In article ,
says...
There has been a survey of "accessible" coal been going on for the last year
or so, you may have to suffer traffic problems from open cast coal mining
soon.

We're getting coal-mining here near The Wrekin. Can't say it bothers me
- this has been a heavy industrial area for hundreds of years on and
off. A spot of open-cast mining which will have been and gone in a
decade won't make a lot of difference. Give it a hundred years and it'll
be all overgrown again with a thriving (if not identical) ecosystem.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:19:48 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

There is a way that both can be true. If they measure the RPI in
the period ending December (which won't be immediately available), they
can use that to set the FIT for the following April.

Yes there is some faffing about due to the RPI being taken on the
31st Dec but not applied until April the next year but that doesn't
help with the statement on the government approved advice site that:

"1. Generation tariff - a set rate paid by the energy supplier for
each unit (or kWh) of electricity you generate. This rate will change
each year for new entrants to the scheme (except for the first 2
years), but once you join you will continue on the same tariff for 20
years, or 25 years in the case of solar electricity (PV)."

http://tinyurl.com/44jqox5

Read that last sentance.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:30:07 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:19:48 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

There is a way that both can be true. If they measure the RPI in
the period ending December (which won't be immediately available), they
can use that to set the FIT for the following April.

Yes there is some faffing about due to the RPI being taken on the
31st Dec but not applied until April the next year but that doesn't
help with the statement on the government approved advice site that:

"1. Generation tariff - a set rate paid by the energy supplier for
each unit (or kWh) of electricity you generate. This rate will change
each year for new entrants to the scheme (except for the first 2
years), but once you join you will continue on the same tariff for 20
years, or 25 years in the case of solar electricity (PV)."

http://tinyurl.com/44jqox5

Read that last sentance.

From the link:

"All generation and export tariffs will be linked to the Retail Price
Index (RPI) which ensures that each year they follow the rate of
inflation."

http://www.decc.gov.uk/publications/... f&filetype=4

"Page 23" (page 24 in pdf)

"Any eligible installation that is installed would be allocated a
generation tariff according to the table of tariffs on page 47. This
is the generation tariff that would apply to generation from that
installation for the life of the tariff, subject to alterations as a
result of indexation."

"Page 47" (page 48 in pdf)

"Table of generation tariffs to 2020"

"Tariff level for new installations in period (p/kWh) [NB tariffs will
be inflated annually]"


I'm on exactly the same (non feed in) conventional energy tariff i was
on some three years ago but the price I pay for energy isn't the same
now as it was then.

--

On 12 Apr 2011 09:46:25 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-12, Skipweasel wrote:
In article ,
says...
There has been a survey of "accessible" coal been going on for the last year
or so, you may have to suffer traffic problems from open cast coal mining
soon.

We're getting coal-mining here near The Wrekin. Can't say it bothers me
- this has been a heavy industrial area for hundreds of years on and
off. A spot of open-cast mining which will have been and gone in a
decade won't make a lot of difference. Give it a hundred years and it'll
be all overgrown again with a thriving (if not identical) ecosystem.

And you may well get a nice lake out of it.

After all, the greenies don't bitch about the Norfolk Broads, even though
they're *entirely* man-made.

Far better to dump waste in it and then harvest the biogas


--

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
Last time I looked at solar panel threads there was an overwhelming view
that it just didn't make financial sense and the calculations generally
didn't take into account the fact that you had to recover your capital and
the interest on your capital (if you just saved/invested it) to break
even, before you started to make any savings.

Now the recent discussion seems to be more about the immoral use of the
subsidies than about the sums not adding up.

When did this change?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats
about unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government
policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get some
quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going
down this route.

Thanks for all the responses.

So to sum up what I think I've heard:

The current subsidy is aimed at kick starting the installation of PV arrays
on domestic roofs and does not reflect real costs of electricity generation.

The cost of materials and installation is expected to fall over the years,
and the level of subsidy for new installations is expected to fall to
reflect this.

The trick is to catch the point where you get the most subsidy for the least
installation cost (which could be now).

[I so far haven't seen any mention of warranty, insurance backed or
otherwise.]

