wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:47:29 +0100, Dave N
wrote:

Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.

TNP attended the University of Arse.

Looks like you never made it past the school playground.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:47:29 +0100, Dave N wrote:

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 ...

Er I assumed that the idea of this conversion was to produce a liquid
fuel that would then be burnt. How does that "dispose" of the orginal
C02? The carbon is still fossil in orgin.


well thats an odd one. Actually the carbon comes from supernovae
fragments or rather old starts. Nothing to do with fossils at all.


... and at the same time storage of *some* electrical energy in a
chemical form,

Seems my assumption is correct.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

TNP attended the University of Arse.

Looks like you never made it past the school playground.

I thought you were educated in France.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:07:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

But don't you dare get in my way.

Good. **** off then, and take your tired old cynicism with you.

wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

TNP attended the University of Arse.
Looks like you never made it past the school playground.

I thought you were educated in France.

What ever gave you that idea?

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:07:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

But don't you dare get in my way.

Good. **** off then, and take your tired old cynicism with you.

Remember folks, grimly voted for voluntary euthanasia and going down
with his dreams intact.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message , Dave N
writes
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane

Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2

or even alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?


--
geoff

In message , Dave N
writes

Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy, especially of
someone who implies having undertaken academic research for himself in
the past.

Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly. With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and
respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.


Well, I haven't read it, but then, neither have I been trampled to death
by droves of informed scientists rushing to adopt his ideas




--
geoff

On Apr 14, 11:07*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave N wrote:

* Nobody is suggesting

that conversion efficiency will even be significant, let alone anything
approaching 100%. *Nobody is suggesting that all CO2 captured from power
stations can be converted into alcohol. *I would have thought that was
obvious to most, but apparently it passed by you.

Well since the only reason you COULD have had for mentioning it was that
in fact that was EXACTLY what you thought it would do....yes *it did
pass me by that you would have pointed to someth8ng totally irrelevant
in order not to prove a point you were not after all trying to make when
every indication was that in fact you were.

So you agree that *the energy balance of synthetic *hyrdocarbions makes
them uselsss for either making fuel or indeed fixing CO2 unless you have
a source of such unlimited energy at sucjh a low cost that you no longer
need to burn coal to make te lecetricity at all anyway?

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 and at the same time storage of *some* electrical
energy in a chemical form, then I might have more respect for your
opinions.

Golly. I can convert a teaspoon of CO2 to a teaspoon of petrol by
burning a liter of petrol. Top build a windmill that doesn't work./

Wow.

Perhaps the idea he is simply fishing for a grant, and mentioning the
most popular problem of our time and how his work might just conceivably
be as remotely connected to it as we are to Betelgeuse, was felt to
assist in this matter, did not cross what pasees for your mind?

* Even a small conversion of CO2, if there is temporary excess

energy available on the grid, might be more useful than pumping it down
wells? *Who knows if further development down the years can help Prof..
Liao's ideas evolve with significant efficiencies, perhaps even
approaching those of pumped storage schemes, but isn't it worth asking
the questions? *Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.

better is to not build wind farms and generate excess electricity on the
grid.

All these renewabletard arguments are circular: They START with the
assumption that renewable energy is the answer and want to spend even
more money on trying to make it work, thus proving not that it is the
answer, but that it never ever WAS the ****ing answer.

To people who have teh power of critical thinking. But sometimes I think
thats only 4 people in te entire country.

Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly.

The more open the mind is, the easier it is to full it with bull****, I
find.

* With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and

respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.

Oh that they were unfamiliar. Burt perpetual motion machines and fairies
have been around longer than I have been alive.

Would you consider your mind closed if, perchance, your daughter told
you to drive towards a rainbow, because where it touched the ground
there would be a pot of fairy gold?

Or perhaps you are in deepest Africa, and you notice a man reading a
book to a bunch of tribesmen, and when you get closer, you see the book
is upside down: When challenged he merely replies that you must have a
closed mind, because anyone who can read, can tread a book no matter
which way up it is.

If you are going to place your faith in a particular metaphysic, like
rationalism and science, to solve a given problem, it behooves you to
adhere to its precepts. In short *you cannot have your metaphysical cake
and eat it too.

If you are doing science technology and physics the rules of science
technology and physics apply. Not the rules of fantasy and wish
fulfilment and miraculous Divine intervention.

Power generation is ruled by conversion efficiency and storage issues.
The reason we have a problem - that we cant simply take a 1.5v battery
and create infinite amounts of diesel *- is the reason why we have a
fossil fuel crisis and *a rising CO2 atmospheric component,.expecting it
to SOLVE the problem which is there BECAUSE IT CANT solve the problem,
is - something only a clueless ****** could actually believe was
possible. Even if some green press release hints that it MIGHT be
possible. Its not possible. Period.

Try NOT reading things you DON'T understand *and NOT reading dumbed down
marketing spin that you THINK you understand and start actually learning
some SCIENCE.

I am SURE your mummy respects you and your daddy respects you and your
meeja studdies teecha respects you and you think you deserve some
respect. *And I am sure I have trampled completely over your HuMan Right
To Be Respected For Being a Total Luser, but there you go.

I'm not a human rights lawyer. I am not trying to get a research grant
so I can pratt about with test tubes and bits of wire for another 5
years. I am not trying to rob you blind and sell you a domestic PV
panel, a wind turbine or a spurious government manifesto. I am an
engineer. And no machine I ever built that attempted to break the laws
of nature ever worked.

I am telling you the truth because I don't actually give a flying ****
what you think of me, or even if you believe me or not. If there are
enough people like you who believe that standing on the poop deck of the
titanic praying very hard is a better strategy than getting in a
lifeboat - and preferably one with a diesel engine - then you go your
way and I go mine.

But don't you dare get in my way.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The thing about renewable energy is that the energy source is free.
If you build a coal power station you have to buy coal for eve rmore.
You never know what the price of coal will be.

Yes, it is expensive to build machines to gather renewable energy but
there is no fuel to buy thereafter.

And we can see the economics of nuclear, the Germans have pulled out.
And TurNiP still hasn't explained how to deal with the nuclear waste.

On Apr 14, 11:12*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
TNP attended the University of Arse.

Looks like you never made it past the school playground.

I thought you were educated in France.

He has claimed attendance at Cambridge in the past.
I think he was the janitor there.

On 14/04/2012 23:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[..]

But don't you dare get in my way.

This is not about concepts and discussion, is it? This is only about
your desire to dominate and bully.

--
Dave N

On 15/04/2012 00:02, geoff wrote:
In message , Dave N
writes

Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy, especially of
someone who implies having undertaken academic research for himself in
the past.

Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly. With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and
respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.


