkezis <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> writes:

David L. Jones wrote:

It's failed miserably then!

With all the publicity it gets, it can hardly be called a failure.
It's actually quite a brilliant and successful idea as far as awareness
plans go.

Though some people simply don't get the idea of irony. Our building is
plastered with the Earth Hour posters, however, one of the occupants is
a company that makes coal and gas power stations.

Being in IT, and having been in electronics engineering, I fully
support that (the manufacturing, not the earth hour bullshit).

Turning off the lights doesn't actually DO anything productive.
Lighting (at least the ones that are under normal control) form only a
small percentage of the total power outlay, so even if *everyone* turned
off *every* light it will do nothing for the longer term issues we're
going to have to cover. Less so since it's only an hour.

Google "earth hour sponsors" and have a gander as to what the media is
saying on this, or more importantly, what they're NOT saying.

I found out on Friday that last year's Earth Hour at Melbourne University
ended up being an expensive fiasco. Somebody thought it would be clever
to turn off a power segment, not stopping to wonder what might be on
the circuit. Turns out a freezer full of stuff had to be thrown away,
for a total cost of $36K. So much for saving the planet.

Atom Egoyan,
Melbourne, Australia

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 28/03/2010 4:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 1:02 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html

It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts (preferably not on the eastern seabord of Australia,
given that that's where I live).

**Clearly, your sense of humour is different to the rest of us. I
certainly don't find such an event the least bit amusing.
Fortunately, like most media crap, there were no problems.



Not amusing that those who wanted to reduce power consumption for
an hour end up reducing it for a day? Oh well, different things
amuse different people I suppose.

**Your words:
"It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts....."

I do not share your sense of humour. Such an event would be
catastrophic and would almost certainly lead to the deaths of
people.

In fact, regardless of our senses of humour, it seems unlikely
anything would happen, unless enthusiasm for Earth Hour were much
greater than it actually is. A snapshot of the 5 minute demand
graph for NSW at the relevent time is here

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sylviae/earthhour.png

It's taken from

http://www.aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_5NSW1.html

which changes with time.

Bearing in mind that the time axis is standard time, and that
we're currently in summer time, it's hard to see any impact of
Earth Hour. Certainly variations of a similar magnitude are seen
at other times of day.

**Which is pretty much what I said elsewhere. It is a symbolic act.



Mostly symbolic of ignorance when people light candles instead, thus
increasing their CO2 output,

**Do they? Who did? I didn't.

Well, presumably you know better.

**Perhaps you missed my questions. Here they are again:

Do they? Who did?

But a lot of people don't, which

means they're protesting about an issue they have little or no
understanding of.

**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are
unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that needs to
be conveyed. Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his
creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many people. All
that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the fuck up and allow the
scientists to get the message across.

BTW, one can certainly buy 'green' electricity for less than the cost
the candles, but try to charge people the cost of candles for the
power they'd be using outside Earth Hour, and they'd definitely be
protesting even louder.

**I still want to know who lights candles and why they imagine that this is
a good idea.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/03/2010 7:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 4:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 1:02 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html

It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts (preferably not on the eastern seabord of Australia,
given that that's where I live).

**Clearly, your sense of humour is different to the rest of us. I
certainly don't find such an event the least bit amusing.
Fortunately, like most media crap, there were no problems.



Not amusing that those who wanted to reduce power consumption for
an hour end up reducing it for a day? Oh well, different things
amuse different people I suppose.

**Your words:
"It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts....."

I do not share your sense of humour. Such an event would be
catastrophic and would almost certainly lead to the deaths of
people.

In fact, regardless of our senses of humour, it seems unlikely
anything would happen, unless enthusiasm for Earth Hour were much
greater than it actually is. A snapshot of the 5 minute demand
graph for NSW at the relevent time is here

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sylviae/earthhour.png

It's taken from

http://www.aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_5NSW1.html

which changes with time.

Bearing in mind that the time axis is standard time, and that
we're currently in summer time, it's hard to see any impact of
Earth Hour. Certainly variations of a similar magnitude are seen
at other times of day.

**Which is pretty much what I said elsewhere. It is a symbolic act.



Mostly symbolic of ignorance when people light candles instead, thus
increasing their CO2 output,

**Do they? Who did? I didn't.

Well, presumably you know better.

**Perhaps you missed my questions. Here they are again:

Do they? Who did?

But a lot of people don't, which
means they're protesting about an issue they have little or no
understanding of.

**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are
unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that needs to
be conveyed.

People convey it in a strange way when they increase their CO2 emissions
allegedly in support of the idea that emissions should be reduced.

Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his
creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many people. All
that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the fuck up and allow the
scientists to get the message across.

It's far from clear that that's the problem at all. Governments around
the world seem to have accepted the idea that CO2 emissions need to be
reduced, as have their electorates (in the cases where there are
electorates). But no one actually wants to pay the price. When IPART
announced electricity price hikes in part to cover the costs of an ETS,
I didn't notice people saying "Ah, at last we're getting somewhere." No,
instead there was a lot of wingeing. People want CO2 emissions to be
reduced, but they want the price paid by the mysterious "they".

BTW, one can certainly buy 'green' electricity for less than the cost
the candles, but try to charge people the cost of candles for the
power they'd be using outside Earth Hour, and they'd definitely be
protesting even louder.

