how long do you all think we have gas for?

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be living
in all-electric homes?

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 GMT, "Fray Bentos"
wrote:

how long do you all think we have gas for?

In your case probably until the 50p in the meter runs out.

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be living
in all-electric homes?

No.


--

"Matt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 GMT, "Fray Bentos"
wrote:

how long do you all think we have gas for?

In your case probably until the 50p in the meter runs out.

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be
living
in all-electric homes?

No.


--

That wasn't a nice answer.

Fray Bentos wrote:
how long do you all think we have gas for?

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be living
in all-electric homes?

I'm sure Drivel has an answer.

He's the one who keeps suggesting gas fired Micro CHP sets and make our
homes even more dependent on the gas supply.

MBQ

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 GMT Fray Bentos wrote :
When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we
be living in all-electric homes?

Standard tariff electricity is 3-4 times the price of gas per kWh. But
as we build better insulated and better sealed homes that need a lot
less energy and as the price of gas c.h. servicing and repairs goes up
the TCO of electric heating may well become lower than for gas.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 GMT Fray Bentos wrote :
When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we
be living in all-electric homes?

Standard tariff electricity is 3-4 times the price of gas per kWh. But
as we build better insulated and better sealed homes that need a lot
less energy and as the price of gas c.h. servicing and repairs goes up
the TCO of electric heating may well become lower than for gas.


The TCO of leccy is a moving target given that so much of it is
generated from gas.

MBQ

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 GMT, Fray Bentos wrote:

how long do you all think we have gas for?

For as long as we all keep eating baked beans.

--
Nigel M

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:19:30 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 GMT Fray Bentos wrote :
When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we
be living in all-electric homes?

Standard tariff electricity is 3-4 times the price of gas per kWh. But
as we build better insulated and better sealed homes that need a lot
less energy and as the price of gas c.h. servicing and repairs goes up
the TCO of electric heating may well become lower than for gas.

Given the huge reliance on of gas fired power generation that will
only happen if we go for nuclear generation in a big way and someone
makes a big breakthrough on waste disposal techniques.

There is another possibility and that is if someone manages to harness
the output of Dr Dribble


--

Fray Bentos wrote:
"Matt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 GMT, "Fray Bentos"
wrote:

how long do you all think we have gas for?
In your case probably until the 50p in the meter runs out.

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be
living
in all-electric homes?
No.


--

That wasn't a nice answer.


But it didn't cots you as much as enough gas to boil a kettle..what did
you expect?

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 +0000, Fray Bentos wrote:

how long do you all think we have gas for?

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be living
in all-electric homes?

My guess is that as gas/oil runs out it's relative price will increase.

This will initially bring on further reserves.
AIUI there is a massive amount of oil/gas on the western side of Scotland
but it's in much deeper water and will require a higher price (I don't
know what level though I was told is was 4 times the real price in 1995).

There will be a shift back to coal, nuclear and renewables.

Given the infrastructure we now have is northern europe for burning
methane. I strongly suspect that plants for converting coal to
Methane/Ethane will be built (I doubt that town gas will make a come back).

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

Fray Bentos wrote:

how long do you all think we have gas for?

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be living
in all-electric homes?

It will never run out. The utilities were provided at cost before
Magrat Thechav. But now we have got used to being milked, the asset
strippers she sold us out to can charge what they like -and do.

It is quite easy for other utilities to make and sell hydrogen from a
plentiful and self perpetuating resource. Everything else you have
heard is designed to sell you red fish of particularly ripe pungency.

Nuclear power plants can run almost indefinitely at 2% output but these
rates are rarely reached 24/7 especially no in summer. Off peak they
could easily be set to reduce water to its elementary particulate.

All it needs is infrastructure but the asset strippers are not going to
invest in the need. You only need to have a variety of the resellers
come and change your meter to realise that cost cutting has rendered
the service industry seriously dangerous.

That is the problem. And now watch it worsen.

It is quite easy for other utilities to make and sell hydrogen from a
plentiful and self perpetuating resource. Everything else you have
heard is designed to sell you red fish of particularly ripe pungency.

Hydrogen ???? to replace natural gas (Methane) you are joking I take it ?

Dave

"Fray Bentos" wrote in message
k...
how long do you all think we have gas for?

