[Gllug] [OT] Technobabble

[Jim Bailey]

On Nov 18, 08:22, Nix wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, dylan at dylan.me.uk prattled cheerily:
> > On Thursday 17 Nov 2005 14:57, Nix wrote:
> >> Everybody with a functioning brain who wants the lights to stay on is
> >> actively promoting a return to nuclear energy. Other techniques don't
> >> scale, or rely on very limited nonrenewable resources, or are more
> >> environmentally damaging, or much more costly, or they can't generate
> >> power on demand and thus run far below capacity much of the time, or,
> >> often, all of those at once.
> > 
> > All or some of that is only true when the technologies are mis-applied:
> 
> My point was that most of them won't scale to anything like providing
> the level and consistency of power to which we've become applied.
> Unless we want to watch every watt, most of them aren't good enough,
> even in combination.

We don't need to watch every watt but we do need to look at more energy
efficiency.  building to LEED standards or the Canadian R2000 standard
can reduce energy consumption dramatically without greatly increasing
the overall cost of a building.

> >> - Solar: doesn't scale, making the panels is very environmentally
> >> damaging, they don't last long, clearing enough land to generate much
> >> power is environmentally damaging, they cost a lot, and can't
> >> generate power on demand.

Solar doesn't need to scale to large installations smart grid technology
is really the way forwards with renewables like PV and urban wind
generation.  Modern PV panel last around 20 years in the UK they pay for
themselves in around 9 years.  In Germany where they see additional
benefits and are subsidised they pay for themselves in around 5-6 years.
As for them being environmentally damaging, if you are talking about the
old myth that PV panels use more energy to produce than they generate in
their lifetime is just not true.  Modern PV have efficiencies of around
25% but within the next few years that is expected to increase to around
40-50% even 60% with lifetimes expected to increase to 30 years around
the lifetime of some roofs by incorporating the PV panels into the
construction of the roof installation and roof costs of buildings can be
combined reducing the costs further.
> > 
> Well, alas most of those applications fail on a little more
> consideration. e.g. preheating water for central heating. Unless you
> plan to absorb energy in the summer and store it for *half a year*, or
> you live in a warm part of the world, solar absorption from a rooftop
> for one day won't come close to providing enough heat for (e.g.) a
> winter evening. After all, in winter the days are short! So, again,
> solar power is providing lots of energy when you don't need it and
> little when you do... this is what I meant by `can't generate power on
> demand'.

If you have electricity meters that work in both directions the 
electricity that is not used during the day can be trickled into the
grid to support commerce and industry.  I don't think most urbanites are
going to show a profit on their energy billings but it is likely to offer
reduction and offset the capital costs of installing the equipment or
increase of mortgage costs if included in the price of a new build.

The answer to keeping warm in winter is not bigger boilers but better
insulation.  The answer to keeping cool in summer is not bigger VAVs but
better insulation again. :)
> 
> >> All power generation methods suck, but I'd like the lights to stay on
> >> for the long term, and the only thing which can do that is nuclear
> >> power. 

I think nuclear power is one option and in some cases a even a good
choice but in a global world large scale solar plants powering
manufacturing systems in Arabia, and other solar rich regions would make
sense in the way that manufacturing in China does now.  I am sure that
millions of workers in China and other places would be moved to new
construction zones, Dubai knows the consquences of "peak oil".

At the other end Iceland geothermic rich is already the only country to
be powered by 100% renewable energy and plans to move its fishing fleet
to fuel cell technology asap.

These countries will become the new industrial and manufacturing
powerhouses over the next century, with emerging nations supplying the
labour and markets for finished goods.

China and India have done the maths and know there growth is not
environmentally stable.  Anyone like myself, who has been in Calcutta
knows how much more immediate the enviromental cost of polluting
wasteful technologies are.  which is why India leads PV research and
development and China has recently ordered all new buildings to reach
new environmental standards and older ones be refitted where possible.
what is happening in the UK and the USA?

> > 
> > There are several alternatives, if only we could get away from the large 
> > scale generation and distribution model. As well as making currently 
> > "fringe" technologies viable, a more localised and distributed system 
> > would be much more robust against failure and disruption.
> 
> Yeah, but you lose lots of efficiency: the trick is to find something
> where you lose less efficiency by building small than you gain by not
> having to transmit the power. This is more compelling in the US with its
> low transmission voltages than it is in the EU...

A lot of the cost of energy is in the transportation cost by generating
locally you reduce those costs.

You are building small but you are also building lots, would the analogy
between mainframes and PCs be amiss here?
> 
> 
> (And, er, what does this have to do with Linux again?)

Much of the technology is based on the idea of smart distributed
networks, multiple layers and redundancy and avoiding being locked into a
single large vendor. :P

-- 
Peace Jim :-)

keys:  http://freesolutions.net/jim/pubkey.asc

 Every morning is the dawn of a new error

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug