Connect with us

Politicians and energy policy

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by rickman, May 23, 2008.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. krw

    krw Guest

    WAIT A MINUTE! The useless states are on either end. You want to
    be left alone with the weenies?
     
  2. Jim Yanik

    Jim Yanik Guest

    how does the power meter control your WH or other in-house loads?
    It would have to have a device wired into the WH and other loads.
    (some may just plug in.)

    My local power company offers a thermostat that they can control to shut
    off your AC during peak power demand periods.
     
  3. Jim Yanik

    Jim Yanik Guest

    Yet it's guys like AlGore that use energy FAR above the ordinary household
    in energy,while promoting "green" for everyone else.Or like liberal Ted
    Kennedy who blocked the windfarm slated for far off his Hyannisport
    compound.
    Also the jet-set Hollywood liberals that fly on private planes instead of
    more-efficient commercial passenger jets.

    Leftist weenies are far more "do as I say and not as I do" than
    convervatives.
     
  4. Guest

    So much for your powers of discrimination. Too much ingestion of
    conciousness-altering substances and you don't know what's real any
    longer, any more than Jim does (but at least you've had fun while
    getting out of contact with reality, and you can still spell "Sloman"
    the same way that I do).
     
  5. Guest

    Safely? France is just slower in getting around to having its own
    Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or Windscale (http://www.lakestay.co.uk/
    1957.htm).
    Brilliant - except that the government is sticking their waste in
    holding tanks until someone works out where they can set up a safe
    long term (hundreds of thousands of years) repository - probably on
    the far side of the Moon.
    It does seem that way. Though some of us do know more than the average
    school child, not that the bulk of us beleive that.
     
  6. Guest

    You've forgotten about Windscale then? As usual, the U.K. screwed up
    first.
     
  7. Guest

    There aren't all that many leftist weenies who have the resources to
    be as extravagant as the representative rightist, and I'd guess that a
    rather smaller proportion of that small group actually exploit that
    capacity when you compare them with their right wing equivalents.

    Al Gore and his staff do use a lot of energy, but they also
    communicate the global warming message on a large scale. Exxon-Mobil
    committed comparable shareholder resources to getting corruptible
    "scientists" to exploit their established reputations by publishing
    junk science in an effort to discredit the good science behind the
    global warming message. I'd be inclined to say that Al Gore's
    extravagance - such as it is - is rather more morally justifiable.
     
  8. Guest

    It depends on how you define productive. You can't eat money.

    Actually, what Marx and Engles pointed out was that the rightists
    don't produce anything - they exploit the productive capacity of the
    leftist working classes and - in the absence of a well organised
    trade union movement - only give their workers the bare minimum needed
    to keep them alive.

    Bismark was the first right wing politician to realise that by giving
    the workers just a little bit more than the the bare minimum he could
    decrease their motivation to join and support trade unions and leave
    the capitalists with a slightly smaller portion of a significantly
    bigger pie.

    The U.S. republicans have never really understood this point, and
    still want the freedom to wreck the economy by screwing their working
    class beyond the point of diminishing returns.
     
  9. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    So what happens when that fuel runs out? Oh...

    Reprocessing isn't free, and in fact it costs a significant portion of the
    reactor's output. I've heard figures of only three times more capacity to
    burn U238 --> Pu239 and other transuranics, when reprocessing is factored
    in. Considering U235 is less than 1% of naturally occuring fuel, that's a
    considerable loss, going from over 100 times down to just 3. Hardly seems
    worth the expense.
    Japan and France together occupy about half the population of the U.S., and
    don't burn as much energy per capita (remember we're notoriously
    power-hungry...politically or otherwise). If much of the world adopted
    nuclear for 100% of their needs, the risk would be substantially higher.

    What's more, I've heard estimates of anywhere from 100 years worth of fuel,
    to just 3 years, if the world switched to nuclear power. I don't know the
    details of these figures, but you do need to consider just how much energy
    the world actually uses. It's a *LOT*.
    Hah, wasn't there a tale of nuclear waste being burned in open pits with
    gasoline or something at Area 51? Probably as told by, like...Bob Lazar,
    but hey...

