Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#281
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:51:22 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:- Not any more. I wonder if you really are as thick as you come across, or just trolling. Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of those with no better arguments. No, a standard response to someone who is trying to appear smart, but is actually appearing dumber buy the minute. I have no objection to being beaten down by superior logic, or better factual data. I do object to people who use specious logic and are economical with the facts to win arguments however. And actually deliberate changing of what one has said in order to make an utterly specious point, simply to attack my credibility, really is a step beyond the pale.. |
#282
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:55:33 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- It appears that yours is completely closed to anything that exposes the unacceptable aspects of industrial windmills. Yawn. My mind is completely open, to good arguments. Bluff and bluster, on the other hand, does not impress me. For instance I have changed my mind on nuclear generated electricity, after listening to the arguments of all sides. The anti-lobby have by far the most convincing set of arguments. That says more about your ability to be swayed by, and attempt to sway others by, specious arguments, than anything about the nuclear industry or windmills, per se. |
#283
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:09:00 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:55:33 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- It appears that yours is completely closed to anything that exposes the unacceptable aspects of industrial windmills. Yawn. My mind is completely open, to good arguments. Really? You are doing a very good job of pretending otherwise. Bluff and bluster, on the other hand, does not impress me. So why would you expect that yours would impress anybody else? For instance I have changed my mind on nuclear generated electricity, after listening to the arguments of all sides. The anti-lobby have by far the most convincing set of arguments. So you are swayed by lobbies. This doesn't surprise me all that much I prefer to approach things on my own basis, independently and individually, and to make up my own mind based on information from a wide range of sources.Lobby groups don't score highly in that scheme of things. |
#284
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Andy Hall wrote:
You think that these industrial windmills are attractive? I wonder if there was an Andy Hall in Holland in the 14th century saying the same thing ... -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland |
#285
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its easy enough to use electricity to SYNTHESISE hydrocarbon fuels, if its cheap enough energy. Really ... how? I would not have thought it made sense to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels, in any case, however cheap electricity was. Surely there are better ways of using electricity to turn wheels? -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland |
#286
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
Electrons [1], don't come from anywhere. Rather they are waggled backwards and forwards, over surprisingly small distances. [1] which don't really exist but are rather something of an artificial construction. That seems rather an odd remark. Are you saying you don't think electrons really exist? Does this disbelief extend to all elementary particles, or just electrons? -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland |
#287
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:24:04 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote
(in article ): Andy Hall wrote: You think that these industrial windmills are attractive? I wonder if there was an Andy Hall in Holland in the 14th century saying the same thing ... He was putting his finger in dykes probably..... |
#288
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:22:12 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- So you are swayed by lobbies. Nice try. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#289
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:50:49 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:- Do you peer into your electric socket and say 'now little electron, where did YOU get your shove from..was it a nasty gas powered station or a shiny Nuclear one, or just a windmill?' Nice try. However, I know rather a lot about electrical systems. Electrons [1], don't come from anywhere. Rather they are waggled backwards and forwards, over surprisingly small distances. I surmise that somebody has read 'Scroggie' .... ? and/or lot's of 'Wirelss World' mags. -- Brian |
#290
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:47:06 +0100 someone who may be Timothy Murphy