Well, I haven't read it, but then, neither have I been trampled to death
by droves of informed scientists rushing to adopt his ideas

Given that the paper was only published on 30 March 2012, why would
anyone expect that? His research findings are obviously tentative and
subject to further thought and peer review, so why would any reasonable
person "rush to adopt his ideas" at this early stage?

That does not, however, preclude discussion of the *potential*
ramifications of his ideas.

--
Dave N

On 14/04/2012 22:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:47:29 +0100, Dave N wrote:

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 ...

Er I assumed that the idea of this conversion was to produce a liquid
fuel that would then be burnt. How does that "dispose" of the orginal
C02? The carbon is still fossil in orgin.

Obviously it doesn't but wouldn't burning recycled carbon be preferable
to mining and extracting new sources of carbon?

... and at the same time storage of *some* electrical energy in a
chemical form,

Seems my assumption is correct.

I think you are missing the point that this potentially offers a means
of storing energy, not locking it up permanently. Re-use of stored
energy is arguably better than burning more and more new sources of
carbon energy, which would add to the total of free carbon dioxide? You
might disagree, but I am only posing the question because I don't know
the answers.

--
Dave N

harry wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Dave N wrote

Nobody is suggesting

that conversion efficiency will even be significant, let alone anything
approaching 100%. Nobody is suggesting that all CO2 captured from
power
stations can be converted into alcohol. I would have thought that was
obvious to most, but apparently it passed by you.

Well since the only reason you COULD have had for mentioning it was that
in fact that was EXACTLY what you thought it would do....yes it did
pass me by that you would have pointed to someth8ng totally irrelevant
in order not to prove a point you were not after all trying to make when
every indication was that in fact you were.

So you agree that the energy balance of synthetic hyrdocarbions makes
them uselsss for either making fuel or indeed fixing CO2 unless you have
a source of such unlimited energy at sucjh a low cost that you no longer
need to burn coal to make te lecetricity at all anyway?

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using
an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 and at the same time storage of *some*
electrical
energy in a chemical form, then I might have more respect for your
opinions.

Golly. I can convert a teaspoon of CO2 to a teaspoon of petrol by
burning a liter of petrol. Top build a windmill that doesn't work./

Wow.

Perhaps the idea he is simply fishing for a grant, and mentioning the
most popular problem of our time and how his work might just conceivably
be as remotely connected to it as we are to Betelgeuse, was felt to
assist in this matter, did not cross what pasees for your mind?

Even a small conversion of CO2, if there is temporary excess

energy available on the grid, might be more useful than pumping it down
wells? Who knows if further development down the years can help Prof.
Liao's ideas evolve with significant efficiencies, perhaps even
approaching those of pumped storage schemes, but isn't it worth asking
the questions? Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.

better is to not build wind farms and generate excess electricity on the
grid.

All these renewabletard arguments are circular: They START with the
assumption that renewable energy is the answer and want to spend even
more money on trying to make it work, thus proving not that it is the
answer, but that it never ever WAS the ****ing answer.

To people who have teh power of critical thinking. But sometimes I think
thats only 4 people in te entire country.

Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly.

The more open the mind is, the easier it is to full it with bull****, I
find.

With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and

respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.

Oh that they were unfamiliar. Burt perpetual motion machines and fairies
have been around longer than I have been alive.

Would you consider your mind closed if, perchance, your daughter told
you to drive towards a rainbow, because where it touched the ground
there would be a pot of fairy gold?

Or perhaps you are in deepest Africa, and you notice a man reading a
book to a bunch of tribesmen, and when you get closer, you see the book
is upside down: When challenged he merely replies that you must have a
closed mind, because anyone who can read, can tread a book no matter
which way up it is.

If you are going to place your faith in a particular metaphysic, like
rationalism and science, to solve a given problem, it behooves you to
adhere to its precepts. In short you cannot have your metaphysical cake
and eat it too.

If you are doing science technology and physics the rules of science
technology and physics apply. Not the rules of fantasy and wish
fulfilment and miraculous Divine intervention.

Power generation is ruled by conversion efficiency and storage issues.
The reason we have a problem - that we cant simply take a 1.5v battery
and create infinite amounts of diesel - is the reason why we have a
fossil fuel crisis and a rising CO2 atmospheric component,.expecting it
to SOLVE the problem which is there BECAUSE IT CANT solve the problem,
is - something only a clueless ****** could actually believe was
possible. Even if some green press release hints that it MIGHT be
possible. Its not possible. Period.

Try NOT reading things you DON'T understand and NOT reading dumbed down
marketing spin that you THINK you understand and start actually learning
some SCIENCE.

I am SURE your mummy respects you and your daddy respects you and your
meeja studdies teecha respects you and you think you deserve some
respect. And I am sure I have trampled completely over your HuMan Right
To Be Respected For Being a Total Luser, but there you go.

I'm not a human rights lawyer. I am not trying to get a research grant
so I can pratt about with test tubes and bits of wire for another 5
years. I am not trying to rob you blind and sell you a domestic PV
panel, a wind turbine or a spurious government manifesto. I am an
engineer. And no machine I ever built that attempted to break the laws
of nature ever worked.

I am telling you the truth because I don't actually give a flying ****
what you think of me, or even if you believe me or not. If there are
enough people like you who believe that standing on the poop deck of the
titanic praying very hard is a better strategy than getting in a
lifeboat - and preferably one with a diesel engine - then you go your
way and I go mine.

But don't you dare get in my way.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The thing about renewable energy is that the energy source is free.

Trouble is that they cant do anything like what a coal fired
power station or a nuke can do reliability and cost per KWH wise.

If you build a coal power station you have to buy coal for eve rmore.

And you don't have to do that with a nuke.

You never know what the price of coal will be.

You do know what the fuel for the nuke will cost.

Yes, it is expensive to build machines to gather renewable energy

And vastly more in fact when you need reliable base load power.

but there is no fuel to buy thereafter.

Nukes are close enough to that.

And we can see the economics of nuclear,

Yep, France has had enough of a clue to go that route and
ended up with power for HALF what its costing the krauts.

the Germans have pulled out.

Not because of the economics they havent.

And no one else has actually been as stupid as the krauts either,
which proves that the krauts didn't do it because of the economics.

China and India have enough of a clue to build lots
of them and havent stopped building more either.

And TurNiP still hasn't explained how to deal with the nuclear waste.

Its reprocessed into more nuke fuel. Ask the frogs, stupid.

harry wrote
wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

TNP attended the University of Arse.

Looks like you never made it past the school playground.

I thought you were educated in France.

He has claimed attendance at Cambridge in the past.
I think he was the janitor there.

