Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 04:44:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Making stuff for which there is only a synthesised market due to
miss-allocation of capital. If the West wants to bankrupt itself, way
to go.

I thought we alrady had, but no one dares to admit it.



Yes. That is essentially the case.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15 years.

But nuclear fusion is only 15 years away.
It is? Wow!

It is, and it has been for at least the last thirty.

Hence just the same as Drivel's current fantasy. He's the snake oil
salesman's delight. The sort of idiot who voted for the Springfield monorail.

This man is an idiot.

That man is indeed an idiot. That man is you. You're a pathetic tosser
Drivel.
--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Oct 21, 10:24*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
You were saying a couple of days back there was no debt problem.

Senile Daily Mail reading one, The western financial system is based on
DEBT. The money supply, and private bank issue money, is based on the amount
of DEBT. *HMG borrowing is not the same thing senile one. *Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9IH-XKQpOI

5 banks in UK create money. They create money out of thin air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B_SxGmSJP0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRuw3hQgvzM

We are slaves to landowners and banks.

You said there was no debt.

On Oct 21, 10:24*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
You were saying a couple of days back there was no debt problem.

Senile Daily Mail reading one, The western financial system is based on
DEBT. The money supply, and private bank issue money, is based on the amount
of DEBT. *HMG borrowing is not the same thing senile one. *Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9IH-XKQpOI

5 banks in UK create money. They create money out of thin air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B_SxGmSJP0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRuw3hQgvzM

We are slaves to landowners and banks.

Tch. Speak for yourself.
I have never owed money.

On 20/10/2012 23:54, Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15 years.

But nuclear fusion is only 15 years away.

Yes, but this means we'll be able to make petrol with all that
too-cheap-to-meter electricity

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
On 20/10/2012 23:54, Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15 years.

But nuclear fusion is only 15 years away.

Yes, but this means we'll be able to make petrol with all that
too-cheap-to-meter electricity

Andy
If we were forced to go 100% nuclear due to lack of fossil (and lack of
cash to indulge in stupid windmills) that would be the way to go. Off
peak electricity would be available to pump into fuel synthesis.

It makes fuel bloody expensive, but at least we would still have some..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 21/10/2012 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
And if they electrolyse water to make hydrogen they will also have a
waste stream of oxygen that needs an application.

If (and it's a pretty big if) there's a significant oxygen outflow this
could be fed to a fossil fuel station (or for that matter any fuel
burning station) to increase the efficiency - you wouldn't need to heat
all that nitrogen.

If there isn't - well, releasing small quantities of oxygen is hardly a
major risk to the environment.

Andy

harry wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:24 am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
You were saying a couple of days back there was no debt problem.

Senile Daily Mail reading one, The western financial system is based
on DEBT. The money supply, and private bank issue money, is based on
the amount of DEBT. HMG borrowing is not the same thing senile one.
Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9IH-XKQpOI

5 banks in UK create money. They create money out of thin air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B_SxGmSJP0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRuw3hQgvzM

We are slaves to landowners and banks.

You said there was no debt.

You really are senile.

harry wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:24 am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
You were saying a couple of days back there was no debt problem.

Senile Daily Mail reading one, The western financial system is based
on DEBT. The money supply, and private bank issue money, is based on
the amount of DEBT. HMG borrowing is not the same thing senile one.
Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9IH-XKQpOI

5 banks in UK create money. They create money out of thin air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B_SxGmSJP0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRuw3hQgvzM

We are slaves to landowners and banks.

Tch. Speak for yourself.
I have never owed money.

You really do not get it. Bloody Daily Mail reading fool.

Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

They say they can have a refinery sized installation in 15
years.

But nuclear fusion is only 15 years away.
It is? Wow!

It is, and it has been for at least the last thirty.

Hence just the same as Drivel's current fantasy. He's the snake oil
salesman's delight. The sort of idiot who voted for the Springfield
monorail.

This man is an idiot.

That man

Oh my God a a total nutball.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:26:37 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

If there isn't - well, releasing small quantities of oxygen is hardly a
major risk to the environment.

