In message
,
harry writes
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.

Its OK Harry - we're all going to make our way to the borders and come
and give you a visit


--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Dave N wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

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.

Mindlessly silly. The most that might well happen is that some
countrys that are too stupid to use nukes end up having to buy
the power from places with a clue on nukes like France which will
certainly have enough of a clue to keep building more nukes and
flogging the power from them to those too stupid to build nukes
or even stupid enough to scrap the nukes they already have.

But its MUCH more likely that those countrys actually stupid enough
to refuse to build any more nukes will see their power costs MUCH
more expensive than those with enough of a clue to use nukes and
so even those countrys will have enough of a clue to either buy the
power from the countrys that do have a clue on nukes, and likely
even reverse the terminally stupid decision by a few fools stupid
enough to propose scrapping what nukes they do have, when those
fools get flushed by the voters at the ballot box that they deserve.

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

Not on that silly deaths claim while ever some countrys
have enough of a clue to keep using and building nukes.

And it wont produce much in the way of deaths anyway.

Even if the power isnt available, the worst you have to do is huddle
under an electric blanket and ban the use of other electrical
heating appliances while the cold snap lasts to avoid that.

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

They are never going to be without power.

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.

But wont see big citys lasting only a few weeks, thats mindless
hyperventilation.

The most that might happen is industry ordered to shut down during cold
snaps and that seeing stupid decisions on power stations reversed in places
like germany etc and the start using their mothballed nukes and coal fired
power stations again.

As far as electricity goes, we have only one real viable alternative to
fossil fuels: That is nuclear power.

Thats just plain wrong. Coal is very viable too.

With respect to transport, by and large we have NO real viable
alternatives

Even sillier. Natural gas is perfectly viable for petrol engined
cars and biodiesel is viable for diesel powered transport.

By the time that natural gas supplys start to run down, oil from
shale and anything you want hydrocarbon wise from coal etc
will be economic and likely very viable using power from nukes.

and that fact alone is terrifying.

Only if you dont have a clue about the basics.

Even hydrogen from nukes may become a viable transport fuel.

Having electricity alone is not enough to stop cities from disintegrating.
There has to be fuel to get supplies in to them

Not necessarily if electrically powered rail is used
for that and biodiesel for local distribution.

and to dome extend to move people around in them.

Natural gas does that fine.

trains are not the whole answer nor are battery cars

Yes, but natural gas does that fine.

- although they might work reasonably well in an intra-urban context.

They clearly do in Singapore.

Frankly political machinations to build kit that doesn't work are doing
real and certain damage to our children's future

Taint happening in France. Or India, or China, etc etc etc.

that make the potential damage that might be done my CO2 (and even that is
debatable) pale into insignificance.

And if that turns out to be true, that CO2 bull**** will end up just
being a memory, like the other silly hyperventilation in the 70s did.

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.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

And the rest fighting with and over what few supplies of Avjet and diesel
there are left.

Even sillier.

This is the Tottenham riots that don't end, until all the Tescos shelves
are empty, and the people lie dead in the streets.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

Those that don't actually get eaten.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

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 .

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

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

Even sillier.

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.

It has been for quite a while now in France.

Because renewable energy simply cannot fill that gap.

Yes.

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).

Another lie.

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.

You'll have burst a blood vessel mindlessly hyperventilating LONG before
that.

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

Jim K wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

snip

would you call this a manic or depressive epsiode?

Just another silly little drug crazed fantasy.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:13:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
snip

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

indeed you seem very agitated...

Jim K

geoff wrote:
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?

Very hard to say. At last 50 possibly 1500 years.Its very common, but
just not in large quantities.

The sea for example, contains a **** of a lot of it, but the sea is a
big place...

Also we hardly sue any of what we DO mine. Most ofa fuel rod is
depeleted uranium (U238) and is not used. Of the U-1235 most of that is
not used either - it gets poisoned by plutonium and that's what
reprocessing does - removes the plutonium and other by products and
puts in some fresh uranium.

We have a waste problem in part because this costs MORE than refining
raw uranium.

we can use fast breeders to make lots of plutonium from U238 (I think)
but we dont yet need to.

We can use U238 and thorium in different reactors giving 100 - 1000
times more fuels .

So its a terribly variable bit of string.