wrote this:- Electrons [1], don't come from anywhere. Rather they are waggled backwards and forwards, over surprisingly small distances. [1] which don't really exist but are rather something of an artificial construction. That seems rather an odd remark. Does it? Are you saying you don't think electrons really exist? Physicists have been trying to work that one out for a long time. Many decades ago, perhaps a century, the wave/particle duality was causing people to scratch their heads. Even in school in the 1970s they were talking about replacing ball and spring models with something more realistic to avoid giving pupils the wrong impression. The last time I checked theory had resolved some of these and other nuclear puzzles, via all sorts of interesting things in about eight dimensions. I believe British scientists (and mathematicians) are doing a fair amount of this work. Of course the new wonder theory may just be like the other wonder theories of the past, simply peeling another layer off the onion. That is certainly all the earlier concepts did and it would be arrogant to assume that we are going to do any better than just push knowledge on a bit. How many quarks have now been discovered? This sort of thing will become very boring if researchers ever reach the end of history on the subject. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#291
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:46:05 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock"
wrote this:- I surmise that somebody has read 'Scroggie' .... ? Never even heard of it. and/or lot's of 'Wirelss World' mags. I have heard of that. I may even have seen some on the shelves of magazine shops. I don't think I have ever even opened one, let alone red it. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#292
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:46:05 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock" wrote this:- I surmise that somebody has read 'Scroggie' .... ? Never even heard of it. Him, actually! A contributor/popularist to 'Wireless World' and author of (several?) books on 'wireless theory', which were influential in the fifties/sixties/seventies (of the last century ... ;( ) see http://mgscroggie.quickseek.com/ I recall one of his discourse about how far an 'electron' (whatever it was) traversed as it was pushed first this way then that under a sinusoidal voltage. and/or lot's of 'Wirelss World' mags. I have heard of that. I may even have seen some on the shelves of magazine shops. I don't think I have ever even opened one, let alone red it. During the sixties 'Wireless World' was _the_ magazine for people interested in electronics - which at that period was for folks interested in boiling off electrons from red-hot cathodes and influencing their passage through tiny envelopes of vacuum. Oh! the hours pent marvelling at Ia/Vg curves .... ;( It was a standing 'understanding' that 'we' could control electrons - whatever they were! -- Brian |
#293
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:33:13 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock"
wrote this:- ['Scroggie'] Him, actually! A contributor/popularist to 'Wireless World' and author of (several?) books on 'wireless theory', which were influential in the Thanks for the information. fifties/sixties/seventies (of the last century ... ;( ) I do recall the end of the 1960s, but only just:-) I recall one of his discourse about how far an 'electron' (whatever it was) traversed as it was pushed first this way then that under a sinusoidal voltage. The distance is surprisingly small, though I can't be bothered to look it up. What that does demonstrate is that electric wiring should be considered more as a sort of waveguide for radio waves, rather then a hose pipe along which electrons are stuffed. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#294
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:24:42 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:22:12 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- So you are swayed by lobbies. Nice try. Not really. Just an observation.... |
#295
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Its easy enough to use electricity to SYNTHESISE hydrocarbon fuels, if its cheap enough energy. Really ... how? I would not have thought it made sense to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels, in any case, however cheap electricity was. Surely there are better ways of using electricity to turn wheels? Possibly not. Take aircraft. Although the highest energy density of any (oxidisng chemical) fuel is hydrogen, kerosene is about the best energy per unit volume. Batteries do not exist of adequate capacity, and nor does the grid, for extended operation in many places. Even rows of light bulbs in Siberia growing Rape seed for oil, may be simpler to organise..:-) I can't remember the basic synthesis for hydrocarbons, but they are presumably makable from CO2 and water..somehow..Probably a lot of heat and pressure.. |
#296
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Timothy Murphy wrote:
David Hansen wrote: Electrons [1], don't come from anywhere. Rather they are waggled backwards and forwards, over surprisingly small distances. [1] which don't really exist but are rather something of an artificial construction. That seems rather an odd remark. Are you saying you don't think electrons really exist? Does this disbelief extend to all elementary particles, or just electrons? Well the remark is valid enough. Electrons are hypothetical entities that we presuppose are behind the waggling of our dials and the pictures on the screen you are looking at. Somewhat less direct in evidence than e.g. John Prescott. It was the fact that his remark was in apparent contradiction of something I never said that ****ed me off. |
#297