**I still want to know who lights candles and why they imagine that this is
a good idea.

Well, here are some pictures, from the Earth Hour site itself. OK, there
are no pictures of anyone actually in the process of lighting a candle
(unless I missed them), but there are plenty of candles in view. It's a
reasonable inference that someone lit them.

http://www.earthhour.org.au/

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/03/2010 12:48 AM, Atom Egoyan wrote:

John Tserkezis<jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> writes:

David L. Jones wrote:

It's failed miserably then!

With all the publicity it gets, it can hardly be called a failure.
It's actually quite a brilliant and successful idea as far as awareness
plans go.

Though some people simply don't get the idea of irony. Our building is
plastered with the Earth Hour posters, however, one of the occupants is
a company that makes coal and gas power stations.

Being in IT, and having been in electronics engineering, I fully
support that (the manufacturing, not the earth hour bullshit).

Turning off the lights doesn't actually DO anything productive.
Lighting (at least the ones that are under normal control) form only a
small percentage of the total power outlay, so even if *everyone* turned
off *every* light it will do nothing for the longer term issues we're
going to have to cover. Less so since it's only an hour.

Google "earth hour sponsors" and have a gander as to what the media is
saying on this, or more importantly, what they're NOT saying.

I found out on Friday that last year's Earth Hour at Melbourne University
ended up being an expensive fiasco. Somebody thought it would be clever
to turn off a power segment, not stopping to wonder what might be on
the circuit. Turns out a freezer full of stuff had to be thrown away,
for a total cost of $36K. So much for saving the planet.

What kind of freezer has so little thermal inertia that its contents
can't withstand a one hour power outage?

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bafdab1$0$5231$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

On 29/03/2010 7:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 4:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 1:02 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html

It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts (preferably not on the eastern seabord of Australia,
given that that's where I live).

**Clearly, your sense of humour is different to the rest of us. I
certainly don't find such an event the least bit amusing.
Fortunately, like most media crap, there were no problems.



Not amusing that those who wanted to reduce power consumption for
an hour end up reducing it for a day? Oh well, different things
amuse different people I suppose.

**Your words:
"It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts....."

I do not share your sense of humour. Such an event would be
catastrophic and would almost certainly lead to the deaths of
people.

In fact, regardless of our senses of humour, it seems unlikely
anything would happen, unless enthusiasm for Earth Hour were much
greater than it actually is. A snapshot of the 5 minute demand
graph for NSW at the relevent time is here

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sylviae/earthhour.png

It's taken from

http://www.aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_5NSW1.html

which changes with time.

Bearing in mind that the time axis is standard time, and that
we're currently in summer time, it's hard to see any impact of
Earth Hour. Certainly variations of a similar magnitude are seen
at other times of day.

**Which is pretty much what I said elsewhere. It is a symbolic act.



Mostly symbolic of ignorance when people light candles instead, thus
increasing their CO2 output,

**Do they? Who did? I didn't.

Well, presumably you know better.

**Perhaps you missed my questions. Here they are again:

Do they? Who did?

**Do they? Who did?

But a lot of people don't, which
means they're protesting about an issue they have little or no
understanding of.

**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are
unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that needs
to
be conveyed.

People convey it in a strange way when they increase their CO2 emissions
allegedly in support of the idea that emissions should be reduced.

**Who does and how did they do it?

Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his
creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many people.
All
that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the fuck up and allow the
scientists to get the message across.

It's far from clear that that's the problem at all.

**I see. You are suggesting that the guys at CSIRO, BOM, NASA and the IPCC
are idiots and we should give credence to Tony Abbott and Steve Fielding. Is
that your contention? Please list Tony Abbott's and Steve Fielding's
credentials in climate science. The facts are MUCH clearer to those of us
with a passing knowledge of science. Creationist idiots need to be ignored.
It is a pity that you allow them any air.

Governments around

the world seem to have accepted the idea that CO2 emissions need to be
reduced, as have their electorates (in the cases where there are
electorates). But no one actually wants to pay the price.

**Of course. The scientists are fighting ignorance and religious claptrap
(the Pope has expressed his opinion that global warming is bunk - Tony
Abbott has, of course, toed the company line).

When IPART

announced electricity price hikes in part to cover the costs of an ETS, I
didn't notice people saying "Ah, at last we're getting somewhere." No,
instead there was a lot of wingeing. People want CO2 emissions to be
reduced, but they want the price paid by the mysterious "they".

**Of course. The serious effects of global warming will not be paid for
another 50 years or so. Few people care what happens to their children or
grand children.

BTW, one can certainly buy 'green' electricity for less than the cost
the candles, but try to charge people the cost of candles for the
power they'd be using outside Earth Hour, and they'd definitely be
protesting even louder.

**I still want to know who lights candles and why they imagine that this
is
a good idea.


Well, here are some pictures, from the Earth Hour site itself. OK, there
are no pictures of anyone actually in the process of lighting a candle
(unless I missed them), but there are plenty of candles in view. It's a
reasonable inference that someone lit them.

http://www.earthhour.org.au/

**Indeed. WHO lit them?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:818cmeFjmpU1@mid.individual.net...

**Dunno what kind of PC you use, or are familiar with, but the
figure (for a, say, Core 2 Duo + LCD screen), the figure is far
closer to 50 ~ 100 Watts in standby. In use, you can add around 20 ~
30 Watts.