Tell that to the blue/green algae that probably built the stromatolites.
For a lot of life oxygen is deadly toxin...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 20/10/2012 14:29, Doctor Drivel wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Anything that prolongs
te essential fraud that is renewable energy is worth burning a few
bob at to make a story out of. Because if people actually understood
that renewable energy really doesn't work at all, they would be riots
in the streets with people demanding their money back and the head of
the polticians who 'believed' in it.

Tripe.

Tidal lagoons are viable. Britain should lead the world in tidal
lagoons. It is largely a matter of dumping rock in the sea on an
unprecedented scale. British engineers can manage that and the British
Isles geography is the best in the World for such an undertaking have
high tide range shallow seas surround it. It involves moving about 2500
million tons of rock from Wales to the Irish Sea. To create tidal
lagoons to supply 100% of Britain's need for electricity The numbers
are staggering but possible (a entire heavy train can move perhaps 500+
tons of rock so about 4 or 5 million train loads are needed). Domestic
waste can be used being compacted between walls of rock. This will solve
the waste problem for a number of years. Bridges can be on the walls
running to the Isle of Man and Ireland. Fish farms can be inside the
lagoons.

The UK then be 100% electric in all: trains, trams, vehicles, heating, etc.


ISTR that the Severn Barrage cost (surely cheaper than lagoons in
general as well as providing another "free" crossing) comes out way more
expensive than wind.

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:

On 21/10/2012 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
And if they electrolyse water to make hydrogen they will also have a
waste stream of oxygen that needs an application.
If (and it's a pretty big if) there's a significant oxygen outflow
this could be fed to a fossil fuel station (or for that matter any
fuel burning station) to increase the efficiency - you wouldn't need
to heat all that nitrogen.
If there isn't - well, releasing small quantities of oxygen is
hardly a major risk to the environment.

Wouldn't be small if the thing went industrial. Try breathing pure
oxygen at atmospheric pressure. Your lungs will be ****ed in short
order.

What were you thinking of doing with the 80% odd nitrogen still hanging
around there?

It would take an awful amount of "process" to change to other 20% by a
significant amount


--
geoff

"newshound" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 20/10/2012 14:29, Doctor Drivel wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Anything that prolongs
te essential fraud that is renewable energy is worth burning a few
bob at to make a story out of. Because if people actually understood
that renewable energy really doesn't work at all, they would be riots
in the streets with people demanding their money back and the head of
the polticians who 'believed' in it.

Tripe.

Tidal lagoons are viable. Britain should lead the world in tidal
lagoons. It is largely a matter of dumping rock in the sea on an
unprecedented scale. British engineers can manage that and the British
Isles geography is the best in the World for such an undertaking have
high tide range shallow seas surround it. It involves moving about 2500
million tons of rock from Wales to the Irish Sea. To create tidal
lagoons to supply 100% of Britain's need for electricity The numbers
are staggering but possible (a entire heavy train can move perhaps 500+
tons of rock so about 4 or 5 million train loads are needed). Domestic
waste can be used being compacted between walls of rock. This will solve
the waste problem for a number of years. Bridges can be on the walls
running to the Isle of Man and Ireland. Fish farms can be inside the
lagoons.

The UK then be 100% electric in all: trains, trams, vehicles, heating,
etc.


ISTR that the Severn Barrage cost (surely cheaper than lagoons in general
as well as providing another "free" crossing) comes out way more expensive
than wind.

Lagoons will take up 20% of the Irish, or less if the North Sea and the
English Channel are also used.

On 21/10/2012 22:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:

On 21/10/2012 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
And if they electrolyse water to make hydrogen they will also have a
waste stream of oxygen that needs an application.

If (and it's a pretty big if) there's a significant oxygen outflow
this could be fed to a fossil fuel station (or for that matter any
fuel burning station) to increase the efficiency - you wouldn't need
to heat all that nitrogen.

If there isn't - well, releasing small quantities of oxygen is hardly
a major risk to the environment.

Wouldn't be small if the thing went industrial. Try breathing pure
oxygen at atmospheric pressure. Your lungs will be ****ed in short order.


Send it to the NHS and reduce their British Oxygen bill?

--
Rod

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 21/10/2012 22:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:

On 21/10/2012 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
And if they electrolyse water to make hydrogen they will also have a
waste stream of oxygen that needs an application.