How long is a piece of string? Currently the oil companies are discovering
new reserves of fossil fuels at a much faster rate than the rate at which
their use increases (except for 2005, which had an unusually rapid, but
short lived, increase in the rate of use, so that it just about matched new
finds). In any case, for the foreseeable future, the limitation on how much
fossil fuel is available is not what actual reserves there are in the Earth,
but how much of those it is economic to harvest. As the price rises, so the
technology to access more difficult reserves will become profitable to use
and the recoverable reserves will increase.

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be
living
in all-electric homes?

Only if the greenies eventually come to realise that nuclear power is good.

Colin Bignell

On 15 Mar 2006 10:30:52 -0800, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

Nuclear power plants can run almost indefinitely at 2% output but these
rates are rarely reached 24/7 especially no in summer.

2% ?????


--

Matt wrote:

On 15 Mar 2006 10:30:52 -0800, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:


Nuclear power plants can run almost indefinitely at 2% output but these
rates are rarely reached 24/7 especially no in summer.


2% ?????

Chernobyl reached 100%, for a little while

Dave Stanton wrote:

Hydrogen ? To replace natural gas (Methane) you are joking I take it ?

What's the problem? Cannisters of it stored outside would be safer than
the heavier than air flammables. And in the mains at one time they used
to use a dilute carbon monoxide hydrogen mix. Very dangerous as CO is
poisonous.

The main problem with hydrogen is that it is difficult to liquify. That
isn't a problem with mains. It isn't a problem with cannisters either;
it just requires a change of viewpoint. Besides it can be used in fuel
cells or dissolved in methane.

Or if worse comes to the worst, it can be fused with old sump oil, car
tyres and kitchen waste to produce man made natural gasses.

Try applying your grey matter to problems and what initially can appear
daunting, ends up paling to insignificance. Let me repeat; there is no
problem that, were the utility nationalised, should not disappear
overnight.

See
alsohttp://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01264a.htm

The other viable alternatives are coal. We stopped its production due
to its production cost not its scarcity and vegetable oils which are
about 15 pence after tax for edible quality oil. What less edible stuff
is also available but not considered viable due to having no market at
the moment remains to be seen.

We know some algaes will produce toxic but rich fuel quality gasses.
The reason to worry has not yet been reached. Nor is it likely to be.

In message , Fray Bentos
writes
how long do you all think we have gas for?

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be living
in all-electric homes?

Baked beans and guinness ... it is a DIY group after all

--
geoff

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:21:02 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Fray Bentos
writes
how long do you all think we have gas for?

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be living
in all-electric homes?

Baked beans and guinness ... it is a DIY group after all

Sprouts. They have the advantage of being available during the coldest
months of the year.

--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.pherber.com/
Visio Utilities http://www.visio-utilities.sandrila.co.uk/

In message . com,
Weatherlawyer writes

Dave Stanton wrote:

Hydrogen ? To replace natural gas (Methane) you are joking I take it ?

What's the problem? Cannisters of it stored outside would be safer than
the heavier than air flammables. And in the mains at one time they used
to use a dilute carbon monoxide hydrogen mix. Very dangerous as CO is
poisonous.

The main problem with hydrogen is that it is difficult to liquify. That
isn't a problem with mains. It isn't a problem with cannisters either;
it just requires a change of viewpoint. Besides it can be used in fuel
cells or dissolved in methane.

Or if worse comes to the worst, it can be fused with old sump oil, car
tyres and kitchen waste to produce man made natural gasses.

Try applying your grey matter to problems and what initially can appear
daunting, ends up paling to insignificance. Let me repeat; there is no
problem that, were the utility nationalised, should not disappear
overnight.

See
alsohttp://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01264a.htm


"The location you specified does not exist on PSIgate. Please use the
menu on the left to select an area of interest, or go directly to the
PSIgate homepage "

So it's OK boys and girls, we're going to be saved by pseudoscience


--
geoff

"Fray Bentos" wrote in message
k...

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 GMT, "Fray Bentos"
wrote:

how long do you all think we have gas for?

In your case probably until the 50p in the meter runs out.

When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we be
living
in all-electric homes?

No.

That wasn't a nice answer.

Just ignore Lord Hall.

"Fray Bentos" wrote in message
k...
how long do you all think we have gas for?

When it finally runs out / becomes too
expensive / rare , will we be living
in all-electric homes?

Probably, with hot water from district CHP, as in Sweden. But with home
with far higher insulation than the current building regs.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" nightjar@insert my
surname here.uk.com saying something like:

How long is a piece of string? Currently the oil companies are discovering
new reserves of fossil fuels at a much faster rate than the rate at which
their use increases

Peak Oil is on us already, according to some very knowledgeable folk in
the oil industry.

