That's for ordinary dispatched supply, but in addition there are frequency control services, which are generators whose power output is adjusted on the fly to maintain the frequency - essentially they're adjusting to match second by second variations in demand. Running generators that way is more expensive, so owners have to be paid extra to do it, and AEMO only contracts for the maximum amount of variation it expects to see.
Sylvia.
Though some people simply don't get the idea of irony. Our building is plastered with the Earth Hour posters, however, one of the occupants is a company that makes coal and gas power stations.
Being in IT, and having been in electronics engineering, I fully support that (the manufacturing, not the earth hour bullshit).
Turning off the lights doesn't actually DO anything productive. Lighting (at least the ones that are under normal control) form only a small percentage of the total power outlay, so even if *everyone* turned off *every* light it will do nothing for the longer term issues we're going to have to cover. Less so since it's only an hour.
Google "earth hour sponsors" and have a gander as to what the media is saying on this, or more importantly, what they're NOT saying.
Not to mention the exemptions, where wikipedia says: "Essential cultural events like Canadian hockey matches will carry on regardless of Earth Hour. According to the Vancouver Sun, "TV, particularly when tuned to the Canucks, is classified as an essential use of power."
So there you have it. Fuck the planet, hockey is more important. Or, translated to English, 'nobody cares except the media', presumably because they're going to make a buck out of it.
I found out on Friday that last year's Earth Hour at Melbourne University ended up being an expensive fiasco. Somebody thought it would be clever to turn off a power segment, not stopping to wonder what might be on the circuit. Turns out a freezer full of stuff had to be thrown away, for a total cost of $36K. So much for saving the planet.
Atom Egoyan, Melbourne, Australia
Do they? Who did?
But a lot of people don't, which
**Of course. The issues are pretty simple. Our CO2 emissions are unsustainable. We must reduce them. That is the only message that needs to be conveyed. Trouble is, we have idiots like Steve Fielding arguing his creationist claptrap against real scientists. This confuses many people. All that needs to be done is for the idiots to shut the f*ck up and allow the scientists to get the message across. **I still want to know who lights candles and why they imagine that this is a good idea.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
People convey it in a strange way when they increase their CO2 emissions allegedly in support of the idea that emissions should be reduced.
It's far from clear that that's the problem at all. Governments around the world seem to have accepted the idea that CO2 emissions need to be reduced, as have their electorates (in the cases where there are electorates). But no one actually wants to pay the price. When IPART announced electricity price hikes in part to cover the costs of an ETS, I didn't notice people saying "Ah, at last we're getting somewhere." No, instead there was a lot of wingeing. People want CO2 emissions to be reduced, but they want the price paid by the mysterious "they".
Well, here are some pictures, from the Earth Hour site itself. OK, there are no pictures of anyone actually in the process of lighting a candle (unless I missed them), but there are plenty of candles in view. It's a reasonable inference that someone lit them.
Sylvia.
What kind of freezer has so little thermal inertia that its contents can't withstand a one hour power outage?
Sylvia.
**Who does and how did they do it? **I see. You are suggesting that the guys at CSIRO, BOM, NASA and the IPCC are idiots and we should give credence to Tony Abbott and Steve Fielding. Is that your contention? Please list Tony Abbott's and Steve Fielding's credentials in climate science. The facts are MUCH clearer to those of us with a passing knowledge of science. Creationist idiots need to be ignored. It is a pity that you allow them any air.
Governments around
**Of course. The scientists are fighting ignorance and religious claptrap (the Pope has expressed his opinion that global warming is bunk - Tony Abbott has, of course, toed the company line).When IPART
**Of course. The serious effects of global warming will not be paid for another 50 years or so. Few people care what happens to their children or grand children. **Indeed. WHO lit them?-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
So not really *in use* then.
graphics
night.
You said "In use, you can add around 20~30 Watts", that's not sitting idle at night. I just turn mine off then.
"Figure" it all you like, but try actually measuring one sometime when it's NOT idle. And "2 Watts for the monitor", you are joking right!!! Clearly you know less about electronics than you think you do.
MrT.
Wilson knows less about almost everything than he thinks he does.
Actually, I doubt he thinks, at least rationally, very often.
-- Dyna All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.
No, you're missing the entire point that I was making. I'm saying that the scientists have got the message across. The message has been heard. Earth Hour is not needed to push the message.
Instead of Earth Hour, there should be a "I'm willing to pay to reduce CO2" hour, with people handing over hard cash.
Sylvia.
**Which is EXACTLY what they're doing at night. When doing word processing, emails web browsing, etc, processor power jumps up to maybe 10 Watts. Games and high end graphics forces the CPU to work harder, but that is not relevant, since we're discussing computers that are left on at night, when no one is actually using it. Of course, older CPUs do consume considerably more power, but anything made within the last few years employs serious power saving technologies. **I said that. CPUs are, for the most part, doing pretty much nothing in most computers. **Mine consumes 1.6VA on standby and 20VA when in use (yes, I've measured the figures). I would expect more modern monitors consume even less. Don't forget: We're discussing computers that are left powered at night (when no one is using them).
