http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm


Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.

Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm


Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.

Adam

Much more telling is Lithuania being forced to TOTALLY CLOSE a nuclear
plant 'because its the same type as chernobyl' before being allowed to
join the EU, despite the fact that it could easily have been made safe
enough to run till the new one was built.

Thus adding instantly billions of tons of CO2 to the EU totals.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8435628.stm

On 02/01/2010 17:42, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.

Why? This was government and regulation ********. Npower just did what
saved them several million quid. It's the same sort of official ********
that's forcing us to have bio-fuel, even though that will be grown at
the expense of food and in some cases of the rain-forest.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

On 02/01/2010 17:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm


Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with
the Green Party.

Adam

Much more telling is Lithuania being forced to TOTALLY CLOSE a nuclear
plant 'because its the same type as chernobyl' before being allowed to
join the EU, despite the fact that it could easily have been made safe
enough to run till the new one was built.

Could you elaborate on the measures you're thinking of? I mean, I could
imagine that a containment building could have been added but I'm not
sure if that's what you're referring to.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the Chernobyl incident and the
design flaws in the reactor type (RBMK-1000) in use there.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

Tim Streater
wibbled on Saturday 02 January 2010 18:07

On 02/01/2010 17:42, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.

Why? This was government and regulation ********. Npower just did what
saved them several million quid. It's the same sort of official ********
that's forcing us to have bio-fuel, even though that will be grown at
the expense of food and in some cases of the rain-forest.


Why don't we make home grown bio diesel? The UK is pretty good at hosting
the sort of plants that produce suitable oils. Or are we really using all
our arable land for food production/grazing?

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:17:41 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Much more telling is Lithuania being forced to TOTALLY CLOSE a nuclear
plant 'because its the same type as chernobyl' before being allowed to
join the EU, despite the fact that it could easily have been made safe
enough to run till the new one was built.

Thus adding instantly billions of tons of CO2 to the EU totals.

They will be forced to buy their power from outside the EU, so it won't
effect the totals (for the EU). So that is ok then....


That's like Britain's manufacturers taking production facilities from
the UK and making their goods in the far east instead. The result is
something like a 20% drop in CO2 emissions, and NuLabour are patting
themselves on the back for this "achievement".

But the real cost of exporting manufacturing production is that the
goods are made in factories that are powered by China's grossly
polluting coal fired power stations and shipped to the UK with ships
that belch CO2 along with some really toxic nasties. Apparently, the
overall change in Britain's CO2 emissions if this Chinese malarkey is
taken into account is an *increase* of 28%.

But that's OK, because emissions from Chinese factories and the ships
do not contribute to the UK's Kyoto target.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:47:03 +0000, Tim W wrote:

Tim Streater
wibbled on Saturday 02 January 2010 18:07

On 02/01/2010 17:42, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.

Why? This was government and regulation ********. Npower just did what
saved them several million quid. It's the same sort of official ********
that's forcing us to have bio-fuel, even though that will be grown at
the expense of food and in some cases of the rain-forest.


Why don't we make home grown bio diesel? The UK is pretty good at hosting
the sort of plants that produce suitable oils. Or are we really using all
our arable land for food production/grazing?


No, we're using it to build houses and retail parks on.

We import over 70% of our food.

On 02/01/2010 19:47, Tim W wrote:
Tim
wibbled on Saturday 02 January 2010 18:07

On 02/01/2010 17:42, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.

Why? This was government and regulation ********. Npower just did what
saved them several million quid. It's the same sort of official ********
that's forcing us to have bio-fuel, even though that will be grown at
the expense of food and in some cases of the rain-forest.

Why don't we make home grown bio diesel? The UK is pretty good at hosting
the sort of plants that produce suitable oils. Or are we really using all
our arable land for food production/grazing?

Probably because there wouldn't be enough land, even if we grew nothing
else, to cater for all our fuel use. I don't have any good figures to
back that up, however.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:42:05 GMT, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

"Energy suppliers' research had suggested that 6% of the bulbs would
be unused."

Surprised it's that low. I might be using one or two of the free CFLs
that I've been sent over the years. The rest are sat in the cupboard
unused, they probably will be used at some point. Mind you the ones I
have weren'y "unsolicited" I had to ask for them so they won't count
in these figures...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:42:05 GMT, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

"Energy suppliers' research had suggested that 6% of the bulbs would
be unused."

