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..

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.....

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

"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

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

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

"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

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

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....

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..

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.

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

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

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

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

On 11 Jul 2006 16:42:05 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

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..

Politics isn't nonsense, though one might argue that party politics
is.

Of course, given that there are no uranium mines in the UK and much
coal for generating electricity comes from outwith the UK, there
will always be some discussion of overseas.


--
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

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

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

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

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

"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)

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.


--
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

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

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

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

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.

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