Earth Hour headache for power suppliers

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:81anmbFnd2U1@mid.individual.net...

**I said nothing of the sort.

And you only NOW snip what you said to prove it
(I left it in *every* post in the vain hope you might actually read it)

What a wanker you are Trevor!

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4bb029f5$0$32748$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:81anmbFnd2U1@mid.individual.net...
**I said nothing of the sort.

And you only NOW snip what you said to prove it
(I left it in *every* post in the vain hope you might actually read it)

**Oops. Here is your claim:

"Oh yes you did. You claimed 2W for an operating monitor"

I said nothing of the sort.

Now go check up 'Energy Star' as it pertains to computer monitors.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:YSVrn.72508$mn6.56617@newsfe07.iad...

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.

Yep, and despite some companies being fined for misrepresentation of their
actual renewable energy supplies being far less than 100%. But I'm all for
such *voluntary* payments. Not so happy about compulsory carbon taxes for
futile tokenism, whilst giving baby bonuses etc. to make the problem worse!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:81aolqFrnvU1@mid.individual.net...

And you only NOW snip what you said to prove it
(I left it in *every* post in the vain hope you might actually read it)


**Oops. Here is your claim:

"Oh yes you did. You claimed 2W for an operating monitor"

I said nothing of the sort.

So why did you need to snip it then when you had snipped *nothing* up til
now?

**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.

Note the IN USE statement which is what *I* SPECIFICALLY referred to.


"> Figure on around 2 Watts for the monitor"

Anyone else can easily see what you actually wrote, and how you continually
tried to redefine the argument to suit yourself. Frankly you are not worth
wasting any more of my time on though!

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4bb02f2a$0$9750$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:81aolqFrnvU1@mid.individual.net...
And you only NOW snip what you said to prove it
(I left it in *every* post in the vain hope you might actually read it)


**Oops. Here is your claim:

"Oh yes you did. You claimed 2W for an operating monitor"

I said nothing of the sort.

So why did you need to snip it then when you had snipped *nothing* up til
now?

**Because, frankly, the whole thing is very, very tiresome. You chose to
ignore the obviously moronic comment about 500 Watt PCs, yet chose, instead,
to focus on my comments which placed the actual operating power levels of
PCs in standby in some kind of sense. I can only wonder why you chose to
quibble about a handful of Watts, rather than concentrating on the '500
Watt' figure. It seems, therefore, that you agree with this patently
nonsensical figure.

**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.

Note the IN USE statement which is what *I* SPECIFICALLY referred to.


"> Figure on around 2 Watts for the monitor"

Anyone else can easily see what you actually wrote, and how you
continually
tried to redefine the argument to suit yourself. Frankly you are not worth
wasting any more of my time on though!

**I was SPECIFICALLY speaking about computers in standby. Which, if you
cared to read what is written, you may just understand.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David L. Jones]

Mr.T wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:YSVrn.72508$mn6.56617@newsfe07.iad...
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.

Yep, and despite some companies being fined for misrepresentation of
their actual renewable energy supplies being far less than 100%.

Yeah, that's been going on since day one.
You have to be very careful about which plan you chose.

Jack Green was one of the first retailers, and consistently one of the worst
offenders. Looks like they have now been de-registered:
http://www.greenpower.gov.au/news_details.aspx?newsID=44

Origin 100% is consistently rated as one of the top providers, and that's
who I'm with. I pay a fair bit extra for my 100% wind power.

But I'm all for such *voluntary* payments. Not so happy about compulsory
carbon taxes for futile tokenism, whilst giving baby bonuses etc. to
make the problem worse!

The Baby Bonus is a joke. And the devil is in the detail with any carbon
tax.
And where is the serious money going into renewable energy research and
infrastructure?

BTW, I like the Story of Stuff's take on Cap & Trade:
http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

Dave.

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

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/03/2010 3:19 PM, David L. Jones wrote:

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.

The Green Power annual audit (most recent being 2008 for some reason)

http://www.greenpower.gov.au/admin/file/content13/c6/GreenPower%20Compliance%20Audit%202008.pdf

speaks volumes. Most people buying green power opt for the lowest level
offered by their chosen provider. It's just more tokenism driven by a
guilt trip.

Sylvia.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:81apj2FvtbU1@mid.individual.net...