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 01:24:29 -0700 someone who may be wrote this:- again I dont see the logic there. What matters is total release, where it happens in the chain does not seem to make a great amount of difference. The logic is simple, one must consider the whole process. Simply concentrating on that part of the process at the power station gives a false picture. of course. Not that it makes that much difference in the case of nuke plants afaik. If the purpose is to decide which way to go in Britain, then Chinese conditions dont seem directly relevant to that. I tend to agree; but deaths in Chinese coal mines are often introduced into the discussion by the nuclear lobby, who are not so keen to discuss nuclear operations in China which probably have similarities to that in Russia. but again this has no real bearing on the question of what Britains choices should be. Advertising and other promotion does not change logic and fact. So when deciding whats best we need to determine the facts rather than what political nonsense all the camps are trying to pull.. NT |
#298
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But as the lesser of many evils, nuclear has to be considered seriously. This really is the whole point. All options are non-ideal, the question is just which is the best mix of options, and nuke is a particularly strong contender. NT |
#299
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: David Hansen wrote: On 10 Jul 2006 12:28:14 -0700 someone who may be wrote this:- ? If uranium is already being used to generate energy, then that energy is what would be used to do the ore extraction. That does not compute. You are assuming that all the energy used in converting what is dug out of the ground into fuel rods comes from uranium. not a very good point. I think it is. I note that the point remains unanswered. Not any more. I wonder if you really are as thick as you come across, or just trolling. Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of those with no better arguments. It is indeed a false point, and one obviously so to most of us. I did attempt to address it sensibly earlier, but deleted the reply as it could only really consist of stating the obvious. NT |
#300
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:11:30 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ): On 11 Jul 2006 00:20:01 -0700 someone who may be wrote this:- If the only change is the appearance of the lanscape thats a miniscule cost Defaced is also a matter of personal prejudice. Prejudice is an emotionally loaded word which rather suggests that you feel a need to defend the industrial deployment of your technology. As is shown by http://www.bwea.com/media/photo/res/...osstractor.jpg most of the land can be used as before. That just shows an ugly industrial windmill in front of a field being ploughed and a landscape with low rolling hills. Subtract the industrial windmill and it would look great These sort of appearance objections are like little children saying they dont want to go to school cos its cold outside. While I can sympathise ya still got to get real. NT |
#302
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On 11 Jul 2006 16:49:15 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:- But as the lesser of many evils, nuclear has to be considered seriously. This really is the whole point. All options are non-ideal, the question is just which is the best mix of options, I think everyone would agree so far. and nuke is a particularly strong contender. Nuclear accounts for what? ISTR less than 5% of UK energy use. Blowing a huge and unknown amount of money on something so dubious for that is not what I would call a strong contender, especially as the taxpayer will again be subsidising it in all sorts of ways, no matter what Mr Darling may claim. The Daily Torygraph and Scum are in favour of nuclear power. That is a convincing reason to be against it:-) I gather that the dodgy dossier said nothing on emissions from transport, which are the most rapidly growing part of total emissions. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#303
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On 11 Jul 2006 17:06:02 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:- As is shown by http://www.bwea.com/media/photo/res/...osstractor.jpg most of the land can be used as before. That just shows an ugly industrial windmill in front of a field being ploughed and a landscape with low rolling hills. Subtract the industrial windmill and it would look great These sort of appearance objections are like little children saying they dont want to go to school cos its cold outside. While I can sympathise ya still got to get real. That is something we do agree about. One of the points that is worth emphasising about the photograph is that the land is in use, other than where the turbine base and the (presumably) switchgear (and perhaps transformer) hut is, for farming. That is why claims about the area of land for wind farms are somewhat misleading. In contrast other sorts of power stations are surrounded by a fence and essentially sterilise the land inside the fence, though I suppose a few may have some sheep as a cheap means of keeping the grass short. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#304
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote: The distance is surprisingly small, though I can't be bothered to look it up. What that does demonstrate is that electric wiring should be considered more as a sort of waveguide for radio waves, rather then a hose pipe along which electrons are stuffed. Would you possibly like to qualify that statement as applying solely to AC? Regards, Sid |
#305
