Skipweasel wrote:
In article , says...
10. Compulsory vegetarianism.

Of the list, that would probably make the most difference though.

No it wouldn't.

Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher wrote:

Feel free to add...
1. CFL lightbulbs.
2. Taxing 4x4s out of existence.
3. Recycling paper and glass.
4. Prince Charles.
5. Greenpeace.
6. FOE.
7. Windmills
8. Speed humps
9. Bicycles.
10. Compulsory vegetarianism. (compulsory homosexuality might: Now
there's a thought)
11. God.
12. Al Gore.
13. Switching off your 5W telly overnight.
14. Biofuel.
15. Hydrogen fuel.
16. Pretending climate change isn't happening.
17. Accepting that it is, but denying it's man made, with the implicit
corollary that that means nothing need/can be done about it.
18. Saving the whale/great crested newt/lesser spotted amoeba/...add
anything you like here.
19. Wave power.
20. Solar energy.
21. Banning aeroplanes.
22. Banning fox hunting.


....that's a starter

Add any more items of particularly pernicious greenwash ********...that
you like..

How about my server farm behind me? I leave my PCs (i.e. more than one) on
24/7... In winter it just reduces my heating bill.

You also missed nuclear power. And don't forget the Cambridge Misguided Bus.

Nuclear power is the one thing that will save the planet. Actually,.
That's why I left it off.

The misguided bus isn't even worthy of derision.

Mogga wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:31:35 -0000, "Simon Finnigan"
wrote:


How about my server farm behind me? I leave my PCs (i.e. more than one) on
24/7... In winter it just reduces my heating bill.
As does my PC - it gets left on constantly, and it keeps one room warm
enough that the radiator is set to a minimum. Leave the door open and it
helps warm the whole house - maybe not when it`s -5 outside, but when it`s
just a bit nippy it can make the difference between the heating being on or
being off. I`ll have to sit down and do the sums, work out if it actually
saves me money based solely on the heating effect. I`m sure it`s better in
total cost because the parts are more reliable running 24/7 then constantly
turning on and off, but just in terms of not having the heating on and
burning a constant 200-300W from the PC.

http://eartheasy.com/article_ten_ways_post_oil.htm

More greenwash.

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:36:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.

Precisely. The problem shouldn't be one of "how do we get from A to B
efficiently", but "how do we avoid the need to get to B in the first
place"... and so far very few people seem to be worrying about that.

The whole concept of going to a central place to shop or work is one of
our own making, and in a lot of cases it's one that we could choose
to solve if we so wanted.

(Maybe we need a "1001 things that could save the planet" thread, too :-)


No, actually its three things only.

Efficient electric batteries,
The internet
Nuclear power.


Those three together applied ruthlessly would knock western CO2
production down by around 90%.

cheers

Jules

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Roland Perry wrote:
In message . co.uk,
at 10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)
Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in London,
or car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you in a
suburb and you all drive to the same office in the city.
They work when there is a need for mass transportation from one
definite point to another. Or within a pretty constrained area.

Sadly this is NOT , largely, what commuting is all about, nor yet most
other uses to which people put transport.

But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.


Not an awful lot of use when it comes to hand-on jobs, is it ?



Well ask the wife instead of the hooker.

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Mark wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Feel free to add...
1. CFL lightbulbs.
2. Taxing 4x4s out of existence.
3. Recycling paper and glass.
4. Prince Charles.
5. Greenpeace.
6. FOE.
7. Windmills
8. Speed humps
9. Bicycles.
10. Compulsory vegetarianism. (compulsory homosexuality might: Now
there's a thought)
11. God.
12. Al Gore.
13. Switching off your 5W telly overnight.
14. Biofuel.
15. Hydrogen fuel.
16. Pretending climate change isn't happening.
17. Accepting that it is, but denying it's man made, with the
implicit corollary that that means nothing need/can be done about it.
18. Saving the whale/great crested newt/lesser spotted amoeba/...add
anything you like here.
19. Wave power.
20. Solar energy.
21. Banning aeroplanes.
22. Banning fox hunting.


....that's a starter

Add any more items of particularly pernicious greenwash
********...that you like..


What might work is lots and lots more fat people acting as carbon
storage depots.


Yep. Never mind burning art students and catholics, BURN the OBESE.

Or ex IT bods



Do I know you?

