"GB" wrote in message
...
On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics, etc.
But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the costs of
waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment for future
generations.

There is with recycling anything too.

I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.

Unlikely.

On 29/04/15 10:18, GB wrote:
On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics,
etc. But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the
costs of waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment for
future generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.


You don't think. You receive other peoples propaganda, regurgitate it,
and call that thinking.

Compared to what my generation recieved - the detritus of a major world
war, coal tips and heavy metal dumps and rivers with no fish in them, we
have achieved miracles in cleaning up the environment.


renewable energy is far more toxic and wasteful of materials than what
we had back in te 70s'

But of course, never let facts get in te way of a devoutly held
religious belief.





--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article , Nightjar wrote:
If you use the electricity from variable and unreliable sources, like
wind farms, the fuel is, effectively, a way to store that energy for
later use. Perhaps not the most efficient way to do it, but possibly the
most useful.

Which is exactly why Audi say they are working on it:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/...arbon-dioxide/
'Currently, Germany's vast expansion of photovoltaic power has largely been
able to eliminate the peak of demand for traditional generation that occurs
at mid-day. However, as the country continues to expand the installation of
renewable power, it's quite possible that there will be periods of
over-production. As such, Audi is promoting the technology as a means to
"stabilize the grid when production of green power peaks."'

The US Navy are also working on it. Having a nuclear powered aircraft carrier
being able to create fuel for aircraft and escort ships is potentially useful
even if it costs more than having fossil fuel delivered in a tanker. Long term,
they are aiming for "in the range of $3 to $6 per gallon to produce":
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-r...ks-to-the-seas

On 29/04/15 10:31, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:08:06 +0100, Tim w wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.


People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks
in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.

Tim W

I have no doubt that TNP has vision, faith and hope for the future;
it's just not the same as yours. I doubt if his includes thousands of
windmills, hundreds of acres of solar panels, regular power cuts and a
slow decline in our standard of living brought about by expensive and
ultimately ineffective technologies. Yours may not either, but that's
the way a lot of superficial and ignorant thinking is heading.

Perhaps you would take more notice of the opinions of James Lovelock,
the man behind the 'Gaia Hypothesis' and a prominent environmentalist
over the last fifty years or so. I've just been reading his most
recent book 'A Rough Ride to the Future' (Penguin). In it he roundly
condemns the huge sums of money squandered on renewable energy
sources, which he regards as hopelessly impractical, and he considers
the environmental movement to be a powerful negative feedback on
enlightened technological progress. He is also damning of the
arguments against nuclear power and the way it has been presented by
environmentalists and the ignorant media as something to be feared.

It would seem to me that Lovelock and TNP have a lot in common, and
Lovelock has a very positive and optimistic view of the future.
Perhaps you should read him.

I am a firm believer that like America, we will in the end do the right
thing, after exhausting every other alternative.

To those of us who understand technology, the right thing is glaringly
obvious. To the millions of green zealots, its all a huge and terribly
difficult puzzle that will end only when they either go down with the
society they are trying to destroy, ir when they grow up and actually
learn to think, instead of saying 'I think' when they men 'this is what
the Guardian and the BBC says'.

They think they are ahead odf us, because they have clearly identified
where they want the world to go. Poor little ****s. We also agree that
is where the world wants to go, but the salient difference is that we
are in - or have been in - the business of trying to get it there. And
have decades more experience in the problems involved.

Any fool can say they believe in sustainability, zero pollution and a
clean environment. Getting one without killing 90% of the population is
however not quite so simple. Or we would have done it years ago.


Simple problems with simple solutions don't exist, because they were all
fixed years ago. What are left are the real bitch problems.

WE have been able to support the current population levels precisely
because we are supported by non-renewable energy.

The last time mankind was 'sustainable' in Europe was at the back end of
the stone age*. The moment we started digging up metals and smelting
them, we were no longer sustainable.

The last time we used only 'renewable' energy was in the 18th century,
when the population was a fairly stable 10 million or so.

If you want to go back to that - and indeed many seem to - be my guest.
I'll be there with a high tech weapon making sure you are part of the 60
million that need to die first.




*and even then flints are not inexhaustible.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 29/04/15 10:55, Alan Braggins wrote:
eliminate the peak of demand for traditional generation that occurs
at mid-day

Except it doesn't. Occur at mid day. It occurs just after sunset
actually, in winter, when solar output is zero.

Another green lie utterly refuted by actual FACTS.

http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in
use.

Drivel.

Sigh. Try doing some basic research, Harry. Even you should be able to do
that.

--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 20:52:17 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially catastrophic.

It took how many posts before someone said this?


NT

On 29/04/15 11:58, wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 20:52:17 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially catastrophic.

It took how many posts before someone said this?



Not many

NT



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 20:52:17 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially catastrophic.

and in reality is directly in opposition to the green agenda of reducing energy consumption


NT

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 21:08:07 UTC+1, Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.


People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks
in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.

Tim W

The lack of education in basic engineering in schools has led to the point where the majority of the public is naive enough to believe in simple green energy scams, and vote for whatever politician spends the most money on these basic scams. The sad result is people keep dying unnecessarily due to waste of funds that could solve the lack of NHS funding, and be used to address the level of incompetence in said NHS.