Dunno what kind of PC you use, but *in use* there are *very few*
desktop PC's that draw LESS than 70-130 Watts! Some CPU's alone can
draw more than that! And some PSU's waste nearly that much!

**A Core 2 Duo will use as little as 5 Watts, if not doing all that much.

So not really *in use* then.

Certainly power consumption will rise substantially, when rendering
graphics
or playing games, but not if it's just sitting around in an office at
night.

You said "In use, you can add around 20~30 Watts", that's not sitting idle
at night. I just turn mine off then.

Support electronics (not high end graphics, of course) will typically
consume another 20 Watts and a hard drive will use less than 10 Watts.
Figure on around 2 Watts for the monitor and another 20 Watts for
power supply inefficiency.

"Figure" it all you like, but try actually measuring one sometime when it's
NOT idle. And "2 Watts for the monitor", you are joking right!!!
Clearly you know less about electronics than you think you do.

MrT.

 

[Dyna Soar]

Mr.T wrote:

Clearly you know less about electronics than you think you do.

Wilson knows less about almost everything than he thinks he does.

Actually, I doubt he thinks, at least rationally, very often.


--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/03/2010 10:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bafdab1$0$5231$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
On 29/03/2010 7:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 4:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 1:02 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html

It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts (preferably not on the eastern seabord of Australia,
given that that's where I live).

**Clearly, your sense of humour is different to the rest of us. I
certainly don't find such an event the least bit amusing.
Fortunately, like most media crap, there were no problems.



Not amusing that those who wanted to reduce power consumption for
an hour end up reducing it for a day? Oh well, different things
amuse different people I suppose.

**Your words:
"It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts....."

I do not share your sense of humour. Such an event would be
catastrophic and would almost certainly lead to the deaths of
people.

In fact, regardless of our senses of humour, it seems unlikely
anything would happen, unless enthusiasm for Earth Hour were much
greater than it actually is. A snapshot of the 5 minute demand
graph for NSW at the relevent time is here

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sylviae/earthhour.png

It's taken from

http://www.aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_5NSW1.html

which changes with time.

Bearing in mind that the time axis is standard time, and that
we're currently in summer time, it's hard to see any impact of
Earth Hour. Certainly variations of a similar magnitude are seen
at other times of day.

**Which is pretty much what I said elsewhere. It is a symbolic act.



Mostly symbolic of ignorance when people light candles instead, thus
increasing their CO2 output,

**Do they? Who did? I didn't.

Well, presumably you know better.

**Perhaps you missed my questions. Here they are again:

Do they? Who did?

**Do they? Who did?




But a lot of people don't, which
means they're protesting about an issue they have little or no
understanding of.

**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are
unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that needs
to
be conveyed.

People convey it in a strange way when they increase their CO2 emissions
allegedly in support of the idea that emissions should be reduced.

**Who does and how did they do it?


Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his
creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many people.
All
that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the fuck up and allow the
scientists to get the message across.

It's far from clear that that's the problem at all.

**I see. You are suggesting that the guys at CSIRO, BOM, NASA and the IPCC
are idiots and we should give credence to Tony Abbott and Steve Fielding. Is
that your contention? Please list Tony Abbott's and Steve Fielding's
credentials in climate science. The facts are MUCH clearer to those of us
with a passing knowledge of science. Creationist idiots need to be ignored.
It is a pity that you allow them any air.

No, you're missing the entire point that I was making. I'm saying that
the scientists have got the message across. The message has been heard.
Earth Hour is not needed to push the message.

Instead of Earth Hour, there should be a "I'm willing to pay to reduce
CO2" hour, with people handing over hard cash.

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4bb000b9$0$21191$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:818cmeFjmpU1@mid.individual.net...
**Dunno what kind of PC you use, or are familiar with, but the
figure (for a, say, Core 2 Duo + LCD screen), the figure is far
closer to 50 ~ 100 Watts in standby. In use, you can add around 20 ~
30 Watts.

Dunno what kind of PC you use, but *in use* there are *very few*
desktop PC's that draw LESS than 70-130 Watts! Some CPU's alone can
draw more than that! And some PSU's waste nearly that much!

**A Core 2 Duo will use as little as 5 Watts, if not doing all that much.

So not really *in use* then.

**Which is EXACTLY what they're doing at night. When doing word processing,
emails web browsing, etc, processor power jumps up to maybe 10 Watts. Games
and high end graphics forces the CPU to work harder, but that is not
relevant, since we're discussing computers that are left on at night, when
no one is actually using it. Of course, older CPUs do consume considerably
more power, but anything made within the last few years employs serious
power saving technologies.

Certainly power consumption will rise substantially, when rendering
graphics
or playing games, but not if it's just sitting around in an office at
night.

You said "In use, you can add around 20~30 Watts", that's not sitting idle
at night. I just turn mine off then.

**I said that. CPUs are, for the most part, doing pretty much nothing in
most computers.

Support electronics (not high end graphics, of course) will typically
consume another 20 Watts and a hard drive will use less than 10 Watts.
Figure on around 2 Watts for the monitor and another 20 Watts for
power supply inefficiency.