    Tim
     
  10. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    He said *western*. The UK is a couple THOUSAND miles EAST of the U.S.,
    which you should know by now is the center of the world. So there. ;-)

    What he should've said is, no *modern* western nuclear reactor *design*,
    such as used at TMI. For instance, the period's corresponding eastern
    design, the Soviet RBMK, was inherently unstable and weren't shielded with
    a huge-assed concrete reactor dome.

    Tim
     
  11. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    Nah nah, you have to look at it on the larger scale. For one thing, he's
    only following Thomas Jefferson, "do as I say, not as I do", which surely
    should be a most patriotic, American approach to begin with.

    Now, you've got to figure that, if his efforts can starve more than ten
    poor households out of existence, then their energy consumption more than
    compensates for his own, and he has therefore made a net benefit in
    reducing energy consumption. See how that works? ;-)

    Tim
     
  12. rickman

    rickman Guest

    When I was a kid, we had "dumb" electric meters, one for the water
    heater and one for the rest of the house. But we had "smart" rates.
    If we let the power company set the water heater meter so that it was
    cut off during peak load times, we got a break on the rate.

    I think that a lot of this should be done by providing rates dependent
    on the aggregate amount of juice used. If rates were higher during
    the day, *everyone* would be cutting back on electricity use during
    the day.

    I don't see how the "smart" load controls can do a good job. For all
    practical purposes this is exactly the same as a rolling blackout,
    just spread out rather than being focused on a specific area. If my
    AC is running 80% of the day to keep the house cool and the meter cuts
    "levels" it for an hour, that just means it will run continuously for
    the rest of the day playing catchup raising the peak load the rest of
    the day. This would cause other houses to be "leveled" which will
    raise the peak load the rest of the day, resulting in more
    "leveling"... You see where this is going. Load leveling won't
    reduce peaks without having an effect on the average temperature in
    the places being cooled... unless there is some means of leveling over
    a 24 hour period which requires energy storage.

    The point of using the hybrid batteries for this is that they are
    actually well suited to night time charging since that is when they
    are not otherwise used and as long as you aren't running them, they
    represent untapped power generation. This is a useful way to level
    the load over a 24 hour period.

    My concern about using the hybrids this way is that the batteries will
    wear out earlier and these are some seriously expensive batteries.
    But that is the point of paying the consumer for his storage of
    energy. Since this is all done with rate changes between day and
    night, the consumer will be the one paying and power usage will also
    be moderated during the day.

    Someone said you have to "dehumidify" during the day... maybe you do
    to some degree, but if you aren't in the house, there is very little
    moisture entering it. It is when you open the doors that most of the
    moisture enters the house. That can be removed at night when you need
    to cool the house. The "smart" controls need to be able to turn the
    AC way back when you are not there and then return the house to the
    conditions you want *before* you return home. So they need to be
    controlled from your cell phone or from your work computer. A simple
    timer just doesn't cut it for many of us not on a timetable.

    Rick
     
  13. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    Or an old house. This house was built in 1898 and leaks like a sieve!

    Tim
     
  14. Just switching to hybrids won't do any significant good, especially now
    that Detroit is selling bigger, heavier, more powerful hybrids that still
    use about the same amount of energy to get from point A to B. Even the
    Toyota Prius is becoming less efficient because they have added more
    horsepower and weight. A real contribution will be made by driving smaller
    vehicles with less power, and driving them more conservatively. If a
    significant number of people switched to more efficient vehicles for daily
    use, and/or changed their driving habits, demand for gasoline would drop
    enough to cause a surplus, and prices will immediately drop. If it happened
    quickly enough, it would create a storage crisis, as the refineries keep
    pumping, ships keep coming into port, and tanker trucks fill up, expecting
    to fill up tanks at gas stations. The strategic reserves are already near
    capacity, and there is very little individual storage capacity, so even if
    prices would drop to $2, there would be no place to put the excess
    gasoline. But it probably "ain't gonna happen".