To digress a little:

The underlying issue with this type of "green" energy generation is that it
feeds directly into the grid but cannot be guaranteed to be available on
demand - so you still have to size your main generating plant to cope with
the overcast freezing days in the middle of winter when there is no wind. So
you don't save anything on capital outlay on mainstream generating plant,
just ease peak load on sunny windy days.

If there was a system where you stored all the energy you generated so it
was available when the power source was not available then this would make a
real impact on the overall power network. It would also make it much easier
to live "off grid".

If you got the storage to work so well that individual homes could buffer
the national grid by storing energy overnight and feeding back in during the
day then the whole network could potentially be more efficient, need less
spare capacity, and fully utilise alternative energy sources.

The storage batteries for electric cars have been suggested as the basis for
such a system, but a lot of extra infrastructure seems to be required, plus
much more efficient storage batteries.

So perhaps this is the first stage; get the collection infrastructure up and
running and hope that the storage technology catches up in time.

Certainly we need to do something apart from paying more money and fighting
more wars to try and secure a future supply of petrochemicals.

Despite the recent events in Japan, nuclear energy does seem to be a more
economical source than a distributed solar array with massive batteries.
We shall see.

Cheers

Dave R

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:53:35 -0700, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:


So to sum up what I think I've heard:

The current subsidy is aimed at kick starting the installation of PV arrays
on domestic roofs and does not reflect real costs of electricity generation.

The cost of materials and installation is expected to fall over the years,
and the level of subsidy for new installations is expected to fall to
reflect this.

Costing the Earth on Radio 4 last week was devoted to the "solar gold
rush"

Some wild and unsubstantiated claims about costs of equipment falling
"rapidly" and "faster than any other generation method"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0100grj


--

David WE Roberts wrote:


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
Last time I looked at solar panel threads there was an overwhelming
view that it just didn't make financial sense and the calculations
generally didn't take into account the fact that you had to recover
your capital and the interest on your capital (if you just
saved/invested it) to break even, before you started to make any savings.

Now the recent discussion seems to be more about the immoral use of
the subsidies than about the sums not adding up.

When did this change?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats
about unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government
policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get
some quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going
down this route.

Thanks for all the responses.

So to sum up what I think I've heard:

The current subsidy is aimed at kick starting the installation of PV
arrays on domestic roofs and does not reflect real costs of electricity
generation.

The cost of materials and installation is expected to fall over the
years, and the level of subsidy for new installations is expected to
fall to reflect this.

The trick is to catch the point where you get the most subsidy for the
least installation cost (which could be now).

[I so far haven't seen any mention of warranty, insurance backed or
otherwise.]

To digress a little:

The underlying issue with this type of "green" energy generation is that
it feeds directly into the grid but cannot be guaranteed to be available
on demand - so you still have to size your main generating plant to cope
with the overcast freezing days in the middle of winter when there is no
wind. So you don't save anything on capital outlay on mainstream
generating plant, just ease peak load on sunny windy days.

so far so good.

If there was a system where you stored all the energy you generated so
it was available when the power source was not available then this would
make a real impact on the overall power network. It would also make it
much easier to live "off grid".


yes, but at the very best, you would lose 10% in turnround (lithiumn
barreries) efficiencies, and what happens when your storage gets full?
or empty?

If you got the storage to work so well that individual homes could
buffer the national grid by storing energy overnight and feeding back in
during the day then the whole network could potentially be more
efficient, need less spare capacity, and fully utilise alternative
energy sources.

Nope. the grid still has to be sized for PEAK flows, and the generators
still have to be sized for PEAK flows.

It better with storage, but its still nowhere as ood as good old
fashioned power stations.

and the home, is not where most electricity is used...


The storage batteries for electric cars have been suggested as the basis
for such a system, but a lot of extra infrastructure seems to be
required, plus much more efficient storage batteries.


Plus more lithium than exists in the world for the batteries,.

So perhaps this is the first stage; get the collection infrastructure up
and running and hope that the storage technology catches up in time.


No, the first step its to accept the fact the renewable energy by
reason of the second law of thermodynaics is almost completely useless,
and start thinking again.

Certainly we need to do something apart from paying more money and
fighting more wars to try and secure a future supply of petrochemicals.


Build more nukes then.Safest most reliable power generation there is.