If (and it's a pretty big if) there's a significant oxygen outflow
this could be fed to a fossil fuel station (or for that matter any
fuel burning station) to increase the efficiency - you wouldn't need
to heat all that nitrogen.

If there isn't - well, releasing small quantities of oxygen is hardly
a major risk to the environment.

Wouldn't be small if the thing went industrial. Try breathing pure
oxygen at atmospheric pressure. Your lungs will be ****ed in short order.


Send it to the NHS and reduce their British Oxygen bill?

Then they could afford to pay Interserve even more blood money.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

This man is an idiot.

That man is indeed an idiot. That man is you. You're a pathetic tosser Drivel.

Oh my God a a

Stammering in the presence of your LORD! It is good that you are overawed.
Cower, brief mortal!

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 21/10/2012 22:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
If there isn't - well, releasing small quantities of oxygen is hardly
a major risk to the environment.

Wouldn't be small if the thing went industrial. Try breathing pure
oxygen at atmospheric pressure. Your lungs will be ****ed in short order.

In the same way that the air near a coal power station is still
breathable, not having had all its oxygen removed, the air near an
industrial oxygen generator would also be breathable. Ie even on an
industrial scale this stuff is tiny compared to the atmosphere.

On Oct 21, 7:10*pm, newshound wrote:
On 20/10/2012 14:29, Doctor Drivel wrote:









The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Anything that prolongs
te essential fraud that is renewable energy is worth burning a few
bob at to make a story out of. Because if people actually understood
that renewable energy really doesn't work at all, they would be riots
in the streets with people demanding their money back and the head of
the polticians who 'believed' in it.

Tripe.

Tidal lagoons are viable. *Britain should lead the world in tidal
lagoons. It is largely a matter of dumping rock in the sea on an
unprecedented scale. British engineers can manage that and the British
Isles geography is the best in the World for such an undertaking have
high tide range shallow seas surround it. It involves moving about 2500
million tons of rock from Wales to the Irish Sea. To create tidal
lagoons to supply 100% of Britain's need for electricity *The numbers
are staggering but possible (a entire heavy train can move *perhaps 500+
tons of rock so about 4 or 5 million train loads are needed). Domestic
waste can be used being compacted between walls of rock. This will solve
the waste problem for a number of years. *Bridges can be on the walls
running to the Isle of Man and Ireland. *Fish farms can be inside the
lagoons.

The UK then be 100% electric in all: trains, trams, vehicles, heating, etc.

ISTR that the Severn Barrage cost (surely cheaper than lagoons in
general as well as providing another "free" crossing) comes out way more
expensive than wind.

True but it would last a thousand years.

On Oct 21, 10:47*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Andy Champ wrote:

On 21/10/2012 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
And if they electrolyse water to make hydrogen they will also have a
waste stream of oxygen that needs an application.

If (and it's a pretty big if) there's a significant oxygen outflow this
could be fed to a fossil fuel station (or for that matter any fuel
burning station) to increase the efficiency - you wouldn't need to heat
all that nitrogen.

If there isn't - well, releasing small quantities of oxygen is hardly a
major risk to the environment.

Wouldn't be small if the thing went industrial. Try breathing pure
oxygen at atmospheric pressure. Your lungs will be ****ed in short order.


It's only putting back oxygen that was previously there. (Taken up in
a combustion process)

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip]

This man is an idiot.

That man is indeed an idiot. That man is you. You're a pathetic tosser
Drivel.

Oh my God a

Stammering

The obsessive idiot keeps going and going.

"harry" wrote in message
...

True but it would last a thousand years.

Harry that is what Hitler said. I am sure you remember him.

Doctor Drivel wrote:


The obsessive idiot keeps going and going.

Yes, we'd noticed. Now do us all a favour and give up, please.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

harry wrote:


True but it would last a thousand years.

I doubt it.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 21/10/12 22:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:

On 21/10/2012 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
And if they electrolyse water to make hydrogen they will also have a
waste stream of oxygen that needs an application.

If (and it's a pretty big if) there's a significant oxygen outflow
this could be fed to a fossil fuel station (or for that matter any
fuel burning station) to increase the efficiency - you wouldn't need
to heat all that nitrogen.