"Figure" it all you like, but try actually measuring one sometime when
it's
NOT idle. And "2 Watts for the monitor", you are joking right!!!
Clearly you know less about electronics than you think you do.

**Mine consumes 1.6VA on standby and 20VA when in use (yes, I've measured
the figures). I would expect more modern monitors consume even less. Don't
forget: We're discussing computers that are left powered at night (when no
one is using them).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bb00656$0$9290$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

On 29/03/2010 10:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bafdab1$0$5231$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
On 29/03/2010 7:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 4:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 1:02 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html

It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts (preferably not on the eastern seabord of Australia,
given that that's where I live).

**Clearly, your sense of humour is different to the rest of us. I
certainly don't find such an event the least bit amusing.
Fortunately, like most media crap, there were no problems.



Not amusing that those who wanted to reduce power consumption for
an hour end up reducing it for a day? Oh well, different things
amuse different people I suppose.

**Your words:
"It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts....."

I do not share your sense of humour. Such an event would be
catastrophic and would almost certainly lead to the deaths of
people.

In fact, regardless of our senses of humour, it seems unlikely
anything would happen, unless enthusiasm for Earth Hour were much
greater than it actually is. A snapshot of the 5 minute demand
graph for NSW at the relevent time is here

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sylviae/earthhour.png

It's taken from

http://www.aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_5NSW1.html

which changes with time.

Bearing in mind that the time axis is standard time, and that
we're currently in summer time, it's hard to see any impact of
Earth Hour. Certainly variations of a similar magnitude are seen
at other times of day.

**Which is pretty much what I said elsewhere. It is a symbolic act.



Mostly symbolic of ignorance when people light candles instead, thus
increasing their CO2 output,

**Do they? Who did? I didn't.

Well, presumably you know better.

**Perhaps you missed my questions. Here they are again:

Do they? Who did?

**Do they? Who did?




But a lot of people don't, which
means they're protesting about an issue they have little or no
understanding of.

**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are
unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that needs
to
be conveyed.

People convey it in a strange way when they increase their CO2 emissions
allegedly in support of the idea that emissions should be reduced.

**Who does and how did they do it?


Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his
creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many
people.
All
that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the fuck up and allow
the
scientists to get the message across.

It's far from clear that that's the problem at all.

**I see. You are suggesting that the guys at CSIRO, BOM, NASA and the
IPCC
are idiots and we should give credence to Tony Abbott and Steve Fielding.
Is
that your contention? Please list Tony Abbott's and Steve Fielding's
credentials in climate science. The facts are MUCH clearer to those of us
with a passing knowledge of science. Creationist idiots need to be
ignored.
It is a pity that you allow them any air.

No, you're missing the entire point that I was making. I'm saying that the
scientists have got the message across. The message has been heard. Earth
Hour is not needed to push the message.

Instead of Earth Hour, there should be a "I'm willing to pay to reduce
CO2" hour, with people handing over hard cash.

**Then we need to (all of us) come out hard and strong, whenever the
religious zealots (Abbott, Fielding, Simpson, et al) when they start
ignoring the science and promote their own religious idealogy instead. The
vast unwashed do not unstand the science and they need to realise that this
is a really big deal. We also (all of us) need to remind Kevin Rudd of his
promise to introduce an ETS without delay. I trust that you will be adopting
this approach in future. I've written to my local member (Liberal) asking
him what his position is and how he can justify Tony Abbott's insane ideas.
I've yet to receive a response.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mauried]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:45:56 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 29/03/2010 10:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bafdab1$0$5231$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
On 29/03/2010 7:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 4:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 1:02 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html

It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts (preferably not on the eastern seabord of Australia,
given that that's where I live).

**Clearly, your sense of humour is different to the rest of us. I
certainly don't find such an event the least bit amusing.
Fortunately, like most media crap, there were no problems.



Not amusing that those who wanted to reduce power consumption for
an hour end up reducing it for a day? Oh well, different things
amuse different people I suppose.

**Your words:
"It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts....."

I do not share your sense of humour. Such an event would be
catastrophic and would almost certainly lead to the deaths of
people.

In fact, regardless of our senses of humour, it seems unlikely
anything would happen, unless enthusiasm for Earth Hour were much
greater than it actually is. A snapshot of the 5 minute demand
graph for NSW at the relevent time is here

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sylviae/earthhour.png

It's taken from

http://www.aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_5NSW1.html

which changes with time.

Bearing in mind that the time axis is standard time, and that
we're currently in summer time, it's hard to see any impact of
Earth Hour. Certainly variations of a similar magnitude are seen
at other times of day.

**Which is pretty much what I said elsewhere. It is a symbolic act.



Mostly symbolic of ignorance when people light candles instead, thus
increasing their CO2 output,

**Do they? Who did? I didn't.

Well, presumably you know better.

**Perhaps you missed my questions. Here they are again:

Do they? Who did?

**Do they? Who did?




But a lot of people don't, which
means they're protesting about an issue they have little or no
understanding of.

**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are
unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that needs
to
be conveyed.

People convey it in a strange way when they increase their CO2 emissions
allegedly in support of the idea that emissions should be reduced.

**Who does and how did they do it?


Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his
creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many people.
All
that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the fuck up and allow the
scientists to get the message across.

It's far from clear that that's the problem at all.