Despite the recent events in Japan, nuclear energy does seem to be a
more economical source than a distributed solar array with massive
batteries.
We shall see.

Of course, thast why they are making all the fuss over fuku. they think
there's another couple of tears of ripoff subsidies if they play their
cards right.



Cheers

Dave R

The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:53:35 -0700, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

So to sum up what I think I've heard:

The current subsidy is aimed at kick starting the installation of PV arrays
on domestic roofs and does not reflect real costs of electricity generation.

The cost of materials and installation is expected to fall over the years,
and the level of subsidy for new installations is expected to fall to
reflect this.

Costing the Earth on Radio 4 last week was devoted to the "solar gold
rush"

Some wild and unsubstantiated claims about costs of equipment falling
"rapidly" and "faster than any other generation method"


well since its currently about 40p a unit, that wouldnt be hard.

It could fall 6p a unit easily.

Nuclear cant fall 6p a unit, because it only costs 6p a unit,!

Typical greenspin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0100grj

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:25:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:53:35 -0700, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

So to sum up what I think I've heard:

The current subsidy is aimed at kick starting the installation of PV arrays
on domestic roofs and does not reflect real costs of electricity generation.

The cost of materials and installation is expected to fall over the years,
and the level of subsidy for new installations is expected to fall to
reflect this.

Costing the Earth on Radio 4 last week was devoted to the "solar gold
rush"

Some wild and unsubstantiated claims about costs of equipment falling
"rapidly" and "faster than any other generation method"


well since its currently about 40p a unit, that wouldnt be hard.

It could fall 6p a unit easily.

Nuclear cant fall 6p a unit, because it only costs 6p a unit,!

Typical greenspin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0100grj

The comment made in the programme were about the capital costs of the
panels, not the outrageous level of subsidy that we fund from UK plc
to enable it to become 'economic' for someone to install them.

Panels have dropped in price over many years but they have approached
a plateau after Chinese got into the business, I can't see the
production and retail cost of current technology panels dropping
significantly regardless of increases in demand and production. You
get a larger impact on prices with currency fluctuations, energy
costs an knee jerk reaction from governments to large schemes than you
do with what will only ever be marginal improvements in production
processes especially when virtually all production facilities, even
offshore ones are engineered by a very limited number of players.


--

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:25:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:53:35 -0700, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

So to sum up what I think I've heard:

The current subsidy is aimed at kick starting the installation of PV arrays
on domestic roofs and does not reflect real costs of electricity generation.

The cost of materials and installation is expected to fall over the years,
and the level of subsidy for new installations is expected to fall to
reflect this.
Costing the Earth on Radio 4 last week was devoted to the "solar gold
rush"

Some wild and unsubstantiated claims about costs of equipment falling
"rapidly" and "faster than any other generation method"

well since its currently about 40p a unit, that wouldnt be hard.

It could fall 6p a unit easily.

Nuclear cant fall 6p a unit, because it only costs 6p a unit,!

Typical greenspin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0100grj

The comment made in the programme were about the capital costs of the
panels, not the outrageous level of subsidy that we fund from UK plc
to enable it to become 'economic' for someone to install them.

Panels have dropped in price over many years but they have approached
a plateau after Chinese got into the business, I can't see the
production and retail cost of current technology panels dropping
significantly regardless of increases in demand and production. You
get a larger impact on prices with currency fluctuations, energy
costs an knee jerk reaction from governments to large schemes than you
do with what will only ever be marginal improvements in production
processes especially when virtually all production facilities, even
offshore ones are engineered by a very limited number of players.


You only need look at the price of LCD panels per square meter to have
an idea of the limits of silicon and other style fab plants.

About 8 years ago I was involved in financial analysis of LCD fab..no
fab plant had at that time even paid for its construction, let alone
produced any returns, and LCDs are produced in huge quantities.

Remember when a windpower or PV company talks about capital cost per KW,
they mean capital cost of the bare unit, of PEAK CAPACITY, not average
capacity, not installed cost, nor maintenance, nor connection, nor
balancing costs, amortised over a relatively short lifespan.

That's why you get the headline 'really competitive costs' AND the need
for massive subsidies.

