Posted by Donwill on December 7, 2008, 4:04 pm
How about opening a fitness centre and connecting all the machines to
generators, you could also charge the users to generate electricity for you,
However, I don't know what the pay back period on your capital would be? or
even how many people you would need to generate an useful amount of power.?
Posted by Peter Scott on December 7, 2008, 4:16 pm
I believe that an athlete running flat out generates about 300 watt.
Can't do that for long either. That was the problem with man-powered
flight. It was keeping up enough power to overcome the drag for long enough.
So someone running at say 15 kph on a non-powered treadmill for an hour
would generate no more than 0.3kWh of energy. Even if conversion was
100% that's only about 3p worth of electricity.
Posted by Donwill on December 7, 2008, 4:22 pm
I don't think many people will work for 3p an hour these days, however
people pay quite a lot to use these machines, personally I think they're
bonkers they would be better off chopping logs to keep fit.
Posted by The Natural Philosopher on December 7, 2008, 4:28 pm
Its not about keeping fit. Its a fashionable way to preen, show off your
body, get all sweaty watching the oppsite sex (or same sex..), and pick
up a quick shag with your bulging pecs. Or slender tight ass, whichever.
Utter narcissism. Clubbing for those too old to drop E's and stay up all
Posted by Neon John on December 7, 2008, 5:40 pm
good analysis, Peter.
this whole thread illustrates the problem we nukes face. People just don't
understand the magnitude of the energy problem. A nuclear plant isn't that
large - many factories are larger. It can't make that much power, can it?
Well, as a matter of fact, it can. A typical unit generates 1,000 megawatts.
A few less, a few more and many are being uprated during outage and retrofit
but 1000 is a good number. Day in, day out, 24/7 for 18 months or more at a
time between refuelings.
Now consider Hoover Dam
It's nameplate rating is 2,080 megawatts but with a hydro plant, that's
deceptive. It can make that much power only when a specified amount of water
is available. It usually isn't. I couldn't conveniently find the AVERAGE
yearly output of Hoover dam but even if we assume that it can make its
nameplate rating all year long, that's equivalent to roughly one single two
unit nuclear plant.
There's only one Hoover dam. We can plop down nukes pretty much wherever we
Since this is alt.energy.home-power, let's look at one of the more often
mentioned alternatives - wind power. A typical utility wind turbine has a
nameplate rating of from 1 to 5 megawatts. That means that with everything
optimum - wind blowing at the design speed, etc, it would take from 200 to
1000 such turbines to equal ONE NUCLEAR UNIT. Remember that most plants have
two units in the US and at least one (Browns Ferry) has three.
According to the utility trade magazines I get, the availability factor for
wind farms is lousy - typically around 50%. That is, the farm is making, on
average, only half its nameplate rating. The causes are a combination of
(mostly) not enough wind and (partially) low equipment reliability. Lowest
bidder and all that.
The money wasted on wind and solar "alternatives" amount to little more than a
sad joke to us nukes. And to tax- and rate-payers who have a clue.
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources -Albert Einstein