In message 47742174@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2007-12-27 21:26:43 +0000, geoff said:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
hoo.co.uk, at
10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)
Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in
London, or car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you
in a suburb and you all drive to the same office in the city.
They work when there is a need for mass transportation from one
definite point to another. Or within a pretty constrained area.
Sadly this is NOT , largely, what commuting is all about, nor yet
most other uses to which people put transport.
But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work
is a total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over
a DSL modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.

Not an awful lot of use when it comes to hand-on jobs, is it ?

I read that (quickly) as something else.....


Hard work or cyberporn - it's all DIY at the end of the day


--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jules wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:55:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Feel free to add...

23. Sequestration of cow farts?
24. Planting a tree on your head.

You can't just come up with a list like that, anyway. You need
committees and meeja coverage and decades of arguing first... :-)

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)

Definitely.

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space
of 5 cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Never confuse busses with long haul coaches, fast, full and relatively
efficient.

Ban the Bus!

25. Bus lanes. Cause miles of staionary/slow moving traffic.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:17:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
(Maybe we need a "1001 things that could save the planet" thread, too :-)

No, actually its three things only.

Efficient electric batteries,
The internet
Nuclear power.

Those three together applied ruthlessly would knock western CO2
production down by around 90%.

Given the downward trend in community values over the last few decades,
I'm not sure that we should be making it easy for the planet to support
even more people...

Society needs a certain amount of challenge in order to refrain from
disappearing up its own backside :-)

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:48:05 -0600, Jules wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:38:57 +0000, Tim Ward wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
. co.uk, at
10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)

Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in
London, or car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you
in a suburb and you all drive to the same office in the city.

Several of the things in TNP's list "work" in the sense of
contributing to changing things in the right direction. I think
he's trying to claim that we can do them all and it still won't be
enough to "save the planet".

Yes, that was my way of reading the OP too - e.g. solar and wind
power do useful stuff in certain situations, but they're by no means
the 'save the planet' solution that some people appear to promote
them as.

My take was that its all a waste of time because global warming is a natural
phenomenon & we can't do anything but adapt to it. Its just another
industry.



I'm more with the spirit of the /Surviviors/ the cult BBC drama from
the 70's (which I hear is now going to be remade). I.e. The few
people who survive [1] will have to get on with how they find things
and make the best they can out of what they have.


That was a great drama series. I've got both of the books. Love to see a
remake.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Yes, that was my way of reading the OP too - e.g. solar and wind power do
useful stuff in certain situations, but they're by no means the 'save the
planet' solution that some people appear to promote them as.

Just started reading an article in NS which opens saying that an area
half the size of texas in a sun drenched part of the world covered in
PV panels at 20% efficiency would be enough for global needs



I was really getting at the fact that it was doable - with a will


Now find

- a 20% efficient solar panel.

University of Delaware claim to have achieved 42.8

- the means of actually transporting that energy across sea boundaries

It would have to be distributed around, wouldn't it

Nobody said it wouldn't present problems and costs

at under a million quid a kilometer
- someone who will sell you Texas.

mainly desert anyway, isn't it

as are other large areas within the tropics round the globe

- and the money to actually build it.

doesn't make it impossible, it just needs a will


AND what about all the bunni huggas who will complain that the
rattlesnakes are now an endangered species?



... during sunlight hours, of course

I didn't QUITE do the same sums, but we currently in the UK generate
about 10% of incident solar radiation as waste heat from everything we
burn. IIRC.



--
geoff

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Feel free to add...

Why did you leave off "stop using disposable nappies"?

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

15. Hydrogen fuel.

If you have nuclear to make it, then it starts to be useful for all
sorts - either directly or in a fuel cell to replace battery technology.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:54:08 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes


- and the money to actually build it.

doesn't make it impossible, it just needs a will

Well, I hear that Barron Hilton isn't leaving his money to his airhead
daughter any more. Is that a big enough will for you?

fx: gets coat

Chris

In article , geoff wrote:
In message , Sarah Brown
writes
In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:

Yep, That's my take too. Even if we put all our resources behind doing
the things that do add up (and a lot don't; they make things worse), it
will be undone by the growth in the rest of the world in a very short
while. Nevertheless doing something is quite a useful occupation.

Well, I figure I've done my bit by engaging in autodarwination. I'll
therefore not feel guilty about putting food waste in the black bin.


DIY sterilisation ?

No, I had a very good urological surgeon do it while I was out cold.

