[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Rc mayhem

Anyway. Back to the thread. So can they store or not? I seem to remember a thing about dams between 2 lakes been used to create energy used what was termed "left over" power from the national grid at night to pump the water back up. So was this really "left over" or was it intentionally left over?

This is done, and in answer to your final question: both. Many power stations (nuclear ones, for example) can only regulate their output within a comparatively small range - in the case of the nuclear power stations, for example, above a certain point of retardation the runaway fission reaction isn't. It isn't self-sustaining - so in that sense, it's "left over". In the latter sense, it's intentionally left over because storing the excess energy in a hydroelectric electricity source will drastically reduce the load required during a day. If there was a regular, frequent, high drain on the grid overnight, then it's quite likely that the output of the grid would be upped in order to keep the supply of hydroelectricity consistent compared to day-time need.

One thing people who haven't investigated the topic may want to consider is "If it isn't stored anywhere, where does it go?" Purely as an exercise for the class, you understand.

Originally Posted by lokken

I'm not sure if it's a case of cut emissions and hope for the best, but sadly I suspect it is.

That depends what you refer to with "it's a case of". Kyoto certainly is, but the Kyoto agreement is undeniably flawed in the way it proposes to reduce climate change. Climate change has a rather large lack of concrete knowledge behind it, although in a Pascal's Wager variety of pragmatism I'd say that reducing "pollution" of various kinds is the better choice, even if we just consider the possible global climate response, and not other more local results.

That having been said, however, I would not expect someone with a firmly held belief in free market economics to be required to make a similar concession, or even support its premises; it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to do that, considering I'm an atheist.

Originally Posted by MAsta_MArk

well i suppose that turning off lights in a million homes would reduce the amount needed and therefore the amount produced, but its something that everyone has to do and is pointless if they dont

This is a poor argument, unless you intend to favour inaction in all cases - if those million homes do turn their lights off at night, your one home won't make any significant increase in that situation either. Like many of society's systems, cooperation is required.