Use Less Electrical Energy.

[jambutty]

On the wireless the other evening a minister from the Energy Ministry was trying to make a case for the consumer not consuming so much electrical energy.

How come it’s always the consumer who has to bear the brunt of any cut backs?

Anyway this dork from the Energy Ministry reckons that if we didn’t put the TV, Video, DVD, Games Console, Digi-box on standby when not in use the energy consumption nation wide would decrease by some 20%. Don’t leave your wireless or TV on when you go out he opines. What and leave the burglars with nothing to watch or listen to whilst they ransack the house? That would never do, as it would most likely violate the burglar’s human rights.

If the Energy Ministry really wants the country to save on electricity he should de-electrify all the railways and city tram systems except for underground railways. We could then not only save on electricity usage but also lose a few power stations – the nuclear ones and still have enough power for all our needs, even some extravagant ones.

Without the electrified railways, trespassing kids or even careless workers would not get electrocuted. Surely that is reason enough to de-electrify the railways.

Before anyone thinks it, I am not hankering for the days of steam. The steam engine is notoriously inefficient, although it could be improved but sadly not enough to justify bringing the powerful stream engine back into service. Mind you it does have a character all of its own.

We could use the big Deltic Diesel electric engines to pull the carriages instead, like they used to, only this time using bio fuel.

As I recall the big Deltic Diesels were phased out because it was claimed that in winter the fuel turned to goo and became unusable. That is perfectly true, Diesel fuel does go all gooey in close to freezing temperatures. Was it not beyond the wit of the railway engineers to install some sort of system where the fuel would be kept at a working temperature? After all it’s not as if Diesel is quite as volatile as petrol. How come Diesel cars still run OK in winter? Don’t forget, the modern Diesel motor is much more efficient and environmentally friendly than its older counterpart. Also don’t forget that the cross country ‘sprints’ are Diesel driven although they don’t go charging around at 100 mph. They are still pretty nippy though.

Apart from saving energy there is another reason why we should not have electric trains. If there is a power cut for whatever reason, many miles of railway line revert to a parking lot. Nothing can move – no electricity. Not only can nothing move, in the winter there would be no heating and only emergency lighting from the batteries with limited life. Obviously a Diesel train would just keep on moving.

So that is my solution to the electricity ‘crisis’. Scrap the electric trains and replace them with bio fuel Diesels. A Diesel electric engine train would still lumber on at a sedate 100 mph, although they can go faster and pull more coaches than the electric engine.

And now a short lesson on generating electricity.

Generating electrical energy is not as efficient as the powers that be make out. A power station generates the electrical energy then it is transformed to a much higher voltage for transportation around the country in the National Grid. Then it is transformed down to a sub station and from there transformed down again for industrial and domestic use. When using a transformer to change the voltage from one value to another there are transformer losses in the region of at least 5%. Then there are the resistance losses in the power lines themselves.

No doubt some modern day electrician will correct me if I am wrong but I estimate that for every one kilowatt of power generated there is only 750 watts available for use in the home or factory. 25% is lost.

[SPUGGIE J]

With the amount of hours I am doing at work I might as well take my bed there. Not so long ago I worked out how much electric I was using and cost wise ove the year it was about £6 odds a week and about half that for gas.
Now I dont have a clue about how many megawatt hours, cubic metres or therms that is but it shocked many people I know as some were 3 to four time that and they stayed on their own.

To losing powerstations I would lose the belchers before the nukes dispite the problems with nukes are there the coal fired ones are worse. Before people take a shot over this it seems its easier to hit nukes because of the waste they produce and the danger of radiation, yet apart from the smoke from a coal fired who else has had the joys of being around the other waste products from these places? Having spent in the 90's 5 years in a belcher I have an idea.

[quote] Before anyone thinks it, I am not hankering for the days of steam. The steam engine is notoriously inefficient, although it could be improved but sadly not enough to justify bringing the powerful stream engine back into service. Mind you it does have a character all of its own.[quote]
Very true but what about the coal polution from heating the water to make steam to run it? Gas powered maybe the boiler then? The d.e's would be poluting as well as they rely on an int comb motor to get the running juice.

Cant comment on the loss part but suspect it could be more.

[jambutty]

The smoke from the old steam engines was another reason for their demise. I doubt if gas powered boilers for steam engines would work. First of all it is still a fossil fuel and therefore limited and secondly it wouldn’t get over the efficiency or rather lack of it of a steam engine. I won’t even mention the ‘raising steam’ time. Yes I will! As near as I can remember it a steam train boiler would have to be fired up some three hours before there was enough steam to move the darned thing and that was another reason for goodbye steam trains.

I understand that the technology exists to make coal fired power stations environment friendly and coal is something that we have a plenty. But no British government would ever allow themselves to be placed in a position where miners could hold the country to ransom ever again.

Why doesn’t some clever person consider a hydro electric scheme. Oh! Sorry! I forgot! Too many Nimbys around.

[SPUGGIE J]

Hydro electric does work and if like up here you dont know they are there. There is a small Hydro electric powerstation above Loch Earn and the only clue is the out flow at St Fillins as the main body is well hidden.