They don't have janitors, they only have cleaners.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:02:33 +0100, harry wrote:

On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
TNP attended the University of Arse.

Looks like you never made it past the school playground.

I thought you were educated in France.

He has claimed attendance at Cambridge in the past.

poly?

Jim K

harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:07 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave N wrote:

Nobody is suggesting

that conversion efficiency will even be significant, let alone anything
approaching 100%. Nobody is suggesting that all CO2 captured from power
stations can be converted into alcohol. I would have thought that was
obvious to most, but apparently it passed by you.
Well since the only reason you COULD have had for mentioning it was that
in fact that was EXACTLY what you thought it would do....yes it did
pass me by that you would have pointed to someth8ng totally irrelevant
in order not to prove a point you were not after all trying to make when
every indication was that in fact you were.

So you agree that the energy balance of synthetic hyrdocarbions makes
them uselsss for either making fuel or indeed fixing CO2 unless you have
a source of such unlimited energy at sucjh a low cost that you no longer
need to burn coal to make te lecetricity at all anyway?

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 and at the same time storage of *some* electrical
energy in a chemical form, then I might have more respect for your
opinions.
Golly. I can convert a teaspoon of CO2 to a teaspoon of petrol by
burning a liter of petrol. Top build a windmill that doesn't work./

Wow.

Perhaps the idea he is simply fishing for a grant, and mentioning the
most popular problem of our time and how his work might just conceivably
be as remotely connected to it as we are to Betelgeuse, was felt to
assist in this matter, did not cross what pasees for your mind?

Even a small conversion of CO2, if there is temporary excess

energy available on the grid, might be more useful than pumping it down
wells? Who knows if further development down the years can help Prof.
Liao's ideas evolve with significant efficiencies, perhaps even
approaching those of pumped storage schemes, but isn't it worth asking
the questions? Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.
better is to not build wind farms and generate excess electricity on the
grid.

All these renewabletard arguments are circular: They START with the
assumption that renewable energy is the answer and want to spend even
more money on trying to make it work, thus proving not that it is the
answer, but that it never ever WAS the ****ing answer.

To people who have teh power of critical thinking. But sometimes I think
thats only 4 people in te entire country.

Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly.
The more open the mind is, the easier it is to full it with bull****, I
find.

With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and

respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.
Oh that they were unfamiliar. Burt perpetual motion machines and fairies
have been around longer than I have been alive.

Would you consider your mind closed if, perchance, your daughter told
you to drive towards a rainbow, because where it touched the ground
there would be a pot of fairy gold?

Or perhaps you are in deepest Africa, and you notice a man reading a
book to a bunch of tribesmen, and when you get closer, you see the book
is upside down: When challenged he merely replies that you must have a
closed mind, because anyone who can read, can tread a book no matter
which way up it is.

If you are going to place your faith in a particular metaphysic, like
rationalism and science, to solve a given problem, it behooves you to
adhere to its precepts. In short you cannot have your metaphysical cake
and eat it too.

If you are doing science technology and physics the rules of science
technology and physics apply. Not the rules of fantasy and wish
fulfilment and miraculous Divine intervention.

Power generation is ruled by conversion efficiency and storage issues.
The reason we have a problem - that we cant simply take a 1.5v battery
and create infinite amounts of diesel - is the reason why we have a
fossil fuel crisis and a rising CO2 atmospheric component,.expecting it
to SOLVE the problem which is there BECAUSE IT CANT solve the problem,
is - something only a clueless ****** could actually believe was
possible. Even if some green press release hints that it MIGHT be
possible. Its not possible. Period.

Try NOT reading things you DON'T understand and NOT reading dumbed down
marketing spin that you THINK you understand and start actually learning
some SCIENCE.

I am SURE your mummy respects you and your daddy respects you and your
meeja studdies teecha respects you and you think you deserve some
respect. And I am sure I have trampled completely over your HuMan Right
To Be Respected For Being a Total Luser, but there you go.

I'm not a human rights lawyer. I am not trying to get a research grant
so I can pratt about with test tubes and bits of wire for another 5
years. I am not trying to rob you blind and sell you a domestic PV
panel, a wind turbine or a spurious government manifesto. I am an
engineer. And no machine I ever built that attempted to break the laws
of nature ever worked.

I am telling you the truth because I don't actually give a flying ****
what you think of me, or even if you believe me or not. If there are
enough people like you who believe that standing on the poop deck of the
titanic praying very hard is a better strategy than getting in a
lifeboat - and preferably one with a diesel engine - then you go your
way and I go mine.

But don't you dare get in my way.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The thing about renewable energy is that the energy source is free.

The thing about fossil fuels and uranium is that the coal oil, uranium
and gas are free.

AT THE POINT OF HARVESTING.

Its such utter ******** to talk about that though, that I am NOT
surprised you have chosen to raise that stupid old chestnut again.

What matters is the final cost when delivering a reliable dispatchable
24x7 supply of electricity to the grid.

Since renewable energy can't actually do this *at all*, you might say
its is completely worthless no matter what it costs, and you would be
close to correct.


In reality renewable energy *only* works as part of a complementary fuel
station mix, and the combination, when compared with the fuel
solution alone, is very expensive and barely saves any fuel at all: And
there are many circumstances in which it actually increases fuel burn.

If you had ever run a busines harry, you would know that when you take -
let's stay - on students who will 'work for free; but sometimes stay in
bed all day, and when they do come in need a huge office with lots of
cabling and you simply never know very far in advance when they are
going to take days off, not only are you wasting wires and office space,
both of which don't come free, but you end up having to have expensive
but reliable contract staff on standby in case they dont pitch up, or
simply spend the whole day staring out of the window,..or at the doctors
with yet another minor complaint.

Free they may be in terms of wages, but no one in their right mind would
employ them at all if te government didnt insist, and you certainly dare
not bet the business on them.



If you build a coal power station you have to buy coal for eve rmore.
You never know what the price of coal will be.

Well of course you do know what the price of coal will be.

Or rather I do and power stations operators do. Only harrys on planet
zonk find the concept of supply, demand and labour content of mining and
shipping etc an impossible calculation to do.

And the cost of financing wind farms and PV panel is equally hard to
predict since it is geared literally to prevailing interest rates.

And the cost of repairing them is geared to future labour rates and the
cost of the massive amounts of fossil fuel needed to run the millions of
cars trucks and boats helicopters and cranes needed to service them.

But coal gas and nuclear will always be cheaper than wind or PV power.


Yes, it is expensive to build machines to gather renewable energy but
there is no fuel to buy thereafter.

Uranium contributes less than 0.1p to the cost of a unit of nuclear
electricity harry.