Surprised it's that low. I might be using one or two of the free CFLs
that I've been sent over the years. The rest are sat in the cupboard
unused, they probably will be used at some point. Mind you the ones I
have weren'y "unsolicited" I had to ask for them so they won't count
in these figures...

The government stopped the practice after their research showed most
of the lamps mailed out would never be used, but eventually just
thrown out. The power ratings that were mailed out (I got 8W and 11W)
were too dim to be used as replacements in most cases, being equivalent
to only 30W or 40W bulbs. For many people, this would have been their
first time using these lamps, and the experience will have been a very
poor first impression. If they had mailed out some 20-25W ones, these
could have been genuinely useful, and actually converted more people
to use CFLs, but the whole thing back-fired in a thoroughly predictable
way.

I notice Wickes have some on offer at 3 for 49p, again sponsored by
one of the energy suppliers (I forget which).

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

Tim W wrote:
Tim Streater
wibbled on Saturday 02 January 2010 18:07

On 02/01/2010 17:42, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.
Why? This was government and regulation ********. Npower just did what
saved them several million quid. It's the same sort of official ********
that's forcing us to have bio-fuel, even though that will be grown at
the expense of food and in some cases of the rain-forest.


Why don't we make home grown bio diesel? The UK is pretty good at hosting
the sort of plants that produce suitable oils. Or are we really using all
our arable land for food production/grazing?

it takes nearly as much diesel to make the fertilizer, harvest the oil
seed and plant it, and process it, and transport it to the garage..as
you get at the end of it..


And you would need about 50 times the area currently under agriculture
to get near UK demand.

Tim Streater wrote:
On 02/01/2010 19:47, Tim W wrote:
Tim
wibbled on Saturday 02 January 2010 18:07

On 02/01/2010 17:42, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.

Why? This was government and regulation ********. Npower just did what
saved them several million quid. It's the same sort of official ********
that's forcing us to have bio-fuel, even though that will be grown at
the expense of food and in some cases of the rain-forest.

Why don't we make home grown bio diesel? The UK is pretty good at hosting
the sort of plants that produce suitable oils. Or are we really using all
our arable land for food production/grazing?

Probably because there wouldn't be enough land, even if we grew nothing
else, to cater for all our fuel use. I don't have any good figures to
back that up, however.

I do.
I calculated something like 40 acres would grow enough for me for a year.

That's just driving the car 7000 miles a year. Never mind the tesco
lorries and staying warm.

Tim Streater wrote:
On 02/01/2010 17:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm


Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with
the Green Party.

Adam

Much more telling is Lithuania being forced to TOTALLY CLOSE a nuclear
plant 'because its the same type as chernobyl' before being allowed to
join the EU, despite the fact that it could easily have been made safe
enough to run till the new one was built.

Could you elaborate on the measures you're thinking of? I mean, I could
imagine that a containment building could have been added but I'm not
sure if that's what you're referring to.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the Chernobyl incident and the
design flaws in the reactor type (RBMK-1000) in use there.


I only go by the engineers on the spot:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

it takes nearly as much diesel to make the fertilizer, harvest the oil
seed and plant it, and process it, and transport it to the garage..as
you get at the end of it..


No it doesn't, in fact osr isn't too bad to get a liquid fuel, it beats
having 1/5 of the arable area under cultivation for fodder for horses.

In terms of just thermal efficiency wood harvesting is pretty good but
there's a lot more utility in a litre of diesel than 6kg of freshly
harvested wood.


And you would need about 50 times the area currently under agriculture
to get near UK demand.

Probably, there's about 18 million ha of farm land and about 25% of this is
arable we might be just about self sufficient for food if we maximise crops
for direct human consumption AND continue to use fossil fuels and fossil
derived fertiliser.

Where's a lamb when you need one?

AJH

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the Chernobyl incident and the
design flaws in the reactor type (RBMK-1000) in use there.


I only go by the engineers on the spot:

Whoops.
They seem to have vapourised.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Tim W saying
something like:

Why don't we make home grown bio diesel?

If all the arable land in the UK was turned over to producing rape for
biodiesel, it would supply about 10% of the UK's needs.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Why don't we make home grown bio diesel? The UK is pretty good at
hosting the sort of plants that produce suitable oils. Or are we
really using all our arable land for food production/grazing?

it takes nearly as much diesel to make the fertilizer, harvest the oil
seed and plant it, and process it, and transport it to the garage..as
you get at the end of it..

