We had similar for a while, plugging a kettle in caused the motors to stall. They did boil, albeit on reduced voltage. Upgrading to a 7kW genny was pure luxury. No electric start.
Quite. One person recently showed zero grasp of what it would be like to live on wind & solar when 98% of the generating capacity went down. They thought the lighting would all stay on.
I think it's to justify excessive price rise over time while being able to blame householders for not managing their energy use better now that they have the tools to do so. Remote reading is sensible, but as ever our national politics manages to turn it into another way to scam people.
The ideas is to centrally conttrol all electricity consumption so teht the populatins is powerless to ersist a government who selective switches off power for political purposes.
IT and the internmet, started out as a joyous leaop of freedom and the ability to communicate worldwide, It has now been incorporated into the Party to be used as the biegeeste snopper ever created.
When I said ?pay? I did not just mean in financial terms but lifestyle change as much as anything so no argument there.
I suspect by the time they get fully introduced I will be beyond caring but the supposedly bright future of driverless vehicles won?t be so pleasant on the morning the powers that be decide when ,where and how far you can go at their discretion,not yours.
And all those people who voluntary download that driving monitoring app that is promoted by an insurance company as a sort of family game are taking the first steps that once such things achieve a critical mass as other companies do the same they will become a requirement,initially to get insured and then use of such a tracker will become required by law. Well you can piss of Aviva. We cannot be that far away from vehicles to have a compulsory dashcam judging by the constant appeals from the Police for footage, initially they are a good idea to sort out incidents between individual road users but are fast becoming a surveillance service for the Police. In most cases that will be for society?s good but one day some poor sod who doesn?t fit the Police or their masters agenda will done for withholding evidence or whatever legal term gets dredged up.
Naw pelton wheel turbines where common place by then. If it had been
1802 on the other hand... a "traditional" water wheel would have been more likely.
Cragside, Northumberland was the first house lit by electricty around the 1870's.
formatting link
Rydale Hall was another but a bit later.
Turning into the 1900's water was been quite ingeneiously used to provide compressed and electricity at the bottom of Brewery Shaft.
formatting link
To put some figures on pressure and water volumes the REUK hydro power calculator indicates that to get about 1 kW of electricty you need a 40 m head (approx 4 bar) and a flow rate of 5 litres per SECOND.
Well I did too - thinking such systems had backup. Do solar/wind systems really have no electricity storage or alternative source?
Difficult to predict - there's no one rationality. Some will try to save money, some save 'the planet', some it'll appeal to avoiding waste, some will set an arbitrary level of consumption and ramp up to that. Etc. Who does what and why will unfold once decent scale research has been done in the UK.
In fairness, there might be some reason to do with efficiency and awareness. But it wouldn't surprise me if the main motivation was/is profit in the short term, and data sales into the future.
I was talking of nationwide systems, not single dwelling. Battery storage on that scale is impossible.
I can't see users changing their electricity consumption merely because they have a meter that expresses power use in 2 ways rather than 1
Smart meters permit remote reading, but don't deliver any other form of efficiency improvement. Profit - who do you think lobbied for them to get fitted? The manufacturers of smart meters are enjoying themselves.
Remote reading is sensible & they're much more secure. The rest bundled with them is a mess. There are basic safety problems, failure to display the relevant data, installing meters that don't work with other suppliers, dishonest promotion, and some people have other concerns too.
Apart from the UK's pumped storage systems such as Dinorwig, there is no electricity storage on the UK grid, and those pumped storage systems will only supply electricity for a few hours before they run dry, and anyway they couldn't meet the power demand of the whole country even running flat out. Most, if not all of the appropriate sites for pumped storage are already used, so the options for constructing more of them are close to non-exist ant.
There are alternative sources, such as nuclear or closed-cycle gas turbines, but in a wholly green scenario these would be shut down and dismantled. But if you have to invest in alternative dispatchable sources to back up wind and solar WTWDBATSDS, with sufficient capacity to supply the whole country for several days, why waste money on W&S? Just use the alternative source 24/7. The nuclear option is the only viable one.
At the moment, as I understand it, W&S is just there to fill a gap in a reasonably sustainable way. I don't think anybody of note is suggesting we go 'full green' until this issue of variable demand/supply and storage has been solved.
Yes, you and others keep saying. I can't seem to nail down the pros and cons in a consistent way - above my pay grade sort of thing.
Gap? What gap? Do you mean the one created by closing coal-fired power stations? If so, nukes would have been better: they are dispatchable, they don't require huge back-up supply (never included in the cost of electricity from renewables), they have a far greater capacity factor than renewables, they last a lot longer and they are carbon-free.
It never will be. If you go 100% renewable, you will need electricity storage to cover virtually 100% of demand for several days. In the winter, that's somewhere around 40GW for say, arbitrarily, 5 days, (although it could be longer), i.e. 4800 GWh.
The Tesla 'mega-battery', installed in Australia last year at a cost of $66 million and hailed as being the biggest battery ever, has a power output of 100MW and a capacity of 129 MWh, call it 0.13 GWh. So you would need something close to 37,000 of those batteries to keep the lights on in the UK for five days (4800/0.130), at a cost of $2442 billion. You could build well over 100 Hinkley-C nuclear power stations for that, with a generating capacity vastly in excess of what a totally carbon-free UK society would need.
The main objection to nukes in the public's perception is the disposal of the nuclear waste, which in reality isn't a problem at all; it's just blown up to be one by the likes of Harry.
They do, solar and wind installs in the UK tend to run on *gas* most of the time!
The world's largest grid connected battery based storage system is the one Tesla installed in Australia. That has a reported capacity of 129 MWh, and a maximum output of 100MW. Apparently installed at a cost of about £50M.
To put that in a UK context, if we had over 400 installations like that, we could keep the grid going at full chat for about an hour. (assuming we had something to charge them with!)
Why is that from time to time, some fathead comes up with the same belling-the-cat solution of lots more windmills, giant batteries, etc etc, without apparently doing the sums required to see what it would amount to or looking into feasibility?
I also wouldn't want to live close to even one of the Tesla jobbies.
129MWh equates to 13,000 litres of oil-based liquid fuel. Imagine the explosion if the bastard got an internal short.
Leftycunts Cant Do Sums,. They use a different side of their brains to arrive at 'morally correct' solutions, not ones that will work, because actually working is NOT THE POINT of letftard thinking
What counts is being IN The RIGHT, and that mean Being Left.
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.