On Apr 14, 12:24*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
Last time I looked at solar panel threads there was an overwhelming
view that it just didn't make financial sense and the calculations
generally didn't take into account the fact that you had to recover
your capital and the interest on your capital (if you just
saved/invested it) to break even, before you started to make any savings.

Now the recent discussion seems to be more about the immoral use of
the subsidies than about the sums not adding up.

When did this change?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats
about unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government
policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get
some quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going
down this route.

Thanks for all the responses.

So to sum up what I think I've heard:

The current subsidy is aimed at kick starting the installation of PV
arrays on domestic roofs and does not reflect real costs of electricity
generation.

The cost of materials and installation is expected to fall over the
years, and the level of subsidy for new installations is expected to
fall to reflect this.

The trick is to catch the point where you get the most subsidy for the
least installation cost (which could be now).

[I so far haven't seen any mention of warranty, insurance backed or
otherwise.]

To digress a little:

The underlying issue with this type of "green" energy generation is that
it feeds directly into the grid but cannot be guaranteed to be available
on demand - so you still have to size your main generating plant to cope
with the overcast freezing days in the middle of winter when there is no
wind. So you don't save anything on capital outlay on mainstream
generating plant, just ease peak load on sunny windy days.

so far so good.

If there was a system where you stored all the energy you generated so
it was available when the power source was not available then this would
make a real impact on the overall power network. It would also make it
much easier to live "off grid".

yes, but at the very best, you would lose 10% in turnround (lithiumn
barreries) efficiencies, and what happens when your storage gets full?
or empty?

If you got the storage to work so well that individual homes could
buffer the national grid by storing energy overnight and feeding back in
during the day then the whole network could potentially be more
efficient, need less spare capacity, and fully utilise alternative
energy sources.

Nope. the grid still has to be sized for PEAK flows, and the generators
still have to be sized for PEAK flows.

It better with storage, but its still nowhere as ood as good old
fashioned power stations.

and the home, is not where most electricity is used...

The storage batteries for electric cars have been suggested as the basis
for such a system, but a lot of extra infrastructure seems to be
required, plus much more efficient storage batteries.

Plus more lithium than exists in the world for the batteries,.

So perhaps this is the first stage; get the collection infrastructure up
and running and hope that the storage technology catches up in time.

No, the first step its to accept the fact the renewable energy *by
reason of the second law of thermodynaics is almost completely useless,
and start thinking again.

Certainly we need to do something apart from paying more money and
fighting more wars to try and secure a future supply of petrochemicals.

Build more nukes then.Safest most reliable power generation there is.

Has anyone made "petrol" from the H and C that occur in the air and
sea? If so how efficient is the process? Is it feasible/worthwhile to
do it with cheap nuclear power to produce a readily stored and
transportable fuel for vehicles? Could it be done with wind and other
"renewable" sources to buffer the variability in supply?

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:24 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
Last time I looked at solar panel threads there was an overwhelming
view that it just didn't make financial sense and the calculations
generally didn't take into account the fact that you had to recover
your capital and the interest on your capital (if you just
saved/invested it) to break even, before you started to make any savings.
Now the recent discussion seems to be more about the immoral use of
the subsidies than about the sums not adding up.
When did this change?
Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats
about unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government
policy?
Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get
some quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going
down this route.
Thanks for all the responses.
So to sum up what I think I've heard:
The current subsidy is aimed at kick starting the installation of PV
arrays on domestic roofs and does not reflect real costs of electricity
generation.
The cost of materials and installation is expected to fall over the
years, and the level of subsidy for new installations is expected to
fall to reflect this.
The trick is to catch the point where you get the most subsidy for the
least installation cost (which could be now).
[I so far haven't seen any mention of warranty, insurance backed or
otherwise.]
To digress a little:
The underlying issue with this type of "green" energy generation is that
it feeds directly into the grid but cannot be guaranteed to be available
on demand - so you still have to size your main generating plant to cope
with the overcast freezing days in the middle of winter when there is no
wind. So you don't save anything on capital outlay on mainstream
generating plant, just ease peak load on sunny windy days.
so far so good.

If there was a system where you stored all the energy you generated so
it was available when the power source was not available then this would
make a real impact on the overall power network. It would also make it
much easier to live "off grid".
yes, but at the very best, you would lose 10% in turnround (lithiumn
barreries) efficiencies, and what happens when your storage gets full?
or empty?