NT

GB wrote:


It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics,
etc. But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the
costs of waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment for
future generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.

Do you realise that solar cell production, and rare-earth production for windmills and electric cars, is not waste free? Parts of China are turning into massive toxic waste dumps, partly to supply 'clean' energy devices. Just because the green loonies in Europe don't want to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think that our generation will be viewed as incredibly wastrel litter louts.

I think that our generation will be viewed as incredibly stupid, for having fallen for the greenwash ecobollox.

--
Terry Fields

On 29/04/2015 10:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Compared to what my generation recieved - the detritus of a major world
war, coal tips and heavy metal dumps and rivers with no fish in them, we
have achieved miracles in cleaning up the environment.


renewable energy is far more toxic and wasteful of materials than what
we had back in te 70s'



We have even warmed the environment by getting rid of the cr@p in the
atmosphere.


8

On 29/04/2015 16:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics,
etc. But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the
costs of waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment
for future generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.

Pious twaddle.

You mean as in the same way that we view with contempt generations in
the 17th and 8th centuries who cut down the forests of southern England
to provide wood to build ships with? Those *arseholes* !! Why didn't
they think of the future and leave those primeval forests alone for
*us* to enjoy?


Never mind them how about the assholes that covered the UK in green
fields instead of wild forests.

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:38:17 UTC+1, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

What a ****ing awful web****e.
I clicked off out of there pronto.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in
use.

Drivel.

Sigh. Try doing some basic research, Harry. Even you should be able to do
that.

Brain dead as usual.
All diesel engines produce NOx and carbon particles.
Why do you suppose they are trying to fit exhaust gas modifying devices?
Mostly a failure to date

Here you are ****-fer-brains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?

That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

Almost certainly pathetic unless you start with refined pure materials and
then you have to include the cost of refining them.

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

The unstated assumptions going into that so called 70% including having a
convenient cylinder of pure 2000psi CO2 as a feedstock rather than taking
it out of the air as a real greenwash project would have to.

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Tim W

Basically it is Audi marketing bull**** wearing a green vest.

They would gather CO2 from fossil/bio fuel burning plants or breweries etc.
Gathering from the air would be difficult. And pointless.

"Tim w" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.


People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks in
your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.

He's just a poor old man, living in the past and can't see past the end of
his nose.
I bet his grandad thought you'd die if you travelled faster than 30mph.

Fossil fuel is killing us all.
And nuclear will given chance.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 21:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies.

Well that may be true but doesn't alter reality. Reality isn't
interested in faith, hope, or vision.

That kind of wilful ignorance is just dumb posturing. I take it you have
some kind of education? and know something about history, culture and the
world. You know that Coleridge didn't take up poetry because he thought it
would be an easy way to earn a few Bob? You know that Fascism wasn't
defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a world of ready-meals and Ant
and Dec? That the great acheivements of humanity like the emancipation of
slaves and the eradication of smallpox were all victories fought by people
who didn't accept the shallow, complacent wisdom that said 'That's just
the reality'? But still you pretend you can't see beyond your own nose and
that change in the world is driven by the relentless petty choices of
small minded people always selecting the cheapest option. You know it
isn't. Change comes about through vision and imagination and belief in our
ability to bring it about. You know that already.

Apart from the eradication of smallpox, everything you are describing
concerns human actions. You do something, or you don't; you make a
choice. Even the eradication of smallpox, now I come to think of it, in
fact falls into that category. That happened because it was technically
and practically possible, and because of an act of will on the part of
the WHO. In principle, you could eradicate the common house fly, too,
except that would most likely be impractical.

The sort of stuff that you seem to be talking about, however, is *not*
technically possible. Things in that category will *never* get done,
regardless of how much "vision", "faith", or any other damn human
emotion there is to bolster up the "hope". You want an everyday car
running only on solar power, with batteries perhaps for night use? Not
possible. Not possible however much research money, or indeed "faith",
you throw at it. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Yes well lots of things were impossible to the brain dead in the past.
Steam locomotives, motorcars, heavier than air flight, supersonic flight,
space flight, radio, photography. television, computers, jet engine,
microprocessors etc etc.

Plenty of brain dead here, making pronoucements from a positio of total
ignorance (which they think tobe "common sense").
Some I think have no education at all.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 21:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies.

Well that may be true but doesn't alter reality. Reality isn't
interested in faith, hope, or vision.


That kind of wilful ignorance is just dumb posturing. I take it you have
some kind of education? and know something about history, culture and
the world. You know that Coleridge didn't take up poetry because he
thought it would be an easy way to earn a few Bob? You know that Fascism
wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a world of ready-meals
and Ant and Dec? That the great acheivements of humanity like the
emancipation of slaves and the eradication of smallpox were all
victories fought by people who didn't accept the shallow, complacent
wisdom that said 'That's just the reality'? But still you pretend you
can't see beyond your own nose and that change in the world is driven by
the relentless petty choices of small minded people always selecting the
cheapest option. You know it isn't. Change comes about through vision
and imagination and belief in our ability to bring it about. You know
that already.