I suppose re-using cooking oils is deserving of a better press as most
of the energy investment has already been made.


And you would need about 50 times the area currently under agriculture
to get near UK demand.

Also oil seed rape is normally only grown once in a 5 course crop
rotation: usually as a precursor to Wheat. Permanent cropping would
require major developments in disease and pest control.

I understand the Americans are diverting some of their Maize to ethanol
production, much to the consternation of the Mexican food industry:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
terry writes:
Watching a BBC programme recently one statement, about our sun, was
along the lines of "More energy in one second etc. than ever MADE BY
MANKIND"!
It suddenly struck me that we (mankind) have never MADE anything.
What we humans have done and still do is to change/alter things to our
use.
No matter whether it is some fairly recently (10 to 100 years) grown
wood turned into charcoal or furniture or 10 million year old fossils
which became oil, coal or gas. Or plastic or .............. parts for
motor cars etc.
Just about anything we humans do to 'produce' energy is to change
something originally manufactured from sunlight!

If you go back one step further, there is only one source
of energy - fission or fusion of elements generated by the
big bang.

The only way to use these is in nuclear reactors. The Sun is
one, the earth itself is one, and we have built our own too.

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

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

The only way to use these is in nuclear reactors. The Sun is
one, the earth itself is one, and we have built our own too.


Parts of the earth were some sort of self moderating chain reaction but I
thought that was no longer self sustaining and it's just the decomposition
of unstable elements formed from then that keeps the middle warm now?

And gives us helium

AJH

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm


Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.

Adam

Much more telling is Lithuania being forced to TOTALLY CLOSE a nuclear
plant 'because its the same type as chernobyl' before being allowed to
join the EU, despite the fact that it could easily have been made safe
enough to run till the new one was built.

Thus adding instantly billions of tons of CO2 to the EU totals.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8435628.stm

Of course Lithuania could buy Russian electricity made by nuclear reactors
identical to the one they have closed.

Adam

On 03/01/2010 10:54, andrew wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

The only way to use these is in nuclear reactors. The Sun is
one, the earth itself is one, and we have built our own too.


Parts of the earth were some sort of self moderating chain reaction but I
thought that was no longer self sustaining and it's just the decomposition
of unstable elements formed from then that keeps the middle warm now?

The mantle is kept hot by the radioactive decay of elements (mostly
uranium I think) which would have sunk down when the whole earth was
molten (as the iron did - hence the iron core of the planet).

You may also be thinking of the natural uranium reactor at Oklo, in
Gabon, about 2 billion years ago.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

On 02/01/2010 23:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
On 02/01/2010 19:47, Tim W wrote:
Tim
wibbled on Saturday 02 January 2010 18:07

On 02/01/2010 17:42, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with
the
Green Party.

Why? This was government and regulation ********. Npower just did what
saved them several million quid. It's the same sort of official
********
that's forcing us to have bio-fuel, even though that will be grown at
the expense of food and in some cases of the rain-forest.

Why don't we make home grown bio diesel? The UK is pretty good at
hosting
the sort of plants that produce suitable oils. Or are we really using
all
our arable land for food production/grazing?

Probably because there wouldn't be enough land, even if we grew
nothing else, to cater for all our fuel use. I don't have any good
figures to back that up, however.

I do.
I calculated something like 40 acres would grow enough for me for a year.

That's just driving the car 7000 miles a year. Never mind the tesco
lorries and staying warm.

And the whole of GB is about 60 million acres, so we all get approx one
each.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:42:05 GMT, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

"Energy suppliers' research had suggested that 6% of the bulbs would
be unused."

Surprised it's that low. I might be using one or two of the free CFLs
that I've been sent over the years. The rest are sat in the cupboard
unused, they probably will be used at some point. Mind you the ones I
have weren'y "unsolicited" I had to ask for them so they won't count
in these figures...

The government stopped the practice after their research showed most
of the lamps mailed out would never be used, but eventually just
thrown out. The power ratings that were mailed out (I got 8W and 11W)
were too dim to be used as replacements in most cases, being equivalent
to only 30W or 40W bulbs. For many people, this would have been their
first time using these lamps, and the experience will have been a very
poor first impression. If they had mailed out some 20-25W ones, these
could have been genuinely useful, and actually converted more people
to use CFLs, but the whole thing back-fired in a thoroughly predictable
way.

I notice Wickes have some on offer at 3 for 49p, again sponsored by
one of the energy suppliers (I forget which).