I can very much recommend it, btw. It's very peaceful.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:

Yes, that was my way of reading the OP too - e.g. solar and wind
power do useful stuff in certain situations, but they're by no means
the 'save the planet' solution that some people appear to promote
them as.

My take was that its all a waste of time because global warming is a natural
phenomenon & we can't do anything but adapt to it. Its just another
industry.


No. That was definitely not what I meant. I evebn specifically put in
there that believing that climate change wasn't man made, and therefore
we didn't need to worry about it,was specifically one thing that would
NOT save the planet.

I believe there is a genuine and urgent problem, but all we are being
sold is snake oil.

We cannot survive at present population levels, PARTICULARLY with
respect to also being able to mitigate the effects of climate change,
without using as much, or indeed more, energy than we use now.

Around 95% of CO2 generated is as a result of generating energy from
fossil fuels.

Ergo, we have to find ways to generate energy without generating CO2.

There is only one technology that meets the cost and maturity criteria
that is suitable in the UK.

Its seldom mentioned.

Instead we get greenwash.

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Yes, that was my way of reading the OP too - e.g. solar and wind
power do
useful stuff in certain situations, but they're by no means the
'save the
planet' solution that some people appear to promote them as.

Just started reading an article in NS which opens saying that an area
half the size of texas in a sun drenched part of the world covered in
PV panels at 20% efficiency would be enough for global needs



I was really getting at the fact that it was doable - with a will


No, its not teh will, its the cost.

Now find

- a 20% efficient solar panel.

University of Delaware claim to have achieved 42.8


In the lab? and how long to get that debugged out in te field and
wiorking at gigawatt capacity? 30 years? fusion power works too. In the lab.

- the means of actually transporting that energy across sea boundaries

It would have to be distributed around, wouldn't it

Nobody said it wouldn't present problems and costs

at under a million quid a kilometer
- someone who will sell you Texas.

mainly desert anyway, isn't it

Hardly.

as are other large areas within the tropics round the globe


No, they are mainly rain forest. "Tropical Rain Forest'


- and the money to actually build it.

doesn't make it impossible, it just needs a will


No, it DOES make it impossible.

Did you know that, for example, to give everyone the sort of top notch
medical care that they could be given, would take 3x the gross national
product of this country?

If it takes more than the population of the world to save the world, all
working flat out, its kinda impossible.

You've been greenwashed.

Tim Ward wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Feel free to add...

Why did you leave off "stop using disposable nappies"?

Cos I don't have kids, and it didn't occur to me.

Definitely for room 101!

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

15. Hydrogen fuel.

If you have nuclear to make it, then it starts to be useful for all
sorts - either directly or in a fuel cell to replace battery technology.


It doesn't work as well as batteries and is a hell of a sight more
dangerous to use and store, so why bother?

Only case it makes sense is aircraft, but even there its a hell of a
bulky stuff to cram in. Better to make synthetic kerosene.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:14:50 GMT, Chris Lamb wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:54:08 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes


- and the money to actually build it.

doesn't make it impossible, it just needs a will

Well, I hear that Barron Hilton isn't leaving his money to his airhead
daughter any more. Is that a big enough will for you?

fx: gets coat

Chris

oops

s/daughter/granddaughter/

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:15:45 UTC, Sarah Brown
wrote:

In article , geoff wrote:
In message , Sarah Brown
writes
In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:

Yep, That's my take too. Even if we put all our resources behind doing
the things that do add up (and a lot don't; they make things worse), it
will be undone by the growth in the rest of the world in a very short
while. Nevertheless doing something is quite a useful occupation.

Well, I figure I've done my bit by engaging in autodarwination. I'll
therefore not feel guilty about putting food waste in the black bin.


DIY sterilisation ?

No, I had a very good urological surgeon do it while I was out cold.

I can very much recommend it, btw. It's very peaceful.

I thought autodarwination was when you killed yourself?
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Sarah Brown wrote:
In article , geoff wrote:
In message , Sarah Brown
writes
In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:
Yep, That's my take too. Even if we put all our resources behind doing
the things that do add up (and a lot don't; they make things worse), it
will be undone by the growth in the rest of the world in a very short
while. Nevertheless doing something is quite a useful occupation.
Well, I figure I've done my bit by engaging in autodarwination. I'll
therefore not feel guilty about putting food waste in the black bin.

DIY sterilisation ?

No, I had a very good urological surgeon do it while I was out cold.