And you only NOW snip what you said to prove it
(I left it in *every* post in the vain hope you might actually read
it)


**Oops. Here is your claim:

"Oh yes you did. You claimed 2W for an operating monitor"

I said nothing of the sort.

So why did you need to snip it then when you had snipped *nothing* up
til
now?

**Because, frankly, the whole thing is very, very tiresome.

You have certainly made it so.

You chose to
ignore the obviously moronic comment about 500 Watt PCs,

Simply because I never agreed with it!. I responded to what YOU wrote, not
what someone else wrote. That too much for you to comprehend?

Yet chose, instead,
to focus on my comments which placed the actual operating power levels of
PCs in standby in some kind of sense. I can only wonder why you chose to
quibble about a handful of Watts, rather than concentrating on the '500
Watt' figure. It seems, therefore, that you agree with this patently
nonsensical figure.

It seems once again you are wrong!

**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.

Note the IN USE statement which is what *I* SPECIFICALLY referred to.


"> Figure on around 2 Watts for the monitor"

Anyone else can easily see what you actually wrote, and how you
continually
tried to redefine the argument to suit yourself. Frankly you are not
worth
wasting any more of my time on though!

**I was SPECIFICALLY speaking about computers in standby. Which, if you
cared to read what is written, you may just understand.

So what part of the statement "In use, you can add around 20 ~ 30 Watts"
applies only to standby mode and why?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JgWrn.172835$wr5.82416@newsfe22.iad...

The Baby Bonus is a joke. And the devil is in the detail with any carbon
tax.
And where is the serious money going into renewable energy research and
infrastructure?

A simple carbon tax used to fund public research into renewable energy, and
phase out the existing coal fired power stations doesn't suit big business.
Selling the once publicly owned power stations makes the whole problem worse
of course. Still waiting to see any of the promised benefits! (just like the
sale of public transport)

BTW, I like the Story of Stuff's take on Cap & Trade:
http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

Yep, the only thing worse than giving baby bonuses etc. to help make the
problem worse, is giving free tradeable licenses to the worst polluters at
consumer expense.

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 29/03/2010 3:19 PM, David L. Jones wrote:
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.

The Green Power annual audit (most recent being 2008 for some reason)

http://www.greenpower.gov.au/admin/file/content13/c6/GreenPower%20Compliance%20Audit%202008.pdf

speaks volumes. Most people buying green power opt for the lowest
level offered by their chosen provider. It's just more tokenism
driven by a guilt trip.

Sure, but most of the genuine plans actually cost at least something extra.
So people do seem to care, and guilt trip or no guilt trip, are at least
putting their money behind renewable energy.

Dave.

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

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/03/2010 4:16 PM, David L. Jones wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 29/03/2010 3:19 PM, David L. Jones wrote:
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.

The Green Power annual audit (most recent being 2008 for some reason)

http://www.greenpower.gov.au/admin/file/content13/c6/GreenPower%20Compliance%20Audit%202008.pdf

speaks volumes. Most people buying green power opt for the lowest
level offered by their chosen provider. It's just more tokenism
driven by a guilt trip.

Sure, but most of the genuine plans actually cost at least something extra.
So people do seem to care, and guilt trip or no guilt trip, are at least
putting their money behind renewable energy.

My take on it is that most people are doing it grudgingly, and paying
they least they can to ease their consciences.

Suylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Mar 28, 10:13 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Allan wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:817gsuFet2U1@mid.individual.net...
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-hea....

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.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

This whole earth hour thing is a pure media beef up anyway.
Wow lets turn our lights off to save the world..

**It's SYMBOLIC. It's not a real attempt to do anything. It draws attention
to the very real problems faced by our civilisation.

Don't worry about all the PC's that are left running in every
office,shop and workplace, drawing up to 500 watts each,

**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.

The amount of power that McDonalds alone draw with their massive
hotplates running 7 days a week and now 24 hours every day.

**One could argue that the economy of prividing food via fast food outlets
is a far better use of energy than thousands of housholds using their own
stoves and ovens. Of course, the issue of obesity, heart disease and cancer
(all linked to fast food consumption) is a bigger issue.

You could also consider the fuel used in people travelling there to
buy this crap.
Considering outlets like these are a primary cause of obesity, this
tends also to
increase car usage, as the bigger you are, the harder to walk or bike
long distances. The fact that people
in this state tend to be more unhealthy, less efficient with work
ability, means they consume much more resources.

