In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:35:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Dinorwic is an impressive site, the speed that it can get synced
and
online at full power is quite amazing. But it can't run for very
long
before the water up top runs out. It's there for the peaks not the
base load.

Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

Hum interesting but I think based on a false premise that the grid
has the *exactly* the same frequency *everywhere*.

If it isn't exactly the same everywhere then some generators would be
effectively driving the others backwards as motors, with enormous power
losses through the grid. Clearly the grid is not in the same phase
everywhere, due to the inductive load, but the frequency has to be
pretty much spot on.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:35:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

I looked at this and the 'official' one. They disagreed significantly.

Bill

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
: Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m
over the next
: few years, snip trolling racists crap
The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots. What's racist
about saying that?

Irrelevant, climate change could mean that the UK couldn't even
feed it's indigenous 1945 population level never mind it's 1970
or 2007 population level. Kindly take you BNP style clap-trap
elsewhere.
So saying that the population will rise as a result of immigration is BNP
style clap-trap is it? Well the government and their advisers must all be in
the BNP then, because that's what they say.
What we have here is an attempt to prevent discussion of a serious problem
(population and immigration) by calling someone a racist.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the point?

The grass roots environmental movment overlaps significantly with the
extreme left. These people believe that if you can't level up you should
level down. They are also happy with centralised control and micromanagment
of our lives, so they find the idea of imposing lifestyle changes quite
attractive.

The environmental movement has become an umbrella for other movements that
have become less popular or credible, such as the communists, CND, young
socialists, etc.

So to answer your question, there doesn't need to be a valid reason for
making us live squalid but low carbon lives.

Bill


Ah, the old rationale that 'if everybody cant have it, no one should be
allowed to have it at all' argument.

The 'Mugabe' solution to life's problems.

I have often felt it should be applied to politicians, only.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted, which
instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as you say, not
strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain will
make a significant difference.

The energy to capture all that CO2 will need a dozen nuclear power
plants to drive it.

In article , Max Demian
writes
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Max Demian
writes
"J G Miller" wrote in message
news On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed

Only according to classical physics.

Nope, it is also an axiom in modern physics: E=mc^2

That states that energy can be destroyed by converting it to mass, and
created by converting mass into energy.

No it doesn't, it unifies mass and energy as different manifestations of
the same thing and defines how they are transferred from one
manifestation to the other.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:23:57 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

And my point is that if everone takes that attitude, we're doomed,
because no agreement will ever be reached if everyone is saying:
"No, you must jump first!"

Absolutely. But Britain jumping first will have no effect at all.
That's my point. We're as significant in that respect as the Cayman
Islands or Tuvalu.

That is an absurd comparison.

Is it?

In terms of population we are
comparatively small (though incomparably bigger than the Turks and
Cayman Islands or Tuvalu), but as members of the UN Security Council,
of the EU, the leading member of the Commonwealth, through the
'Special Relationship' with the US, as a post-imperial power, as a
leading financial centre, and as a democratic developed nation with a
(sort of) free press and a large on-line presence in the world's
leading language(1), we have a great deal of world influence beyond
what you suggest.

Oh yeah? Is that why, when we signed up enthusistically to the Kyoto
Protocol on climate change, the USA, China and India conspicuously avoided
doing so?

Is that why, when we enshrine into law reductions in our carbon emissions by
certain dates, absolutely no-one follows us?

Get real. We have little or no influence whatsoever.

1: I'm not talking about numbers of speakers, but the fact that
English is the language of science, international communications, etc.
As an example of which, a map of the last 500 hits of my own small
site ranges from Honolulu in the West to Japan in the East, with
particular clusterings in the US and Europe. Although there are none
at the moment, I've noticed recently activity in places like Iran and
even China where Satellite TV may be the only way for people to get
uncensored news (at least, I'm guessing that's why, I don't really
know). Generally of course, I get most hits from the English speaking
world, but that includes countries like India.

The internet means that anything you or I say in ...

uk.d-i-y, uk.media.tv.misc, uk.tech.digital-tv, uk.tech.broadcast

... can and will be read by others across the globe.

And you think it makes a ha'porth of difference what is said in any of
those?


Are you proud of
your contribution in that light? What sort of message do you think
are sending out?

I am sending out the truth, and of course I'm proud of that.