--
Andrew Gabriel

Actually I best not complain. A third of my income last year was made by a
carbon offsetting scheme. I would probably be out of business without them.

Adam

In article ,
andrew writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

The only way to use these is in nuclear reactors. The Sun is
one, the earth itself is one, and we have built our own too.


Parts of the earth were some sort of self moderating chain reaction but I
thought that was no longer self sustaining and it's just the decomposition
of unstable elements formed from then that keeps the middle warm now?

Yes, I guess nuclear reactors implies criticality, which isn't
a requirement for nuclear energy generation.

And gives us helium

AJH

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

Tim Streater wrote:

The mantle is kept hot by the radioactive decay of elements (mostly
uranium I think) which would have sunk down when the whole earth was
molten (as the iron did - hence the iron core of the planet).

You may also be thinking of the natural uranium reactor at Oklo, in
Gabon, about 2 billion years ago.


That's it.

So much of the heavier elements were formed in fusion reactions before the
earth formed?

One reason for the core to be iron is that decaying elements tend toward
iron as the most stable state I think.

AJH

On 03/01/2010 14:23, andrew wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

The mantle is kept hot by the radioactive decay of elements (mostly
uranium I think) which would have sunk down when the whole earth was
molten (as the iron did - hence the iron core of the planet).

You may also be thinking of the natural uranium reactor at Oklo, in
Gabon, about 2 billion years ago.


That's it.

So much of the heavier elements were formed in fusion reactions before the
earth formed?

Elements further up the periodic table than iron are all formed in
supernovas. Elements from and including iron downwards are formed in
ordinary stars. If you fuse elements lower down than iron, you get
energy *out*. To fuse elements above iron, you have to put energy *in*.

An ordinary star will firstly fuse hydrogen to helium - the Sun does
that. Every second about 650 Mtons of H are fused to form 645 Mtons of
Helium. So the Sun gets lighter by about 5Mtons/sec, which is converted
into energy according to E=mc2. Even after 4.5Byears of this, the Sun
has only converted a few % of its mass to He.

In some Byears time, the Sun will run out of H, and have to start
"burning" Helium to heavier elements, progressively up to iron. It is,
however, too small to go supernova.

If you're interested in more details, get hold of "Stardust" by John
Gribbin - very readable.

One reason for the core to be iron is that decaying elements tend toward
iron as the most stable state I think.

No. Firstly, elements higher up the table than iron are quite rare,
comparatively. Certainly much more than 99% of the Earth's iron core was
iron when the earth formed.

Second, the "bottleneck" at iron is a feature of the strong nuclear
force. Radioactive decay is mediated by the weak nuclear force, and as
each radioactive isotope decays, at a rate given by its half-life, it
gives rise to "daughter" isotopes which themselves may decay - or may
not, if the isotope reached is stable. Thus, Uranium decays to Lead
which is stable. Lead (atomic number 82) is much higher up the periodic
table than iron (26).

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

Tim Streater wrote:

Good informative post Tim

Thanks

AJH

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:26:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:42:05 GMT, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

"Energy suppliers' research had suggested that 6% of the bulbs would
be unused."

Surprised it's that low. I might be using one or two of the free CFLs
that I've been sent over the years. The rest are sat in the cupboard
unused, they probably will be used at some point. Mind you the ones I
have weren'y "unsolicited" I had to ask for them so they won't count
in these figures...


The real problem is people living in houses without any cupboards.
Surely lightbulbs aren't so huge that they can't be kept somewhere
until needed?
--
http://www.Voucherfreebies.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

andrew wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

The only way to use these is in nuclear reactors. The Sun is
one, the earth itself is one, and we have built our own too.


Parts of the earth were some sort of self moderating chain reaction but I
thought that was no longer self sustaining and it's just the decomposition
of unstable elements formed from then that keeps the middle warm now?


Its a moot point as to when natural decay becomes a reactor.


And gives us helium

AJH

andrew wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

The mantle is kept hot by the radioactive decay of elements (mostly
uranium I think) which would have sunk down when the whole earth was
molten (as the iron did - hence the iron core of the planet).

You may also be thinking of the natural uranium reactor at Oklo, in
Gabon, about 2 billion years ago.


That's it.

So much of the heavier elements were formed in fusion reactions before the
earth formed?

One reason for the core to be iron is that decaying elements tend toward
iron as the most stable state I think.


Correct to my knowledge.