One could also consider the amount of crap in supermarkets these days
too, but I dont think anything comes close to US fast food chains.

Lets all turn off our lights, and save the world,
and DO NOTHING else because we now all feel we have done our bit
reducing the power consumption by 200 watts to our house for 60
minutes .

**Again: It's SYMBOLIC. Far better would be for people to stop using their
air conditioners, pool pumps and all the other stuff that consumes lots of
power. Stuff like: Concrete manufacture, aluminium smelting, steel making,
etc. IOW: Consumerism is the real problem.

I don't see how we can reduce the use of these resources, short of
reducing population or mandating higher quality
products that last longer and need to be replaced less often. If you
live in a tropical area, and/or high humidity,
air con isn't a luxury. Without it, health problems (especially for
elderly and sick people), lack of productivity etc take their toll.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[John Tserkezis]

kreed wrote:

I don't see how we can reduce the use of these resources, short of
reducing population or mandating higher quality products that last
longer and need to be replaced less often. If you live in a tropical
area, and/or high humidity, air con isn't a luxury. Without it,
health problems (especially for elderly and sick people), lack of
productivity etc take their toll.

You're going to have a hard time convincing the current crop of
greenheads, who in their infinite wisdom, have done some reading, and
learned that people in the past did not have air conditioners, and
managed to survive just fine.
And they quite happily tell the world, writing on their personal
computers, hooked up to an internet feed, sitting in a uber-ergonomic
chair that was constructed from the finest plastic-based fabrics,
refined metal and assortment of damper oils, in a part of the world that
has a temperate climate, that the use of air conditioners is killing the
planet.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Sylvia Else wrote:

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

Sylvia.

A three stage ultra low temp freezer.

 

[kreed]

On Mar 28, 12:11 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> 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-hea....

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, compared with what they'd have output using
ordinary lighting, and turn off things like refrigerators, which will
simply consume the unconsumed energy when they're turned back on.

Sylvia.

If it makes you feel better, the electricity suppler "ERGON" sent out
a brochure to its "customers" last month
stating that users can save money and "their carbon footprint" by
(note: Im not endorsing this AGW rubbish, just quoting)

1> using citronella candles rather than electric lights - not only do
they look better, and use less electricity but as a bonus also repel
insects
2> cook on a BBQ rather than a stove, this also saves heaps of energy
by cooking outside, and not heating the house will save on air
conditioning
3> replace outdoor "guzzling" 150w sensor floodlights with 2x25w
CFL's.


The rest are pretty simple (and will work)

4>Use the clothesline rather than the dryer (if you dont have snow
droppers around)
5>Connect your pool filter to an off-peak tariff
6>use an insulated cover on your heated pool.

customer suggestion:
We use a stovetop gas kettle, and every Wednesday is a no power night.
we use candles only, sit outside and spotlight possums.

 

[Atom Egoyan]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes:

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

Or take a car over the Zimbabwe border and pay a 'carbon tax'. That'll
do the trick.

Atom Egoyan
Melbourne, Australia

 

[kreed]

On Mar 29, 2:19 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

On 29/03/2010 10:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<syl...@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-hea...

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

There is no shortage of people around us who will fall for anything.
Bottled water, designer underpants, poker machines, "low fat" (usually
full of sugar) foods
for example. (we can even look at the opinion of German voters in the
1930's for that matter)
It doesn't necessarily mean that the people who do this are right,
clever or a good example to follow,
just more easily persuaded by promoters with vested interests (who
aren't telling the truth - just doing anything to sell)

On the other hand, it is their money, and in this country I support
their right to buy with it whatever they wish.
Its much better than having 51%+ of the population voting to take YOUR
money out of YOUR pocket and then voting on what
it will be spent on (even if directly against your interests) rather
than leaving it up to you who actually earned it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is another factor to consider too - before supporting this or
any other "green" scheme (including a carbon tax)

I was offered this "green power" in the early 2000's when taking on a
new electricity account when buying a house, and there was plenty of
high pressure selling put on me to sign up to this too - This was
before the AGW garbage gained so much publicity, I hate to think how
they would pressure people now. (this might be another reason people
sign too)

Considering that it would cost about about $30 extra a month, and
considering that when this seemingly small amount was compared with
paying that same amount as extra off the mortgage every month, it ran
into some $15,000 extra over the mortgage period. This doesn't include
the extra income tax paid on the amount earned to pay this, or future
rises in interest rates.