    Paul
     
  15. Like this?
    http://pricedingold.com/us-retail-gasoline/


    martin
     
  16. rickman

    rickman Guest

    I live in an old house (ca 1962 with plenty of unintended ventilation)
    near Washington, DC with summer humidity of nearly 100 % and temps
    above 90F. Unless you are in the middle of the Everglades, you got
    nothing on us. The bottom line is that even leaky houses don't leak
    unless something is pushing the air. Humid weather seldom has
    significant winds and if you aren't home, no one is opening the
    doors. I have left my house closed up and the AC off for hours during
    the day. Other than the first hour that it takes to get the temp down
    to anything remotely reasonable, it is then fine.

    That is the point. If the house is allowed to heat up during the day,
    it then takes less work to cool it down than it would to keep it cool
    all day. But no one wants to come home to a house that is 90F inside
    and wait for it to cool down. But if the AC is smart enough to
    actually "know" when you will be home, then it can cool it down to
    match your needs.

    The idea of using a "smart" electric meter to achieve the same power
    reducing effect as rolling blackouts is bogus. AC, the primary power
    consumption, is duty cycle driven. The thermostat in your house is
    actually a duty cycle modulator to maintain a temperature. If the
    power company has control over it to cut it out for periods at peak
    usage, all that does is to make the AC run at a *higher* duty cycle
    the rest of the time. The only way they can actually save power is to
    reduce the periods that your AC is enabled to the point where the duty
    cycle is below where it can maintain the set temperature. Then the
    temperature inside will rise, because the power company is now
    regulating it, not your thermostat.

    Rick
     
  17. rickman

    rickman Guest

    I don't see this as inevitable. I participate in many other groups
    and this is the only one that periodically invokes the Nazi clause of
    usenet.

    But there is the policy of "When in Rome...". Since I disagree with
    you, maybe I should call you some offensive name and ridicule your
    heritage???

    Naaah. I'll just sit back and watch the idiots play.
     
  18. rickman

    rickman Guest

    There was an interesting opinion article on this in the current issue
    of Scientific American. The author pointed out a lot of problems with
    reprocessing which include the fact that the power plants that use the
    reprocessed fuel are much more dangerous, so much that we scrapped
    plans for them many years ago. Also the construction costs for the
    reprocessing plants required is in the 100's of billions... and when
    was the last time something like this was built *on budget*?

    The issue of storage is very under-researched in the sense that we
    only have data on how to store these materials for about 10% of the
    time required. After that it is up to the ingenuity of those who come
    after us to figure out. Is that the sort of legacy we want to leave
    behind? I don't want my generation to be responsible for a Nuclear
    "Love Canal".

    That might sound like a reasonable idea, but in 1000 years, it may
    well result in the complete abandonment of the "major metropolitan"
    area. Or worse, it may end up the target of a terrorist attack
    resulting in the poisoning of millions.

    Do you really think the energy problem can be solved so simply?

    Rick
     
  19. krw

    krw Guest

    Yes. Controlling these devices is trivial compared to the power
    meter "network" though. BTW, the network is over-air RF. The other
    obvious advantage is billing. No more meter-readers to pay inflated
    union benefits to.
    They do that too, though IIRC, they control the temperature
    "setback" (both for heat and AC). It's designed so any load can be
    controlled by the power company to do a "soft" load shed, though
    only the larger devices make sense. People may not like it but they
    don't like "hard" load shedding much either. OTOH, perhaps a few
    (million) more blackouts are needed to get people off their asses
    and fire their representatives. $4 (and up) gas may have a silver
    lining.

    I didn't think an interview was a good place to discuss the security
    implications though. ;-)
     
  20. krw

    krw Guest

    There are *plenty* in Ohio too. Surprisingly, I never saw any
    illegals in VT, the whitest and farthest left state in the union
    (funny how that works). ;-)
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-