I can very much recommend it, btw. It's very peaceful.
Or is that dull?

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:15:45 UTC, Sarah Brown
wrote:

I can very much recommend it, btw. It's very peaceful.

I thought autodarwination was when you killed yourself?

That's one way to do it. All you have to do is remove yourself from
the gene pool.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Sarah Brown wrote:

I can very much recommend it, btw. It's very peaceful.

Or is that dull?

Very much the opposite.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:

Yes, that was my way of reading the OP too - e.g. solar and wind
power do useful stuff in certain situations, but they're by no
means the 'save the planet' solution that some people appear to
promote them as.

My take was that its all a waste of time because global warming is a
natural phenomenon & we can't do anything but adapt to it. Its just
another industry.


No. That was definitely not what I meant. I evebn specifically put in
there that believing that climate change wasn't man made, and
therefore we didn't need to worry about it,was specifically one thing
that would NOT save the planet.

I believe there is a genuine and urgent problem, but all we are being
sold is snake oil.

We cannot survive at present population levels, PARTICULARLY with
respect to also being able to mitigate the effects of climate change,
without using as much, or indeed more, energy than we use now.

Around 95% of CO2 generated is as a result of generating energy from
fossil fuels.

That assumes that CO2 is responsbile for climate change rather than being a
product of climate change.

Climate change isn't a new phenomenen. History is full of it - all
occurring before the Green Party loonies existed.

Between 1550 and 1750 the Thames froze over each year for many years,
permitting the Frost Fairs. The last one was held in the winter of 1813-14.
No great CO2 emmissions then?

River Medway frozen over in 1947 & 63. Floods in East Anglia 1953 & 54. The
list goes on.

I believe its simply a new version of the "God is punishing us because we
are sinners" theory.


Ergo, we have to find ways to generate energy without generating CO2.

There is only one technology that meets the cost and maturity criteria
that is suitable in the UK.

Its seldom mentioned.

Nuclear power is the way forward IMO.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:15:45 UTC, Sarah Brown
wrote:

In article , geoff wrote:
In message , Sarah Brown
writes
In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:

Yep, That's my take too. Even if we put all our resources behind doing
the things that do add up (and a lot don't; they make things worse), it
will be undone by the growth in the rest of the world in a very short
while. Nevertheless doing something is quite a useful occupation.

Well, I figure I've done my bit by engaging in autodarwination. I'll
therefore not feel guilty about putting food waste in the black bin.


DIY sterilisation ?

No, I had a very good urological surgeon do it while I was out cold.

I can very much recommend it, btw. It's very peaceful.

I thought autodarwination was when you killed yourself?

no, just take yourself out of the gene pool


--
geoff

In message , Sarah Brown
writes
In article , geoff wrote:
In message , Sarah Brown
writes
In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:

Yep, That's my take too. Even if we put all our resources behind doing
the things that do add up (and a lot don't; they make things worse), it
will be undone by the growth in the rest of the world in a very short
while. Nevertheless doing something is quite a useful occupation.

Well, I figure I've done my bit by engaging in autodarwination. I'll
therefore not feel guilty about putting food waste in the black bin.


DIY sterilisation ?

No, I had a very good urological surgeon do it while I was out cold.

I can very much recommend it, btw. It's very peaceful.

So, not so very auto or DIY then

Have you met Mary ?

You could spend hours discussing "bits"


--
geoff

In message , Chris Lamb
-uk writes
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:54:08 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes


- and the money to actually build it.

doesn't make it impossible, it just needs a will

Well, I hear that Barron Hilton isn't leaving his money to his airhead
daughter any more. Is that a big enough will for you?

seven percent of billions is still enough

bet the 93% is going to a cars home or something equally stupid

--
geoff

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Now find

- a 20% efficient solar panel.
University of Delaware claim to have achieved 42.8


In the lab? and how long to get that debugged out in te field and
wiorking at gigawatt capacity? 30 years? fusion power works too. In the
lab.


solar cells are lowly technology compared to what's needed for fusion

You don't NEED that efficiency


- the means of actually transporting that energy across sea boundaries
It would have to be distributed around, wouldn't it
Nobody said it wouldn't present problems and costs

at under a million quid a kilometer
- someone who will sell you Texas.
mainly desert anyway, isn't it

Hardly.

as are other large areas within the tropics round the globe


No, they are mainly rain forest. "Tropical Rain Forest'

North Africa, S USA, mexico, India

Plenty of desert there

Also plenty of hilly terrain well suited



- and the money to actually build it.
doesn't make it impossible, it just needs a will


No, it DOES make it impossible.