Having been gifted with at least some intellect, having lived in the
real world, and the knowledge that no one will look after my family
and I if I can't, and even worse will happily grind me into the dust
and take everything I have worked for if I were to be unemployed,
incapacitated in future and unable to make payments, the decision
wasn't difficult to make.

Anyone here who is considering anything like this, I would consider
the above carefully using current interest rates and now much larger
power bill amounts.
(loan calculator for you to plug your current figures into
http://www.mortgagechoice.com.au/calculators/how-long-to-repay-calculator.aspx)


I can assure you that no matter how clever, good, secure or
indispensable anyone here thinks they are, in the real world, it can
be kicked out from under you at any time.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/03/2010 11:03 PM, kreed wrote:

The rest are pretty simple (and will work)

5>Connect your pool filter to an off-peak tariff

Shifting loads to off-peak just encourages the building of more
coal-fired base load capacity, and coal is the worst CO2 producer per
unit energy generated.

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Mar 28, 10:13 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Allan wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:817gsuFet2U1@mid.individual.net...
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-hea...

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.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

This whole earth hour thing is a pure media beef up anyway.
Wow lets turn our lights off to save the world..

**It's SYMBOLIC. It's not a real attempt to do anything. It draws
attention to the very real problems faced by our civilisation.

Don't worry about all the PC's that are left running in every
office,shop and workplace, drawing up to 500 watts each,

**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.

The amount of power that McDonalds alone draw with their massive
hotplates running 7 days a week and now 24 hours every day.

**One could argue that the economy of prividing food via fast food
outlets is a far better use of energy than thousands of housholds
using their own stoves and ovens. Of course, the issue of obesity,
heart disease and cancer (all linked to fast food consumption) is a
bigger issue.


You could also consider the fuel used in people travelling there to
buy this crap.

**Indeed.

Considering outlets like these are a primary cause of obesity, this
tends also to
increase car usage, as the bigger you are, the harder to walk or bike
long distances. The fact that people
in this state tend to be more unhealthy, less efficient with work
ability, means they consume much more resources.

**All correct. My comment was solely aimed at the efficiency of cooking
large numbers of meals at one time.

One could also consider the amount of crap in supermarkets these days
too, but I dont think anything comes close to US fast food chains.

**There's plenty of crap in the supermarkets with zero value for human
health.

Lets all turn off our lights, and save the world,
and DO NOTHING else because we now all feel we have done our bit
reducing the power consumption by 200 watts to our house for 60
minutes .

**Again: It's SYMBOLIC. Far better would be for people to stop using
their air conditioners, pool pumps and all the other stuff that
consumes lots of power. Stuff like: Concrete manufacture, aluminium
smelting, steel making, etc. IOW: Consumerism is the real problem.


I don't see how we can reduce the use of these resources, short of
reducing population or mandating higher quality
products that last longer and need to be replaced less often.

**Really? You can't see that people could, for instance, hold off buying a
new car for another year or so? Or, perhaps, planting some trees, rather
than covering a yard with paving? Building smaller, more energy efficient
homes? Wearing an extra layer of clothing, instead of running heaters?
Re-using a PET bottle with tap water saves energy and resources at almost
zero cost. There are many ways to deal with consumerism, without signicantly
impinging on one's life-style.

If you

live in a tropical area, and/or high humidity,
air con isn't a luxury. Without it, health problems (especially for
elderly and sick people), lack of productivity etc take their toll.

**Bollocks. Keeping fluids up and acting sensibly is how people deal with
such conditions. They always have. I watched a bunch og builders putting up
a McMansion next door, over the Summer. Even on the hottest days, the
builders were hard at it. No air con for them. They certainly kept their
fluids up though.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Mar 30, 12:16 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:13 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Allan wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:817gsuFet2U1@mid.individual.net...
Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/earth-hour/earth-hour-hea...

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.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

This whole earth hour thing is a pure media beef up anyway.
Wow lets turn our lights off to save the world..

**It's SYMBOLIC. It's not a real attempt to do anything. It draws
attention to the very real problems faced by our civilisation.