Are you suggesting that I should lie instead, or at least suppress the
truth? Because, if you are, you need to tread rather carefully. Who then
dictates what should be said and not said, and what is their agenda?


But we are part of the EU, which we *can* influence, and if you ask
anyone who knows anything about modern business, who sets all the
environmental standards that matter, they'll say: "The EU!"

And we are part of 'The World' too, which actually includes China,
India, the USA, Russia and Brazil. So, all we have to do is get
everyone to agree, and then we'll be alright.

This is just mere worthless verbiage. You haven't answered my point
that the EU's environmental standards have a disproportionate
influence because we are the biggest market for high end manufactured
goods, which are therefore built to our standards, including
environmental ones.

That's because we're not and they aren't.

I suggest you stop living in the eighteenth century and get up to speed.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:35:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Dinorwic is an impressive site, the speed that it can get synced
and
online at full power is quite amazing. But it can't run for very
long
before the water up top runs out. It's there for the peaks not the
base load.
Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

Hum interesting but I think based on a false premise that the grid
has the *exactly* the same frequency *everywhere*.

It does.

The frequency will
be close but not exact,

Its exact. ALL the generators are synched and more or less phase
synched..as you feed power to a set, its phase advances from lagging
(being spun by the grid) to leading) its feeding power TO the grid).

Propagation delays down UK sized grids is not an issue. It is in the USA
though.


the many sets that supply power to the grid
are not connected by a hard physical link

They are.

but by a relatively elastic
one of the long reactive grid distribution lines.


Not that reactive compared with the power. That dioes efect the phase a
bit, but teh frequency is not so affected.



I wonder what effect having lots of load that came on/off in response
to the (supposed) overall demand and supply ratio would have on grid
stability? With the time lag that it takes to bring ramp up supply
from coal/oil stations you couldn't really have stuff switching in
much less than 1/2hr IMHO and you wouldn't want all these things
doing a switch at the same time (a few minutes) relative to a
supposed dip/rise in grid frequency.


If the load goes up, the generators across the country slow down, the
frequency drops and so does the voltage. Hot standby units, basically
idling at full grid frequency, but not actually delivering power, can
have the steam valves cranked open, and start to add their bit.




As I said interesting but not as simple to do as it first appears.

In article , Norman Wells
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted, which
instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as you say,
not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

Nope. Atmospheric extraction and carbon capture is an area where the UK
could make a significant impact. The atmosphere tends to have a habit of
circulating on a global scale, so our small geographic area eventually
accesses all of the planet's atmosphere. Indeed, any atmospheric
extraction plant in any country would be insignificantly smaller than
the UK, so our limited size is not an issue. The UK has extracted so
much of its underground resources that there are many suitable voids for
the indefinite storage of liquid and solid carbon deposits.

However, any small country could, with the right technology, investment
and political will (which is the most likely barrier in the UK), punch
well above its weight with carbon capture. Indeed, with the appropriate
carbon trading agreements in place, it could be as profitable a business
as any currently vomiting CO2 across the planet.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:26:28 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted,
which instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as
you say, not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

We still in the G7, G8, G10, G15 etc... Someone must think our views
are not insignificant.

Then tell us exactly what we've achieved as regards 'global' warming and
climate change. How much of the ice-caps have re-frozen due to 9our
efforts? By how many seconds has our influence delayed global catastrophe?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:26:57 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:35:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Dinorwic is an impressive site, the speed that it can get synced
and
online at full power is quite amazing. But it can't run for very
long
before the water up top runs out. It's there for the peaks not the
base load.

Checkout http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

Hum interesting but I think based on a false premise that the grid
has the *exactly* the same frequency *everywhere*.

If it isn't exactly the same everywhere then some generators would be
effectively driving the others backwards as motors, with enormous power
losses through the grid.

If that ever happens, run and hide!

I think what happens in practice is that if a generator goes out of
phase slightly there will be a motor effect to "push" it back into
phase.

Clearly the grid is not in the same phase
everywhere, due to the inductive load, but the frequency has to be
pretty much spot on.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:

Seriously, no there isn't.

Seriously, yes there is.

The energy is within the chemical bonds and doesn't require any extra mass
to hold it.

It doesn't "require" any. It is *intrinsic*. That's the whole point and
relevance of E=mc2

If you seriously think it increases the mass can you tell us which
subatomic particle it creates and how?