The greenies talk of 50 years, by which they mean 'all known sources of
fresh uranium economic at current rates, depleted'

But as we know, the per unit electricity contributions is about 0.1p -
it could go 10x times as expensive and still only add a penny to the
electricity cost. At which point plutonium, and MOX fuels are definitely
on the cards as are fast breeders. And huge deposits of uranium no one
is even bothered to stick a pick into yet becomee viable..


(Today over half te oil reveres we have are opt profitable below $75 a
barrel..25 years ago the oil price was well under that.)


And given enough neutron flux, you can make even more exotic unstable
elements.

Remember what a reactor does is not 'burn uranium' it 'destroys mass
itself' The 50 tonnes of fuel rods that go in lose a kg of mass after
they have been fizzing for a year. we only need to find ways of
destroying a few unpleasant elements and turning them into pleasant ones
and we have the waste burner to end all waste burners.



What's the carbon footprint of extraction?


very low.

Simply because you don't need very much of it.

There is a good respurce here

http://www.world-nuclear.org/how/mining.html

and that site should answer nearly all the questions you have.




--
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
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.-

We reprocess it in this country stupid for half the world.

Nothing like half the world in fact.

There is still a lot of waste.

Not if its reprocessed properly.

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

Nuclear power stations are refuelled.

But not often enough for that to have much effect on the price of the
electricity from them.

"harry" wrote in message
...
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 its going to be reprocessed into more nuke fuel, stupid.

"harry" wrote in message
...
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.

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 we don't see mass rioting when that happens due to floods etc.

The Turnip is just mindlessly hyperventilating.

But it could be sudden. Just takes a cold spell and a few grid problems.

Or a decent flood. Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Even losing WW2 didn't produce that either.

geoff wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
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

Plenty. In spades with the thorium.

How many years of economically viable extraction?

Hundreds of years.

What's the carbon footprint of extraction?

**** all.

In spades with reprocessing when powered by nukes.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:
[snip]
..
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.

I'm sure you did and I'm sure that you made the most of your time at CCAT.

On Apr 15, 10:06*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





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 its going to be reprocessed into more nuke fuel, stupid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This IS the remainder from reprocessedf uel, rat brain..

On 15/04/2012 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]
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.

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of yours.
You appear to have moved beyond reason into clinical paranoia.

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

Strangely, despite your .. erm .. singular manifesto, you might be
surprised by who agree with you on the issue of nuclear generation.
Since you are clearly disinterested in who agrees or disagrees with you,
however, any attempt at discussion will be fruitless.

--
Dave N

On Apr 15, 10:33*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:

[snip]
.

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.

I'm sure you did and I'm sure that you made the most of your time at CCAT..

Or dropped out. Do they have a degree in environmental cleansing?

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
Tim Streater wrote
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 its going to be reprocessed into more nuke fuel, stupid.

This IS the remainder from reprocessed fuel

Like hell it is with future high speed breeders etc, stupid.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:22:37 +0100, Dave N wrote:

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant but
quite possibly not far from the truth. Modern society is balanced on
a razor sharp knife edge. Just look what happened the other week when
there was a merest hint of, note *hint* not that there "will be", a
fuel supply problem.

I guess most people don't realise that the supermarket shelves will
have significant empty spaces within 24 hours if the deliveries don't
arrive for what ever reason. Be that lack of fuel or lack of goods to
deliver. Once people start being restricted on what they can buy
either due to availability or restriction (1 loaf, 2 pints of milk,
indelible stamp to back of hand at checkout to stop people going
round again or simply not allowed into the store and have to queue to
get their allocated "ration"). It has the potential to get very
nasty, very quickly. Probably only last about month after that most
people will have starved to death or been killed by marauding gangs
taking what ever they can get by force.

There have been food riots, that is the populace rising up due to
lack of or cost of food, in many parts of the world recently. The
western media tend not to cover that sort of story for some reason...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Jim K
scribeth thus
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:13:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
snip

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

indeed you seem very agitated...

Jim K

I expect he is .. wasting his time arguing with some on here;(...
--
Tony Sayer

On 16/04/2012 10:39, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:22:37 +0100, Dave N wrote:

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant but
quite possibly not far from the truth. Modern society is balanced on
a razor sharp knife edge. Just look what happened the other week when
there was a merest hint of, note *hint* not that there "will be", a
fuel supply problem.

It wasn't the hint of a possible supply problem that caused the problem.
It was the minister running round like a demented chicken little
shouting "DON'T PANIC! CAPTAIN MAINWARING DON'T PANIC!" that really
screwed things up and had the roads blocked with weekend motorists
filling their tanks and totally drained most garages dry.

