Re: (Andy Hewitt) Re: BT HomeHub + BBC iPlayer disconnects

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[..]
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/worldbiz/>

Just did, although I'm not a big fan of spoken word radio.

Weirdo. It's the only broadcast medium I've got any time for at all. I
have no time at all for almost all music radio, and the mindless chatter
on radio stations other than the BBC's better channels has no attraction
for me at all.

Nope, there are four radio stations worth a listen:

I listen to R2 in the car, and my own selection of music at home (it's
why I have 9 days of music in iTunes).

As far as I can tell, that more or less sums up what I was saying, that
the big businesses will only implement energy saving methods *if* they
either make them more money, or cost less to operate.

Since energy saving measures save money almost inherently, and since the
gathering and exploitation of free energy (solar driven stuff) can
hardly help being cheaper than buying energy, big and small businesses
are stupid if they don't save money using these techniques.

In other words, it sums up what I've been saying: saving money through
efficiency changes and using cheaper sources of supply is what `green
tech' is all about, *and* it's what business and engineering is all
about.

I.e., sane businesses and sane engineering is all green. That's kind of
the point: they're going to do the right thing because it's good for
their shareholders.

What better motivation could they have? You can trust that sort of
motivation, can't you? They'll do the right thing - they have to, or
the shareholders will sack the directors.

I wouldn't trust 'em if the businesses were talking altruistically, but
they're not: they're talking about the bottom line. That's why we
should be so excited and so optimistic about the future of `green tech':
because it's good for profits.

This is a Good Thing. A Very Good Thing.

However, if the green energy is so much cheaper, then why are we being
told our fuel bills will have to increase, and why are China, and other
countries, still building brand new fossil fueled power stations.

I know that the UK can power itself entirely with renewable source
energy using current technology.

Mind you, I did
like the idea of pointing mirrors at a pipe to heat it up by sun light.
No problem with that at all, but it did sound a bit 'Heath Robinson"
;-).

Erm, it's the same scheme as was *being deployed in Africa* just before
the First World War by German and British interests.

It was `go' for electricity generation - with a view to piping it to
Europe, if only they could get the long distance power transmission
issue dealt with.

It was only the '14-'18 war that stopped that form of solar energy
exploitation.

A real shame - it could have done wonders for Europe /and/ Africa.

Nothing Heath Robinson about it at all - it is to my mind a more
practical version of the large scale `many mirrors and one collector'
solar furnace power station.

Think about it: you want a large area to collect the energy. What
cheaper `large collector' can you imagine than a small energy collector
and a lot of mirror area to point the light towards the collector?

One thing to bear in mind is that a lot of radiant solar energy is
scattered: at latitudes such as ours, an awful lot of the available
energy doesn't come in a direct line from the sun, so you need to use a
collector that doesn't only `focus from a single direction'.

I've failed to work out an arrangement to achieve that. It requires
some clever-cleverness.

Yes, I understand that, but surely *some* energy collection using a
renewable source has to be better than none at all. Besides, the UK
could source energy without using any solar power at all.

The article still talks about ways to not reduce emissions too - such as
carbon trading,

Erm, it's not: carbon trading if done as the business world asked for it
would have done so. The carbon trading scheme we've got doesn't, 'cos
it was set up with a government handout rather than business purchase.
And the business world was screaming for the scheme to not be set up
with government handouts *because that way it wouldn't work properly* -
they were screaming to be forced to pay up front for carbon credits.

Carbon trading in any form suggests that somebody is still being
wasteful. IMHO it just shouldn't exist.

and filling the oceans with iron filings to encourage
algae growth, which can then absorb more CO2.

These are all schemes being talked about in business. Therefore,
covering them in the business media makes sense.

Such schemes are not being implemented, btw; and a lot of people are
worried about 'em which is why they keep turning up in the press, on the
radio, and so on.

That also worries me -
where does the CO2 go, what are the side effects (I believe runaway
algae growth is one risk)?

Why do you think that such proposals always get a mention? *LOTS* of
people are worried - the more the word is spread, the better the chance
of keeping a lid on it.

But none of that was mentioned in that programme.

It certainly doesn't mention anything about the general good of mankind,
only the general good of the company bank balance.

Naturally.

As long as any option
for new energy is cheaper, then they'll use it, until then they'll use.

(did I really not finish that - doh!)

That's not quite how it works. They've been doing things the expensive
way for a long time - look at air conditioning units. Proper building
design means you don't need powered air-con in most cases. How many
businesses bother to have their new buildings designed for that?

That's one thing they do seem to be doing better in the US. At least new
house builds tend to have very efficient heating/aircon systems being
installed.

No, business people tend to use the conventional method regardless of
cost. Why do you think so many (for example) firms that do local
delivery don't use electric vehicles?

Milk floats did that job the electric way for decades - but who else
bothered to do it that cheap way? Not many people - I recall that some
firms in Manchester in the 1980s and early 1990s (when I was a student)
used electric vans and people-power (freight trikes) to do local
deliveries. Not many.

The point is that the `green' option is always cheaper in the long run
but it's been unconventional up until recently, so the business world
has avoided it.

Now, it's becoming mainstream - so the business world is starting to
stop being really stupid on this subject.

It's because 'people' won't give up personal comfort and convenience.

Anyway, the Kyoto summit talked about doing things by 2050, which I fear
will be far, far too late.

It's already too late. Bangladesh is screwed, big time. But here in
the *RICH* part of the world, we don't have to worry unless we live in
low-lying regions - those people will have to move unless they're Dutch,
in which case the state might decide to jack up the entire landmass.
You never can tell with those Dutch...

The point is that with enough cash, the engineers can sort things out
whatever happens so that rich people in rich nations (us) will be fine -
for a price.

Luckily, the business world is doing things now. And have you taken a
look at Germany lately? They're installing vast amounts of solar energy
collection. Normal road-going motor vehicles will be going electric big
time within 5-10 years. Britiain's going for wind and nuclear fission
power. France is already largely nuclear.

Hmmm, just makes you wonder, the Sinclair C5 was really decades ahead of
its time.

And well before 2050, the ITER project will have taught mankind how to
make nuclear fusion power stations.

Then we just need new ways to smelt ores, and power transportation, and
learn to waste less.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (Andy Hewitt) Re: BT HomeHub + BBC iPlayer disconnects
    ... although I'm not a big fan of spoken word radio. ... Since energy saving measures save money almost inherently, ... cheaper `large collector' can you imagine than a small energy collector ... carbon trading if done as the business world asked for it ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: How to find which chips have RFID?
    ... >higher energy without an additional power source. ... The radio in RFID is the radio signal from the tag. ...
    (rec.gambling.craps)
  • Re: life span durable ground based satellite device.
    ... I remember building a crystal radio once as a kid, and how it was able to ... power a small earphone with no battery or apparent power source. ... energy you'd need, it seems like you could adapt this principle. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Voltage dropper
    ... All these diodes are going to sap some energy I assume. ... I want the radio on 24/7, so the smallest drain possible will be ... Small portable radios use much less than a watt of power. ... discharge would require a 30Ah battery, and that is just for the ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Free electricity is not cheap
    ... He certainly did not know about fusion energy, this was not worked out until ... These "Teslas" are said to be under development by the Tesla company, ... "Free" Electricity ... hidden power of the Universe. ...
    (sci.physics.fusion)
Loading