Why would it need to create a particle?

Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:50:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Well, I'm terribly sorry about that, but the point I was replying to
was:

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

and that's what I dealt with.

That's fair enough

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the USA
don't seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty remote.
If they don't agree swingeing cuts and implement them, anything we
do in Britain is totally irrelevant, so it's pointless trying, and
paying a high price for doing so. It's like volunteering to starve
ten years before anyone else sees the need.

And my point is that if everone takes that attitude, we're doomed,
because no agreement will ever be reached if everyone is saying: "No,
you must jump first!"

Absolutely. But Britain jumping first will have no effect at all.
That's my point. We're as significant in that respect as the Cayman
Islands or Tuvalu.



WE can set an example that it can be done. And we know it SHOULD be
done. There are more arguments for dumping fossil fusls than climate change.

Firstly, it decouples us from a politically unstable suite of regimes
whose ONLY significance economically is they have oil, but whose
governments abuse the income derived in many cases to foment terrorism
and other things: stop buying oil, and the funds to the whole radical
Islamic movement dry up.

Secondly, countries with e.g. Uranium, arer all by and large Western
(USA, canada, Australia) or African/S American. There is precious little
uranium in the Islamic world.

Thirdly, the cost of stockpiling oil enough to survive a global
conflict, even a trade war, is massive: yet uranium for power stations
is (fairly) easily stored in relatively large amounts (typical 1GW
station uses IIRC 50 tons a year) on the power station sites. Note that
this is not refined enough to be weapons grade. At teh very worst it
could be made to melt and release a lot of radioactive material. It
cannot go 'bang'

Fourth;ly, nuclear power is currently highly cost effective at oil
prices $50 a barrel and interest rates 5%. And because the actual
uranium imports are less than 1% of the actual costs, that means every
nuclear power stain built saves billions in imported oil, gas or coal.
If you like those billions are spent on at least European, and mainly
British, workers, to build the things, not gentlemen in fancy dress to
spend on funding a Madrassa in Pakistan.

Finally, it sets an example of massively lowered CO2 production, that
enables the UK to take the moral high ground, especially with the fossil
fuel exporting countries it no longer needs..and also to bargain with
tehm for lower fossil fuel prices for those applications (chiefly
transport, especially air transport) for which electricity cannot
effectively do the job.


There is another side effect too, since the fuel cost is very low,
nuclear stations might as well be run 24x7 and the excess power used off
peak at almost free prices to do other things. I've written about this
before, but a high grid frequency and a high voltage means the grid is
running below peak. These are easily sensed right down to domestic type
scenarios, and could be used to switch in things like hot water heating,
and battery charging at very cheap rates. And indeed industrial
processes like synthesising fuel from water and CO2. Or running freight
trains at night...






Moreover, if you think Britain carries any weight in this area,
you're sadly and utterly mistaken. Look at how small we are on the
map. We have just 1% of the world's population, and are responsible
for just 2% of its pollution. As President Mugabe said about Gordon
Brown, we are just a tiny little dot.

But we are part of the EU, which we *can* influence, and if you ask
anyone who knows anything about modern business, who sets all the
environmental standards that matter, they'll say: "The EU!"

And we are part of 'The World' too, which actually includes China,
India, the USA, Russia and Brazil. So, all we have to do is get
everyone to agree, and then we'll be alright.

Off you go then.


Sure, we'll join in if and when the big boys organise themselves,
but if they don't we're doomed anyway, so we might as well party in
the meantime.

A totally selfish, almost criminally so, attitude, the prevalence of
which, more than any lack of technical solutions (although there are
serious problems with most of them) is what makes me pessimistic about
the future. Technology, we can change, our genetic selfishness, we
cannot.

So, what sort of hippy world do you inhabit then? One where an
insignificant child makes a futile gesture and the rest of the world
turns its eyes to a distant horizon and says 'In the child there is
wisdom, yes, that is the way we must follow', or what?

Tim S coughed up some electrons that declared:

If you seriously think it increases the mass can you tell us which
subatomic particle it creates and how?

Why would it need to create a particle?

Or, to put it another way, as you are aware, things travelling at relative
speed to an observer's frame of reference gain mass in line with the
Lorentz transformation.