(except for 2005, which had an unusually rapid, but
short lived, increase in the rate of use, so that it just about matched new
finds). In any case, for the foreseeable future, the limitation on how much
fossil fuel is available is not what actual reserves there are in the Earth,

No reserve is 100% obtainable.


but how much of those it is economic to harvest. As the price rises, so the
technology to access more difficult reserves will become profitable to use
and the recoverable reserves will increase.

Aye, and then there's the Falklands oil. That was reckoned to be
economically retrievable when oil prices reach 80usd /barrel. Mind you,
that was back in the 80s, and I don't think deepwater drilling has
improved that enough in the past 20 years to make it realistic.
--

Dave

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" nightjar@insert my
surname here.uk.com saying something like:

How long is a piece of string? Currently the oil companies are discovering
new reserves of fossil fuels at a much faster rate than the rate at which
their use increases

Peak Oil is on us already, according to some very knowledgeable folk in
the oil industry.

As it has been at regular intervals for the past 30 years, according to the
same experts. However, they rely on Hubbert being right in assuming that the
level of recoverable reserves are fixed, but that has proved to be wrong at
regular intervals over the past 30 years. It will not be true until we reach
the point where recovery technology cannot be improved and we are a long way
from that.

(except for 2005, which had an unusually rapid, but
short lived, increase in the rate of use, so that it just about matched
new
finds). In any case, for the foreseeable future, the limitation on how
much
fossil fuel is available is not what actual reserves there are in the
Earth,

No reserve is 100% obtainable.

We could, however, do a lot better than we do now, if anybody wanted to
spend the mony on it, which they may well do in the future.

Aye, and then there's the Falklands oil. That was reckoned to be
economically retrievable when oil prices reach 80usd /barrel. Mind you,
that was back in the 80s, and I don't think deepwater drilling has
improved that enough in the past 20 years to make it realistic.

The area is still disputed, so the oil companies will try to avoid it as
long as possible, in case the Argentineans try another takeover and they
lose all their investment. Similarly, the seabed around Greece and Turkey is
geologically similar to the North Sea, but nobody wants to explore that area
because of the long term political tension between the two countries.
Politics is often as important in deciding where drilling takes place as the
feasibility of extraction.

Colin Bignell

In article
raden wrote:
In message . com,
Weatherlawyer writes

Dave Stanton wrote:

Hydrogen ? To replace natural gas (Methane) you are joking I take it ?

What's the problem? Cannisters of it stored outside would be safer than
the heavier than air flammables. And in the mains at one time they used
to use a dilute carbon monoxide hydrogen mix. Very dangerous as CO is
poisonous.

The main problem with hydrogen is that it is difficult to liquify. That
isn't a problem with mains. It isn't a problem with cannisters either;
it just requires a change of viewpoint. Besides it can be used in fuel
cells or dissolved in methane.

Or if worse comes to the worst, it can be fused with old sump oil, car
tyres and kitchen waste to produce man made natural gasses.

Try applying your grey matter to problems and what initially can appear
daunting, ends up paling to insignificance. Let me repeat; there is no
problem that, were the utility nationalised, should not disappear
overnight.

See
alsohttp://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01264a.htm


"The location you specified does not exist on PSIgate. Please use the
menu on the left to select an area of interest, or go directly to the
PSIgate homepage "

So it's OK boys and girls, we're going to be saved by pseudoscience



works fine for me:

Wood
Only wood among the renewable fuels is significant as a chemical raw
material. Wood is a complex physical and chemical structure. Its overall
elemental composition by mass is about 49% carbon, 6% hydrogen, and 0.2%
nitrogen; the remaining elements and their amounts and forms vary
considerably from one species of tree to another. The most common
cations found in wood are calcium, potassium, and magnesium; common
anions include carbonate, sulfate, phosphate, and silicate. These make
up the noncombustible part of the wood, the ash.

Wood can be partially burned to charcoal, which is essentially a porous
form of pure carbon, in kilns which permit limited access of air. This
process is called carbonization of the wood and has been in use from
ancient times. Carbonization of wood will produce tar, and pine tar was
once used for the calking of ships. For this reason tar and its products
are still known as "naval stores". Wood tar has been used as a
commercial source of acetic acid, methanol, and the solvent mixture
called "turpentine".