And as for the ones using unsuitable containers and decanting petrol in
their kitchens...the panic mongers must take their share of the blame.

I guess most people don't realise that the supermarket shelves will
have significant empty spaces within 24 hours if the deliveries don't
arrive for what ever reason. Be that lack of fuel or lack of goods to

JIT is fantastic until you have a glitch in the supply lines. Then it
falls apart very quickly indeed since there is no resilience built in.

deliver. Once people start being restricted on what they can buy
either due to availability or restriction (1 loaf, 2 pints of milk,
indelible stamp to back of hand at checkout to stop people going
round again or simply not allowed into the store and have to queue to
get their allocated "ration"). It has the potential to get very
nasty, very quickly. Probably only last about month after that most
people will have starved to death or been killed by marauding gangs
taking what ever they can get by force.

If it comes to that I will be drinking well water and eating rabbits and
pheasants. No shortage of either where I live and almost self sufficient
for vegetables too. Pudding always being rhubarb until the soft fruit
gets going might be tedious but it would be sustaining.

Main difficulty would be finding milk locally - so many small dairy
farmers have given up on it now. On the plus side it means you are less
likely to be totalled by a milk tanker on the wrong side of a blind
bend. They make bread delivery van drivers look positively sedate.

There have been food riots, that is the populace rising up due to
lack of or cost of food, in many parts of the world recently. The
western media tend not to cover that sort of story for some reason...

It was the large spike in food prices last year that triggered most of
the Arab spring revolutions. Western media did report on it. And it is
the likes of our delightful amoral city traders buying up food as a
speculative commodity that is driving it ever higher.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Dave Liquorice wrote
Dave N wrote

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant

A mindlessly silly rant/mindlessly silly hyperventilation in fact.

but quite possibly not far from the truth.

Absolutely certainly a hell of a long way from the truth with
the completely silly claims about mass rioting and looting and
needing to have a shotgun to ward off rampaging chavs etc.

Modern society is balanced on a razor sharp knife edge.

Like hell it is. We didn't see anything like that with the losers in WW2,
let alone with a lack of mains power which isnt going to happen either.

Just look what happened the other week when there was a merest
hint of, note *hint* not that there "will be", a fuel supply problem.

We didn't even see that in WW2.

I guess most people don't realise that the supermarket
shelves will have significant empty spaces within 24
hours if the deliveries don't arrive for what ever reason.
Be that lack of fuel or lack of goods to deliver.

Have fun explaining why we don't see rampaging hordes
of chavs when that happens with extensive floods etc.

Once people start being restricted on what they can buy
either due to availability or restriction (1 loaf, 2 pints of milk,
indelible stamp to back of hand at checkout to stop people
going round again or simply not allowed into the store and
have to queue to get their allocated "ration"). It has the
potential to get very nasty, very quickly.

Have fun explaining why that didn't happen during WW2.

Even in the losers where the authoritys were no longer in control.

Probably only last about month after that most people will have starved to
death

Have fun explaining why that didn't happen during WW2.

or been killed by marauding gangs taking what ever they can get by force.

Have fun explaining why that didn't happen during WW2.

Even in the losers where the authoritys were no longer in control.

There have been food riots, that is the populace rising up due
to lack of or cost of food, in many parts of the world recently.

Not in the modern first world there hasn't been.

The western media tend not to cover that sort of story for some reason...

Plenty of coverage of what happened in WW2.

Tim Streater wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Dave N wrote

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of
yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant

A mindlessly silly rant/mindlessly silly hyperventilation in fact.

but quite possibly not far from the truth.

Absolutely certainly a hell of a long way from the truth with
the completely silly claims about mass rioting and looting and
needing to have a shotgun to ward off rampaging chavs etc.

Modern society is balanced on a razor sharp knife edge.

Like hell it is. We didn't see anything like that with the losers in WW2,

swamped by an invading army as they were.

The Japs werent.

On Apr 15, 12:34*pm, "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

Hello? Quote "using spare electrical power from wind turbines". Not so
difficult to understand.

MBQ

Dave N wrote:
On 15/04/2012 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]
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.

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of yours.
You appear to have moved beyond reason into clinical paranoia.


Not really.

