You still need to "pump it back up." The fridges/freezers that have warmed up a bit will all run as soon as they are turned back on to bring the temperature back down. The difference is that pumped storage borrows power now for release later, while powering down fridges/freezers borrows power in the future by reducing demand now.
SteveW
The wind and sun will always be free. The means of gathering it is expensive because it is so dispersed.
As fossil fuels (never free)near depletion they will become more and more expensive. So expensive that the sum of purchasing them and converting them will exceed the sum of gathering renewable energy. The only debate is when this will happen. Sensible people think within a decade. But we need to prepare now. Ten years on will be too late. Frack gas will give us a chance to catch up.
It's already too late for nuclear even if it wasn't a stupid idea.
Exactly what do you think the several links I posted above are, if not sources other than Wikipedia? I always cross check when searching for data online. That is how research is supposed to be carried out.
I note your use of the word usually. Obviously you realise that it does not always happen.
Every researcher should always work on that assumption. For every topic I can argue a case for, I try to be able to argue an equally convincing case against. If I can't, the truth is fairly obvious. If I can, I try to decide which is the most probable.
Information that is contrary to the views of the majority doesn't last long. That does not mean it is necessarily bad. See my point above about the discovery of helicobacter pylori by Dr. Barry Marshall and Dr. Robin Warren.
Colin Bignell
May, possibly, if you believe the linear no threshold model. Even if it does, nuclear is still by far the safest method of generation.
Colin Bignell
You keep saying that to people who make you look like a moron.
Nowhere near the end. Every year maintenance engineers are killed working on wind turbines.
There's precious little evidence of that.
That's bollocks Harry.
What problems are those Harry? The location of your brain? I don't know that one other than it's not between your ears and there's a strong probability that it is close to your underpants.
Certainly I would use that figure to advocate the need to get nuclear power up and running ASAP. However, for oil, the figure, based upon proven reserves, is probably nearer 40 years and at least a century for probable reserves. For coal, it is well over a century.
It is the only reasonable option if we want not to run out of energy and it will almost certainly always be cheaper than renewable energy.
Colin Bignell
Gosh, you mean their life is reckoned to be a year shorter after one year, two years shorter after two years, etc, type of thing ?? That's a clever trick.
The ones who died at Chernobyl died pretty quick. The others, who had a dose of I-131, mostly recovered AIUI, and wouldn't even have got sick if the authorities hadn't been so paranoid.
Which problem is that then? The political one of overcoming opposition from eco-fascists?
The fact that you haven't noticed that he *has* checked elsewhere shows that you are a dimwit.
There is an unfortunate similarity in numbers between two groups affected by radiation from Chernobyl, which can lead to confusion.
Originally there were an estimated 4,000 cases of children affected by thyroid cancer which, as you say, mostly recovered without any long term effect and could have been prevented entirely by quicker action. This figure was later revised to 6,000, although it is unclear whether this was due to actual exposure or a higher detection rate, because they were being more closely screened.
There were also 4,000 emergency workers, involved in the clean up, who, according to a WHO estimate, received sufficient exposure to shorten their lives. However, WHO used the linear no threshold model which gives the worst possible case but which is also generally discredited. The accepted threshold at which no long term effects can be expected is
100mSV and only 2,200 emergency workers received higher doses than that, with the average exposure among them being about 165mSV.Those 2,200 are considered at risk of having their lives shortened by the exposure although, possibly only by a few months in many cases. The trouble is that nobody may ever know whether it had any effect or not as they are far more likely to die early from other chronic health problems, particularly heart disease and alcohol related diseases, that affect their areas.
Colin Bignell
Thanks for that better exposition.
SFAIK, all the deaths in the figures I quoted relating to wind power and solar roof panels involve people installing or maintaining them. For hydro, it is mainly dam failures.
Colin Bignell
That's the equivalent of around 1 death a month at Drax
Working at heights is dangerous.
Colin Bignell
The death toll from wind power is shocking. 136 deaths to-date with 84 maintenance and engineering staff and the rest being members of the public. Blade failures top the league of accidents leading to a fatality, fire comes second. However there are suggestions that windpower companies cover up fatal incidents and the actual death toll cod be a order of magnitude greater.
The greens tend to grossly inflate deaths caused by nuclear power. As you identified the number of deaths that can be attributed to Chernobyl to-date is 56. The greens claim 4000. When pressed they admit that this is a worst case estimate of future deaths but this becomes less likely as each year passes.
As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, you only get 4,000 by using the LNT model. If you use an exposure threshold of 100mSV, which most researchers say is the limit below which no adverse effects have been detected, the number drops to 2,200. Many of those live in areas where they are at a much higher risk of death from heart disease or alcohol related disease.
Interesting; thank you. A number of fatalities have occurred since the site I got the figures from did the calculations for wind farms and, even allowing for greater installed capacity in the same period, it looks as though a figure of 0.15 deaths per TWH may be rather generous to the industry.
Colin Bignell
Quite clearly you don't even begin to understand the nature of the problem. I have posted several links. One last time shit fer brains.
Another shit fer brains. One last time for you too.
The problem is waste disposal.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.