The combustible part of wood consists primarily of various forms of the
glucose polymer &fuse('cellulose'). Much of the remainder, ranging
from 18% to 28% of the total, is a complex polymer of a phenylpropane
unit; this polymer is called lignin. Treatment of wood with either
aqueous strong acid or aqueous strong base produces hydrolysis of all or
part of the cellulose and releases a variety of water-soluble materials
as well as glucose. Lignin, however, is resistant to hydrolysis and has
not yet been converted to marketable products on a large scale.
Coal
Coal is the fuel present in largest quantity on earth. It is basically
carbon, left over from bacterial action upon decaying plant matter in
the absence of oxygen, usually under silt and water. Over millions of
years the bacterial action and pressure compact the organic material,
which steadily loses moisture. The original oxygen of the organic
compounds is also lost along with most but not all of the original
nitrogen and hydrogen, leaving the carbon.

The first step in coal formation yields peat, compressed plant matter
which still contains twigs and leaves. Peat, dug from peat bogs, is used
as a fuel in Ireland and Russia. The next step is the formation of brown
coal or lignite. Lignite has already lost most of the original moisture,
oxygen, and nitrogen. It is widely used as a heating fuel but is of
little chemical interest. The next stage, bituminous coal, is also
widely used as a fuel for heating. It is the most abundant form of coal
and is the source of coke for smelting, coal tar, and many forms of
chemically modified fuels. Some coal found in areas of mountain
building, such as the Rocky Mountains and Appalachian Mountains in North
America, has been subjected to great heat and pressure as a metamorphic
rock. This hard coal or anthracite is almost pure carbon.
Domestic Gas From Coal
Combustible gases have been known since the days of Van Helmont (d.
1644) and the burning of gas made by destructive distillation of coal
was known as a curiosity by about 1700. Commercial development and
public demonstration of gas for heat and light came from the work of
Phillipe Lebon (1767-1804) in France. Lebon, who publicly demonstrated
gas lighting in 1801 using gas obtained from the destructive
distillation of wood, was killed in a street robbery and his work was
not followed up in France for some time.

William Murdock (1754-1859), an employee of the Boulton and Watt
engineering firm then engaged in the manufacture of Watt-type steam
engines, began his studies around 1791 and was interested in the
products of the destructive distillation of coal. This process was used
to make coke, or carbon, from coal and the other products, gas and coal-
tar, were generally permitted to escape or were burned for fuel. Murdock
did not see Lebon's Paris demonstration but Gregory Watt, second son of
James Watt, did see it. Watt's report caused the Boulton-Watt firm to
back Murdock's experiments and commercial gas plants for large mills
were sold from 1804 onwards by the firm.

Frederic Winsor, an eccentric German, also saw Lebon's demonstration in
Paris. Winsor began independent demonstrations of gas lighting in London
in 1804; his approach was the supply of gas by mains from central
generating plants rather than the independent house or mill generating
systems sold by Boulton and Watt. The Gas Light and Coke Company was
chartered in 1812 and gas piping began to spread through London. Other
metropolitan centers were served with gas at a later date,. Both wooden
and cast-iron pipes were used. Gas lighting at this time was by flame;
the present incandescent gas mantle was not developed until 1885, at
which time incandescent electric lighting was taking over an increasing
share of the lighting market.

Gas today is either produced from coal and oil or found as natural gas.
Natural gas is almost pure methane, CH4, with small amounts of other
hydrocarbons, and is obtained from natural gas wells. Since the heat
available per volume of natural gas is much greater than the heat
obtained per volume of manufactured gas or "town gas", the burners and
equipment must be converted when the supply is changed (as in Britain in
the 1970's when town gas was replaced by natural gas from the North
Sea). Natural gas, if obtainable, is preferable to town gas, but the
supply is limited. Chemical reactions are used to produce town gas and
to purify natural gas. Some of the same impurities, such as sulfur
compounds, are common to both.