AJH

Tim Streater wrote:
On 02/01/2010 23:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
On 02/01/2010 19:47, Tim W wrote:
Tim
wibbled on Saturday 02 January 2010 18:07

On 02/01/2010 17:42, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with
the
Green Party.

Why? This was government and regulation ********. Npower just did what
saved them several million quid. It's the same sort of official
********
that's forcing us to have bio-fuel, even though that will be grown at
the expense of food and in some cases of the rain-forest.

Why don't we make home grown bio diesel? The UK is pretty good at
hosting
the sort of plants that produce suitable oils. Or are we really using
all
our arable land for food production/grazing?

Probably because there wouldn't be enough land, even if we grew
nothing else, to cater for all our fuel use. I don't have any good
figures to back that up, however.

I do.
I calculated something like 40 acres would grow enough for me for a year.

That's just driving the car 7000 miles a year. Never mind the tesco
lorries and staying warm.

And the whole of GB is about 60 million acres, so we all get approx one
each.

IF it were all good agricultural land, its just about enough to eke out
an existence..one acre pre person. At the sort of paleolithic level
Greenpeace would like us to revert to.

It isn't though, and to survive loss of 'artificial' energy implies sort
of 2-5M population levels.

Which would be ideal, If I were one of the 2-5M.And all those fat gits
at Tescos were not.

On 04/01/2010 11:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
andrew wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

The only way to use these is in nuclear reactors. The Sun is
one, the earth itself is one, and we have built our own too.


Parts of the earth were some sort of self moderating chain reaction but I
thought that was no longer self sustaining and it's just the
decomposition
of unstable elements formed from then that keeps the middle warm now?


Its a moot point as to when natural decay becomes a reactor.

Natural decay will occur however concentrated or dilute the isotope in
question is. You get a reactor if you concentrate the material. With
uranium you need about 3% or more of U235 (up from the natural 0.7%
level). When a U235 atom fissions, out come some fast neutrons (and heat
energy). If you slow these down ("moderate" them), these neutrons can
themselves act like bullets which fission more U235 atoms.

In a reactor, you need to keep the number of slow neutrons produced per
U235 atom-fission at around 1.0. A bit above, and the reactor produces
more heat. A bit below and you cool it off. This is done by inserting
control rods which absorb the neutrons. If the ratio gets too much above
1.0, then you are in trouble.

Obviously with a bomb you want it as much above 1.0 as poss.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

On 04/01/2010 11:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
andrew wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

The mantle is kept hot by the radioactive decay of elements (mostly
uranium I think) which would have sunk down when the whole earth was
molten (as the iron did - hence the iron core of the planet).

You may also be thinking of the natural uranium reactor at Oklo, in
Gabon, about 2 billion years ago.


That's it.

So much of the heavier elements were formed in fusion reactions before
the
earth formed?

One reason for the core to be iron is that decaying elements tend toward
iron as the most stable state I think.


Correct to my knowledge.

No, see my post of yesterday.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...


And the whole of GB is about 60 million acres, so we all get approx one
each.

I would rather grow food on my acre and use a nuclear power station to keep
me warm.

On Jan 2, 7:48*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:17:41 +0000, John Rumm

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Much more telling is Lithuania being forced to TOTALLY CLOSE a nuclear
plant 'because its the same type as chernobyl' before being allowed to
join the EU, despite the fact that it could easily have been made safe
enough to run till the new one was built.

Thus adding instantly billions of tons of CO2 to the EU totals.

They will be forced to buy their power from outside the EU, so it won't
effect the totals (for the EU). So that is ok then....

That's like Britain's manufacturers taking production facilities from
the UK and making their goods in the far east instead. *The result is
something like a 20% drop in CO2 emissions, and NuLabour are patting
themselves on the back for this "achievement".

Or how the unified Germay achieved it's targets by simply shutting
down the old industrial plants in the East.

It's all greenwash.

MBQ

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
news
On 02/01/2010 17:42, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437778.stm

Well that saved the world. And for the first time ever I agree with the
Green Party.

Why? This was government and regulation ********. Npower just did what
saved them several million quid. It's the same sort of official ********
that's forcing us to have bio-fuel, even though that will be grown at the
expense of food and in some cases of the rain-forest.


I agree. It's totally stupid but NPower didn't make the rules and they had
shareholders to think about. It's the short sighted idiots who drew up the
scheme who we should be complaining about.

Tim

Tim
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689