Semi OT Latestbunch of idiots.

[The Other Mike]

Harry, a fully worked example of what you are proposing has been posted here in the recent past with a modern fridge freezer as the reference (using manufacturers quoted annual kWh figures)

With 25 million of them in use it leads to just 500MW of load saving so almost completely irrelevant with peak demands of 40 - 60GW

A fridge freezer will also have issues with interruptions of many hours particularly during periods when access is required and there are no other domestic appliances that lend themselves to interruptions at or around the peak.

[Nightjar]

...

Actually, it wasn't. The price of coal in the early 19th century was around £100 a ton at today's values, with a rise to around £300 a ton during the Napoleonic Wars. In real terms, apart from a dip in price in the 1960s, coal today is the cheapest it has ever been.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

because strip mining surface or near surface sites is incredibly simple and cheap, especially if no one minds the rivers filling up with shit.

best thing to do with our deep coal is burn it where it stands deep underground. then pipe water down, get steam out and drive a power station with it. Or turn it into coal gas and burn that . after fracking it for trapped methane of course.

[bert]

In message , harryagain writes

Diamonds are intrinsically cheap. It's the rigged market and vanity which keeps the price up.

[whisky-dave]

say 12 ours a day,, but at least it was cheap...

But you've missed the point the point was what if teh cost of genrating the power is bad for peole or even a whole country would it still be OK for us as consumers to support such generation. Afterall we do simialr things with clothes and food.

The point is are there any morals when generating or making anything.

[bert]

In message , harryagain writes

As defined in the article in the DT announcing the buy-in price for wind generated electrcial power.

[bert]

Don't talk s**te.

[bert]

In message , harryagain writes

But some will be more expensive than others.

[bert]

In message , harryagain writes

Yes because "knobheads who have no idea what is going on" have listened to fuckwits like you instead of getting on with the job of securing our energy supplies by the most obvious and cheapest method - building nukes.

[bert]

[The Other Mike]

Harry, does your internet go off when the sun doesn't shine?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Bit like renewable energy then. Except it aint cheap BEFORE the rigged market.

[harryagain]

So you say. Dunno where you get your expertise from. Oh, I know. Everything's simpleto the simple minded.

There wil be mass starvation is overpopulated third world countries. (Mostly in Africa) It was only the glut of cheap fossil fuel sustained them.

.

[harryagain]

Ah that's ecessive supply due to technolgy. Diurnal variation. The new problem will be deficit due to weather variation. Hence irregular and less predictable.

Well if you can't see that now there's no hope for you.

[harryagain]

Quite right but the half wit hasn't heard about it. The freezer is only one example that is current Electrically heated water is another. And don't forget, the bit you lop off the peak fills in the valley so the effect is "doubled"

Virtually all domestic appliances will have to be similar/redesigned or have storage devices within them. Eg, you could have an LED lamp with internal battery. Even a TV.Or one for the lighting system. Endless possibities.

[harryagain]

They would be worthless because we can live without them, that is the only reason. Industrial ones are handy for the angle grinder. The rich have to have something to spend their excess wealth on I suppose.

The activities of de Beers is of no interest to me. My wife has two little diamonds but is not in the market for any more.

[harryagain]

They will go down the recycle centre where the cadmium telluride will be extracted for reuse. The technology is resolved. I imagine by then it will be a large and profitable industry.

Unlike trying to dispose of nuclear waste. Which is yet unresolved.

[harryagain]

Tell us all how it's done since you are privy to such unique knowledge.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I can tell you have never actually BEEN to Africa harry.

Almost by definition, a third world country is one where there is no widespread use of fossil fuel.

Only renewable energy like burning cow dung, windmills, using manual or ox or donkey drawn ploughs or carts.

Its exactly the sort of place you want to turn Britain into.

[Nightjar]

If you want to argue that, then nuclear, as by far the safest way to generate electricity, is the only option. If you assume that 4,000 people will suffer an early death due to Chernobyl, then it has killed or shortened the life of 0.04 people per TWh. If you accept that Chernobyl was a one-off event that cannot happen again and ignore those early deaths, it goes down to 0.004. The next safest, excluding Banqiao, is Hydro at 0.10 deaths per TWh, then wind at 0.15.

Colin Bignell