The basic process of coke production is also that used for manufacture
of town gas. Bituminous coal of the gasmaking type is perhaps 86%
carbon, 5.5% hydrogen, 6% oxygen, and 2.5% or so nitrogen and sulfur. An
elemental analysis is all that can be meaningfully given, since coal is
a complex substance. When heated in the absence of air, coal produces
carbon (coke) and a mixture of many gases, (crude coal gas). The heat
for the carbonization of coal is provided by use of some of the the coke
product in the strongly exothermic producer gas reaction:

C + O2 -- CO2, DH0 = -393.509 kJ/mole

which in the presence of insufficient oxygen drives the endothermic
formation of carbon monoxide:

CO2 + C -- 2CO, DH0 = +172.459 kJ/mole

Partial use of the endothermic water gas shift reaction equilibrium:

C + H2O(g) -- CO + H2, DH0 = +131.293 kJ/mole

permits control of the temperature of the reaction zone and raises the
heating value of the output producer gas slightly. The final composition
of producer gas is about 12% hydrogen, 25% carbon monoxide, 7% carbon
dioxide, and 56% nitrogen; the nitrogen comes from the air used in the
producer gas reaction.

Producer gas is mixed with crude coal gas to give crude town gas.
Impurities are condensed out as the gas cools (water, tar, napthalene,
ammonium chloride) or by absorption in water (NH3, H2S, CO2). The rest
of the H2S is removed by reaction with Fe2O3, and the purified town gas
is ready for delivery. A typical composition of town gas would be about
51% hydrogen, 15% carbon monoxide, 21% methane, 10% carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, and about 3% other alkanes.

The traditional process for producing town gas has been to some extent
replaced by processes using feedstocks of oil or lower quality coal. The
most promising of these is the Lurgi process developed in Germany in the
late 1930's. The Lurgi process operates at a higher pressure (30-40 atm)
than the traditional processes, and thus in addition to the producer gas
reaction and the water gas shift reaction two other equilibrium
reactions can occur, coal hydrogenation:

C + 2H2 -- CH4, DH0 = -74.81 kJ/mole

and the Sabatier synthesis:

CO + 3H2 -- CH4 + H2O(g), DH0 = -206.103 kJ/mole

At these higher pressures, virtually all of the carbon monoxide is
removed by the water gas shift reaction, which considerably reduces the
toxicity of the gas. The Lurgi process permits the conversion of coal
into methane, from which one can synthesize other hydrocarbon fuels such
as gasoline. Such processes were operated on a large scale by Nazi
Germany during the Second World War, but are not now economically
competitive with hydrocarbon fuels obtained from oil feedstocks.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:42:59 -0000, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my
surname here.uk.com wrote:


Aye, and then there's the Falklands oil. That was reckoned to be
economically retrievable when oil prices reach 80usd /barrel. Mind you,
that was back in the 80s, and I don't think deepwater drilling has
improved that enough in the past 20 years to make it realistic.

The area is still disputed, so the oil companies will try to avoid it as
long as possible, in case the Argentineans try another takeover and they
lose all their investment. Similarly, the seabed around Greece and Turkey is
geologically similar to the North Sea, but nobody wants to explore that area
because of the long term political tension between the two countries.
Politics is often as important in deciding where drilling takes place as the
feasibility of extraction.

Colin Bignell



We could do with building some proper aircraft carriers to secure the
oil thats rightly ours. Oh we are...

On 15 Mar 2006 14:14:15 -0800, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:



The other viable alternatives are coal. We stopped its production due
to its production cost not its scarcity and vegetable oils which are
about 15 pence after tax for edible quality oil. What less edible stuff
is also available but not considered viable due to having no market at
the moment remains to be seen.


The Malasians and Indonesians are currently clearing 22,000 hectares
of rain forest to grow palm oil to satisfy the demand for bio deisel
created by EU "green" targets. And this when we're being told not to
use tropical hardwoods. The same problem exists with ethanol imported
from Brazil in tankers to this country, so some target or other can be
met.

marble wrote in message
Politics is often as important in deciding where drilling takes place as
the
feasibility of extraction.



We could do with building some proper aircraft carriers to secure the
oil thats rightly ours. Oh we are...

But...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm



-

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" nightjar@insert my
surname here.uk.com saying something like:

No reserve is 100% obtainable.

We could, however, do a lot better than we do now, if anybody wanted to
spend the mony on it, which they may well do in the future.

I'd be surprised if extraction technology doesn't improve greatly, with
the spur of rising prices. I find it scandalous that many fields are
abandoned with substantial quantities of oil still in them. Cost, I
suppose.
--

Dave

Mark wrote:

marble wrote in message

Politics is often as important in deciding where drilling takes place as

the

feasibility of extraction.



We could do with building some proper aircraft carriers to secure the
oil thats rightly ours. Oh we are...