But its a matter of considering the logical consequences of actually
running out of energy. Say fossil fuel. And a government which has
collapsed because no one will lend it any money, so there is no one to
pay the 'forces of laws and order'..

I invite you to analyse modern society in terms of a 'single point of
failure' - that being petroleum products.

80% of which are imports.

I am sure I would have seemed just as mad if 10 years ago I had warned
you that we faced possible total collapse of the worlds financial
systems...and a global recession lasting a decade or more..

So, consider the supply chains and the operation of infrastructure with
no coal, no nuclear, and little or no gas or oil ...and tell me how long
the country would last.And where an in what way it would fail first.


Weeks. And in the cities, it would make 'shawn of the dead' look like a
comedy..:-)




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

Strangely, despite your .. erm .. singular manifesto, you might be
surprised by who agree with you on the issue of nuclear generation.
Since you are clearly disinterested in who agrees or disagrees with you,
however, any attempt at discussion will be fruitless.


Well, discuss it with someone else then. :-)



--
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, 10:33 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:
[snip]
.

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.
I'm sure you did and I'm sure that you made the most of your time at CCAT.

Or dropped out. Do they have a degree in environmental cleansing?

you are truly sad and envious.

--
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.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote
Dave N wrote

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of
yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant

A mindlessly silly rant/mindlessly silly hyperventilation in fact.

but quite possibly not far from the truth.

Absolutely certainly a hell of a long way from the truth with
the completely silly claims about mass rioting and looting and
needing to have a shotgun to ward off rampaging chavs etc.

Modern society is balanced on a razor sharp knife edge.

Like hell it is. We didn't see anything like that with the losers in WW2,

swamped by an invading army as they were.

also you need to read some reports from, if not WW2 ,then WWI..

Tottenham riots were totally beyond the willingness of the police to
engage in, and they wer just after TVs not starving and after food.

Look at New Orleans post Katrina. And the rest of the USA was still
working ok.

Look at Haiti post earthquake.

And in all these cases there was someone else outside to at least help
somewhat.



--
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.

Tim Streater wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Dave N wrote

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of
yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant

A mindlessly silly rant/mindlessly silly hyperventilation in fact.

but quite possibly not far from the truth.

Absolutely certainly a hell of a long way from the truth with
the completely silly claims about mass rioting and looting and
needing to have a shotgun to ward off rampaging chavs etc.

Modern society is balanced on a razor sharp knife edge.

Like hell it is. We didn't see anything like that with the losers in
WW2,

swamped by an invading army as they were.

The Japs werent.

Ahh give over, twerp.

Wotta stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.

It was sitting there in Tokyo Bay.

Nope, they didnt have anything like enough troops in the bay to swamp
anything.

Which is why MacArthur wasnt stupid enough to try that.

In message
, harry
writes
On Apr 15, 10:33*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:

[snip]
.

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.

I'm sure you did and I'm sure that you made the most of your time at CCAT.

Or dropped out. Do they have a degree in environmental cleansing?

Would you like to remind us what academic qualifications you have,
Harry?

Or professional ones


--
geoff

On 16/04/2012 21:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave N wrote:

Strangely, despite your .. erm .. singular manifesto, you might be
surprised by who agree with you on the issue of nuclear generation.
Since you are clearly disinterested in who agrees or disagrees with
you, however, any attempt at discussion will be fruitless.


Well, discuss it with someone else then. :-)

Anyone interested in comparative costs between thorium-fuelled and
uranium-fuelled nuclear reactors, and the relative risks?

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_costs/thorium_costs.php

For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I am making no comment at
this stage either as endorsement or criticism of that web site.

--
Dave N

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 10:39 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:22:37 +0100, Dave N wrote:
I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of
yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant but
quite possibly not far from the truth. Modern society is balanced on
a razor sharp knife edge. Just look what happened the other week when
there was a merest hint of, note *hint* not that there "will be", a
fuel supply problem.

I guess most people don't realise that the supermarket shelves will
have significant empty spaces within 24 hours if the deliveries don't
arrive for what ever reason. Be that lack of fuel or lack of goods to
deliver. Once people start being restricted on what they can buy
either due to availability or restriction (1 loaf, 2 pints of milk,
indelible stamp to back of hand at checkout to stop people going
round again or simply not allowed into the store and have to queue to
get their allocated "ration"). It has the potential to get very
nasty, very quickly. Probably only last about month after that most
people will have starved to death or been killed by marauding gangs
taking what ever they can get by force.