So the same us true of nuclear power, which, unlike renewables , is
generally aup at or near full output 24x7

So you have in the end proved my point which is that no one in their
right minds would pick renewables - its not as reliable as fossil fuel
or nuclear, its more expensive that fossil fuel or nuclear, it causes
more environmental damage than fossil fuel or nuclear, it doesn't
actually replace fossil fuel or nuclear and it costs as much or more to
maintain than fossil fuel or nuclear.

The real contest is between fossil fuel and nuclear. Renewable energy
(hydro and biomass excepted) its simply not an alternative at all.

Its a slick piece of conmanship designed to extract money from the
pockets of stupid people and transfer it to the bosses and shareholders
of Siemens.

And you fell for it hook line and sinker.


And we can see the economics of nuclear, the Germans have pulled out.

And are bnow relying in French nuclear power

I will be switching to EDF's nuclear only tarriff.. it looks like I will
save 20% on my electricity bills.

And TurNiP still hasn't explained how to deal with the nuclear waste.

Burn it as fuel,. bottle it or vitrify it and put it somewhere where
stupid greens wont tamper with it.

harrykins still hasnt explained who is going to pay to decommission all
the wind farms and what to do wit the toxic wast of solar panels when
they finally get torn down. Toxic waste that doesn't even decay, but
will be around forever.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
TNP attended the University of Arse.
Looks like you never made it past the school playground.
I thought you were educated in France.

He has claimed attendance at Cambridge in the past.
I think he was the janitor there.

I didn't claim it harry, I did attend it.

As a student.

And should it ever become important enough (and proving you a lying
**** is not really top of my list of priorities, since you are daily
supplying mire than adequate evidence of that anyway) I can prove it.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Jim K wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:02:33 +0100, harry wrote:

On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
TNP attended the University of Arse.

Looks like you never made it past the school playground.

I thought you were educated in France.

He has claimed attendance at Cambridge in the past.

poly?

No, Trinity college, Cambridge.

Jim K


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article
,
harry wrote:

Yes, it is expensive to build machines to gather renewable energy but
there is no fuel to buy thereafter.

Expensive to build and maintain, and they don't do much. In fact there
are periods when they do next to nothing, as the gridwatch site shows.
Lots of periods of several days when our 8-billyun wind investment,
rated at 4GW, produces less than 200MW. Gonna take a long time to cover
the carbon cost of manufacture, at that rate.

In fact that is a very useful site. I've shown that to several greenies
and green wannabees who think ..if think is the right word.. That it's
been deliberately altered to show that wind power is a poor energy
source which of course they are convinced that it isn't!..

And all we need to do is build sufficient windymills and then the wind
figure will match the ones for coal and gas and nuclear..

When asked just how many windymills that will be they just say as many
as needed.

When asked what happens when there is no wind they say the wind is
always blowing somewhere!..

Scary just very scary;(..


And we can see the economics of nuclear, the Germans have pulled out.

Nothing to do with economics just a stupid politician wanting to remain
in power..

And TurNiP still hasn't explained how to deal with the nuclear waste.

Perhaps you don't understand ..

That's not for *economic* reasons, harry, but *political* ones. And
there's not much to explain about the waste. You've obviously been
nodding off and missed it.


--
Tony Sayer

Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 23:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[..]

But don't you dare get in my way.

This is not about concepts and discussion, is it? This is only about
your desire to dominate and bully.

No, I leave that to you and harry.

It is entirely about the single most relevant issue in the European
political arena today.

Namely that if we fail to make the transition to a sensible energy
strategy, in 15 years time a about half the population of Europe is
likely to die from an energy shortage that will bring a society that is
based absolutely on the use of fossil fuels, to an abrupt end.

It is far more dangerous and more certain to happen than massive climate
change.

Without power, the big cities will last a few weeks.

Renewable energy is not capable of filling that gap: Perhaps you need to
have a deep understanding of how society and technology works to
appreciate that and to appreciate the huge risks we are running. Every
pound spent on solar panels and windmills is a pound wasted twice, once
because its simply useless anyway, and twice because it could have been
spend on something better.

As far as electricity goes, we have only one real viable alternative to
fossil fuels: That is nuclear power. With respect to transport, by and
large we have NO real viable alternatives and that fact alone is terrifying.

Having electricity alone is not enough to stop cities from
disintegrating. There has to be fuel to get supplies in to them and to
dome extend to move people around in them. trains are not the whole
answer nor are battery cars - although they might work reasonably well
in an intra-urban context.


Frankly political machinations to build kit that doesn't work are doing
real and certain damage to our children's future that make the potential
damage that might be done my CO2 (and even that is debatable) pale into
insignificance.

This isn't economic recession damage:this isn't 'a few millisieverts of
radiation damage': This is Black Death damage. 30-70% of the population
dead in a few years span. And the rest fighting with and over what few
supplies of Avjet and diesel there are left. This is the Tottenham
riots that don't end, until all the Tescos shelves are empty, and the
people lie dead in the streets.

Those that don't actually get eaten.

I dot know where you live, but imagine what would happen if the streets
were not safe to go out in, you have no electricity, no fuel in your car
and no gas in the mains and no oil in the tank. Your fridge doesn't
work, and neither does your cooker and there is no water in the taps
and the bog doesn't flush and the sewers have overflowed with stinking
****. All that's left is the Army and a few helicopters shooting looters
on sight. And you have burnt every last piece of Ikea ****e to keep warm
and toast your neighbours body parts on. You think you have cholera or
dysentry and are covered in crap from last time you made it to the
nearest common to take a dump. And the hospitals have no power and no
medicines - that was all looted two weeks ago .

All that stands between us now, and that future is cheap fossil energy.

Or possibly if we pull our fingers out slightly less cheap nuclear
energy. If gas and oil and diesel haven't gotten so expensive that
nuclear is actually cheaper.

Because renewable energy simply cannot fill that gap. I can show you the
calculations why, but you wouldn't understand them. It doesn't matter
that I have an MA in engineering and electrical sciences, because you
just think that's poncey letters on a stupid piece of paper from an
elitist uni. That I probably got into because my parents had money.
(they didn't: I was lucky enough to be educated before Labour destroyed
the ability of people with no money to get a decent education).

Where I live on the other hand, armed with a couple of shotguns and
enough cartridges to fend off the worst of the feral chav population,
and access to farms , a vegetable garden, and livestock and even wild
bunnies and pigeons, plus a working knowledge of basic sanitation and
healthcare, I might just make it.

But realistically I would far rather have a second nuclear power station
at Sizewell.


















--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 22:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:47:29 +0100, Dave N wrote:

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 ...