Power Stations

Hydroelectric Power.

A large river which falls down a steep slope
is suitable for generating hydroelectric power.
The river is dammed at the top and the valley is flooded
creating a large reservoir (lake) of water.
The water is let out through turbines at the bottom of the dam.
The turbines turn a generator which produces electricity.

The original source of the energy is the Sun
which makes the wind blow and the rain fall.
Gravity causes the falling water to turn the turbines.

Advantages of hydroelectric power.

1. It is renewable.

2. It is readily available.
If you need more energy,
you just let out more water through the turbines.

3. It does not cause pollution.


Disadvantages.

1. Flooding the river valley will destroy the local habitat
for many of the species which live there.

[West Ender]

And what's wrong with wind turbines?

I have heard so many objections to "giant" windmills blighting the countryside but I think they are quite graceful and almost ethereal. They are certainly no worse than the pylons that march across all the British countryside and the mobile phone masts that sprout from so many buildings.

We need electric power and we have a natural resource to create it - the wind. Bring on the windmills.

[Madhatter]

You don't want diesel because it polutes your air.
coal polutes the air and is a fossil fuel
Gas is a fossil fuel and so is oil, I suspect we'll soon be charged an extortionate price for theses by foreign countries
Nuclear is dangerous because of the waste
hydro power floods the valleys
wind power upsets people cos it doesn't look pretty and can be noisey

Did you know that a lot of the diesel train engines are diesel/electric?, they use a diesel generator engine to power an electric traction motor.

[Madhatter]

Originally Posted by West Ender

And what's wrong with wind turbines?

I have heard so many objections to "giant" windmills blighting the countryside but I think they are quite graceful and almost ethereal. They are certainly no worse than the pylons that march across all the British countryside and the mobile phone masts that sprout from so many buildings.

We need electric power and we have a natural resource to create it - the wind. Bring on the windmills.

Agreed, they don't seem to cause any problems at liverpool.

[andrewb]

I think it would take an awfull large amount of wind turbines to power the country, its not the soultion, only part of it, so it contributes a small percent of the power we need.

[Madhatter]

true, but it would be a start. plus apparently, although don't know if it's true, but we have river's capable of generating power but they say it would be too expensive to set it up to do so.

[jambutty]

On the face of it there is nothing wrong with wind turbines West Ender except it costs more in materials, manpower and energy to produce and maintain one than the value of the electrical energy that it produces.

Some wag once calculated that it would be some 20 years before you get any positive return from a windmill. What he meant was that taking into account the cost of making one, the energy used to do so and the cost and energy for maintaining it, it would be some 20 years before the windmill starts to make a profit and by then it is coming to the end of its useful life.

A Diesel engine run on bio fuel does not pollute the atmosphere to anywhere near the degree that one run on fossil fuel does Madhatter. Bio fuel is renewable and would give the farmers something to grow instead of leaving fields fallow because growing normal vegetables is rapidly becoming non-cost effective. In any case surely it is not beyond the wit of engineers to produce a bio Diesel engine that is truly clean, except the oil industry will not allow it to happen until they have squeezed the last penny profit out of oil and gas.

On a not too distant TV motoring programme on Channel 5 I think it was, the Japanese (who else) demonstrated a saloon car that ran on water. It was capable of up to 100 mph with a range of some 240 miles. Much like any normal middle of the range saloon car. Actually it ran on hydrogen that was produced from water. The exhaust of this wonder vehicle is water.

Hydrolysis of water is the means of separating the two atoms that go to make up one molecule of fresh water. 2 atoms of hydrogen to one atom of oxygen – H2O

This is achieved by passing a DC current through the water from one metal plate to another immersed in the water. I think that one plate has to be lead and the other zinc. No doubt some budding scientist will correct me there if I’m wrong. The hydrogen bubbles collect on one plate and the oxygen bubbles collect on the other and both are draw off and stored. The hydrogen is then used as fuel to power a car and the oxygen is either dispersed to atmosphere or used where oxygen is needed. Water we have plenty of but generating the electricity to use could present a problem. But that is where solar panels come in. Solar panels only need light to produce electricity and being a DC current they would be ideal to power a hydrolysis plant.

The only viable solution for our electricity needs are hydro electric schemes and solar panels but they both require a lot of land space and we have too many NIMBYS around for that to happen.

[chav1]

power everything by nuculear power

dont wory about tomorrow let the kids sort our mess out , its only fair we spend our lives sorting theirs out

[andrewb]

I think fossile fuel power plants produce more waste in two weeks than nuclear ones have done in 4 decades.. I'll find the article tomorrow perhaps

[Madhatter]

That windmills(turbines) thing is interesting jambutty, I listened to a feature about it on the radio. The only thing adding that amount of cost to the projects is the governments, cn't remember what the costs were for but they are NOT costs to actually set up and run the system, they are costs put there by the government. It's about time they got there act together and realised that there is no choice, we have to find alternatives to fossil and nuclear.