If there isn't - well, releasing small quantities of oxygen is hardly
a major risk to the environment.

Wouldn't be small if the thing went industrial. Try breathing pure
oxygen at atmospheric pressure. Your lungs will be ****ed in short order.


But then everyone made redundant by the collapse of the
greenhouse-gasses-will-end-civilisation argument can be redeployed on
global-oxygenation-will-reduce-us-all scares.

--
djc

In article , Tim Streater wrote:
In article , geoff
wrote:
In message , Tim
Streater writes

Wouldn't be small if the thing went industrial. Try breathing pure
oxygen at atmospheric pressure. Your lungs will be ****ed in short
order.

What were you thinking of doing with the 80% odd nitrogen still hanging
around there?

Oddly enough I do actually know that. But it sounded good.

No, it sounded as if you really hadn't thought about that.

harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:29 pm, polygonum wrote:
On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:

Well, maybe...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer...
"Company officials say they had produced five litres of petrol
in less than three months from a small refinery in
Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside. "

So how long before we have enough to run a Honda 50 for more
than a few miles?

Read the rest of the article.

I did. ******** from beginning to end really.


******** from you.
Perfect feasible. Whether it's practical or efficient is another
matter.


Come on harry. Ever heard of a synonym?

--
Adam

On Oct 22, 8:16*pm, "ARW" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:41 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:29 pm, polygonum wrote:
On 19/10/2012 12:18, Man at B&Q wrote:

Well, maybe...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...itish-engineer...
"Company officials say they had produced five litres of petrol
in less than three months from a small refinery in
Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside. "

So how long before we have enough to run a Honda 50 for more
than a few miles?

Read the rest of the article.

I did. ******** from beginning to end really.

******** from you.
Perfect feasible. Whether it's practical or efficient is another
matter.

Come on harry. Ever heard of a synonym?

--
Adam

Yes but what's it got to do with this process?

I seem to remember some Yank had made an artificial tree. You could
draw alcohol from a tap in the"trunk". Worked using water,
atmospheric CO2 and sunlight.

You might as well grow real trees and use the wood to make alcohol.
Cheaper and more efficient.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

The obsessive idiot keeps going and going.

Yes, we'd noticed.

That is very observant of you.

On Friday, October 19, 2012 11:33:25 PM UTC+1, SteveW wrote:
On 19/10/2012 13:40, wrote:

Easy for him to say - in a country with around 7 acres of land per person that might *just* be possible. The UK has under 1 acre per person...


It actually says 1 acre per house, not per person. Anyway, we're
thinking of moving to Ireland at some stage!
I was actually making some crude assumptions that we couldn't afford to use more than say 10% of land for fuel and combining it with a guess of 2 to 3 persons in a house, on average...

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:58:32 PM UTC+1, Doctor Drivel wrote:
wrote:



Easy for him to say - in a country with around 7 acres of land per
person that might *just* be possible. The UK has under 1 acre per
person...



60 milion acres, 60 million people.

I think you're out of date - the population has gone up (ONS claim 62 million in 2010 and it's still rising), and we haven't reclaimed a comparable amount of land...

wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:58:32 PM UTC+1, Doctor Drivel wrote:
wrote:


Easy for him to say - in a country with around 7 acres of land per
person that might *just* be possible. The UK has under 1 acre per
person...


60 milion acres, 60 million people.

I think you're out of date - the population has gone up (ONS claim 62 million in 2010 and it's still rising), and we haven't reclaimed a comparable amount of land...
Thibnk its about 73 million now UK and NI



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

wrote:
On Friday, October 19, 2012 11:33:25 PM UTC+1, SteveW wrote:
On 19/10/2012 13:40, wrote:

Easy for him to say - in a country with around 7 acres of land per
person that might *just* be possible. The UK has under 1 acre per
person...

It actually says 1 acre per house, not per person. Anyway, we're
thinking of moving to Ireland at some stage!

I was actually making some crude assumptions that we couldn't afford
to use more than say 10% of land for fuel and combining it with a
guess of 2 to 3 persons in a house, on average...

Your assumption was very crude.

The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is £5
billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry,
about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture
absorbs, and approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real
economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which
is near 27% of the total UK land mass. This is land that certainly could be
put to better use for the population of the UK like for fuel.

wrote:
60 milion acres, 60 million people.

