Earth Hour headache for power suppliers

[fritz]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bb15d51$0$9290$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

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.

Eh ?
It's the discrepancy between existing base load capacity and off-peak
demand that should be reduced to improve coal efficiency. Evening out
the demand with off-peak tarrifs will always be essential.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 30/03/2010 7:37 PM, fritz wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bb15d51$0$9290$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
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.

Eh ?
It's the discrepancy between existing base load capacity and off-peak
demand that should be reduced to improve coal efficiency. Evening out
the demand with off-peak tarrifs will always be essential.

It does nothing much to coal efficiency. Most coal based generators run
24/7 at their rated output anyway, since it makes no sense to run
anything with a higher marginal cost while there is unused coal
generation capacity.

The motivation for shifting peak loads is to flatten the load curve,
with the result that more of the load is base load. Since the cheapest
way of supplying base load is through the use of coal based generators,
flattening the load curve results, in due course, in more of the total
energy output coming from coal based generators, and thus more CO2.

Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Mar 30, 12:09 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

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.

The CO2 isn't relevant, that scam is old news, has had its day and is
close to dead in the water.


Shifting loads to off peak has to help increase the efficiency of the
existing power stations.
It also has to help prevent the costs needed in building new ones.

If we need them we need them then let's build them.
If we want to remain somewhere in the first world & have any sort of
living standards, cheap electricity is vital.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 30/03/2010 8:41 PM, kreed wrote:

On Mar 30, 12:09 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
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.

The CO2 isn't relevant, that scam is old news, has had its day and is
close to dead in the water.


Shifting loads to off peak has to help increase the efficiency of the
existing power stations.

That's true to a point, in the sense that it allows stations that were
not built as baseload stations to run for more of the time, and
therefore more efficiently use their capital. Thought there's a limit to
that, because they're not usually designed to run 24/7.

It also has to help prevent the costs needed in building new ones.

It defers it to some degree, but the more you run what were designed as
non-baseload plants, the faster they wear out.

A more signficant reason for shifting loads to off-peak times is that it
reduces the transmission infrastructure required - though that is
largely dictated by airconditioning loads on hot days. Of course, it
helps if people aren't running their pool pumps at the same time.

If we need them we need them then let's build them.
If we want to remain somewhere in the first world& have any sort of
living standards, cheap electricity is vital.

If people don't want coal, then we should cut to the chase and build
nuclear.

The problem is that the Greenies keep feeding the disinformation line to
the effect that baseload power can be supplied by solar and windfarms,
which it can't, quite apart from the cost.

Sylvia.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bb1f56a$0$24248$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

The problem is that the Greenies keep feeding the disinformation line to
the effect that baseload power can be supplied by solar and windfarms,
which it can't, quite apart from the cost.

Actually solar, wind, tidal, geothermal etc *are* base load power, just not
very reliable ones! You need FAR more standby generation like gas generators
to cope with periods where solar, wind, tidal etc, are going against you.
Geothermal is more reliable however and used fairly extensively in NZ.

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 30/03/2010 8:41 PM, kreed wrote:


The problem is that the Greenies keep feeding the disinformation line
to the effect that baseload power can be supplied by solar and
windfarms, which it can't, quite apart from the cost.

**No Sylvia, that's YOUR disinformation. Keep sprouting the bullshit though.
There are other non-polluting (zero CO2 emission) systems available that can
easily do base load capacity. You've been informed of this in the past (many
times). Do you think that we've forgotten already?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[fritz]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bb1c174$0$15454$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

On 30/03/2010 7:37 PM, fritz wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4bb15d51$0$9290$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
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.

Eh ?
It's the discrepancy between existing base load capacity and off-peak
demand that should be reduced to improve coal efficiency. Evening out
the demand with off-peak tarrifs will always be essential.

It does nothing much to coal efficiency. Most coal based generators run
24/7 at their rated output anyway, since it makes no sense to run anything
with a higher marginal cost while there is unused coal generation
capacity.

Exactly. We should be eking out every last watt from the existing base
load generators to reduce the total CO2 per watt, 'most' is not the best
practise.

The motivation for shifting peak loads is to flatten the load curve, with
the result that more of the load is base load. Since the cheapest way of
supplying base load is through the use of coal based generators,
flattening the load curve results, in due course, in more of the total
energy output coming from coal based generators, and thus more CO2.

Our economy is driven by price, ask anyone if they want to pay more for
electricity for some dubious CO2 benefit and see how far you get !

It is ludicrous to increase investment in expensive peak-load generators
when simply shifting demand to off-peak increases existing plant efficiency.

Anyway, are you proposing nuclear power instead of coal to replace the base
load
generators ?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global warming Greenie freezes to death !
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/south-pole-tragedy.htm

(Punta Arenas, Chile) Famed global warming activist James Schneider and a
journalist friend were both found frozen to death on Saturday, about 90
miles from South Pole Station, by the pilot of a ski plane practicing
emergency evacuation procedures.

Doubly ironic that the report came from Punta Arenas, where global warming
has been in reverse gear for the last 100 years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=304859340004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Look at the graph !!! I wonder how the AGW faithfull can explain how Punta
Arenas
shows a clear cooling trend for the last 100 years...
Download the station data (.txt file) and plot the trend with Excel if you
don't believe me!

 

[Mr.T]

"fritz" <yaputya@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:hotu6u$rd5$03$1@news.t-online.com...

Doubly ironic that the report came from Punta Arenas, where global warming
has been in reverse gear for the last 100 years.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=304859340004

&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Look at the graph !!! I wonder how the AGW faithfull can explain how Punta
Arenas shows a clear cooling trend for the last 100 years...

Not much of a "clear cooling trend" from that graph, but certainly does not
support GW!

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 30/03/2010 8:41 PM, kreed wrote:
On Mar 30, 12:09 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
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.

The CO2 isn't relevant, that scam is old news, has had its day and is
close to dead in the water.


Shifting loads to off peak has to help increase the efficiency of the
existing power stations.

That's true to a point, in the sense that it allows stations that were
not built as baseload stations to run for more of the time, and
therefore more efficiently use their capital. Thought there's a limit
to that, because they're not usually designed to run 24/7.

It also has to help prevent the costs needed in building new ones.

It defers it to some degree, but the more you run what were designed
as non-baseload plants, the faster they wear out.

A more signficant reason for shifting loads to off-peak times is that
it reduces the transmission infrastructure required - though that is
largely dictated by airconditioning loads on hot days. Of course, it
helps if people aren't running their pool pumps at the same time.


If we need them we need them then let's build them.
If we want to remain somewhere in the first world& have any sort of
living standards, cheap electricity is vital.


If people don't want coal, then we should cut to the chase and build
nuclear.

Oh great, so we can just jump on to another peak-oil like gravy train that
will eventually end!
How long do you think the cheap nuke fuel is going to last? It'll be cheap
for you, but not your grandkids.
Where are they going to put the waste long-term?, and how much is that going
to cost? (Hint, no one's actually figured that one out yet)

Renewable is the only sensible way to go.

The problem is that the Greenies keep feeding the disinformation line
to the effect that baseload power can be supplied by solar and
windfarms, which it can't, quite apart from the cost.

There are other forms of renewable energy too you know. Invest properly in
more research and then combine them all and it's quite possible to
tranistion fully to renewable over time.

Dave.

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