Not if oil companies saw it was the only way to go


Did you know that, for example, to give everyone the sort of top notch
medical care that they could be given, would take 3x the gross national
product of this country?

So what ?

Who was promising first rate facilities?


If it takes more than the population of the world to save the world,
all working flat out, its kinda impossible.

What (IMO) a stupid thing to say


You've been greenwashed.

I don't think so,


--
geoff

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

15. Hydrogen fuel.
If you have nuclear to make it, then it starts to be useful for all
sorts - either directly or in a fuel cell to replace battery technology.

It doesn't work as well as batteries and is a hell of a sight more
dangerous to use and store, so why bother?

because it's not a one solution fits all problem


Only case it makes sense is aircraft, but even there its a hell of a
bulky stuff to cram in. Better to make synthetic kerosene.

out of what ?

--
geoff

In article ,
Skipweasel writes:
In article , john.plant90
@ntlworld.com says...
Are there really Tellies that use 5 watts on stand-by.

Old ones, yes (and more).
Just checked a 20+ year old 14" colour portable, and it's
8W on standby. It will be going to the tip when analogue
is switched off.

It's not just the telly though. The combination of telly, DVD and Set
Top Box drew nearly 60W when "off". The chief vilain was the STB, which
gobbles power even when on standby. They all go off on a wall switch
now.

Most TV's are designed to be sold into many countries.
Since some countries have very strict limits on standby
power (i.e. less than 1W), most TV's are manufactured to
those standards, and we benefit even though there is no
such requirement in this country. A 2 year old Panasonic
DVB LCD I just measured at something like 0.5W standby.

STB's on the other hand are more country-specific, so
there's been no incentive to produce efficient models for
the UK. Many don't actually reduce power at all on standby.

Likewise the stack of stuff behind the computer. Two computers, two
printers, two monitors, two reading lamps with transformers, two sets of
speakers, router, HiFi. It was drawing nearly 100W on standby before I
fitted a night switch.

I suspect your 60W and 100W figures are way off, but the
point is still valid. There are many crappy wall-warts
around nowadays which waste more energy than they deliver.
There are also some newer ones with extremely low power
wastage when unloaded, which I've noticed on some laptops
and phone chargers, almost certainly driven by the
requirements of one or more of the countries they're sold
in to.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 2007-12-27 22:46:38 +0000, Jules
said:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:17:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
(Maybe we need a "1001 things that could save the planet" thread, too :-)

No, actually its three things only.

Efficient electric batteries,
The internet
Nuclear power.

Those three together applied ruthlessly would knock western CO2
production down by around 90%.

Given the downward trend in community values over the last few decades,
I'm not sure that we should be making it easy for the planet to support
even more people...

Community values are a myth from a bygone era - Blitz mentality and all
the rest of it. It's a mirage.


Society needs a certain amount of challenge in order to refrain from
disappearing up its own backside :-)

What society?

On 2007-12-27 23:42:58 +0000, geoff said:

In message , Sarah Brown
writes
In article , geoff wrote:
In message , Sarah Brown
writes
In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:

Yep, That's my take too. Even if we put all our resources behind doing
the things that do add up (and a lot don't; they make things worse), it
will be undone by the growth in the rest of the world in a very short
while. Nevertheless doing something is quite a useful occupation.

Well, I figure I've done my bit by engaging in autodarwination. I'll
therefore not feel guilty about putting food waste in the black bin.


DIY sterilisation ?

No, I had a very good urological surgeon do it while I was out cold.

I can very much recommend it, btw. It's very peaceful.

So, not so very auto or DIY then

Have you met Mary ?

You could spend hours discussing "bits"

Visions of Les Dawson dressed as the washerwoman

The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
Yes, that was my way of reading the OP too - e.g. solar and wind
power do useful stuff in certain situations, but they're by no
means the 'save the planet' solution that some people appear to
promote them as.
My take was that its all a waste of time because global warming is a
natural phenomenon & we can't do anything but adapt to it. Its just
another industry.

No. That was definitely not what I meant. I evebn specifically put in
there that believing that climate change wasn't man made, and
therefore we didn't need to worry about it,was specifically one thing
that would NOT save the planet.

I believe there is a genuine and urgent problem, but all we are being
sold is snake oil.