There have been food riots, that is the populace rising up due to
lack of or cost of food, in many parts of the world recently. The
western media tend not to cover that sort of story for some reason...

Yes, I tend to agree with you. It would be worse in the USA with all the
guns too.

Have fun explaining why it wasn't with the great depression there.

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Dave N wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

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.

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of yours.
You appear to have moved beyond reason into clinical paranoia.

Not really.

Yes, really.

But its a matter of considering the logical consequences of actually
running out of energy.

Nope, its actually about you being completely off with the fairys.

Say fossil fuel.

We wont run out of fossil fuel any century soon. There is plenty
of coal to last for centurys. And we have been able to turn that
into fuel for our cars for almost a century now too.

And a government which has collapsed because no one will lend it any
money,

Govts dont collapse because no one will lend it any money.

And even if that does happen, they just have to run a balanced budget.

so there is no one to pay the 'forces of laws and order'..

Even sillier. They are paid for by taxation if you cant borrow any money.

I invite you to analyse modern society in terms of a 'single point of
failure' - that being petroleum products.

There wont be any single point of failure, JUST an increase in price.

80% of which are imports.

But dont have to be if the **** has hit the fan.

And even you should have noticed how that was handled during WW2 anyway.

I am sure I would have seemed just as mad if 10 years ago I had warned you
that we faced possible total collapse of the worlds financial systems...

That didnt happen either.

and a global recession lasting a decade or more..

That hasnt happened either. There is no recession at all in some places.

So, consider the supply chains and the operation of infrastructure with no
coal, no nuclear, and little or no gas or oil ...

That aint gunna happen either. And didnt happen during WW2 either.

and tell me how long the country would last.

You might as well mindlessly hyperventilate about how
long the country would last if invaded by martians etc.

And where an in what way it would fail first.

We'd just see rationing like we did in WW2.

Weeks. And in the cities, it would make 'shawn of the dead' look like a
comedy..:-)

Just another of your silly little fantasys.

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Dave N wrote

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of
yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant

A mindlessly silly rant/mindlessly silly hyperventilation in fact.

but quite possibly not far from the truth.

Absolutely certainly a hell of a long way from the truth with
the completely silly claims about mass rioting and looting and
needing to have a shotgun to ward off rampaging chavs etc.

Modern society is balanced on a razor sharp knife edge.

Like hell it is. We didn't see anything like that with the losers in
WW2,

swamped by an invading army as they were.

also you need to read some reports from, if not WW2 ,then WWI..

Nope, I know what happened.

Tottenham riots were totally beyond the willingness of the police to
engage in,

Wouldnt happen like that again.

and they wer just after TVs not starving and after food.

And we havent seen anything like that when there
are serious floods and people were short of food.

Look at New Orleans post Katrina.

Didnt produce anything like you mindlessly silly hyperventilation.

In spades with the great depression there and in Britain.

And the rest of the USA was still working ok.

Look at Haiti post earthquake.

Even you should have noticed that that aint the modern first world.

And in all these cases there was someone else outside to at least help
somewhat.

And that didnt happen with Japan when they lost WW2 and they
didnt get anything like your mindlessly silly hyperventilation scenario.

Tim Streater wrote
just the puerile **** it always ends up with when
its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it always is.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:18:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

If it's that good why are CO2 levels rising?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave N wrote

Anyone interested in comparative costs between thorium-fuelled
and uranium-fuelled nuclear reactors, and the relative risks?

Yep, particularly for the second world where its not a great
idea for them to be able to produce bombs etc and where
its very desirable to have fail safe systems instead of systems
that need very high quality designs.

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_costs/thorium_costs.php

For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I am making no comment
at this stage either as endorsement or criticism of that web site.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:18:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

If it's that good why are CO2 levels rising?

system lag.

what you will most likely see if my hypothesis is reasonably meaningful,
is a LOT of blue-green algal blooms appearing, probably followed by a
lot of things that feed off them. Then when those things die, they carry
the carbon to the sea bed.

But first you have to wash the CO2 out of the air with lots of rain.

CO2 in sea water measurements will show when that has happened. IIRC te
half life in the atmosphere 5 oyears..

That will take a few years. But that COULD be improved by pumping air
through seawater. Or even CO2.
However there is as usual a debate about what happens once its in the
water..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

claims that it doesn't get sequestered by marine organisms for any
length of time.