**I see. You are suggesting that the guys at CSIRO, BOM, NASA and the IPCC
are idiots and we should give credence to Tony Abbott and Steve Fielding. Is
that your contention? Please list Tony Abbott's and Steve Fielding's
credentials in climate science. The facts are MUCH clearer to those of us
with a passing knowledge of science. Creationist idiots need to be ignored.
It is a pity that you allow them any air.

No, you're missing the entire point that I was making. I'm saying that
the scientists have got the message across. The message has been heard.
Earth Hour is not needed to push the message.

Instead of Earth Hour, there should be a "I'm willing to pay to reduce
CO2" hour, with people handing over hard cash.

Sylvia.

Theres no evidence at all that the people want to hand over money
to reduce CO2.
All Ive ever seen from opinion polls is that the people want the Govt
to do something to combat climate change, but the something is not
defined.
Taxing CO2 emissions is the Govts idea, not the populations.
Pretty obvious from 6 failed Climate change conferences so far, that
the will to reduce CO2 emissions by taxing it simply isnt there.
Time to start looking at alternatives, like building Nuclear Power
plants, and closing down Coal plants.
Zero chance of this happening though.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/03/2010 1:10 PM, Mauried wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:45:56 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 29/03/2010 10:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bafdab1$0$5231$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
On 29/03/2010 7:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 4:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 1:02 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html

It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts (preferably not on the eastern seabord of Australia,
given that that's where I live).

**Clearly, your sense of humour is different to the rest of us. I
certainly don't find such an event the least bit amusing.
Fortunately, like most media crap, there were no problems.



Not amusing that those who wanted to reduce power consumption for
an hour end up reducing it for a day? Oh well, different things
amuse different people I suppose.

**Your words:
"It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts....."

I do not share your sense of humour. Such an event would be
catastrophic and would almost certainly lead to the deaths of
people.

In fact, regardless of our senses of humour, it seems unlikely
anything would happen, unless enthusiasm for Earth Hour were much
greater than it actually is. A snapshot of the 5 minute demand
graph for NSW at the relevent time is here

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sylviae/earthhour.png

It's taken from

http://www.aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_5NSW1.html

which changes with time.

Bearing in mind that the time axis is standard time, and that
we're currently in summer time, it's hard to see any impact of
Earth Hour. Certainly variations of a similar magnitude are seen
at other times of day.

**Which is pretty much what I said elsewhere. It is a symbolic act.



Mostly symbolic of ignorance when people light candles instead, thus
increasing their CO2 output,

**Do they? Who did? I didn't.

Well, presumably you know better.

**Perhaps you missed my questions. Here they are again:

Do they? Who did?

**Do they? Who did?




But a lot of people don't, which
means they're protesting about an issue they have little or no
understanding of.

**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are
unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that needs
to
be conveyed.

People convey it in a strange way when they increase their CO2 emissions
allegedly in support of the idea that emissions should be reduced.

**Who does and how did they do it?


Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his
creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many people.
All
that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the fuck up and allow the
scientists to get the message across.

It's far from clear that that's the problem at all.

**I see. You are suggesting that the guys at CSIRO, BOM, NASA and the IPCC
are idiots and we should give credence to Tony Abbott and Steve Fielding. Is
that your contention? Please list Tony Abbott's and Steve Fielding's
credentials in climate science. The facts are MUCH clearer to those of us
with a passing knowledge of science. Creationist idiots need to be ignored.
It is a pity that you allow them any air.

No, you're missing the entire point that I was making. I'm saying that
the scientists have got the message across. The message has been heard.
Earth Hour is not needed to push the message.

Instead of Earth Hour, there should be a "I'm willing to pay to reduce
CO2" hour, with people handing over hard cash.

Sylvia.


Theres no evidence at all that the people want to hand over money
to reduce CO2.

I agree entirely, except for the very few who've elected to pay a
premium for "green" sourced power.

All Ive ever seen from opinion polls is that the people want the Govt
to do something to combat climate change, but the something is not
defined.
Taxing CO2 emissions is the Govts idea, not the populations.

Yes, for some bizarre reason, the Government assumed that the evident
desire of the electorate for action to reduce CO2 emissions was
accompanied by a willingness to pay for it.

Pretty obvious from 6 failed Climate change conferences so far, that
the will to reduce CO2 emissions by taxing it simply isnt there.
Time to start looking at alternatives, like building Nuclear Power
plants, and closing down Coal plants.
Zero chance of this happening though.

It may happen when coal plants are retired at the end of their useful
lives, and replaced by more expensive (on a total cost basis) gas fired
plants, with a resulting increasin the price of electricity. Then the
government could say "Well, we could have cheaper electricity if we were
to build nuclear plants." The hip pocket nerve is very sensitive.

Sylvia.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:81aff8Fia6U1@mid.individual.net...

**Dunno what kind of PC you use, or are familiar with, but the
figure (for a, say, Core 2 Duo + LCD screen), the figure is far
closer to 50 ~ 100 Watts in standby. In use, you can add around 20 ~
30 Watts.

Dunno what kind of PC you use, but *in use* there are *very few*
desktop PC's that draw LESS than 70-130 Watts! Some CPU's alone can
draw more than that! And some PSU's waste nearly that much!

**A Core 2 Duo will use as little as 5 Watts, if not doing all that
much.

So not really *in use* then.

