On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 14:11:04 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

In the meantime, carbon emission in respect of power generation can
very easily be addressed by a move towards nuclear generation.

Carbon dioxide emission can be reduced a bit by such a move.
However, nuclear power stations are inflexible and large. To deal
with the former one must either absorb the surplus generation during
periods of low consumption, by building large and expensive things
like Dinorwig, http://www.fhc.co.uk/electric_mountain.htm or sell it
to someone else (possible to an extent across time zones). Even with
the proposed new designs one cannot turn such stations on and off.

To deal with the latter one must have a lot of standby plant ready
to respond rapidly. This could be something like Dinorwig, or partly
loaded coal plants. Of course the latter push up carbon dioxide
emissions. Sudden failure is far more of a problem with a small
number of large centralised plants, such as nuclear ones, than with
a large number of small decentralised plants.

As to any "programme" to fit these bulbs into all houses, it smacks of a
totalitarian society with big brother organising people's lives.

I would agree, if people were banned from removing such fittings and
there was an army of Prescotts checking up.

A lamp that lasts
15 years has less energy and components than the 15-30 GLS bulbs it
replaces.

that is so insignificant in the overall scheme of things that it isn't even
worth discussing.

I note that you were unable or unwilling to discuss the issue.

So far your arguments remain unconvincing. Unless you come up with
any new arguments you may have the last word.


--
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