Carney printing more money

dryhat

adouglasmhor wrote: »

AC is certainly easier to transmit.

That's why it won out.

Edison had envisaged a DC power station on every third block (or something like that- I'm not going to google it) to accomodate the short range of DC

The irony is that now, some people are talking about localising energy production and distribution.

adouglasmhor

dryhat wrote: »

That's why it won out.

Edison had envisaged a DC power station on every third block (or something like that- I'm not going to google it) to accomodate the short range of DC

Edison the Elephant killer.

Loughton_Monkey

adouglasmhor wrote: »

AC is certainly easier to transmit.

dryhat wrote: »

That's why it won out.

Edison had envisaged a DC power station on every third block (or something like that- I'm not going to google it) to accomodate the short range of DC

The irony is that now, some people are talking about localising energy production and distribution.

You will both be disappointed.

The Human Rights Committee, and Offgen, have jointly decided that neither is correct. In future, electricity will be delivered randomly in whatever voltage, and whatever phase, is decided by the Nanny State Global Warming Green Committee of Brussels. It will change every hour.

Meanwhile, the Health & Safety Commission is about to rule that AC power should be distributed over National Grid towers throughout the country at a maximum of 6 volts.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You will both be disappointed.

The Human Rights Committee, and Offgen, have jointly decided that neither is correct. In future, electricity will be delivered randomly in whatever voltage, and whatever phase, is decided by the Nanny State Global Warming Green Committee of Brussels. It will change every hour.

Meanwhile, the Health & Safety Commission is about to rule that AC power should be distributed over National Grid towers throughout the country at a maximum of 6 volts.

With the rollout of Smart Meters the cartel will randomly alter charging structures to ensure we are penalised for using energy when we most need it. It will of course take them a little while to optimise how to empty our pockets efficaciously.

CLAPTON

smart meters allow pricing based on overall power load/time of day/year etc

so it could be used to discourage usage at peak periods and encourage usage at quiet periods

if done well, it would reduce CO2 production and reduce the need for new power stations without adversely impacting households

sabretoothtigger

I have to agree in theory smart meters are a good idea and should if its done right reduce cost of production and hopefully cost to the end consumer.

I can see why people dont want interference though. The nasty thing right now is energy costs are set to rise sharply making some people very poor. I hope solar power develops or some way we can produce in the back yard, bit of a dream; mostly its going to need drastic cuts to consumption

Struggling to link this to the topic.... the every day transactions we use must get more efficient if UK wants to stay 'rich'; while in fact we are losing competitive advantage to an emerging world elsewhere

dryhat

Smart meters can be put in the same category as nuclear energy....
Great for energy, not so great for bombs.

Or genetics... great for medicine, not so great for food

It's the way the technology is used that matters.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

smart meters allow pricing based on overall power load/time of day/year etc

so it could be used to discourage usage at peak periods and encourage usage at quiet periods

if done well, it would reduce CO2 production and reduce the need for new power stations without adversely impacting households

Theoretically very reasonable - peak periods tend to be peak for a reason - people tend to need to use the power at that time.

I doubt many people care too much about CO2 but do about not being able to afford their energy when it is needed.

I would love to think that the energy middlemen cared whether it was affordable or not.

jamesd

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Carney printing more money ... Literally.

Any particular reason why you chose that title when what is being considered is a 60% reduction in money printing?

The proposed notes will last 2.5 times as long as paper notes, so the reduced replacement need will cause that drop in money printing rate.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Theoretically very reasonable - peak periods tend to be peak for a reason - people tend to need to use the power at that time.

I doubt many people care too much about CO2 but do about not being able to afford their energy when it is needed.

I would love to think that the energy middlemen cared whether it was affordable or not.

It may be people would use the washing m/c, tumbler dryer, dish washer at off peak periods if there was a financial incentive.

you may be right that people don't care about CO2, but as you know, the mad labour government introduced laws to meet CO2 reduction targets at huge financial cost to poor consumers.
If CO2 production can be reduced in a more painless way that would help the poor.

I would love to think that governments of any party cared whether energy was 'affordable'.