**Which is EXACTLY what they're doing at night. When doing word
processing,
emails web browsing, etc, processor power jumps up to maybe 10 Watts.

Instead of "maybe" "figure"ing you'd do better to try some measurements on a
variety of PC's when actually doing those things.

Games
and high end graphics forces the CPU to work harder, but that is not
relevant, since we're discussing computers that are left on at night, when
no one is actually using it.

Nope, I *specifically* replied to your statement "In use, you can add around
20~30 Watts." and quoted your higher figures.
But your idea of in use and in standby are the same it seems.

You said "In use, you can add around 20~30 Watts", that's not sitting
idle
at night. I just turn mine off then.

**I said that. CPUs are, for the most part, doing pretty much nothing in
most computers.

Speak for your own, however there are far more things consuming power in a
PC than the CPU alone!

"Figure" it all you like, but try actually measuring one sometime when
it's
NOT idle. And "2 Watts for the monitor", you are joking right!!!
Clearly you know less about electronics than you think you do.

**Mine consumes 1.6VA on standby and 20VA when in use (yes, I've measured
the figures).

So you actually think 20VA = 2W then?

I would expect more modern monitors consume even less. Don't
forget: We're discussing computers that are left powered at night (when no
one is using them).

NO WE ARE NOT.
Have trouble reading Trevor? Hell I even added asterisks to the *in use*
statement to make it obvious. Maybe time for some new glasses?

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4bb01063$0$5422$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:81aff8Fia6U1@mid.individual.net...
**Dunno what kind of PC you use, or are familiar with, but the
figure (for a, say, Core 2 Duo + LCD screen), the figure is far
closer to 50 ~ 100 Watts in standby. In use, you can add around 20
~
30 Watts.

Dunno what kind of PC you use, but *in use* there are *very few*
desktop PC's that draw LESS than 70-130 Watts! Some CPU's alone can
draw more than that! And some PSU's waste nearly that much!

**A Core 2 Duo will use as little as 5 Watts, if not doing all that
much.

So not really *in use* then.

**Which is EXACTLY what they're doing at night. When doing word
processing,
emails web browsing, etc, processor power jumps up to maybe 10 Watts.


Instead of "maybe" "figure"ing you'd do better to try some measurements on
a
variety of PC's when actually doing those things.

**Already done.

Games
and high end graphics forces the CPU to work harder, but that is not
relevant, since we're discussing computers that are left on at night,
when
no one is actually using it.

Nope, I *specifically* replied to your statement "In use, you can add
around
20~30 Watts." and quoted your higher figures.
But your idea of in use and in standby are the same it seems.

**Nope. The discussion is SPECIFICALLY concerned with PCs that are left on
overnight and not actually being used. I added figures for typical use (not
gaming or high end graphics). Typical office type workloads barely tax a
modern CPU.

You said "In use, you can add around 20~30 Watts", that's not sitting
idle
at night. I just turn mine off then.

**I said that. CPUs are, for the most part, doing pretty much nothing in
most computers.

Speak for your own, however there are far more things consuming power in a
PC than the CPU alone!

**Indeed. An operating hard drive uses more power.

"Figure" it all you like, but try actually measuring one sometime when
it's
NOT idle. And "2 Watts for the monitor", you are joking right!!!
Clearly you know less about electronics than you think you do.

**Mine consumes 1.6VA on standby and 20VA when in use (yes, I've measured
the figures).

So you actually think 20VA = 2W then?

**I said NOTHING of the sort. You can make all the assumptions you wish. I
merely quote VERY broad, APPROXIMATE powers, disputing the FIVE HUNDRED
WATTS originally claimed. Since you are being pedantic and mildly annoying,
I will make the assumption (since you enjoy making your own assumptions)
that you agree with the original premise that typical office computers
(modern, PC style) consume 500 Watts, at night, when not actually being
used. Well, I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. They don't use anything
remotely close to that much power.

I would expect more modern monitors consume even less. Don't
forget: We're discussing computers that are left powered at night (when
no
one is using them).

NO WE ARE NOT.
Have trouble reading Trevor? Hell I even added asterisks to the *in use*
statement to make it obvious. Maybe time for some new glasses?

**Like I said: You are wrong. Typical office style PCs do not use anything
remotely close to 500 Watts at idle.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:81aijiFguU1@mid.individual.net...

**Dunno what kind of PC you use, or are familiar with, but the
figure (for a, say, Core 2 Duo + LCD screen), the figure is far
closer to 50 ~ 100 Watts in standby. In use, you can add around
20
~30 Watts.

Dunno what kind of PC you use, but *in use* there are *very few*
desktop PC's that draw LESS than 70-130 Watts! Some CPU's alone
can
draw more than that! And some PSU's waste nearly that much!

**A Core 2 Duo will use as little as 5 Watts, if not doing all that
much.

So not really *in use* then.

**Which is EXACTLY what they're doing at night. When doing word
processing,
emails web browsing, etc, processor power jumps up to maybe 10 Watts.


Instead of "maybe" "figure"ing you'd do better to try some measurements
on
a
variety of PC's when actually doing those things.

**Already done.

Yeah right! That's why you "figure" "maybe".