If you got the storage to work so well that individual homes could
buffer the national grid by storing energy overnight and feeding back in
during the day then the whole network could potentially be more
efficient, need less spare capacity, and fully utilise alternative
energy sources.
Nope. the grid still has to be sized for PEAK flows, and the generators
still have to be sized for PEAK flows.

It better with storage, but its still nowhere as ood as good old
fashioned power stations.

and the home, is not where most electricity is used...

The storage batteries for electric cars have been suggested as the basis
for such a system, but a lot of extra infrastructure seems to be
required, plus much more efficient storage batteries.
Plus more lithium than exists in the world for the batteries,.

So perhaps this is the first stage; get the collection infrastructure up
and running and hope that the storage technology catches up in time.
No, the first step its to accept the fact the renewable energy by
reason of the second law of thermodynaics is almost completely useless,
and start thinking again.

Certainly we need to do something apart from paying more money and
fighting more wars to try and secure a future supply of petrochemicals.
Build more nukes then.Safest most reliable power generation there is.

Has anyone made "petrol" from the H and C that occur in the air and
sea?

Yes.

If so how efficient is the process?

about 0.1%, and it takes 5 million years :-)

Seriously its doable, but the easiest synthesis these days is typically
rape crop- biodiesel. Or IIRC corn-ethanol Those are about 0.1% - 1%
efficient and don't take 5 million years :-)


Direct synthesis is possible, but its pretty inefficient. Even more so
if couled to an intermittent power source.



Is it feasible/worthwhile to
do it with cheap nuclear power to produce a readily stored and
transportable fuel for vehicles?

Its feasible, but not yet worthwhile.

Could it be done with wind and other
"renewable" sources to buffer the variability in supply?


No. Not reaistically.

Any industrial plant needs to run at capacity to generate a payback. If
the power fluctuates, its not doing that, and it becomes inefficient in
terms of materials and capital cost, and usually cycle efficiency as well.

The problem of intermittency cannot be solved except with more
intermittent plant. Two wrongs make an even worse wrong.



MBQ

John Rumm wrote:
On 15/04/2011 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Seriously its doable, but the easiest synthesis these days is typically
rape crop- biodiesel. Or IIRC corn-ethanol Those are about 0.1% - 1%
efficient and don't take 5 million years :-)

There is also a place in the US that makes ethanol from waste wood,
which seemed quite interesting...


methanol more likely = 'wood alcohol'
If you go back to the re industrial age, lots of plant materials used
as chemical feedstocks. Turpentine, creosote..methanol..all wood products.

Cotton is a great cellulose feedstock.

Ethanol form starches,

The the coal industry..coal tar, coal gas, and lots of phenolics like
IIRC bakelite.

Then the oil age - plastics and other polymers, like epoxies

Its all POSSIBLE, the issues are all about costs and energy efficiencies.

"Man at B&Q" wrote:
[snip]

Has anyone made "petrol" from the H and C that occur in the air and
sea?

Yes, every single oil company that operates a refinery. Every drop of oil
came from carbon and hydrogen present in atmospheric gases and water.

If so how efficient is the process?

As efficient as it can be made. Wasted energy = wasted profit.

Is it feasible/worthwhile to
do it with cheap nuclear power to produce a readily stored and
transportable fuel for vehicles?

Not really. Used in the manner you describe oil products cease to be fuel
and become an energy transport medium.

It would be better to grow Cyanobacteria using fusion power (from the sun)
than to use other energy sources on earth. More efficient and reserves
nuclear etc for applications where it is needed.

Could it be done with wind and other
"renewable" sources to buffer the variability in supply?

As above.

On Apr 15, 12:29*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:


Has anyone made "petrol" from the H and C that occur in the air and
sea?

Yes.

If so how efficient is the process?

about 0.1%, and it takes 5 million years :-)

Seriously its doable, but the easiest synthesis these days is typically
rape crop- biodiesel.

Yes, but I object to using potential crop growing land in 3rd world
countries to feed the 1st worlds thirst for fuel.