Er I assumed that the idea of this conversion was to produce a liquid
fuel that would then be burnt. How does that "dispose" of the orginal
C02? The carbon is still fossil in orgin.

Obviously it doesn't but wouldn't burning recycled carbon be preferable
to mining and extracting new sources of carbon?


Not if you have to extract ten times as much carbon and burn it, to
make it in the first place.


... and at the same time storage of *some* electrical energy in a
chemical form,

Seems my assumption is correct.

I think you are missing the point that this potentially offers a means
of storing energy, not locking it up permanently. Re-use of stored
energy is arguably better than burning more and more new sources of
carbon energy, which would add to the total of free carbon dioxide? You
might disagree, but I am only posing the question because I don't know
the answers.


Oh FFS you are missing the point: there are thousands - literally
thousands of ways of storing energy. The problem is that not one single
one is large enough, efficient enough, or cheap enough, to make it
possible for 'civilised urban life' to continue to live on this planet.


Do you REALLY think that competent honest capable engineers and
scientists haven't been evaluating them all?

What ahhpend to the 'hydrogen ecomnomy' Biofuel? Huge spinning
flywheels? Synthetic hydrocarbons? Fuel cells?

The same thing that would have happened to 'renewable energy' if it
hadn't been subsidised to a level that is quite simply scandalous. And
will happen to it when there simply is no money left.


Except one. Its just about possible that nuclear energy storage in the
way of both mined uranium and recycled plutonium and a few other
options, fits the bill. For about 1,000 years, in which the population
doesn't get any bigger and we radically change the way we do things. To
build a new technology infrastructure where (conventional) fuel
efficiency is everything. And base currencies on not gold, or wet
economists' dreams, but kilowatt hours.

Obviously a technology that works and whose problems are in fact soluble
is a technology that must be suppressed.

1000 years should be long enough to create a viable fusion reactor,
which buys us another 10,000 years.

Since fossil fuel itself has only been a major feature in the last 200,
and has allowed a 50 times increase in (UK) population, the other
alternative is to go back to 1-2 million people, horse drawn ploughs and
a feudal society. This seems to be broadly what the Left/Greens are
aiming for.

It would certainly solve unemployment - it takes around 500 people to
harvest a potato field in a day, weed it and hoe it and plant it and
spread dung on it..compared to one man on a tractor every month, for 4
hours..

Now I happen to think that a chance at 10,000 years of civilisation is
better than a *guarantee* of a return to Mediaeval technologies,
population levels, life expectancies and lifestyles.

And less than 0.1% increase in background radiation that probably does
no harm at all to anyone, is actually a really *cheap* price to pay
compared with et death of 90% of the existing population and a 70%
reduction in average life expectancy.

Because that is what you are voting for every time ou vote for
'renewable energy'.

Don't be in denial: greenwash is hogwash.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article
,
harry wrote:

Yes, it is expensive to build machines to gather renewable energy but
there is no fuel to buy thereafter.
Expensive to build and maintain, and they don't do much. In fact there
are periods when they do next to nothing, as the gridwatch site shows.
Lots of periods of several days when our 8-billyun wind investment,
rated at 4GW, produces less than 200MW. Gonna take a long time to cover
the carbon cost of manufacture, at that rate.

In fact that is a very useful site. I've shown that to several greenies
and green wannabees who think ..if think is the right word.. That it's
been deliberately altered to show that wind power is a poor energy
source which of course they are convinced that it isn't!..


which is why there is a link to the BM reports site. Which is government
official type data.

I will admit that embedded 'unmetered' wind probably adds 30-50% on top
of what is shown there. But its not the point: we have about 4.5GW of
metered wind these days IIRC and that site shows what that wind is
really doing. if we say that half of that is onshore and half offshore
the capex is around 10billion. That's enough for a good 3GW of nuclear
power. which at a capacity factor of around 90% would generate and
average of 2.7GW of reliable baseload electricity at around 6-8p a unit.
for around 60 years.

The average electricity delivered to the grid by that investment is
1285.8407270851MW= at best 1.3GW at a price of somewhere in the 10-30p a
unit range. And the lifetime on a turbine is at best 20 years.

At at the most optimistic calculations one can do that has displaced
only the carbon equivalent of 1GW of high efficiency gas power off the
grid.

It hasn't touched high CO2 coal consumption, whereas nuclear is ideal
for displacing coal altogether.

we burnt more coal than gas since the site has been up and running. Wind
is actually increasing coal burn..gas cant make a profit any more and is
being shut down except when there is a high electricity price to sell into.

So the net effect of wind seems to have been to displace about 1/3rd as
much fossil fuel (at best) off the grid, and that's been the most clean
and efficient fuel - gas - as nuclear would have, which is the ideal
replacement for not just coal, but actual coal power stations themselves.

We have essentially ****ed money away on something that doesn't work.

And all we need to do is build sufficient windymills and then the wind
figure will match the ones for coal and gas and nuclear..

When asked just how many windymills that will be they just say as many
as needed.

When asked what happens when there is no wind they say the wind is
always blowing somewhere!..


so it is, but you just need to look at the French interconector graph.
That interconnector which is only 2GW has only been able to deliver 2GW
over three months of the year so far. Its now back down to 1GW till May.

Likewise the Moyle link to N Ireland was dead for three months over te
winter.

The cost of the 1GW britned link was around £0,6bn IIRC. And that's a
short one. Now imagine the sort of link to say - india - whech is the
part of the world where the wind will be blowing whem it aint blowing
over N Europe. Capable of feeding the ENTIRE continent of Europe!!!

"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away"



Scary just very scary;(..


terrifying.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:51:09 +0100, Dave N wrote:

Er I assumed that the idea of this conversion was to produce a
liquid
fuel that would then be burnt. How does that "dispose" of the
orginal
C02? The carbon is still fossil in orgin.

Obviously it doesn't but wouldn't burning recycled carbon be preferable
to mining and extracting new sources of carbon?

Provided that the energy required for this caputure didn't require
any more fossil (would TNP prefer "ancient"?) carbon to be released.
There is so much spin and distorion of the facts in this area that
one has to be very careful in the choice of words used. "Dipose"
carries implications that the problem has been safely solved, it
hasn't by any measure.

Re-use of stored energy is arguably better than burning more and more
new sources of carbon energy, which would add to the total of free
carbon dioxide?

Depends on where that carbon energy is sourced from. Fossil/ancient
sources releases carbon that has been stored for millions of years.
Biomass releases carbon that was taken from the atmosphere in the
last few tens of years or even shorter. The latter has the potential
to become a carbon cycle, like the water cycle.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:26:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Without power, the big cities will last a few weeks.