Games
and high end graphics forces the CPU to work harder, but that is not
relevant, since we're discussing computers that are left on at night,
when
no one is actually using it.

Nope, I *specifically* replied to your statement "In use, you can add
around
20~30 Watts." and quoted your higher figures.
But your idea of in use and in standby are the same it seems.

**Nope. The discussion is SPECIFICALLY concerned with PCs that are left on
overnight and not actually being used.

So why don't you answer MY complaint about what YOU wrote, rather than
deciding what YOU want to discuss instead! Obviously you are not prpared to
back up your original sttement, the ONE to which *I* specifically addressed
my argument.
What a waste of time you are.

I added figures for typical use (not
gaming or high end graphics). Typical office type workloads barely tax a
modern CPU.

Not in dispute, but still does not prove you spurious claim.

You said "In use, you can add around 20~30 Watts", that's not sitting
idle
at night. I just turn mine off then.

**I said that. CPUs are, for the most part, doing pretty much nothing
in
most computers.

Speak for your own, however there are far more things consuming power in
a
PC than the CPU alone!

**Indeed. An operating hard drive uses more power.



"Figure" it all you like, but try actually measuring one sometime
when
it's
NOT idle. And "2 Watts for the monitor", you are joking right!!!
Clearly you know less about electronics than you think you do.

**Mine consumes 1.6VA on standby and 20VA when in use (yes, I've
measured
the figures).

So you actually think 20VA = 2W then?

**I said NOTHING of the sort.

Oh yes you did. You claimed 2W for an operating monitor, then say yours is
20VA, so which is it?

You can make all the assumptions you wish. I
merely quote VERY broad, APPROXIMATE powers,
disputing the FIVE HUNDRED WATTS originally claimed.

Nope, YOU specified a range of power between 70-130 W for a PC *IN USE*,
(50-100W in standby) and it's still there at the top of the post for all to
see!

Since you are being pedantic and mildly annoying,

You OTOH are being a complet pain in the arse!

I will make the assumption (since you enjoy making your own assumptions)
that you agree with the original premise that typical office computers
(modern, PC style) consume 500 Watts, at night, when not actually being
used. Well, I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. They don't use
anything
remotely close to that much power.

Please quote where I ever said they did. Like all your assumptions it seems,
you are once again full of shit!

I would expect more modern monitors consume even less. Don't
forget: We're discussing computers that are left powered at night (when
no
one is using them).

NO WE ARE NOT.
Have trouble reading Trevor? Hell I even added asterisks to the *in use*
statement to make it obvious. Maybe time for some new glasses?

**Like I said: You are wrong. Typical office style PCs do not use anything
remotely close to 500 Watts at idle.

Which was NEVER in dispute in any of MY posts. Try reading what I wrote, not
what you would prefer to respond to.
And of course your claim of 70-130W for a PC *IN USE* is still wrong, and
your continual effort to try and change the subject simply proves you still
cannot support such a statement.

MrT.

 

[Mauried]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:24:35 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 29/03/2010 1:10 PM, Mauried wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:45:56 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 29/03/2010 10:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bafdab1$0$5231$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
On 29/03/2010 7:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 4:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 1:02 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html

It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts (preferably not on the eastern seabord of Australia,
given that that's where I live).

**Clearly, your sense of humour is different to the rest of us. I
certainly don't find such an event the least bit amusing.
Fortunately, like most media crap, there were no problems.



Not amusing that those who wanted to reduce power consumption for
an hour end up reducing it for a day? Oh well, different things
amuse different people I suppose.

**Your words:
"It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts....."

I do not share your sense of humour. Such an event would be
catastrophic and would almost certainly lead to the deaths of
people.

In fact, regardless of our senses of humour, it seems unlikely
anything would happen, unless enthusiasm for Earth Hour were much
greater than it actually is. A snapshot of the 5 minute demand
graph for NSW at the relevent time is here

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sylviae/earthhour.png

It's taken from

http://www.aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_5NSW1.html

which changes with time.

Bearing in mind that the time axis is standard time, and that
we're currently in summer time, it's hard to see any impact of
Earth Hour. Certainly variations of a similar magnitude are seen
at other times of day.

**Which is pretty much what I said elsewhere. It is a symbolic act.



Mostly symbolic of ignorance when people light candles instead, thus
increasing their CO2 output,

**Do they? Who did? I didn't.

Well, presumably you know better.

**Perhaps you missed my questions. Here they are again:

Do they? Who did?

**Do they? Who did?




But a lot of people don't, which
means they're protesting about an issue they have little or no
understanding of.

**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are
unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that needs
to
be conveyed.

People convey it in a strange way when they increase their CO2 emissions
allegedly in support of the idea that emissions should be reduced.

**Who does and how did they do it?


Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his
creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many people.
All
that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the fuck up and allow the
scientists to get the message across.

It's far from clear that that's the problem at all.

**I see. You are suggesting that the guys at CSIRO, BOM, NASA and the IPCC
are idiots and we should give credence to Tony Abbott and Steve Fielding. Is
that your contention? Please list Tony Abbott's and Steve Fielding's
credentials in climate science. The facts are MUCH clearer to those of us
with a passing knowledge of science. Creationist idiots need to be ignored.
It is a pity that you allow them any air.

No, you're missing the entire point that I was making. I'm saying that
the scientists have got the message across. The message has been heard.
Earth Hour is not needed to push the message.