I think you're out of date - the population has gone up (ONS claim 62
million in 2010 and it's still rising), and we haven't reclaimed a
comparable amount of land...

Claim and reality is very different.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Thibnk its about 73 million now UK and NI

This man is barking mad.

On 23/10/2012 18:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Thibnk its about 73 million now UK and NI

You mean UK, OR you mean GB & NI...

That aside, I can't see any number that big. What's your source?

Andy

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
wrote:
On Friday, October 19, 2012 11:33:25 PM UTC+1, SteveW wrote:
On 19/10/2012 13:40, wrote:

Easy for him to say - in a country with around 7 acres of land per
person that might *just* be possible. The UK has under 1 acre per
person...

It actually says 1 acre per house, not per person. Anyway, we're
thinking of moving to Ireland at some stage!

I was actually making some crude assumptions that we couldn't afford
to use more than say 10% of land for fuel and combining it with a
guess of 2 to 3 persons in a house, on average...

Your assumption was very crude.

The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This
is £5 billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15
billion per annum. Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in
the agricultural industry, about 40% on the £15 billion figure.
Applied to the acres agriculture absorbs, and approximately 16
million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to farming and
you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the
total UK land mass. This is land that certainly could be put to
better use for the population of the UK like for fuel.

Well lets try some sums (others may care to refine this).

16million acres? According to John Nix (imperial college at Wye) the
total UK arable crops area for 2000 was 45million acres.

Winter oil seed rape is likely to give the best fuel production at
around 362l/ton. Yield is around 1.4 tons/acre and for crop husbandry
reasons is grown 1 year in 4.

So we could produce 45,000,000 x 1.4 x 362 / 4 x 1000 tons of fuel.

Or 5.7 million tons.

UK road fuel use for 2009 was 35 million tons.....

Yep. Best forget fuel and build homes and leisure facilities on the land.
Then homes will be affordable.

Andy Champ wrote:
On 23/10/2012 18:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Thibnk its about 73 million now UK and NI

You mean UK, OR you mean GB & NI...

The UK is GB & NI.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
wrote:
On Friday, October 19, 2012 11:33:25 PM UTC+1, SteveW wrote:
On 19/10/2012 13:40, wrote:

Easy for him to say - in a country with around 7 acres of land per
person that might *just* be possible. The UK has under 1 acre per
person...

It actually says 1 acre per house, not per person. Anyway, we're
thinking of moving to Ireland at some stage!

I was actually making some crude assumptions that we couldn't afford
to use more than say 10% of land for fuel and combining it with a
guess of 2 to 3 persons in a house, on average...

Your assumption was very crude.

The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This
is £5 billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15
billion per annum. Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in
the agricultural industry, about 40% on the £15 billion figure.
Applied to the acres agriculture absorbs, and approximately 16
million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to farming and
you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the
total UK land mass. This is land that certainly could be put to
better use for the population of the UK like for fuel.

Well lets try some sums (others may care to refine this).

16million acres? According to John Nix (imperial college at Wye) the
total UK arable crops area for 2000 was 45million acres.

Winter oil seed rape is likely to give the best fuel production at
around 362l/ton. Yield is around 1.4 tons/acre and for crop husbandry
reasons is grown 1 year in 4.

So we could produce 45,000,000 x 1.4 x 362 / 4 x 1000 tons of fuel.

Or 5.7 million tons.

UK road fuel use for 2009 was 35 million tons.....

Yep. Best forget fuel and build homes and leisure facilities on the
land. Then homes will be affordable.

I believe a rough approximation of housing cost is 1/3rd site, 1/3rd
build and 1/3rd profit for the builder.

Currently, housing associations can buy land which would not otherwise
get planning consent (exception 32?) at a small multiple of the value as
farmland.

--
Tim Lamb

On 19/10/2012 13:19, Man at B&Q wrote:

So how long before we have enough to run a Honda 50 for more than a few
miles?

Read the rest of the article.

"But company executives hope to build a large plant, which could produce
more than a tonne of petrol every day,"

So something between 12 to 20 cars could fill up their tanks each day.
And how much "renewable" energy will that take to produce I wonder?