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On 12 Jul 2006 00:53:49 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:- The distance is surprisingly small, though I can't be bothered to look it up. What that does demonstrate is that electric wiring should be considered more as a sort of waveguide for radio waves, rather then a hose pipe along which electrons are stuffed. Would you possibly like to qualify that statement as applying solely to AC? Only up to a point. In DC there is also be something that travels along the wiring very much faster than electrons do. Otherwise there would be a significant delay between closing a DC switch and the end of the circuit being energised. While the delay would not be noticeable on household scale DC circuits it would be noticeable on large scale DC circuits. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#306
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... On 12 Jul 2006 00:53:49 -0700 someone who may be wrote this:- The distance is surprisingly small, though I can't be bothered to look it up. What that does demonstrate is that electric wiring should be considered more as a sort of waveguide for radio waves, rather then a hose pipe along which electrons are stuffed. Would you possibly like to qualify that statement as applying solely to AC? Only up to a point. In DC there is also be something that travels along the wiring very much faster than electrons do. Otherwise there would be a significant delay between closing a DC switch and the end of the circuit being energised. While the delay would not be noticeable on household scale DC circuits it would be noticeable on large scale DC circuits. The electrons don't queue up the other side of the switch and then sprint for the load! Think of it more like a car production line. A car (electron) may take hours to get from one end to the other but, as soon as the line starts, cars pop off the end every few minutes. -- Bob Mannix (anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not) |
#307
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 16:49:15 -0700 someone who may be wrote this:- But as the lesser of many evils, nuclear has to be considered seriously. This really is the whole point. All options are non-ideal, the question is just which is the best mix of options, I think everyone would agree so far. and nuke is a particularly strong contender. Nuclear accounts for what? ISTR less than 5% of UK energy use. 25% of *electrical* power generation is nuclear. A FACT. Heard of them? |
#308
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words: 25% of *electrical* power generation is nuclear. 20% is more often quoted. -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
#309
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:00:29 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:- Nuclear accounts for what? ISTR less than 5% of UK energy use. 25% of *electrical* power generation is nuclear. First the narrow issue. Nuclear generated electricity accounts for 19 to 20% UK of electrical generation. The DTI say 20% for 2005 in the dodgy dossier, which you may download from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5166426.stm Chart 14 to be precise. Their figures are gas 37%, coal 34%, nuclear 20%, renewables 5%, others 3% and oil 1%. Second the broader issue. Electricity is only a proportion of energy use and nuclear electricity is only a proportion of electricity generation. As a quick and dirty reality check I have looked at the DTI figures for total *inland* energy consumption, seasonally and temperature corrected. Table 1.2 of Energy Trends June 2006. This gives the consumption (in million tonnes of oil equivalent) as total 245.6, coal 52.3, petroleum 76.1, gas 97.1, nuclear 19.1. As percentages Bill Gates' calculator and my fingers come to coal 21%, petroleum 31%, gas 40% and nuclear 8%. I suspect close enough to "ISTR less than 5%" when one adds in other UK energy consumptions, none of which is nuclear. http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/statist...nds/index.html -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#310
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:53:12 +0100 someone who may be "Bob Mannix"
wrote this:- The electrons don't queue up the other side of the switch and then sprint for the load! Think of it more like a car production line. A car (electron) may take hours to get from one end to the other but, as soon as the line starts, cars pop off the end every few minutes. Indeed. A far better set of words than I managed while rushing out. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#311
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:17:55 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:00:29 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:- Nuclear accounts for what? ISTR less than 5% of UK energy use. 25% of *electrical* power generation is nuclear. First the narrow issue. Nuclear generated electricity accounts for 19 to 20% UK of electrical generation. The DTI say 20% for 2005 in the dodgy dossier, which you may download from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5166426.stm Chart 14 to be precise. Their figures are gas 37%, coal 34%, nuclear 20%, renewables 5%, others 3% and oil 1%. Second the broader issue. Electricity is only a proportion of energy use and nuclear electricity is only a proportion of electricity generation. As a quick and dirty reality check I have looked at the DTI figures for total *inland* energy consumption, seasonally and temperature corrected. Table 1.2 of Energy Trends June 2006. This gives the consumption (in million tonnes of oil equivalent) as total 245.6, coal 52.3, petroleum 76.1, gas 97.1, nuclear 19.1. As percentages Bill Gates' calculator and my fingers come to coal 21%, petroleum 31%, gas 40% and nuclear 8%. I suspect close enough to "ISTR less than 5%" when one adds in other UK energy consumptions, none of which is nuclear. http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/statist...nds/index.html This of course is moving the goal posts of the discussion when one realises that one has made a mistake with the information. Since one of the primary objectives is reducing carbon emissions, then the role of nuclear, as an essentially non-carbon means of energy production becomes significantly more important. Of course the other aspect of this attempt to change the frame of the discussion is that it makes fringe technologies like industrial windmills even less important. |