If you go fast enough to double your mass - will there be two of you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz...Mass_and_speed

Norman Wells wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted, which
instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as you say,
not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can make
no difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are in a
global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

Owain wrote:
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?


Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe. *Usable*
energy is not. Google entropy and IIRC enthalpy.


Theres enough energy in my body to run the country for a day, probably.
However there is no way to get it transferred into anything useful.

Gravity is it seems to me the only dis-entropic force: It concentrates
material sufficiently densely for fusion reactions to work, these leads
to super dense materials forming up to and including fissile ones, and
these make good power sources.

Apart from them the universe runs on fusion power.


Owain

Max Demian wrote:
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Max Demian
writes
"J G Miller" wrote in message
news On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.

Nope, it is also an axiom in modern physics: E=mc^2

That states that energy can be destroyed by converting it to mass, and
created by converting mass into energy.


Rather it states that mass is actually an expression of energy.

Classical physics regards mass and energy to be separately conserved.


Which, neglecting nuclear reactions, is a good enough approximation.

Max Demian wrote:
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

VERY slightly.

Tim S wrote:
dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Phone call for you - some bloke called Albert...

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

No, sorry, Albert says that's wrong.

You'd be hard pushed to measure it though.

Indeed, but Albert thinks that's because it doesn't happen.


eg, a 60Ah 12V car battery might be claimed to store 60*3600*12
joules of useful energy. That's about 2.6MJ

That is equivalent to a mass of 2.88E-11 kg, or 28.8 nanogrammes

Albert says he's not very good at maths but will take your word for it.
However, he's quite good at logic, and he says that you're barking mad if
you think the energy is stored as an increase in mass.

Cheers

Oh, he's hung up now.

dennis@home wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.


Oh, but they DO.

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the difference
in weight between a discharged and charged lithium batery. Much less
than a microgram IIRC.

Tim S wrote:
dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)
Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.
You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Phone call for you - some bloke called Albert...

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

You'd be hard pushed to measure it though.

eg, a 60Ah 12V car battery might be claimed to store 60*3600*12 joules of
useful energy. That's about 2.6MJ

That is equivalent to a mass of 2.88E-11 kg, or 28.8 nanogrammes


Thanks for that. I couldn't remember what it was, but that feels about
right.


I do know that a nuke power station the gigawatt level uses 50 tons of
(enriched) uranium a year, and you get almost 50 tons of reprocessable
uranium out the arse end of it!


Cheers

Tim

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
:
: "Jerry" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Bill Wright" wrote in message
: ...
: : Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to
70m
: over the next
: : few years, snip trolling racists crap
:
: The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots.
What's racist
: about saying that?

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant but closet resists like you Bill just can't understand
that simple fact, if you were put in a position were you had to
kill a *White* Anglo-Saxon person to stop your family starving
you would do so - just like what happens in Africa or places like
Haiti etc.

:
: Irrelevant, climate change could mean that the UK couldn't
even
: feed it's indigenous 1945 population level never mind it's
1970
: or 2007 population level. Kindly take you BNP style clap-trap
: elsewhere.
: So saying that the population will rise as a result of
immigration is BNP
: style clap-trap is it?

Yes, in the context that you used it.

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:



"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...

On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Phone call for you - some bloke called Albert...

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

Seriously, no there isn't.
The energy is within the chemical bonds and doesn't require any extra
mass to hold it.
If you seriously think it increases the mass can you tell us which
subatomic particle it creates and how?



Er, no need fpor that. You tell me how teh sanem number of subatomic
partocles acquire mass as tehy reach towrads teh speed of light..

Any increase in molecular velocity as in e.g. a hot gas, acquires mass
with respect to the inertial frame against which those velocities exists.

A compound that has higher energy than its constituent atoms is heavier
by a very small amount, than what its made of. You can if you want talk
about kinetic energy of spinning electrons in valency shells, and mass
increase, that way, but the truth is classical models dont fit well in
the quantum world.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted,
which instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as
you say, not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

Nope. Atmospheric extraction and carbon capture is an area where the
UK could make a significant impact.

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea how big
the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made extractor would
be?

How many would we need do you think?