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Theres no evidence at all that the people want to hand over money to reduce CO2. All Ive ever seen from opinion polls is that the people want the Govt to do something to combat climate change, but the something is not defined. Taxing CO2 emissions is the Govts idea, not the populations. Pretty obvious from 6 failed Climate change conferences so far, that the will to reduce CO2 emissions by taxing it simply isnt there. Time to start looking at alternatives, like building Nuclear Power plants, and closing down Coal plants. Zero chance of this happening though.
I agree entirely, except for the very few who've elected to pay a premium for "green" sourced power.
Yes, for some bizarre reason, the Government assumed that the evident desire of the electorate for action to reduce CO2 emissions was accompanied by a willingness to pay for it.
It may happen when coal plants are retired at the end of their useful lives, and replaced by more expensive (on a total cost basis) gas fired plants, with a resulting increasin the price of electricity. Then the government could say "Well, we could have cheaper electricity if we were to build nuclear plants." The hip pocket nerve is very sensitive.
Sylvia.
much.
processing,
Instead of "maybe" "figure"ing you'd do better to try some measurements on a variety of PC's when actually doing those things.
Nope, I *specifically* replied to your statement "In use, you can add around
20~30 Watts." and quoted your higher figures. But your idea of in use and in standby are the same it seems.idle
Speak for your own, however there are far more things consuming power in a PC than the CPU alone!
So you actually think 20VA = 2W then?
NO WE ARE NOT. Have trouble reading Trevor? Hell I even added asterisks to the *in use* statement to make it obvious. Maybe time for some new glasses?
MrT.
**Already done.
**Nope. The discussion is SPECIFICALLY concerned with PCs that are left on overnight and not actually being used. I added figures for typical use (not gaming or high end graphics). Typical office type workloads barely tax a modern CPU. **Indeed. An operating hard drive uses more power.
**I said NOTHING of the sort. You can make all the assumptions you wish. I merely quote VERY broad, APPROXIMATE powers, disputing the FIVE HUNDRED WATTS originally claimed. Since you are being pedantic and mildly annoying, I will make the assumption (since you enjoy making your own assumptions) that you agree with the original premise that typical office computers (modern, PC style) consume 500 Watts, at night, when not actually being used. Well, I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. They don't use anything remotely close to that much power. **Like I said: You are wrong. Typical office style PCs do not use anything remotely close to 500 Watts at idle.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
20
can
on
Yeah right! That's why you "figure" "maybe".
So why don't you answer MY complaint about what YOU wrote, rather than deciding what YOU want to discuss instead! Obviously you are not prpared to back up your original sttement, the ONE to which *I* specifically addressed my argument. What a waste of time you are.
Not in dispute, but still does not prove you spurious claim.
in
awhen
measured
Oh yes you did. You claimed 2W for an operating monitor, then say yours is
20VA, so which is it?
Nope, YOU specified a range of power between 70-130 W for a PC *IN USE*, (50-100W in standby) and it's still there at the top of the post for all to see!
You OTOH are being a complet pain in the arse!
anything
Please quote where I ever said they did. Like all your assumptions it seems, you are once again full of shit!
Which was NEVER in dispute in any of MY posts. Try reading what I wrote, not what you would prefer to respond to. And of course your claim of 70-130W for a PC *IN USE* is still wrong, and your continual effort to try and change the subject simply proves you still cannot support such a statement.
MrT.
Their useful life is a long way off, with the exception of Hazlewood which will most likely go gas. At the same time the NSW Govt is looking at building 2 new 2.2 GW coal fired plants in the Hunter.
45 years is the typical life of a coal plant. Also, most of the Coal Plants in Australia are now privately owned, so the owners will take the least risky option when replacement is needed and that will be gas, also a very expensive option. The other problem is that electricity supply is essentially a State Govt issue, so rising electricity prices will be reflected by anger against State Govts, not against the Feds. We will see this on July 1st this year in NSW.**I said nothing of the sort.
Again, you are making more assumptions. Just like the one where you claimed that typical office PCs use 500 Watts when not in use.
If you are in doubt, I suggest you read up on the following:
'Energy star'
As it pertains to monitors that are not in use, but automatically switch to standby.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Really? What about the nearly 1 million energy customers who have voluntarily signed up for the GreenPower scheme in it's various forms? Almost all of those are residential customers, and many of them (like myself) voluntarily pay a fair bit extra for 100% renewable electricity.
Whether or not they do it because they only care about CO2 levels, and/or other pollutants or impacts etc, or they simply want a sustainable energy future is open to debate. But sign up they do.
Dave.
-- ================================================ Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast: http://www.eevblog.com
ElectronDepot 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.