We cannot survive at present population levels, PARTICULARLY with
respect to also being able to mitigate the effects of climate change,
without using as much, or indeed more, energy than we use now.

Around 95% of CO2 generated is as a result of generating energy from
fossil fuels.

That assumes that CO2 is responsbile for climate change rather than being a
product of climate change.


No. It means that around 95% of the CO2 that humans generate, is
generated as a result of making energy.


Climate change isn't a new phenomenen. History is full of it - all
occurring before the Green Party loonies existed.


Yes, but apart from volcanic eruptions and the odd comet crashing into
the place, the rate of change is unprecedented. It seems reasonable to
assume that man's activities are at least contributory.

In any case it makes no difference whether or not we made it. Its
happening, we have to deal with it. We need energy to do that, and oil
is running out.

So you are right in there with the greenwash. Full of excuses and no
answers.


Between 1550 and 1750 the Thames froze over each year for many years,
permitting the Frost Fairs. The last one was held in the winter of 1813-14.
No great CO2 emmissions then?


No.

River Medway frozen over in 1947 & 63. Floods in East Anglia 1953 & 54. The
list goes on.

So?


I believe its simply a new version of the "God is punishing us because we
are sinners" theory.


Ergo you can wash your hands of it?

Ergo, we have to find ways to generate energy without generating CO2.

There is only one technology that meets the cost and maturity criteria
that is suitable in the UK.

Its seldom mentioned.

Nuclear power is the way forward IMO.

Yes. But will god let us.

In article , geoff wrote:
In message , Sarah Brown
writes

DIY sterilisation ?

No, I had a very good urological surgeon do it while I was out cold.

I can very much recommend it, btw. It's very peaceful.

So, not so very auto or DIY then

Well, I did have to sign a consent form and give my hand to the nice
man with the cannula.

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Now find

- a 20% efficient solar panel.
University of Delaware claim to have achieved 42.8


In the lab? and how long to get that debugged out in te field and
wiorking at gigawatt capacity? 30 years? fusion power works too. In
the lab.


solar cells are lowly technology compared to what's needed for fusion

You don't NEED that efficiency

You nheed better t5han 5% or a milllion quid a picowatt.



- the means of actually transporting that energy across sea boundaries
It would have to be distributed around, wouldn't it
Nobody said it wouldn't present problems and costs

at under a million quid a kilometer
- someone who will sell you Texas.
mainly desert anyway, isn't it

Hardly.

as are other large areas within the tropics round the globe


No, they are mainly rain forest. "Tropical Rain Forest'

North Africa, S USA, mexico, India

Not round the tropics, or not desert mainly.


Plenty of desert there

Also plenty of hilly terrain well suited



- and the money to actually build it.
doesn't make it impossible, it just needs a will


No, it DOES make it impossible.

Not if oil companies saw it was the only way to go

Even if oil companies, who are UTTERLY unsuited to this technology, saw
it as a way to go.



Did you know that, for example, to give everyone the sort of top notch
medical care that they could be given, would take 3x the gross
national product of this country?

So what ?

Who was promising first rate facilities?


I merely quote an example of something one can conceive of, but is
practically impossible. That is impossible to achieve in practice, Not
'nearly' impossible.



If it takes more than the population of the world to save the world,
all working flat out, its kinda impossible.

What (IMO) a stupid thing to say


Pots and kettles.

You haven't a clue have you?

About what things cost, and what that means?

Do you think money grows on trees? is just printed off and put into bits
of plastic for you to spend?

It's peoples' work. That's, in the end, ALL it is.

If there aren't enough people in the world to save the world,it can't be
saved.


You've been greenwashed.

I don't think so,


Thats part of the process.

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

15. Hydrogen fuel.
If you have nuclear to make it, then it starts to be useful for all
sorts - either directly or in a fuel cell to replace battery technology.

It doesn't work as well as batteries and is a hell of a sight more
dangerous to use and store, so why bother?

because it's not a one solution fits all problem


Thatys wht we drive around on square wheels with elegantly compensating
suspenension them?

Are you Drivel in a new moniker?



Only case it makes sense is aircraft, but even there its a hell of a
bulky stuff to cram in. Better to make synthetic kerosene.

out of what ?

Water, carbon dioxide, and energy.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Skipweasel writes:
In article , john.plant90
@ntlworld.com says...
Are there really Tellies that use 5 watts on stand-by.