#312
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:06:02 +0100, wrote
(in article . com): Andy Hall wrote: On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:11:30 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ): On 11 Jul 2006 00:20:01 -0700 someone who may be wrote this:- If the only change is the appearance of the lanscape thats a miniscule cost Defaced is also a matter of personal prejudice. Prejudice is an emotionally loaded word which rather suggests that you feel a need to defend the industrial deployment of your technology. As is shown by http://www.bwea.com/media/photo/res/...osstractor.jpg most of the land can be used as before. That just shows an ugly industrial windmill in front of a field being ploughed and a landscape with low rolling hills. Subtract the industrial windmill and it would look great These sort of appearance objections are like little children saying they dont want to go to school cos its cold outside. While I can sympathise ya still got to get real. NT I don't think it's an issue of reality and sympathy at all. The pretence of the green lobby is that these things are nice and cuddly and don't have any impact. The reality is that they do and are industrial in nature. They don't blend in with the landscape or the environment and should be subject to the same strict planning controls and public enquiries that any other major industrial development gets. Instead of this, we have planning authorities acting as judge and jury in their own cause because the same organisation has jurisdiction over planning and energy policy. We have promoters of these industrial wind sites using coercion to bully said organisations into moving more quickly than is proper. In order to produce worthwhile amounts of electricity, there would need to be massive deployments of these industrial sites to the point that one would not be able to travel any significant distance before seeing them. With the demise of the major textile, steel production and heavy industries, their paraphernalia was removed because chimneys and other vestiges were deemed ugly. I am sure that by 2030, we will have TV programs with a latter-day Fred Dibnah blowing up these windmills to entertain the kiddies. I shall be pleased to help him place the charges. |
#313
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
The Daily Torygraph and Scum are in favour of nuclear power. That is a convincing reason to be against it:-) That's a silly remark. Stick to logic. You've been fairly sensible so far. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland |
#314
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its easy enough to use electricity to SYNTHESISE hydrocarbon fuels, if its cheap enough energy. Really ... how? I would not have thought it made sense to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels, in any case, however cheap electricity was. Surely there are better ways of using electricity to turn wheels? Possibly not. Take aircraft. Although the highest energy density of any (oxidisng chemical) fuel is hydrogen, kerosene is about the best energy per unit volume. That seems very improbable to me. Kerosene is a complicated mixture of hydrocarbons. It would be a sort of miracle if rotting tree trunks produced the most efficient propulsive agent. I can't remember the basic synthesis for hydrocarbons, but they are presumably makable from CO2 and water..somehow..Probably a lot of heat and pressure.. You said it was easy ... -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland |
#316
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
First the narrow issue. Nuclear generated electricity accounts for 19 to 20% UK of electrical generation. Second the broader issue. Electricity is only a proportion of energy use and nuclear electricity is only a proportion of electricity generation. neither of which tells us anything about whats best chosen to generate our future leccy, other than that there is plenty of room to expand nuclear capacity. NT |
#317
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Timothy Murphy wrote:
wrote: But as the lesser of many evils, nuclear has to be considered seriously. This really is the whole point. All options are non-ideal, the question is just which is the best mix of options, and nuke is a particularly strong contender. Uranium is quite a rare metal. IIRC, known uranium reserves are smaller than oil reserves (particularly if shale is taken into account). So it is not at all clear to me that nuclear power _is_ a long-term solution to energy needs. as long as supplies are there for the life of the nuke plant all is well. The amount of energy (or rather, negentropy) reaching the earth from the sun is vastly greater than any conceivable needs. The question is, how can that energy best be harnessed. thats another question entirely, and has little to do with what we should choose now. NT |
#318