You give them that long? Pull the plug and I reckon there would be
open revolt, riots and looting well within 24hrs. If it wasn't such a
serious situation it would be interesting to see what people looted,
plasma tellies or nonperishable food, I know what I'd be after.

Of course the plug won't just be pulled. The markets will force
prices up, more and more will end up in fuel poverty, rolling/rota'd
power cuts will start, some demonstrations, moving slowly
(weeks/months) into out and out civil unrest.

The writing is on the wall for those that can read and care to look.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:54:58 +0100, geoff wrote:

Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2

Overall?

Yes it has a more powerful effect but doesn't last as long in the
atmosphere.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:26:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

would you call this a manic or depressive epsiode?

Jim K

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:51:09 +0100, Dave N wrote:

Er I assumed that the idea of this conversion was to produce a
liquid
fuel that would then be burnt. How does that "dispose" of the
orginal
C02? The carbon is still fossil in orgin.
Obviously it doesn't but wouldn't burning recycled carbon be preferable
to mining and extracting new sources of carbon?

Provided that the energy required for this caputure didn't require
any more fossil (would TNP prefer "ancient"?) carbon to be released.
There is so much spin and distorion of the facts in this area that
one has to be very careful in the choice of words used. "Dipose"
carries implications that the problem has been safely solved, it
hasn't by any measure.

Re-use of stored energy is arguably better than burning more and more
new sources of carbon energy, which would add to the total of free
carbon dioxide?

Depends on where that carbon energy is sourced from. Fossil/ancient
sources releases carbon that has been stored for millions of years.
Biomass releases carbon that was taken from the atmosphere in the
last few tens of years or even shorter. The latter has the potential
to become a carbon cycle, like the water cycle.

well of course you only need to look at blue-green algae to realise how
piffling fossil carbon burn is.

The guardian reckons 30 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year from fossil sources.
wiki says that "Living biomass holds about 575 gigatons of carbon, most
of which is wood. Soils hold approximately 1,500 gigatons,[4] mostly in
the form of organic carbon, with perhaps a third of that inorganic forms
of carbon such as calcium carbonate."

and

"The rate of energy capture by photosynthesis is immense, approximately
100 terawatts,[3] which is about six times larger than the power
consumption of human civilization.[4"

"photosynthetic organisms convert around 100€“115 petagrams (gigatonnes)
of carbon into biomass per year.[5][6]"

So a mere 30% increase in biological photosynthesis would be enough to
sweep all the human CO2 back into the organic matrix..to make
ultimately 'more fossil fuel'


Just bubble CO2 from powerstations into et see and let blue green algae
work.

The sea is a massively better construction than anything man made when
it comes to sweeping up CO2.


As is planting crappy scrubland with crappy trees.

The worst thing you can do is build more affordable housing, patios,
decking and solar panel farms which destroy significant parts of the
land for growing any vegetation.

Probably deforestation is far more dangerous than fossil fuels




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:54:58 +0100, geoff wrote:

Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2

Overall?

Yes it has a more powerful effect but doesn't last as long in the
atmosphere.

it gets oxidised to CO2. :-)


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:26:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Without power, the big cities will last a few weeks.

You give them that long? Pull the plug and I reckon there would be
open revolt, riots and looting well within 24hrs. If it wasn't such a
serious situation it would be interesting to see what people looted,
plasma tellies or nonperishable food, I know what I'd be after.


history suggests that law an order breaks down in hours yes, but people
do not die immediately. Stuff does keep working a bit longer than that,
and a small proportion of vicious feral cannibal hunter gatherers will
survive a long time.


Of course the plug won't just be pulled. The markets will force
prices up, more and more will end up in fuel poverty, rolling/rota'd
power cuts will start, some demonstrations, moving slowly
(weeks/months) into out and out civil unrest.


No one will pull any plugs: what happens though is a vicious cycle of
positive feedback where as more and more stuff works less and less, the
ability to keep the rest going is compromised.

In the end there is nothing to plug into.


The writing is on the wall for those that can read and care to look.

No one does. All in denial.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Jim K wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:26:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

would you call this a manic or depressive epsiode?

Both :-)

Just because you feel mad and depressed, doesn't mean the world isn't
mad and depressed.

And doesn't make you wrong either.

When a leading light of the global warming policy foundation no less,
gets to utter this

"In a speech to a group of prominent business leaders, the previous
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change gave an extended
soliloquy on his vision of greener growth for the UK €“ Huhne (2011).
Nothing could better illustrate the gap between do-it-yourself economics
and the realities highlighted by concrete economic analysis as presented
in this paper. In Mr. Huhnes world all investment that comes under the
category of greener growth is a good thing, irrespective of whether it
generates adequate returns on capital that has to be diverted from other
uses, or whether it reduces emissions of CO2 in practice.

The casual assumption that expenditures on green technology represent an
efficient and economic use of scarce resources is little more than a
convenient fairy tale for troubled times."

(http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/hughes-windpower.pdf)

it doesn't make me feel less depressed, but its does slightly make me
feel justified...

more

"The total consumer bill for wind subsidies by 2030 is estimated to
amount to a staggering £130 billion"

That is enough to build enough nuclear power for ALL our electricity
needs bar a few top up gas CCGT that we have already.And enough left
over to sort out sellafield and the grid as well.

Not a flaky 30% of generation by 'renewables' That Huhges reckons will
knock about 5% off our CO2 emissions in electrical generation ONLY IIRC.


"In fact, the full consequences of promoting wind generation are yet
more complicated and self-defeating. By reducing revenues for base load
and mid-merit generation when wind is available, wind generation reduces
the incentive to invest in other sources of base load generation €“
particularly nuclear power or coal with carbon capture & storage (CCS).
Thus, investment in wind power will tend, in the main, to displace
investment in nuclear power rather than gas plants. Indeed, with more
intermittent wind power and less dispatchable nuclear power it will be
necessary to rely more upon either coal or - more likely - gas plants to
supply both base load power when wind is not available plus mid-merit
and peak generation at all times. The irony is that the promotion of
intermittent types of renewable generation may increase rather than
decrease total CO2 emissions relative to what they would have been if
markets had been encouraged to reduce CO2 emissions in the most
cost-effective manner €“ see section 6 below."

and so on.

Or the AF Mercator report

"Without carbon dioxide reduction targets there would be no
renewable or new nuclear. This
illustrates the obvious point
that carbon credits or other government policies are
required to achieve power generation that is less carbon
intensive.

If our only policy driver is to reduce carbon emissions, then
the lowest cost way of meeting our
emissions targets requires a mixture of gas and nuclear new build. Coal
has no place in this least cost scenario €“ because of its emissions. Nor
has wind, either onshore or offshore €“ because of its additional cost.
To meet the UK's targets
does require some offsetting by carbon capture and storage. This is a
technology that is still in its infancy and is unproven.