But...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm

This contract is not looking too good right now. While Britain has given
the yanks the technology of the Harrier's ability to fly vertical, they
have not allowed us access to the technology of how to program the
weapons system. I can't see Britain buying an aircraft that they can't
program the missiles into bombing on any country they want to. The
theory behind the yanks is that they will only let us arm the aircraft
if they think the target is OK by them.

Dave

Dave wrote:
Mark wrote:

marble wrote in message

Politics is often as important in deciding where drilling takes
place as


the

feasibility of extraction.



We could do with building some proper aircraft carriers to secure the
oil thats rightly ours. Oh we are...



But...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm


This contract is not looking too good right now. While Britain has given
the yanks the technology of the Harrier's ability to fly vertical, they
have not allowed us access to the technology of how to program the
weapons system. I can't see Britain buying an aircraft that they can't
program the missiles into bombing on any country they want to. The
theory behind the yanks is that they will only let us arm the aircraft
if they think the target is OK by them.


This is called the peace dividend, isn't it?

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
I'd be surprised if extraction technology doesn't improve greatly, with
the spur of rising prices. I find it scandalous that many fields are
abandoned with substantial quantities of oil still in them. Cost, I
suppose.

Nothing to stop 'em drilling another hole later on...

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris Bacon
saying something like:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
I'd be surprised if extraction technology doesn't improve greatly, with
the spur of rising prices. I find it scandalous that many fields are
abandoned with substantial quantities of oil still in them. Cost, I
suppose.

Nothing to stop 'em drilling another hole later on...

True enough, but istr that previous extraction methods left some fields
unusable for the remaining oil. Something to do with the peculiar
geology of oil reservoirs.
--

Dave

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris Bacon
saying something like:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
I'd be surprised if extraction technology doesn't improve greatly, with
the spur of rising prices. I find it scandalous that many fields are
abandoned with substantial quantities of oil still in them. Cost, I
suppose.

Nothing to stop 'em drilling another hole later on...

True enough, but istr that previous extraction methods left some fields
unusable for the remaining oil. Something to do with the peculiar
geology of oil reservoirs.

Unusable in relation to oil almost always needs to be modified by the words
'at economic cost', which is a variable concept. Some capped wells could be
revitalised by pumping gas down them and that is exactly where it is now
proposed to pump excess CO2. It would probably be uneconomic to do it just
to get the oil, but there is political mileage to be gained by doing
something that people think will help prevent global warming. Of course,
even if the 'CO2 is the culprit' pundits are right, the best that can be
done is to delay the onset by a few years and the money being spent on
'prevention' would be much better spent on getting the world ready for an
increase in temperature.

Colin Bignell

In message , nightjar
writes
Unusable in relation to oil almost always needs to be modified by the words
'at economic cost', which is a variable concept. Some capped wells could be
revitalised by pumping gas down them and that is exactly where it is now
proposed to pump excess CO2. It would probably be uneconomic to do it just
to get the oil, but there is political mileage to be gained by doing
something that people think will help prevent global warming. Of course,
even if the 'CO2 is the culprit' pundits are right, the best that can be
done is to delay the onset by a few years and the money being spent on
'prevention' would be much better spent on getting the world ready for an
increase in temperature.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration is the next big thing in the power
generation industry - for each kWh of power produced, your typical coal
fired power station releases just short of 1 kg of CO2. Since last
year, industry across Europe has been operating in an environment where
they have a physical cap on the amount of CO2 that the whole of Europe
emits. Each power station has a 'free' allocation of CO2 from the
government that allows a limited amount of running each year, after that
the plant has to buy what are called carbon credits from a traded market
but for each year there is a finite number of carbon credits available.
At present, a carbon credit is valued at around £16 per tonne so very
roughly 1 MWh of generation releases 1 tonne of CO2 so the additional
cost of each MWh generated over the plants carbon cap costs £16.
Interestingly, the cost of coal for your average power station also
costs around £16 for that MWh so the cost of the carbon credit is having
the same effect on final electricity price as the cost of the fuel -
whilst electricity prices in Europe have in the main been driven upwards
by the spiralling cost of oil driving the gas prices there is an effect
on prices since last year by the carbon market.

Capturing the CO2 from a power station and stuffing it down an oil field
(Enhanced Oil Recovery as it is known) would save the cost of carbon
credits and release valuable oil so it is of great interest to the oil
and power industries. Trouble is, getting the CO2 to the oil fields
requires pipelines - yet another national infrastructure (and the
technology to scrub the CO2 out of the power plants - very immature at
the moment) so the best option is to build new coal plants on the East
Coast of the UK close to the North Sea oil fields.

