Energy Saving

[Sporky McGuffin]

yes. I appreciate that, but it would need to be one hell of an inefficient 100hp motor to use more than the 1000hp. that's getting in the combustion engine range!!

It's not that it's using more. It's that the larger motor recovers more, so in a heavy vehicle the overall efficiency is likely to be better with a more powerful motor. Perhaps 500hp vs 1000hp might be a better comparison, or 100hp vs 200hp.

 

[Krome10]

Isn't that a bit like driving as fast as possible in search of a petrol station because you're running out of fuel?

Seeing as we're dreaming up hyperbolic unrealistic scenarios just to illustrate a point, I've got another one....

People chasing oil tankers and/or visiting umpteen petrol stations to top up their tanks.

Oh, hang on...

 

[hairy]

Isn't that a bit like driving as fast as possible in search of a petrol station because you're running out of fuel?

But if when you get to the petrol station they swap you for a better less poluting model then the sooner you get there the sooner your pollution output will drop and your standard of living may increase.
If India stop burning wood and dung and turn to coal the suggestion is less pollution will result in the long term, less time spent gathering the fuel (and you don't need as big a family labour source to do all these hard menial jobs), more time to improve their lives to a point where they can maybe connect to a grid which generates electricity cleanly.

 

[hairy]

This is total nonsense - the opposite of the truth.
The big problem is pasture and cattle feed. The poor are losing their low carbon livelihood as a result.
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.htmlCO2 production is very much due to the wealthier parts of the population.
n.b. Shellenberger and Peterson are widely regarded as idiots
Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger » Yale Climate Connections

I said pollution not CO2. That book and another Peterson discussed, "Ten global trends that every smart person needs to know" by Bailey, at least paint some aspects of todays world in a positive light. Depressed emotional teenagers may not win over the majority, the msm have not shown themselves in the best light recently to many, a more positive opinion wouldn't hurt perhaps?

 

[Jacob]

But if when you get to the petrol station they swap you for a better less poluting model then the sooner you get there the sooner your pollution output will drop and your standard of living may increase.
If India stop burning wood and dung and turn to coal the suggestion is less pollution will result in the long term, less time spent gathering the fuel (and you don't need as big a family labour source to do all these hard menial jobs), more time to improve their lives to a point where they can maybe connect to a grid which generates electricity cleanly.

Nonsense again. Third world economies are always very low carbon. The big issue is the wealthy part of the world and massive per capita energy use from coal and oil generated electricity and oil base fuel.

 

[hairy]

Nonsense again. Third world economies are always very low carbon. The big issue is the wealthy part of the world and massive per capita energy use from coal and oil generated electricity and oil base fuel.

Pollution not CO2.
Thrid World countries do not want to be low carbon, they will burn every source of energy to get to where we are. The quicker they get there in the least poluting way the better surely?

 

[Jacob]

I said pollution not CO2. That book and another Peterson discussed, "Ten global trends that every smart person needs to know" by Bailey, at least paint some aspects of todays world in a positive light. Depressed emotional teenagers may not win over the majority, the msm have not shown themselves in the best light recently to many, a more positive opinion wouldn't hurt perhaps?

Pollution isn't the issue except in dense populated areas or immediate vicinity of industrial scale fuel use.
Yes there's all sorts of positives in many ways life has never been better for most people.
This is another optimistic book well worth reading Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman review – a tribute to our better nature.
But everything is overshadowed by climate change - this is the big issue.

 

[Jacob]

Pollution not CO2.
Thrid World countries do not want to be low carbon, they will burn every source of energy to get to where we are. The quicker they get there in the least poluting way the better surely?

No - because of the CO2. More likely that the sooner we get back to 3rd world levels of energy consumption, the better. Not necessarily 3rd world standards of living we have all sorts of other advantages.

 

[Chris152]

But if when you get to the petrol station ...

My point was that speeding up to get to the petrol station makes it more likely you'll run out of fuel and not get there.

