Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

SOLAR, NOT NUCLEAR - Page 10

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Solar Flare on January 11, 2007, 3:41 am
 
That is OK as long as you don't mind going without electrical energy
from time to time when you need your dialysis machine running.

This is going to take a combination of fuels and alternatives to make
it work. None is perfect but the combo system can be.



Posted by Geoffw on January 12, 2007, 9:37 am
 
I don't believe I advocated removing any existing system,
just that renewables can play a far greater role then what
they are now.

Politics seems to run on peak demand rather than sustainable
demand and with business advocating more energy use,
possibly to increase demand so that their investment return
is greater.

If peak is during daylight hours eg perhaps helped by the
air conditioners solar and wind could do a lot to alleviate
the peak.

So how did we all get by when air con wasn't the cheap tool
it is now? a bit like printers the total cost of ownership
is the goal of the seller, sell aircon at a loss knowing the
energy purchases will make a profit



electrical energy

running.

alternatives to make

massive.

against

sweltering


Posted by Solar Flare on January 14, 2007, 8:38 pm
 Usually the grid people do not like the A/C. It makes residential
peaks that net no profits.



Posted by escapeman on March 1, 2007, 11:08 am
 As ever,it will always have to be a mix.

Fist off, are the Swedes, having decided on closing all of their
reactors, not going to start building 'em again?  They have some
Hydro, no oil, zippo sunshine in winter.  Te wood would not last long
if they used that!

Bear in mind that a coal fired power station (Our local, Ratcliffe-on-
Soar) burns *a lot* of Caol.  R-o-S burns 100,000 tonnes a week, I am
told.  Where does that go when burned?

A nuclear reactor has, I understand, about 130 tonnes of fissile
material, useful for 30 years (needs some recycling).  In terms of not
burning up carbon, that sounds pretty useful!  (And the argument of
how much energy is needed for all that concrete - use NON-fossile
based energy, then it matter little.)

However, we can all do our bit, to cut down.  We are bout to build a
house in the UK (56 deg North), and can do a *lot* with just solar
(HW) panels, back boiler in the wood stove, with a gas boiler for
backup.  Pleanty of insulation, even in windows etc.  Some
technologies are not applicable (Ground source heat pumps - we are
sitting on rock!) or wind 9as we are surrounded by trees).  PV is just
too expensive.

As to how you use enery - I disagree with a *need* for air
conditioning.  We had a holiday in Hawaii (Clan Gathering, planted
lots of trees to make up for the flight!) where large fans did
wonderfully well - you just need moving air.

If you HAVE to use air conditiojning, how about using the expelled
heat to heat water?  If you have a GSHP, pump it back into the
ground??

My tuppence worth.


On 11 Jan, 00:28, anthony.d...@gmail.com wrote:


Posted by Solar Flare on March 3, 2007, 3:14 am
 No A/C in Hawaii? I guess not. You in the middle of the ocean on a
little island with lots of breeze. I doubt the temps got over 33 C and
the humidity over 50%.

I have watched you brits land in Canada and try to walk across fresh
tarmac (as you call it) in 37 degree, 95% humidity and end up in the
hospital from heat stroke. We don't have an ocean around us to cool us
in the summer. people here without A/C in the summer end up having
mental breakdowns at work after two weeks of not sleeping every night.
Yes, some here are cheap and stubborn like you are talking but still
have to get up for work unlike a vacation in Hawaii with it's
moderated climate.



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread