"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

It is the loses at generation and transmission
losses. This can be reduced by having smaller
local power stations, the UK had them, using
natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district.

The indirect transmision losses involved in
shovelling large numbers of loads of small
amounts of fuel to thousands of small power
stations all over the country are vastly greater
than the transmission losses in power cables.

Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines.

I thought that the natural gas accessible to the UK was not all that much
any more.

The North sea is still full of it and we also import the stuff from Russia.

Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.

I bet they have not looked carefully
enough at the costs and energy
efficiencies of such a policy, unless
they are in a position in which the
fuel is naturally available dispersed
all over the country.

The last time I looked, there were highly viable.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using
fossil
fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but
usually
use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does
use
a
heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable
power,
and
woefully inefficient in terms of space used.

"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"?
You see cows grazing under them. They can
be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small
footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore
all over the UK right now, Out of sight.

Sadly, incapable of producing anything more
than a negligible amout of power.

The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.

It would surprise me if they ever got that much wind power installed.

There is a mass installation programme right now, with much off it just
off-shore, out of sight and in direct line of wind.

Britain is the windiest country in Europe.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are
even
ore woefully inneficient,

Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot,

You should not use such a meaningless
term in a discussion which is more or
less scientifically based.

??? You can get high efficient wet solar panels, but they are "very"
expensive. Flat plate collectors are a lot less efficient.

Efficiency is defined as power out/power in.
There is no room for a subsidiary phrase
"per square foot".

You should understand how flat plate collectors work.

I do indeed understand how they work. The term
"efficiency per square foot" is nonsense.
Do you mean to tell me that if a panel has
an efficiency of 1% per square
foot, the installation of, say, 200 sq. ft of
panel would have an efficiency of 200%?

No. Just that other panels, such as Thermomax, are far higher per squ foot
area than a normal cheap flat plate.

but have the whole of a
south facing roof being a solar
panel and the by shear size you have an
efficient collector, that will virtually provide
all of the houses needs if you can store
the heat in a large thermal store

Put PV cells on every south facing roof
and most of the power generation
station will not be needed. The solutions are
there. It needs political will to force it through.

Unfortunately the economics are still wrong. Very wrong. Otherwise
they
would have been in use by more than the afficionados.

The economics "now" are wrong. Political will, will force it through and
mass production will reduce components accordingly to a point it is
feasible. It is the kick-start that is required.

That has been the situation for a couple
of decades. It is not politics,
but physics and engineering which may,
or may not, get the economics right.

The technology and engineering is there, and it is improving by the month.
That is not the problem at all. It is educating the people about the new
technology and the will to push it through.

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline
engines around, and are running. These can
be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from
an advanced rotary engine (not an inefficient
Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency,
driving a small Stirling engine from its waste heat,
which drives a compressor, which charges an air tank.

The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around
town the car can run on non-polluting air, which
is generated from what would have been wasted
heat. The whole setup can be small in size as
rotary engines are small and a compressor/air
motors is also small. The compressor can also
be the starter motor too.

And how many folk are gong to be trained
to be proficient in servicing such
a vastly complicated object?

Complicated? None of that is complicated at all. A lot less
complicated
than the current petrol IC engine/electric motor hybrids.

Actually I have my doubts about them too.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004