But on the bigger point, keep burning fossil fuels as fast as possible until the 1/10th of the world's population that lives in extreme poverty (to take just the very poorest, as a start) are no longer in extreme poverty? How long is that going to take, and how much more damage will it do? I've not watched the video as I find Peterson rather annoying - he doesn't search for the truth in matters so much as attempt to cook up arguments that support his politics. Not a good way to proceed.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I need some help with energy storage. I have many solar panels looking for a use, but I want to store energy for use after dark. Batteries would be logical, but they cost an arm and a leg and don't last forever. I have space for a contraption and lots of height (say 20 metres) for using gravity. I'm looking for 10 kWh of storage with perhaps 1kw of power required at any given time, although I would want to store up to 10kW of power input if possible (you would think a 10kw motor required, which is pretty big) - any ideas? I'm thinking of a motor/generator lifting several tons of rocks and cement on a railway track, then running backwards downhill to generate power. Or water, but you need 18 cubic metres of water per kWh plus a seperate 10kW pump to get it back up the hill. I already have one 250 cubic metre pond and it is huge - don't want another one.

The problem with electricity is that we don't really comprehend just how much power we use with gay abandon and how difficult it is to both create and store.

 

[Jacob]

I need some help with energy storage. I have many solar panels looking for a use, but I want to store energy for use after dark. Batteries would be logical, but they cost an arm and a leg and don't last forever. I have space for a contraption and lots of height (say 20 metres) for using gravity. I'm looking for 10 kWh of storage with perhaps 1kw of power required at any given time, although I would want to store up to 10kW of power input if possible (you would think a 10kw motor required, which is pretty big) - any ideas? I'm thinking of a motor/generator lifting several tons of rocks and cement on a railway track, then running backwards downhill to generate power. Or water, but you need 18 cubic metres of water per kWh plus a seperate 10kW pump to get it back up the hill. I already have one 250 cubic metre pond and it is huge - don't want another one.

The problem with electricity is that we don't really comprehend just how much power we use with gay abandon and how difficult it is to both create and store.

Good idea!
Known as"gravity battery"

https://gravitricity.com/technology/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravi... gravity,of concrete, to generate electricity.

 

[Cabinetman]

I hadn’t realised how far on and clever some of this stuff is, even more delighted to see that it’s so simple!
Lets just hope we don’t run out of gravity!
Quite ironic using coal mine shafts.

 

[woodieallen]

Seeing as we're dreaming up hyperbolic unrealistic scenarios just to illustrate a point, I've got another one....

People chasing oil tankers and/or visiting umpteen petrol stations to top up their tanks.

Oh, hang on...

Or watching a WVM (white van man) crazily cutting in and out, forcig into tiny gaps, watching all the cars behind having to brake, a danger to all and sundry.....only to see the idiot pull into a garage for petrol 3 miles down the road.

 

[Oakay]

But, if you have a room upstairs, the ceiling lights act as underfloor heating .
I always considered heat from lighting units to go into the fabric of the house, so not a bad thing, but generally, it's better if you don't have energy pollution, where one system interferes with another such as light and heat, then each can be controlled better.
I do believe that a lot of companies made an absolute fortune from the forced introduction of LED. I suppose that worldwide they do save power??? I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet. There is too much money involved for the truth to be revealed. Electric cars are an example. I am not convinced it is a solution. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a champion of clean air and renewable energy, was interviewed on the BBC . Quote the site...." Mr Schwarzenegger also believes technology is delivering solutions and cites his Hummer - a massive military style off-road vehicle - that he switched from diesel to battery power as evidence, given the electric version goes faster with more horsepower. " I think he moved from about 400Hp to 1000hp. That may be fine in CA where they have 95% renewable energy, but he has increased pollution by going electric! World wide, only about 28% of energy is renewable, so this kind of thinking is not going to solve problems.