It is only when we require renewables *for their own sake* €“ and not
only to reduce carbon emissions €“ that wind, both offshore and onshore,
becomes part of the generation mix.

Even in this scenario solar power has no role because of its additional
cost.

These are interesting conclusions. If we are concerned about cost, then
renewables have no part to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
80% before 2050.Rather it is gas and nuclear alone that creates the cost
mix."

(http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Powerful_Targets.pdf)

In other words there is no economic or carbon reduction reason to have
any renewable energy whatsoever. It is there for entirely political reasons.

I agree 95% with both thee reports. My biggest beef is with the Mercator
report which is frankly too mild in its criticism of this political
inanity and economic suicide, also I think their cost for nuclear are
too high, and for the non nuclear and especially the renewable energy
elements, far too low. The hughes report sets out the reasons why the
more wind you have the less you can use all of it and the more expensive
it gets. And when its seen for the total disaster it is, thats going to
make gas and coal go through the roof..


Meanwhile the PM has popped down to B & Q to buy a 1000 mile extension
cable to plug into geothermal plants in iceland that dont exist and we
wouldn't own or control anyway.

Whilst Samantha's dad keeps himself in caviar and vintage champagne the
serfs and peasants on his estate stay awake at might to the sound of
monstrous money-spinners profiting off the backs of poor electricity
consumers.


I am not mad. I am ****ING FURIOUS.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Apr 15, 7:51*am, Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 22:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:47:29 +0100, Dave N wrote:

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 ...

Er I assumed that the idea of this conversion was to produce a liquid
fuel that would then be burnt. How does that "dispose" of the orginal
C02? The carbon is still fossil in orgin.

Obviously it doesn't but wouldn't burning recycled carbon be preferable
to mining and extracting new sources of carbon?

... and at the same time storage of *some* electrical energy in a
chemical form,

Seems my assumption is correct.

I think you are missing the point that this potentially offers a means
of storing energy, not locking it up permanently. *Re-use of stored
energy is arguably better than burning more and more new sources of
carbon energy, which would add to the total of free carbon dioxide? *You
might disagree, but I am only posing the question because I don't know
the answers.

--
Dave N


How do you "re-use energy"?

On Apr 15, 8:36*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
harry wrote





The Natural Philosopher wrote
Dave N wrote
* Nobody is suggesting

that conversion efficiency will even be significant, let alone anything
approaching 100%. *Nobody is suggesting that all CO2 captured from
power
stations can be converted into alcohol. *I would have thought that was
obvious to most, but apparently it passed by you.

Well since the only reason you COULD have had for mentioning it was that
in fact that was EXACTLY what you thought it would do....yes *it did
pass me by that you would have pointed to someth8ng totally irrelevant
in order not to prove a point you were not after all trying to make when
every indication was that in fact you were.

So you agree that *the energy balance of synthetic *hyrdocarbions makes
them uselsss for either making fuel or indeed fixing CO2 unless you have
a source of such unlimited energy at sucjh a low cost that you no longer
need to burn coal to make te lecetricity at all anyway?

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using
an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 and at the same time storage of *some*
electrical
energy in a chemical form, then I might have more respect for your
opinions.

Golly. I can convert a teaspoon of CO2 to a teaspoon of petrol by
burning a liter of petrol. Top build a windmill that doesn't work./

Wow.

Perhaps the idea he is simply fishing for a grant, and mentioning the
most popular problem of our time and how his work might just conceivably
be as remotely connected to it as we are to Betelgeuse, was felt to
assist in this matter, did not cross what pasees for your mind?

* Even a small conversion of CO2, if there is temporary excess

energy available on the grid, might be more useful than pumping it down
wells? *Who knows if further development down the years can help Prof.
Liao's ideas evolve with significant efficiencies, perhaps even
approaching those of pumped storage schemes, but isn't it worth asking
the questions? *Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.

better is to not build wind farms and generate excess electricity on the
grid.

All these renewabletard arguments are circular: They START with the
assumption that renewable energy is the answer and want to spend even
more money on trying to make it work, thus proving not that it is the
answer, but that it never ever WAS the ****ing answer.

To people who have teh power of critical thinking. But sometimes I think
thats only 4 people in te entire country.

Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly.

The more open the mind is, the easier it is to full it with bull****, I
find.

* With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and

respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.

Oh that they were unfamiliar. Burt perpetual motion machines and fairies
have been around longer than I have been alive.

Would you consider your mind closed if, perchance, your daughter told
you to drive towards a rainbow, because where it touched the ground
there would be a pot of fairy gold?

Or perhaps you are in deepest Africa, and you notice a man reading a
book to a bunch of tribesmen, and when you get closer, you see the book
is upside down: When challenged he merely replies that you must have a
closed mind, because anyone who can read, can tread a book no matter
which way up it is.

If you are going to place your faith in a particular metaphysic, like
rationalism and science, to solve a given problem, it behooves you to
adhere to its precepts. In short *you cannot have your metaphysical cake
and eat it too.

If you are doing science technology and physics the rules of science
technology and physics apply. Not the rules of fantasy and wish
fulfilment and miraculous Divine intervention.

Power generation is ruled by conversion efficiency and storage issues.
The reason we have a problem - that we cant simply take a 1.5v battery
and create infinite amounts of diesel *- is the reason why we have a
fossil fuel crisis and *a rising CO2 atmospheric component,.expecting it
to SOLVE the problem which is there BECAUSE IT CANT solve the problem,
is - something only a clueless ****** could actually believe was
possible. Even if some green press release hints that it MIGHT be
possible. Its not possible. Period.

Try NOT reading things you DON'T understand *and NOT reading dumbed down
marketing spin that you THINK you understand and start actually learning
some SCIENCE.

I am SURE your mummy respects you and your daddy respects you and your
meeja studdies teecha respects you and you think you deserve some
respect. *And I am sure I have trampled completely over your HuMan Right
To Be Respected For Being a Total Luser, but there you go.

I'm not a human rights lawyer. I am not trying to get a research grant
so I can pratt about with test tubes and bits of wire for another 5
years. I am not trying to rob you blind and sell you a domestic PV
panel, a wind turbine or a spurious government manifesto. I am an
engineer. And no machine I ever built that attempted to break the laws
of nature ever worked.

I am telling you the truth because I don't actually give a flying ****
what you think of me, or even if you believe me or not. If there are
enough people like you who believe that standing on the poop deck of the
titanic praying very hard is a better strategy than getting in a
lifeboat - and preferably one with a diesel engine - then you go your
way and I go mine.