Andy
--
Andrew Sinclair http://www.smellycat.org

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:48:51 +0000, Andrew Sinclair
wrote:



Capturing the CO2 from a power station and stuffing it down an oil field
(Enhanced Oil Recovery as it is known) would save the cost of carbon
credits and release valuable oil so it is of great interest to the oil
and power industries. Trouble is, getting the CO2 to the oil fields
requires pipelines - yet another national infrastructure (and the
technology to scrub the CO2 out of the power plants - very immature at
the moment) so the best option is to build new coal plants on the East
Coast of the UK close to the North Sea oil fields.


.... or build nuclear ones and not have the carbon issue in the first
place.



--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:48:51 +0000, Andrew Sinclair
wrote:

Capturing the CO2 from a power station and stuffing it down an oil field
(Enhanced Oil Recovery as it is known) would save the cost of carbon
credits and release valuable oil so it is of great interest to the oil
and power industries. Trouble is, getting the CO2 to the oil fields
requires pipelines - yet another national infrastructure (and the
technology to scrub the CO2 out of the power plants - very immature at
the moment) so the best option is to build new coal plants on the East
Coast of the UK close to the North Sea oil fields.


... or build nuclear ones and not have the carbon issue in the first
place.

Matt, we do away with street lights because we all glow in the dark.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:46:32 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:48:51 +0000, Andrew Sinclair
wrote:

Capturing the CO2 from a power station and stuffing it down an oil field
(Enhanced Oil Recovery as it is known) would save the cost of carbon
credits and release valuable oil so it is of great interest to the oil
and power industries. Trouble is, getting the CO2 to the oil fields
requires pipelines - yet another national infrastructure (and the
technology to scrub the CO2 out of the power plants - very immature at
the moment) so the best option is to build new coal plants on the East
Coast of the UK close to the North Sea oil fields.


... or build nuclear ones and not have the carbon issue in the first
place.

Matt, we do away with street lights because we all glow in the dark.


I think that we should do away with street lights anyway and cut down
on light pollution.


--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:02:07 GMT Fray Bentos wrote :
When it finally runs out / becomes too expensive / rare , will we
be living in all-electric homes?

Standard tariff electricity is 3-4 times the price of gas per kWh. But
as we build better insulated and better sealed homes that need a lot
less energy and as the price of gas c.h. servicing and repairs goes up
the TCO of electric heating may well become lower than for gas.

In some cases it already is.

When I owned a rental flat it used to cost me almost as much
to service the aged boiler [1] each year than I payed in electric
to heat my own all electric (UK) house.
There were some studios in the same block with GCH that
could easily have been kept warm with 2 NSR at less TCO.

GCH is installed because buyers 'expect' it. It really annoys me
when I see these property programs criticise a small flat with
perfectly adequate for the size of the property NSRs because
"it needs GCH installing".

tim

[1] I couldn't replace it because the new ones (apparently) required
a larger flue and the freeholders would allow tenants to make bigger
holes in the roof.

Nick wrote:
Matt wrote:

On 15 Mar 2006 10:30:52 -0800, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:


Nuclear power plants can run almost indefinitely at 2% output but these
rates are rarely reached 24/7 especially no in summer.


2% ?

Chernobyl reached 100%, for a little while

Quite nearly right.

The graphite cored ones are pretty safe at 2%, not that I am advocating
them. If more efficiency is required as it was demanded by the Tories
during the miner's strike the balance hits a diminished return at some
rate I am not familiar with.

There is a greater need for vigilance of course and breakages may
damage the graphite. It is contaminated graphite that renders the power
station obsolete, or rather unusable.

That at least is my limited understanding. They are facinating devices
though. It seems now that the region surrounding Chernoble is a
flourishing wildlife zone now. An as yet unknown factor is the take up
in sub soil fungii.

Apparantly a tree fed with radio-identifiable fertiliser can transport
it into the soil and from the interaction with that tree's particular
subsoil partner, to other trees in the region that are partnered with
the same fungus.

Perhaps they are helping dilute the concentrations. Or concentrating
them where they won't be found until some politician builds a show
house on the site one day.

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

I think that we should do away with street lights anyway and cut down
on light pollution.

And what, pray, would we hang the politicians from when we finally get
fed up with 'em?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.