Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Earth Hour headache for power suppliers

M

Mr.T

Jan 1, 1970
0
David L. Jones said:
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.
 
M

Mr.T

Jan 1, 1970
0
Trevor Wilson said:
**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?
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.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mr.T said:
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.
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.
 
D

David L. Jones

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mr.T said:
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.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
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 Compliance Audit 2008.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.
 
M

Mr.T

Jan 1, 1970
0
Trevor Wilson said:
**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!

**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.
 
M

Mr.T

Jan 1, 1970
0
David L. Jones said:
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.
 
D

David L. Jones

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sylvia said:
The Green Power annual audit (most recent being 2008 for some reason)

http://www.greenpower.gov.au/admin/file/content13/c6/GreenPower Compliance Audit 2008.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.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.
 
J

John Tserkezis

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
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.
 
A

Atom Egoyan

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sylvia Else said:
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
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
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.
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.
 
F

fritz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sylvia Else said:
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.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.
 
M

Mr.T

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sylvia Else said:
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.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sylvia said:
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?
 
F

fritz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sylvia Else said:
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/g...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!
 
M

Mr.T

Jan 1, 1970
0
fritz said:
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.
 
Top