But don't you dare get in my way.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
The thing about renewable energy is that the energy source is free.

Trouble is that they cant do anything like what a coal fired
power station or a nuke can do reliability and cost per KWH wise.

If you build a coal power station you have to buy coal for eve rmore.

And you don't have to do that with a nuke.

You never know what the price of coal will be.

You do know what the fuel for the nuke will cost.

Yes, it is expensive to build machines to gather renewable energy

And vastly more in fact when you need reliable base load power.

but there is no fuel to buy thereafter.

Nukes are close enough to that.

And we can see the economics of nuclear,

Yep, France has had enough of a clue to go that route and
ended up with power for HALF what its costing the krauts.

the Germans have pulled out.

Not because of the economics they havent.

And no one else has actually been as stupid as the krauts either,
which proves that the krauts didn't do it because of the economics.

China and India have enough of a clue to build lots
of them and havent stopped building more either.

And TurNiP still hasn't explained how to deal with the nuclear waste.

Its reprocessed into more nuke fuel. Ask the frogs, stupid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We reprocess it in this country stupid for half the world. There is
still a lot of waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

Nuclear power stations are refuelled.

On Apr 15, 9:07*am, "Jim K" wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:02:33 +0100, harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
TNP attended the University of Arse.

Looks like you never made it past the school playground.

I thought you were educated in France.

He has claimed attendance at Cambridge in the past.

poly?

Jim K

Dunno.

On Apr 15, 10:03*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
Yes, it is expensive to build machines to gather renewable energy but
there is no fuel to buy thereafter.

Expensive to build and maintain, and they don't do much. In fact there
are periods when they do next to nothing, as the gridwatch site shows.
Lots of periods of several days when our 8-billyun wind investment,
rated at 4GW, produces less than 200MW. Gonna take a long time to cover
the carbon cost of manufacture, at that rate.

And we can see the economics of nuclear, the Germans have pulled out.
And TurNiP still hasn't explained how to deal with the nuclear waste.

That's not for *economic* reasons, harry, but *political* ones. And
there's not much to explain about the waste. You've obviously been
nodding off and missed it.

--
Oh? so why isn't it being dealt with?

On Apr 15, 10:52*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
TNP attended the University of Arse.
Looks like you never made it past the school playground.
I thought you were educated in France.

He has claimed attendance at Cambridge in the past.
I think he was the janitor there.

I didn't claim it harry, I did attend it.

As a student.

And should it ever become important *enough (and proving you a lying
**** is not really top of my list of priorities, since you are daily
supplying mire than adequate evidence of that anyway) I can prove it.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Why are you so stupid then? Or did you fail? Have standardsf allen
so far?

On Apr 15, 12:52*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:26:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Without power, the big cities will last a few weeks.

You give them that long? Pull the plug and I reckon there would be
open revolt, riots and looting well within 24hrs. If it wasn't such a
serious situation it would be interesting to see what people looted,
plasma tellies or nonperishable food, I know what I'd be after.

Of course the plug won't just be pulled. The markets will force
prices up, more and more will end up in fuel poverty, rolling/rota'd
power cuts will start, some demonstrations, moving slowly
(weeks/months) into out and out civil unrest.

The writing is on the wall for those that can read and care to look.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Yes, you're right. In a few hours there would be no water, gas,
petrol, food,TV radio. Plenty of sewage (running down the streets).
But it could be sudden. Just takes a cold spell and a few grid
problems.

harry wrote:
On Apr 15, 10:03 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
Yes, it is expensive to build machines to gather renewable energy but
there is no fuel to buy thereafter.
Expensive to build and maintain, and they don't do much. In fact there
are periods when they do next to nothing, as the gridwatch site shows.
Lots of periods of several days when our 8-billyun wind investment,
rated at 4GW, produces less than 200MW. Gonna take a long time to cover
the carbon cost of manufacture, at that rate.

And we can see the economics of nuclear, the Germans have pulled out.
And TurNiP still hasn't explained how to deal with the nuclear waste.
That's not for *economic* reasons, harry, but *political* ones. And
there's not much to explain about the waste. You've obviously been
nodding off and missed it.

--
Oh? so why isn't it being dealt with?

Because nuclear energy means

- cheap energy - lower taxes
- carbon free energy - no more political fun to be had.
- an end to renewable energy - so an end to windmills, PBV panels, fat
research grants into carbon capture, alternative storage technologies
and a million other things that might JUST work on the planet zarg, and
look promising enough to fool people with no technical background into
giving them money... and a whole industry dedicated to lying about
energy for money. And an end to green jobs and Miriam clegg's company
and Camorons daddy in laws fat income stream.

So by endless prevarication, and lying about energy as usual, they can
keep their jobs and salaries and screw the ****ry(* some more.

* its called a ****ry because its suitable for endless screwing by a
bunch of dicks.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

harry wrote:
On Apr 15, 10:52 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
TNP attended the University of Arse.
Looks like you never made it past the school playground.
I thought you were educated in France.
He has claimed attendance at Cambridge in the past.
I think he was the janitor there.
I didn't claim it harry, I did attend it.

As a student.

And should it ever become important enough (and proving you a lying
**** is not really top of my list of priorities, since you are daily
supplying mire than adequate evidence of that anyway) I can prove it.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Why are you so stupid then? Or did you fail? Have standardsf allen
so far?

Harry, stupid people cannot recognise intelligence: to them its all just
opinion, and they go with whatever 'everyone else' in their pathetic
little peer group is saying.

So you wont be able to recognise whether I am intelligent or not harry.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:51:09 +0100, Dave N wrote:

Er I assumed that the idea of this conversion was to produce a
liquid
fuel that would then be burnt. How does that "dispose" of the
orginal
C02? The carbon is still fossil in orgin.

Obviously it doesn't but wouldn't burning recycled carbon be preferable
to mining and extracting new sources of carbon?

Provided that the energy required for this caputure didn't require
any more fossil (would TNP prefer "ancient"?) carbon to be released.
There is so much spin and distorion of the facts in this area that
one has to be very careful in the choice of words used. "Dipose"
carries implications that the problem has been safely solved, it
hasn't by any measure.

Re-use of stored energy is arguably better than burning more and more
new sources of carbon energy, which would add to the total of free
carbon dioxide?

Depends on where that carbon energy is sourced from. Fossil/ancient
sources releases carbon that has been stored for millions of years.
Biomass releases carbon that was taken from the atmosphere in the
last few tens of years or even shorter. The latter has the potential
to become a carbon cycle, like the water cycle.

So, how much realistically easily extractable uranium do we have
How many years of economically viable extraction?

What's the carbon footprint of extraction?


--
geoff