Old ones, yes (and more).
Just checked a 20+ year old 14" colour portable, and it's
8W on standby. It will be going to the tip when analogue
is switched off.

It's not just the telly though. The combination of telly, DVD and Set
Top Box drew nearly 60W when "off". The chief vilain was the STB, which
gobbles power even when on standby. They all go off on a wall switch
now.

Most TV's are designed to be sold into many countries.
Since some countries have very strict limits on standby
power (i.e. less than 1W), most TV's are manufactured to
those standards, and we benefit even though there is no
such requirement in this country. A 2 year old Panasonic
DVB LCD I just measured at something like 0.5W standby.

STB's on the other hand are more country-specific, so
there's been no incentive to produce efficient models for
the UK. Many don't actually reduce power at all on standby.

Likewise the stack of stuff behind the computer. Two computers, two
printers, two monitors, two reading lamps with transformers, two sets of
speakers, router, HiFi. It was drawing nearly 100W on standby before I
fitted a night switch.

I suspect your 60W and 100W figures are way off, but the
point is still valid. There are many crappy wall-warts
around nowadays which waste more energy than they deliver.
There are also some newer ones with extremely low power
wastage when unloaded, which I've noticed on some laptops
and phone chargers, almost certainly driven by the
requirements of one or more of the countries they're sold
in to.

So what?

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-27 22:46:38 +0000, Jules
said:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:17:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
(Maybe we need a "1001 things that could save the planet" thread,
too :-)

No, actually its three things only.

Efficient electric batteries,
The internet
Nuclear power.

Those three together applied ruthlessly would knock western CO2
production down by around 90%.

Given the downward trend in community values over the last few decades,
I'm not sure that we should be making it easy for the planet to support
even more people...

Community values are a myth from a bygone era - Blitz mentality and all
the rest of it. It's a mirage.


Society needs a certain amount of challenge in order to refrain from
disappearing up its own backside :-)

What society?


The one that already HAS disappeared up its own backside, presumably.

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Now find

- a 20% efficient solar panel.
University of Delaware claim to have achieved 42.8


In the lab? and how long to get that debugged out in te field and
wiorking at gigawatt capacity? 30 years? fusion power works too. In
the lab.

solar cells are lowly technology compared to what's needed for
fusion
You don't NEED that efficiency

You nheed better t5han 5% or a milllion quid a picowatt.


- the means of actually transporting that energy across sea
boundaries
It would have to be distributed around, wouldn't it
Nobody said it wouldn't present problems and costs

at under a million quid a kilometer
- someone who will sell you Texas.
mainly desert anyway, isn't it

Hardly.

as are other large areas within the tropics round the globe


No, they are mainly rain forest. "Tropical Rain Forest'
North Africa, S USA, mexico, India

Not round the tropics, or not desert mainly.

Let's see ...

N Africa - Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, right across - plenty of quality
sunshine, lots of open, useable space

S USA - plenty of desert

Mexico - ditto

really, no shortage of un-populated useable area of desert / scrubland
with nowt but a few goats up olive trees

Of course, it might be necessary to remove some rednecks, but you could
use their own Glocks on them

Maybe saying tropics was a bit optimistic to a pedant



Plenty of desert there
Also plenty of hilly terrain well suited



- and the money to actually build it.
doesn't make it impossible, it just needs a will


No, it DOES make it impossible.
Not if oil companies saw it was the only way to go

Even if oil companies, who are UTTERLY unsuited to this technology, saw
it as a way to go.

No - at the end of the day they are big corporations with a lot of money
and influence who want to make more money and are used to massive
investment to get there




Did you know that, for example, to give everyone the sort of top
notch medical care that they could be given, would take 3x the gross
national product of this country?
So what ?
Who was promising first rate facilities?


I merely quote an example of something one can conceive of, but is
practically impossible. That is impossible to achieve in practice, Not
'nearly' impossible.


Sort of irrelevant smokescreen then



If it takes more than the population of the world to save the world,
all working flat out, its kinda impossible.
What (IMO) a stupid thing to say


Pots and kettles.

You haven't a clue have you?

About what things cost, and what that means?

Where did I say it was going to be cheap ?


If there aren't enough people in the world to save the world,it can't
be saved.

I don't see much in the way of proof



You've been greenwashed.

I don't think so,

Thats part of the process.

Believe me (and note previous posts of mine) I don't think that we can
wave a magic wand and fix things



--
geoff