If CO2 is actually a problem at all, which seems to be open to pretty
heated debate.

My guess is that as usual we don't have more than half an answer.

I reason that if there were not fairly hefty negative feedback systems
to regulate the atmosphere, we would have seen many violent and rapid
fluctuations of temperature associated with carbon dioxide in the past -
but the geological record does not show this.


--
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 16, 9:59*pm, geoff wrote:
In message
, harry
writes





On Apr 15, 10:33*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, wrote:

[snip]
.

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.

I'm sure you did and I'm sure that you made the most of your time at CCAT.

Or dropped out. *Do they have a degree in environmental cleansing?

Would you like to remind us what academic qualifications you have,
Harry?

Or professional ones

--
geoff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

C&G electrical installations.
5yr apprenticeship.
HNC in electical machines, power, control systems, industrial
administration
ONC in Applied heat, applied mechanics.

Sundry other odds & sods

And you?

On Apr 16, 10:41*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On Apr 16, 10:39 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:22:37 +0100, Dave N wrote:
I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of
yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant but
quite possibly not far from the truth. Modern society is balanced on
a razor sharp knife edge. Just look what happened the other week when
there was a merest hint of, note *hint* not that there "will be", a
fuel supply problem.

I guess most people don't realise that the supermarket shelves will
have significant empty spaces within 24 hours if the deliveries don't
arrive for what ever reason. Be that lack of fuel or lack of goods to
deliver. Once people start being restricted on what they can buy
either due to availability or restriction (1 loaf, 2 pints of milk,
indelible stamp to back of hand at checkout to stop people going
round again or simply not allowed into the store and have to queue to
get their allocated "ration"). It has the potential to get very
nasty, very quickly. Probably only last about month after that most
people will have starved to death or been killed by marauding gangs
taking what ever they can get by force.
There have been food riots, that is the populace rising up due to
lack of or cost of food, in many parts of the world recently. The
western media tend not to cover that sort of story for some reason...
Yes, I tend to agree with you. It would be worse in the USA with all the
guns too.

Have fun explaining why it wasn't with the great depression there

Simple.
People had much lower expectations and many were used to having it
tough.

Also there was a lack of communication. It was hard to organise an
insurrection.

On Apr 16, 11:27*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Dave N wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
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.
I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of yours.
You appear to have moved beyond reason into clinical paranoia.
Not really.

Yes, really.

But its a matter of considering the logical consequences of actually
running out of energy.

Nope, its actually about you being completely off with the fairys.

Say fossil fuel.

We wont run out of fossil fuel any century soon. There is plenty
of coal to last for centurys. And we have been able to turn that
into fuel for our cars for almost a century now too.

And a government which has collapsed because no one will lend it any
money,

Govts don’t collapse because no one will lend it any money.

And even if that does happen, they just have to run a balanced budget.

so there is no one to pay the 'forces of laws and order'..

Even sillier. They are paid for by taxation if you cant borrow any money.

I invite you to analyse modern society in terms of a 'single point of
failure' - that being petroleum products.

There wont be any single point of failure, JUST an increase in price.

80% of which are imports.

But don’t have to be if the **** has hit the fan.

And even you should have noticed how that was handled during WW2 anyway.

I am sure I would have seemed just as mad if 10 years ago I had warned you
that we faced possible total collapse of the worlds financial systems....

That didn’t happen either.

and a global recession lasting a decade or more..

That hasn’t happened either. There is no recession at all in some places.

So, consider the supply chains and the operation of infrastructure with no
coal, no nuclear, and little or no gas or oil ...

That aint gunna happen either. And didn’t happen during WW2 either.

and tell me how long the country would last.

You might as well mindlessly hyperventilate about how
long the country would last if invaded by martians etc.

And where an in what way it would fail first.

We'd just see rationing like we did in WW2.

Weeks. And in the cities, it would make 'shawn of the dead' look like a
comedy..:-)

Just another of your silly little fantasys.

I don't often agree with TurNiP, but on this occasion he is entirely
correct.
If electricity failed for say a week, there would be rioting, murder
and mass panic in the cities.
Everywere, anywhere.

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Dave N wrote

I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of
yours.

Good, wake up and smell the coffee, yes it was a bit of a rant but
quite possibly not far from the truth. Modern society is balanced on
a razor sharp knife edge. Just look what happened the other week when
there was a merest hint of, note *hint* not that there "will be", a
fuel supply problem.