Don't worry about all the PC's that are left running in every
office,shop and workplace, drawing up to 500 watts each,

**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.

The amount of power that McDonalds alone draw with their massive
hotplates running 7 days a week and now 24 hours every day.

**One could argue that the economy of prividing food via fast food
outlets is a far better use of energy than thousands of housholds
using their own stoves and ovens. Of course, the issue of obesity,
heart disease and cancer (all linked to fast food consumption) is a
bigger issue.

You could also consider the fuel used in people travelling there to
buy this crap.

**Indeed.

Considering outlets like these are a primary cause of obesity, this
tends also to
increase car usage, as the bigger you are, the harder to walk or bike
long distances.  The fact that people
in this state tend to be more unhealthy, less efficient with work
ability, means they consume much more resources.

**All correct. My comment was solely aimed at the efficiency of cooking
large numbers of meals at one time.



One could also consider the amount of crap in supermarkets these days
too, but I dont think anything comes close to US fast food chains.

**There's plenty of crap in the supermarkets with zero value for human
health.





Lets all turn off our lights, and save the world,
and DO NOTHING else because we now all feel we have done our bit
reducing the power consumption by 200 watts to our house for 60
minutes .

**Again: It's SYMBOLIC. Far better would be for people to stop using
their air conditioners, pool pumps and all the other stuff that
consumes lots of power. Stuff like: Concrete manufacture, aluminium
smelting, steel making, etc. IOW: Consumerism is the real problem.

I don't see how we can reduce the use of these resources, short of
reducing population or mandating higher quality
products that last longer and need to be replaced less often.

**Really? You can't see that people could, for instance, hold off buying a
new car for another year or so? Or, perhaps, planting some trees, rather
than covering a yard with paving? Building smaller, more energy efficient
homes? Wearing an extra layer of clothing, instead of running heaters?
Re-using a PET bottle with tap water saves energy and resources at almost
zero cost. There are many ways to deal with consumerism, without signicantly
impinging on one's life-style.

I do most of those things already. Every car I have has been kept for

many years before changing (usually when its
becoming too unreliable, or getting to the end of its useful life). I
always have bought based on fuel efficiency - not for environmental,
but cost reasons.

I don't use heaters (They arent needed here), even when in Moscow in
-5 temp, I didnt find it that cold, and wore the same jumper I use
here
It was a pleasure compared to the summer hell here.

I have kept bottled tap water in old PET bottles in the fridge at home
and work for drinking for probably 25+ years that I can remember.
These things make financial sense. I agree fully with you on the
bottled water bullshit. The only time I had bought it was when
overseas and not trusting the local water.

I dont have paving other than the path and driveway to the garage, but
as for trees, I don't have them either
due to the fact that they grow fast and the cost of removing all the
crap from them is substantial. (as well as fees to dump it)
Also when they starting bringing in the laws banning cutting down
trees, I immediately removed almost all of them, while I was still
allowed to,
rather than being stuck with them forever, considering in the future I
might need the space for a shed (and did) or something else and then
face problems getting rid of them.

I did get the house insulated under Krudd's scheme, it has not reduced
the summer temperature by even one degree.

 If you

live in a tropical area, and/or high humidity,
air con isn't a luxury. Without it, health problems (especially for
elderly and sick people), lack of productivity etc take their toll.

**Bollocks. Keeping fluids up and acting sensibly is how people deal with
such conditions. They always have. I watched a bunch og builders putting up
a McMansion next door, over the Summer. Even on the hottest days, the
builders were hard at it. No air con for them. They certainly kept their
fluids up though.

In the high humidity where I live, sweat doesn't evaporate, just
sticks to you and you can't cool down, and you drip
sweat over everything you go near.
Just the same, we have only air conditioned the bedroom and the
workshop.

Working outside has some advantages, you can hose yourself down
regularly and
get some relief. you cant do these sort of things working indoors.
Outdoors you cant have air con.

You can drink all the cold water you want, and its of limited
effectiveness for the above reason.
Even if its not that hot (this summer has been pretty mild by
comparison) the humidity is the killer.

After getting severe heat exhaustion some 14 years back after a
particularly long trip in summer, inland & suffering the effects,
I immediately arranged for air con to be put in the work van, and our
own car. Its a decision I never regret. The fuel consumption didnt
really change, probably due to having the windows closed and
maintaining the aerodynamics of the vehicle.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au