Shortpoet-GTD, on 22 November 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:
Off topic note for a minute- you have the expertise besoeker; all I am suggesting is you share some of your knowledge
on these boards.
You may be greener in the long run than many on the boards but you don't sound that way sometimes.
Excuse my harsh words but please post some links or share your knowledge base with us-ok?
I thought I had.
From further up this page
"It will, based on my calculations, save just under 16,000kWh
per day. And that's just one example."
I suppose I could include some detail but.......well here's an excerpt from something I did for a UK university presentation a while back.
"It is common practice to consider the cost of ownership over the projected life of a drive and for this the drive operating efficiency needs to be taken into account.
As with harmonics, the efficiency of the converter is largely dependent on the converter rating so it might be expected that losses would be around one fifth of an equivalent static inverter or similar drive and this proves to be the case. For the SILK, the losses are generally under 1% of the drive rating. For an inverter the losses, including a unit transformer, would be about 4%. Even if there is no unit transformer there will be losses somewhere in the distribution network via a step-down transformer unless the inverter takes power directly from the incoming supply voltage."
I'm sure very boring if you're not into these things and the difference of 4% to 1% may not seem a lot but when it is based on units of a few thousand kW.............
Enough!
My background is in industrial applications. Energy savings are taken very seriously. Perhaps none more so than in the water industry. In this country, and elsewhere in the world, water companies want to control costs. Capital costs are pretty much a one-shot deal amortised over typically twenty years here. The water comes out of the sky (or sometimes not) but the water company has no control over that.
One thing they
can control is operating costs.Variable speed operation of pumps is one very effective way of doing that. Drop the speed by 10% and that reduces the power required by 30%. These are big numbers.. Really, really big numbers.
London (water) ring main, operated by Thames Water, has fifteen variable speed drives, each around 800kW so 12,000kW total. And that hardly scratches the surface of the Thames Water operation.
That's where it's at. At least a lot of it. So, if you want to make a BIG difference, lobby your water companies to go down the variable speed drives route - and point them in my direction..........
You asked for a link.
Here's one.
pumps
I confess that I haven't read it but stuff like that comes into my work email with mind numbing frequency.
Moving on.....
Something we touched on a while back at the other end of the power scale, and also something you gave me a bit of a hard time over, here is a little exchange from another forum, an electrical one, where I also post. It relates to, gasp, gasp, gasp to
vampire power..........
"I agree. I think the term vampire for such things is greatly overused.
I post on another forum (shock horror, I know!) and vampire loads are routinely trotted out as our nemesis.
As always, it needs perspective. I don't switch off our main television. I ought to be hung, drawn, and quartered for that totally inexcusable behaviour.
My appeal to the executioner is simple and based on simple fact.
In the standby mode, the television uses 0.9W. My tiny mobile phone charger doesn't get above ambient as far as I can tell with my sensitive temperature monitoring devices AKA fingers. . Stick your finger on a 0.5W resistor running at full chat - better still, don't - unless you wish to permanently alter your fingerprint.
Common sense, though not as common as it's purported to be, ought to indicate that if something gets hot it gets hot and dissipates heat. If it doesn't, it doesn't."
"True, but keep in mind that the area through which the heat is shed has a big effect on the temperature that you feel.
If the charger has 100 times the surface area, then it will have 1/100th of the temperature rise."
"Yes. Of course, size matters. That's why I mentioned that the charger was tiny, you see.
It possibly won't surprise you that, with me being in the field I'm in, I routinely have to do calculations for thermal dissipation from electrical enclosures.
I've developed programmes for surface heat and force air cooling.
For something the size of the charger, a small fraction of a watt would produce an appreciable temperature difference. I can detect none."