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

The atmosphere tends to have a
habit of circulating on a global scale, so our small geographic area
eventually accesses all of the planet's atmosphere. Indeed, any
atmospheric extraction plant in any country would be insignificantly
smaller than the UK, so our limited size is not an issue. The UK has
extracted so much of its underground resources that there are many
suitable voids for the indefinite storage of liquid and solid carbon
deposits.
However, any small country could, with the right technology,
investment and political will (which is the most likely barrier in
the UK), punch well above its weight with carbon capture. Indeed,
with the appropriate carbon trading agreements in place, it could be
as profitable a business as any currently vomiting CO2 across the
planet.

Sadly, no it won't.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:50:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Well, I'm terribly sorry about that, but the point I was replying
to was:

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

and that's what I dealt with.

That's fair enough

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the
USA don't seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty
remote. If they don't agree swingeing cuts and implement them,
anything we do in Britain is totally irrelevant, so it's pointless
trying, and paying a high price for doing so. It's like
volunteering to starve ten years before anyone else sees the need.

And my point is that if everone takes that attitude, we're doomed,
because no agreement will ever be reached if everyone is saying:
"No, you must jump first!"

Absolutely. But Britain jumping first will have no effect at all.
That's my point. We're as significant in that respect as the Cayman
Islands or Tuvalu.

WE can set an example that it can be done. And we know it SHOULD be
done.

Not if it serves no purpose.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted,
which instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as
you say, not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

We still produce just 1.7% of the world's CO2. What difference would it
make if the UK were to sink without trace tonight?

By how many seconds do you think it would delay global catastrophe?

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:


Albert says he's not very good at maths but will take your word for it.
However, he's quite good at logic, and he says that you're barking mad if
you think the energy is stored as an increase in mass.

Do you have a degree in physics then?

Have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2...gy_equivalence

Specifically:

"In relativity, removing energy is removing mass, and the formula m = E/c2
tells you how much mass is lost when energy is removed. In a chemical or
nuclear reaction, the mass of the atoms that come out is less than the mass
of the atoms that go in, and the difference in mass shows up as heat and
light with the same relativistic mass. In this case, the E in the formula
is the energy released and removed, and the mass m is how much the mass
goes down. In the same way, when any kind of energy is added, the increase
in the mass is equal to the added energy divided by c2. For example, when
water is heated in a microwave oven, the oven adds about 1.11×10?17 kg of
mass for every joule of heat added to the water."

If you feel that's wrong, you should probably go and correct it...

Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:35:47 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
1GW, enough for two big cities it says and it will have been doing it
for 39 years when it finally closes.

But how much energy did it take to build it? How much to mine the
ore, refine it (these in another country, so it doesn't appear in our
carbon account), ship it to the UK, maybe process it some more, 'burn'
it, make the waste safe for transport, transport it, process it, and
store it INDEFINITELY into the future, for we will be expending energy
looking after and containing nuclear waste long after the sites that
produced it have been decommissioned. How much energy will it take
entirely to decommission the plant safely at the end of its working
life? By the time you've added up that lot, just how much 'net'
energy will the plant have produced?


About 1%-3% of the energy it produces, typically. Is what is used by it
to produce the actual structure and take it down afterwards.

Somewhat better than a windmill.

The data you need is all in David Mackay's excellent and very unbiased
(he is a committed greenie, but with the ability to think and do sums as
well) book, and website www.withouthotair.com


If any? A recent BBC programmes about Windscale/Sellafield cast doubt
on how much energy it ever produced.

They are actually designed with rushed production of weapons grade
plutonium in mind. Power generation was a bit of a smokescreen. A handy
politically acceptable by-product if you like. After all the damned
piles WERE producing a lot of heat, as part of the desired nuclear
reactins., and needed cooling, so it made sense to strap a boiler and a
turbine on the back, and do something with it.


After all, it was primarily
built as a source of weapons-grade plutonium, not to supply
electricity, which was just a public cover story, and the programme
stated that it was sometimes drawing power from the grid rather than
supplying power to it!


Exactly. Historically intersting, but in no way relevant to modern
plants designed to produce power safely and economically, and be
dismantles safely and economically afterwards.


A recent BBC programme about Dounreay revealed that its
decommissioning employs as many people as it ever did when it was
operational. This inevitably means that it will produce incidental
CO2 until decommissioning ends in 2025, even though it hasn't been
operational since 1994.

Indeed. An early set that wasn't designed to be taken apart in the sort
of Elfin Safety regime that would have had post war technologists
sputtering their coffee all over their slide rules.