Instead of Earth Hour, there should be a "I'm willing to pay to reduce
CO2" hour, with people handing over hard cash.

Sylvia.


Theres no evidence at all that the people want to hand over money
to reduce CO2.

I agree entirely, except for the very few who've elected to pay a
premium for "green" sourced power.

All Ive ever seen from opinion polls is that the people want the Govt
to do something to combat climate change, but the something is not
defined.
Taxing CO2 emissions is the Govts idea, not the populations.

Yes, for some bizarre reason, the Government assumed that the evident
desire of the electorate for action to reduce CO2 emissions was
accompanied by a willingness to pay for it.

Pretty obvious from 6 failed Climate change conferences so far, that
the will to reduce CO2 emissions by taxing it simply isnt there.
Time to start looking at alternatives, like building Nuclear Power
plants, and closing down Coal plants.
Zero chance of this happening though.


It may happen when coal plants are retired at the end of their useful
lives, and replaced by more expensive (on a total cost basis) gas fired
plants, with a resulting increasin the price of electricity. Then the
government could say "Well, we could have cheaper electricity if we were
to build nuclear plants." The hip pocket nerve is very sensitive.

Sylvia.

Their useful life is a long way off, with the exception of Hazlewood
which will most likely go gas.
At the same time the NSW Govt is looking at building 2 new 2.2 GW coal
fired plants in the Hunter.
45 years is the typical life of a coal plant.
Also, most of the Coal Plants in Australia are now privately owned, so
the owners will take the least risky option when replacement is needed
and that will be gas, also a very expensive option.
The other problem is that electricity supply is essentially a State
Govt issue, so rising electricity prices will be reflected by anger
against State Govts, not against the Feds.
We will see this on July 1st this year in NSW.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4bb022b1$0$24251$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

**I said nothing of the sort.

Again, you are making more assumptions. Just like the one where you claimed
that typical office PCs use 500 Watts when not in use.

If you are in doubt, I suggest you read up on the following:

'Energy star'

As it pertains to monitors that are not in use, but automatically switch to
standby.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David L. Jones]

Mauried wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:45:56 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 29/03/2010 10:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bafdab1$0$5231$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
On 29/03/2010 7:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 4:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 1:02 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/03/2010 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-headache-for-power-suppliers-20100326-r37h.html

It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered
cascading blackouts (preferably not on the eastern seabord
of Australia, given that that's where I live).

**Clearly, your sense of humour is different to the rest of
us. I certainly don't find such an event the least bit
amusing. Fortunately, like most media crap, there were no
problems.



Not amusing that those who wanted to reduce power
consumption for an hour end up reducing it for a day? Oh
well, different things amuse different people I suppose.

**Your words:
"It would be really funny if an Earth Hour triggered cascading
blackouts....."

I do not share your sense of humour. Such an event would be
catastrophic and would almost certainly lead to the deaths of
people.

In fact, regardless of our senses of humour, it seems
unlikely anything would happen, unless enthusiasm for Earth
Hour were much greater than it actually is. A snapshot of
the 5 minute demand graph for NSW at the relevent time is
here

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sylviae/earthhour.png

It's taken from

http://www.aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_5NSW1.html

which changes with time.

Bearing in mind that the time axis is standard time, and that
we're currently in summer time, it's hard to see any impact
of Earth Hour. Certainly variations of a similar magnitude
are seen at other times of day.

**Which is pretty much what I said elsewhere. It is a
symbolic act.



Mostly symbolic of ignorance when people light candles
instead, thus increasing their CO2 output,

**Do they? Who did? I didn't.

Well, presumably you know better.

**Perhaps you missed my questions. Here they are again:

Do they? Who did?

**Do they? Who did?




But a lot of people don't, which
means they're protesting about an issue they have little or no
understanding of.

**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are
unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that
needs to
be conveyed.

People convey it in a strange way when they increase their CO2
emissions allegedly in support of the idea that emissions should
be reduced.

**Who does and how did they do it?


Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his
creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many
people. All
that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the fuck up and
allow the scientists to get the message across.

It's far from clear that that's the problem at all.

**I see. You are suggesting that the guys at CSIRO, BOM, NASA and
the IPCC are idiots and we should give credence to Tony Abbott and
Steve Fielding. Is that your contention? Please list Tony Abbott's
and Steve Fielding's credentials in climate science. The facts are
MUCH clearer to those of us with a passing knowledge of science.
Creationist idiots need to be ignored. It is a pity that you allow
them any air.

No, you're missing the entire point that I was making. I'm saying
that the scientists have got the message across. The message has
been heard. Earth Hour is not needed to push the message.

Instead of Earth Hour, there should be a "I'm willing to pay to
reduce CO2" hour, with people handing over hard cash.

Sylvia.


Theres no evidence at all that the people want to hand over money
to reduce CO2.

Really?
What about the nearly 1 million energy customers who have voluntarily signed
up for the GreenPower scheme in it's various forms?
Almost all of those are residential customers, and many of them (like
myself) voluntarily pay a fair bit extra for 100% renewable electricity.

Whether or not they do it because they only care about CO2 levels, and/or
other pollutants or impacts etc, or they simply want a sustainable energy
future is open to debate. But sign up they do.

Dave.

--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com