MBQ

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 15/04/2011 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Seriously its doable, but the easiest synthesis these days is typically
rape crop- biodiesel. Or IIRC corn-ethanol Those are about 0.1% - 1%
efficient and don't take 5 million years :-)

There is also a place in the US that makes ethanol from waste wood,
which seemed quite interesting...

methanol more likely = 'wood alcohol'

Ethanol is quite likely, the Americans add it to petrol (or gasoline):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol..._United_States

AIUI most of that comes from corn syrup, but you can make it from wood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

(Yes, I know you can run engines on methanol too.)

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:29 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

Has anyone made "petrol" from the H and C that occur in the air and
sea?
Yes.

If so how efficient is the process?
about 0.1%, and it takes 5 million years :-)

Seriously its doable, but the easiest synthesis these days is typically
rape crop- biodiesel.

Yes, but I object to using potential crop growing land in 3rd world
countries to feed the 1st worlds thirst for fuel.


I am pretty peeved about the fact that due to German government edicts,
the fields around me can command a higher price for their rapeseed oil
for biodiesel, than they can for either human ingested oil, or cattle
fodder.

But then, post Labour, I suppose we ARE a 3rd world country.

MBQ

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 15/04/2011 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Seriously its doable, but the easiest synthesis these days is typically
rape crop- biodiesel. Or IIRC corn-ethanol Those are about 0.1% - 1%
efficient and don't take 5 million years :-)
There is also a place in the US that makes ethanol from waste wood,
which seemed quite interesting...

methanol more likely = 'wood alcohol'

Ethanol is quite likely, the Americans add it to petrol (or gasoline):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol..._United_States

AIUI most of that comes from corn syrup, but you can make it from wood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

(Yes, I know you can run engines on methanol too.)

Bloody good fuel, if a tad dangerous.

More than one racing driver burnt to death in a methanol fire he simply
didn't know he had..the flames are almost invisible.

Having used it as model aircraft fuel, I can attest to that. Until the
paint starts blistering or your hand gets burnt, you dont know its on fire.

On 15/04/2011 11:51, Man at B&Q wrote:

Has anyone made "petrol" from the H and C that occur in the air and
sea? If so how efficient is the process? Is it feasible/worthwhile to
do it with cheap nuclear power to produce a readily stored and
transportable fuel for vehicles? Could it be done with wind and other
"renewable" sources to buffer the variability in supply?


Hydrogen is the best bet. But as Tim says it needs big tanks, even when
fed to fuel cells not IC engines.

Andy

In article , Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
"Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Apr 14, 12:24*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Build more nukes then.Safest most reliable power generation there is.

Has anyone made "petrol" from the H and C that occur in the air and
sea? If so how efficient is the process? Is it feasible/worthwhile to
do it with cheap nuclear power to produce a readily stored and
transportable fuel for vehicles? Could it be done with wind and other
"renewable" sources to buffer the variability in supply?

Yes. Not efficient enough to be economically viable at present, I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer...ioxide_reu se

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

On 15/04/2011 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Seriously its doable, but the easiest synthesis these days is typically
rape crop- biodiesel. Or IIRC corn-ethanol Those are about 0.1% - 1%
efficient and don't take 5 million years :-)

There is also a place in the US that makes ethanol from waste wood,
which seemed quite interesting...

There's been a pilot plant running for several years, making biodiesel
and other hydrocarbons from general waste, but especially organic waste,
as from chicken/turkey houses, sewage sludge, etc. In short, nearly
anything that can be cooked and pressurised is rendered into useful
fuels.
Last time I read about it was a couple of years ago, but haven't looked
it up since. Shades of Soylent Green.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
dennis@home wrote:

What they need to do is cut off the supplies to the green tariff
users when there isn't any green energy available, then they will
understand the problems they are creating.


Ah a smart meter that cuts the greens off when its cold dark and windless.

Almost worth having.

Or more likely charge a higher rate of tax when the smart meter detects
that someone has just plugged in one of those new-fangled electric cars.

If you use your domestic wiring for a LAN, it ought to be easy for every
device plugged in to be chipped and pass information about itself back
to the meter (and beyond the meter too).

Now, you surely don't think the Lib Dems are pushing smart meters just
so they can make all the meter-readers redundant do you ?.

--
AD