And that's not even to mention environmental radio-active hazards ...


Which are, frank;ly, alomost non existent.

A school-friend's family had to pour all their milk into the sea
during the incident at the then Windscale plant.


Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

There are Welsh farmers still unable to sell their lamb after
Chernobyl:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...1466-20822842/

The same BBC programme revealed (newly to me, at least) that there are
heavy particles washing along the coast from Dounreay:


Ther are heavy particles washing along the Channel and bristol channel
from Dartmoor and Exmoor..

natural radon is the greatest source of radioactive related deaths in
the country, by IIRC a factor of several thousand over the nuclear industry.


http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0952-4...b-754751b7c89c

And, don't forget, every spillage, leak, incident, or whatever,
whether it be major like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, or the more
frequent lesser problems, besides the instantly alarming concerns
about radio-activity, have an associated energetic cost in cleanup
operations, etc.


Trivial ion compariso=n to the power generated, and arguably about a
1000 times more diligent than the actual facts say is necessary.

The really big windmills are 2MW so you need 1500 "jumbo jets on a
stick" spread out over the country to have even a hope in hell of
matching this one nuke station.

It is certainly true that wind has its own problems, the chief of
which are that most of the population do not choose to live where most
of the wind is, the number of windfarms that are required to be built
in an impossibly short time, and the only commercial manufacturer in
the UK has just closed. However, planning permission aside, a
windfarm has a much smaller lead time, and a much smaller initial CO2
outlay to recover. We need to use as much wind as we can, but it
clearly won't be sufficient on its own.

WE don't need to use any wind. Its an appalingly inefficient way to
generate usable power. It has no real justification beyond seeming to
the naive, to be a green solution to a real problem. In reality its no
solution at all, but it gets the greenies of peoples backs whilst they
work on real solutions.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.


Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the difference
in weight between a discharged and charged lithium batery. Much less
than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass, which in
fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the mass increased on
charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd be on to something,
probably a Nobel prize.

On Sep 17, 2:36*pm, "Bill Wright"
wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
: Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m
over the next
: few years, snip trolling racists crap

The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots. What's racist
about saying that?

It's just Jerry saying he hasn't got a cogent argument against someone
he disagrees with.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

snip more trolling from MBQ

On 16 Sep, 21:45, Owain wrote:
On 16 Sep, 21:14, Java Jive wrote:

But if, following your bad example, we say to the Chinese: "You are
producing too much CO2!" they will just say to us: "Per capita, you
produce twice as much as us! *Don't lecture to us at least until
you've taken your own population in hand!"

Or "stop buying stuff from us, because the emissions from our
factories are actually your emissions but displaced"

Owain

Wise words.

Mary

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:22:00 +0100, brightside S9
wrote:

But the population is rising at an unsustainable rate anyway.

That's the really fundamental problem we have and very few people seem
to be addressing it.
Influential people are needed to sell that, maybe
maybe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stm
is a start.

We either do it voluntarily, or the planet will do it for us or cause us
to do it to ourselves. The first signs of the planet doing it are in
evidence now.
It wouldn't take much for there to be global war once the first real
wobble occurs. The financial system will go first (like it nearly did last
year) and once that has gone everything else goes downhill rapidly.
Lots of people will die though starvation or being killed by someone else
in competition for resources.

Yes. 'Limits to Growth' was written in the 60's.

We managed to find more oil.,, better medicines, better farming, so we
staved off its dire predictions for 40 years. This led many to say we
could stave them off forever.

As the falling optimist said 'I haven't hit anything yet, what's the
problem?'

Its my considered opinion that we did hit something. The end of growth
as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds financial systenm. Now
we are trying to restart growth, but it cannot happen - teh next phase
of this crisis I had expected to materialise about now, but the signs
are its delayed somewhat, and may hit sometime next year.

Bill Wright wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
: Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m
over the next
: few years, snip trolling racists crap
The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots. What's racist
about saying that?

Irrelevant, climate change could mean that the UK couldn't even
feed it's indigenous 1945 population level never mind it's 1970
or 2007 population level. Kindly take you BNP style clap-trap
elsewhere.
So saying that the population will rise as a result of immigration is BNP
style clap-trap is it? Well the government and their advisers must all be in
the BNP then, because that's what they say.
What we have here is an attempt to prevent discussion of a serious problem
(population and immigration) by calling someone a racist.