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:06:02 +0100, wrote (in article . com): Andy Hall wrote: That just shows an ugly industrial windmill in front of a field being ploughed and a landscape with low rolling hills. Subtract the industrial windmill and it would look great These sort of appearance objections are like little children saying they dont want to go to school cos its cold outside. While I can sympathise ya still got to get real. I don't think it's an issue of reality and sympathy at all. The pretence of the green lobby is that these things are nice and cuddly and don't have any impact. what someone says a lobbyist says is of no relevance to deciding how we should generate electricity in future. The reality is that they do and are industrial in nature. yes, as are the pylons, power lines, telegraph poles, telcomms cabinets and assorted other bits of industry we live with day in day out. They don't blend in with the landscape or the environment they blend in no more or less than pylons. Compared to the real issues this is trivia. and should be subject to the same strict planning controls and public enquiries that any other major industrial development gets. Instead of this, we have planning authorities acting as judge and jury in their own cause because the same organisation has jurisdiction over planning and energy policy. We have promoters of these industrial wind sites using coercion to bully said organisations into moving more quickly than is proper. none of this has anything really to do with the question. In order to produce worthwhile amounts of electricity, there would need to be massive deployments of these industrial sites to the point that one would not be able to travel any significant distance before seeing them. like pylons. With the demise of the major textile, steel production and heavy industries, their paraphernalia was removed because chimneys and other vestiges were deemed ugly. we're rather wealthier today, and have the funds to make things that dont look so butt ugly, and the political will to ensure it. I am sure that by 2030, we will have TV programs with a latter-day Fred Dibnah blowing up these windmills to entertain the kiddies. I shall be pleased to help him place the charges. Have fun. It would be more useful to discuss the real issues though, ie deaths, disease, environment survival, and cost. NT |
#319
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:50:48 +0100, wrote
(in article . com): Andy Hall wrote: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:06:02 +0100, wrote (in article . com): Andy Hall wrote: That just shows an ugly industrial windmill in front of a field being ploughed and a landscape with low rolling hills. Subtract the industrial windmill and it would look great These sort of appearance objections are like little children saying they dont want to go to school cos its cold outside. While I can sympathise ya still got to get real. I don't think it's an issue of reality and sympathy at all. The pretence of the green lobby is that these things are nice and cuddly and don't have any impact. what someone says a lobbyist says is of no relevance to deciding how we should generate electricity in future. The reality is that they do and are industrial in nature. yes, as are the pylons, power lines, telegraph poles, telcomms cabinets and assorted other bits of industry we live with day in day out. Exactly, so no need to make it any worse than it already is. They don't blend in with the landscape or the environment they blend in no more or less than pylons. Compared to the real issues this is trivia. I think that this is a real issue. and should be subject to the same strict planning controls and public enquiries that any other major industrial development gets. Instead of this, we have planning authorities acting as judge and jury in their own cause because the same organisation has jurisdiction over planning and energy policy. We have promoters of these industrial wind sites using coercion to bully said organisations into moving more quickly than is proper. none of this has anything really to do with the question. It has a great deal of relevance to the notion that this stuff is all cuddly, benign and nice as the promoters would have one believe. It's a commercial and political agenda exactly the same as any other energy related topic. In order to produce worthwhile amounts of electricity, there would need to be massive deployments of these industrial sites to the point that one would not be able to travel any significant distance before seeing them. like pylons. Exactly, so again, no need to add to it. With the demise of the major textile, steel production and heavy industries, their paraphernalia was removed because chimneys and other vestiges were deemed ugly. we're rather wealthier today, and have the funds to make things that dont look so butt ugly, and the political will to ensure it. If that were true, nobody would be proposing building industrial windmills in some of the best natural environment in the country. I am sure that by 2030, we will have TV programs with a latter-day Fred Dibnah blowing up these windmills to entertain the kiddies. I shall be pleased to help him place the charges. Have fun. It would be more useful to discuss the real issues though, ie deaths, disease, environment survival, and cost. The answer to that one is quite simple and is covered by nuclear generation. |
#320
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:35:01 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- This of course is moving the goal posts of the discussion when one realises that one has made a mistake with the information. The only problem with this assertion is that I didn't make a mistake with the information. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DIY roof mount wind power? anyone? | UK diy |