"I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet." Sandyn, do you ride a horse or have a car these days? Could you imagine all the horse poo on the roads if everybody had a horse instead of a car New technology is relative for each generation.

 

[Sandyn]

"I'm very cynical about new technology as a way of saving the planet." Sandyn, do you ride a horse or have a car these days?

I have nothing against new technology. I just don't think electric cars will be the saviour that a lot of people think they will be, unless there is a limit on the power they can consume. I think electric cars are great. I don't have a horse, but look here you might be on to something

 

[CornishWoodworker]

I use a table top hot water machine. Have been using for over 5 years.
Can select 35, 55,85 or 100 degrees and 100,200,300ml or continous.
No wasted water or boiling surplus
Still have a kettle if I need larger one off quantities.

 

[okeydokey]

Now a VW Golf is about 147 horsepower - perhaps we should give up electric/petrol/diesel cars and have a Golf pulled by 147 horses - or perhaps and maybe I've got it a bit wrong somewhere?

 

[Misterdog]

The original postwar production VW air-cooled engine displaced 1,100cc and made 25 horsepower. VW soon enlarged the engine to 1,200cc and 36 horsepower. VW later boosted the 1,200cc engine to 40 horsepower.

Maybe we need too many horses these days, My long wheelbase hi roof Transit van has 90BHP.

Warmer homes, faster cars, more exotic holidays abroad, fresh strawberries and roses flown in from Africa for Xmas.

We need technology to fix the climate crisis, because we deserve all of the above.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Car engine power is measured by break horse power. 147 broken horses probably equates to 20 fit ones. A small yard tractor would be 20 to 30hp, which gives some idea of how mechanisation improved farming productivity. The good news is that Cop21 is banning agriculture, so we won't need horses any more.

 

[Fitzroy]

Opening the window was indeed a tongue in cheek comment on reducing condensation if leaving the bath water in until it dropped to room temperature. But that is the reality because it makes the bathroom too moist IMHO. But I was just thinking if I cut something like a bin bag to the water surface outline then the heat could escape but condensation wouldn't while the plastic floated on the surface? I'll try that next month.

We currently have a cheap, lightweight plastic kettle so combined with the £30 flask is not expensive compared to an insulated kettle. The biggest benefit that still makes me smile to realise it is I'm not waiting for the kettle every time I make a brew. A full kettle is two brews in the flask for later and one mug full now.

But it seems I've been making tea wrong all this time from Chris152 so I need to buy a temperature varying kettle immediately! How long will another £50 on a kettle that does that take to pay for itself if I only heat water to 80 dgrees C instead of boiling?

Another thing I do is always have a super strong filter coffee in the morning plus a tea. I make them both at the same time, the coffee using an MSR mugmate or the equivalent cheaper knock off filter in the mug. That goes in an insulated mug so that by the time I've finished the tea the coffee has cooled to just right I did buy a Melita coffee maker with an insulated pot which works well but doesn't make as nice a drink. I also discovered that I shouldn't have that coffee before going to the Drs because otherwise he thinks my blood pressure requires medication!

Heating a cup (300ml) of water to 100C vs 80C uses 25kJ more energy, which at 20pence/kWhr costs 0.14pence per cup. Paying off your kettle depends on how many cups of tea you drink and if you over fill your kettle or not.
- 1 cup per day, heating just 300ml each time= 98yrs
- 3 cups per day, heating just 300ml each time = 32yrs
- 1 cup per day, heating full kettle (1700)ml each time= 17yrs
- 3 cups per day, heating full kettle (1700)ml each time = 6yrs

Now as others have stated, the excess heat from the kettle bleeds into the house so perhaps it offsets your heating bill, but your heating is likely gas which is cheaper than electric, but the heat may bleed in once you've left for work and the heating is not on so it is wasted, or perhaps your better half appears 5mins later and boils the kettle for themselves and the water is already hot so it saves some energy................ Overall though it is clear heating the minimum amount of water to lowest required temperature is the most efficient thing to do.