I guess most people don't realise that the supermarket shelves will
have significant empty spaces within 24 hours if the deliveries don't
arrive for what ever reason. Be that lack of fuel or lack of goods to
deliver. Once people start being restricted on what they can buy
either due to availability or restriction (1 loaf, 2 pints of milk,
indelible stamp to back of hand at checkout to stop people going
round again or simply not allowed into the store and have to queue to
get their allocated "ration"). It has the potential to get very
nasty, very quickly. Probably only last about month after that most
people will have starved to death or been killed by marauding gangs
taking what ever they can get by force.
There have been food riots, that is the populace rising up due to
lack of or cost of food, in many parts of the world recently. The
western media tend not to cover that sort of story for some reason...

Yes, I tend to agree with you. It would be worse in the USA with all the
guns too.

Have fun explaining why it wasn't with the great depression there

Simple.

Fraid not.

People had much lower expectations and many were used to having it tough.

Like hell they did in the 20s.

Also there was a lack of communication.

Like hell there was.

It was hard to organise an insurrection.

Have fun explaining the Bonus Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

The reality is that no modern first world country has had an insurrection
since the frogs had one and that's hardly what you might call modern anyway.

The Turnip is mindlessly hyperventilating and hasn't
got a ****ing clue about even the most basic history.

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Dave N wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

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.
I don't expect that I am the only to be disturbed by this rant of
yours.
You appear to have moved beyond reason into clinical paranoia.

Not really.

Yes, really.

But its a matter of considering the logical consequences of actually
running out of energy.

Nope, its actually about you being completely off with the fairys.

Say fossil fuel.

We wont run out of fossil fuel any century soon. There is plenty
of coal to last for centurys. And we have been able to turn that
into fuel for our cars for almost a century now too.

And a government which has collapsed because no one will lend it any
money,

Govts don’t collapse because no one will lend it any money.

And even if that does happen, they just have to run a balanced budget.

so there is no one to pay the 'forces of laws and order'..

Even sillier. They are paid for by taxation if you cant borrow any money.

I invite you to analyse modern society in terms of a 'single
point of failure' - that being petroleum products.

There wont be any single point of failure, JUST an increase in price.

80% of which are imports.

But don’t have to be if the **** has hit the fan.

And even you should have noticed how that was handled during WW2 anyway.

I am sure I would have seemed just as mad if 10 years ago I had warned
you
that we faced possible total collapse of the worlds financial systems...

That didn’t happen either.

and a global recession lasting a decade or more..

That hasn’t happened either. There is no recession at all in some places.

So, consider the supply chains and the operation of infrastructure
with no coal, no nuclear, and little or no gas or oil ...

That aint gunna happen either. And didn’t happen during WW2 either.

and tell me how long the country would last.

You might as well mindlessly hyperventilate about how
long the country would last if invaded by martians etc.

And where an in what way it would fail first.

We'd just see rationing like we did in WW2.

Weeks. And in the cities, it would make 'shawn of the dead' look like a
comedy..:-)

Just another of your silly little fantasys.

I don't often agree with TurNiP, but on this occasion he is entirely
correct.

Like hell he is.

If electricity failed for say a week, there would be rioting, murder and
mass panic in the cities.

Have fun explaining why that didn’t happen in Quebec either when
a severe ice storm quite literally brought down the high voltage
power lines that supplied the entire area for much longer than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A..._storm_of_1998

Everywere, anywhere.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:18:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

If it's that good why are CO2 levels rising?

That's a good question.
I doubt if anyone knows 100% of why but it is an observed fact that CO2
levels go up when global temperatures rise.
There is evidence that they have done so for millennia.
There is even evidence that predates mankind and its influence on climate.

Its also not short term stuff like you get from volcanoes as it can last for
many thousands/millions of years.

Then we have an ice age.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:42:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I reason that if there were not fairly hefty negative feedback systems
to regulate the atmosphere, we would have seen many violent and rapid
fluctuations of temperature associated with carbon dioxide in the past -
but the geological record does not show this.

There have been some fairly hefty and rapid temperature swings but on
geological times scales ie a few hundred years is but a second...

I feel the system is damped but chaotic, it will very slowly alter
under the influence changes but will suddenly (geological) "flip" to
another relatively stable state. The damping means hysterisis so it
doesn't "chatter" around tipping point.

--
Cheers
Dave.