Well in fact, the Poles have all gone home, since there aren't any
jobs..my nephew has gone to Australia, where hard work still merits a
decent wage..

Emigration of the able will lower the population, until all we have left
are te dross of society, and teh immigrants for whom even a crap society
is better than where they came from.

Its all Socialist policies leading to a lowest common denominator state.
All the good **** off, and all the dross collects, because the system is
geared towards paying the useless and taxing the useful.

If Darwinian survival consists in being a Vicki Carr, then that's what
we will be like.

Sadly, the BNP are supported by the Vicki Carrs of this world. Now if we
could export those sort of people to..Mmm. Afghanistan? that would be ideal.





Bill

Tim S wrote:
Tim S coughed up some electrons that declared:

If you seriously think it increases the mass can you tell us which
subatomic particle it creates and how?
Why would it need to create a particle?

Or, to put it another way, as you are aware, things travelling at relative
speed to an observer's frame of reference gain mass in line with the
Lorentz transformation.

If you go fast enough to double your mass - will there be two of you?


Perish the thought..
meet yourself coming backwards in time..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz...Mass_and_speed

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:50:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Well, I'm terribly sorry about that, but the point I was replying
to was:

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

and that's what I dealt with.

That's fair enough

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the
USA don't seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty
remote. If they don't agree swingeing cuts and implement them,
anything we do in Britain is totally irrelevant, so it's pointless
trying, and paying a high price for doing so. It's like
volunteering to starve ten years before anyone else sees the need.

And my point is that if everone takes that attitude, we're doomed,
because no agreement will ever be reached if everyone is saying:
"No, you must jump first!"

Absolutely. But Britain jumping first will have no effect at all.
That's my point. We're as significant in that respect as the Cayman
Islands or Tuvalu.

WE can set an example that it can be done. And we know it SHOULD be
done.

Not if it serves no purpose.

Why did you snip the rest of what I wrote where I explained what purpose
it did in fact serve?

To make a false point?

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted,
which instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as
you say, not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

We still produce just 1.7% of the world's CO2.

We may PRIDUCE only 1/7%, BUT the fact of our GDP shows that we are
indirectly RESPONIBLE for about 10%.

What difference would it
make if the UK were to sink without trace tonight?


About 10%.

By how many seconds do you think it would delay global catastrophe?


Dunno. 5-10 years probably.

Tim S wrote:
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:


Albert says he's not very good at maths but will take your word for it.
However, he's quite good at logic, and he says that you're barking mad if
you think the energy is stored as an increase in mass.

Do you have a degree in physics then?

Have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2...gy_equivalence

Specifically:

"In relativity, removing energy is removing mass, and the formula m = E/c2
tells you how much mass is lost when energy is removed. In a chemical or
nuclear reaction, the mass of the atoms that come out is less than the mass
of the atoms that go in, and the difference in mass shows up as heat and
light with the same relativistic mass. In this case, the E in the formula
is the energy released and removed, and the mass m is how much the mass
goes down. In the same way, when any kind of energy is added, the increase
in the mass is equal to the added energy divided by c2. For example, when
water is heated in a microwave oven, the oven adds about 1.11×10?17 kg of
mass for every joule of heat added to the water."

If you feel that's wrong, you should probably go and correct it...

One feels that whoever Norman Wells is, he is used to being a sort of
Guru, and has sadly stumbled into a conversation where more participants
than he is used to actually know what they are taliking about.

Poor old Norman. He simply looks a complete dick.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...

On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.


Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?


Got a degree from Cambridge University as it happens, in engineering,
and a physics A level from when it actually meant something..taught by a
Cambridge PhD in physics....

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the difference
in weight between a discharged and charged lithium batery. Much less
than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass, which
in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the mass
increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd be on to
something, probably a Nobel prize.


No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which wouldn't
note more than two lines in the new scientist.

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

We still produce just 1.7% of the world's CO2.

We may PRIDUCE only 1/7%, BUT the fact of our GDP shows that we are
indirectly RESPONIBLE for about 10%.

You seem to be getting "tenth" (place) and "10%" confused.

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only" around 3%
of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

'course, you also seem to be assuming that every $ of GDP is responsible
for an equal emission of CO2...