Tim W

Change often comes about by accident or by reinvestigating an anomaly from
past results. The chances of getting this fuel process to be economic IMO
are close to zero. Very few people achieve major worthwhile change by
design. Cold fusion seems to be a good case in point. Hope for the future
comes from the young who just don't know it isn't possible. When a process
is economically sound, it will happen, until then nothing will change.
Lithium batteries are a good example. Slavery died out largely because it
was uneconomic, as much as for any other reason. The majority of people
will try to choose the cheapest long term solution, as that's all they can
afford.

Slavery died out because of cheap fossil fuel coupled with technology.
A situation rapidly changing.

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

On 29/04/2015 16:53, Dennis@home wrote:
On 29/04/2015 16:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a
house of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics,
etc. But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the
costs of waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment
for future generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.

Pious twaddle.

You mean as in the same way that we view with contempt generations in
the 17th and 8th centuries who cut down the forests of southern England
to provide wood to build ships with? Those *arseholes* !! Why didn't
they think of the future and leave those primeval forests alone for
*us* to enjoy?

The ship makers were pretty good about replanting for what they took
since they always assumed that they would need good big straight timber
in the future for warships. It was the glassmakers and their ilk that
everyone looked down their noses at for clear cutting forest on an
industrial scale without bothering with proper management. Parliament
were concerned that there would not be enough wood left for the Navy.

Coal eventually replaced wood in the major smelting and melting
processes (after some tricky false starts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_m...Change_to_coal

Never mind them how about the assholes that covered the UK in green
fields instead of wild forests.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 23:21, Capitol wrote:
The majority of people will try to choose the cheapest
long term solution, as that's all they can afford.

Its not even in the end a choice. A society that chooses expensive not
very effective ways of doing things will not be able to stand against a
society that chooses cheaper and more effective ways.

Europe colonised the world because it had technology at its disposal.


Europe colonised the world long before the steam engine.

In many cases driven by religion and greed.

It was money that made it all possible.
The concentration of wealth.
Accumulating yet more wealth.
An upward spiral.
(Which is why socialism always fails.)

Cheaper is rarely more effective.
Eg Smart bombs v. dumb bombs.
Rifles v. muskets

In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in
use.

Drivel.

Sigh. Try doing some basic research, Harry. Even you should be able to
do that.

Brain dead as usual.
All diesel engines produce NOx and carbon particles.

I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread isn't
about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers petrol and
diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels like LPG and so
on.


Why do you suppose they are trying to fit exhaust gas modifying devices?
Mostly a failure to date

Depends what you mean by a failure. Cats. are very effective on some types
of IC engines, emitting cleaner air than they burn, in terms of NOx, etc.

--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 22:56, Tim w wrote:
You know that Fascism wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a
world of ready-meals and Ant and Dec?

No. it was defeated by hard works and superior technology actually, and a
bit of luck.


Fascism was defeated by money.

Money to provide the industry and the waepons.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics, etc.
But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the costs of
waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment for future
generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as incredibly
wastrel litter louts.

Eaxctly so.
Especially when it comes to nuclear waste.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 29/04/15 10:18, GB wrote:
On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics,
etc. But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the
costs of waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment for
future generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.


You don't think. You receive other peoples propaganda, regurgitate it, and
call that thinking.

Compared to what my generation recieved - the detritus of a major world
war, coal tips and heavy metal dumps and rivers with no fish in them, we
have achieved miracles in cleaning up the environment.


renewable energy is far more toxic and wasteful of materials than what we
had back in te 70s'


Drivel.
We have created an economy that is now poisoning us all.
The pollutants are just more subtle and widespread.
And will be much harder to fix.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , GB
wrote:

On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics, etc.
But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the costs of
waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment for future
generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as incredibly
wastrel litter louts.

Pious twaddle.

You mean as in the same way that we view with contempt generations in
the 17th and 8th centuries who cut down the forests of southern England
to provide wood to build ships with? Those *arseholes* !! Why didn't
they think of the future and leave those primeval forests alone for
*us* to enjoy?

That could easily be fixed. apart from the population rise.
And would self-fix if left alone for fifty years.
Unlike nuclear waste.
And atmoshperic pollution.

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:20:07 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel
in use.

Drivel.

Sigh. Try doing some basic research, Harry. Even you should be able
to do that.

Brain dead as usual.
All diesel engines produce NOx and carbon particles.

I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread isn't
about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers petrol and
diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels like LPG and
so on.

boggle Couldn't make it up, could you?

Harry, you are _priceless_. Clueless, witless, brainless but also
priceless.

Why do you suppose they are trying to fit exhaust gas modifying
devices?
Mostly a failure to date

Depends what you mean by a failure. Cats. are very effective on some
types of IC engines, emitting cleaner air than they burn, in terms of
NOx, etc.

Indeed. Just look at the various Euro emission levels to see if it's a
"failure" or not...

Take NOx - which this latest scaremongering is about...
Euro 3 (2000) introduced a cap on diesel NOx of 0.5g/km.
Euro 6 (2014) is 0.08g/km

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...sion_standards

The London ULEZ (from 2020) is probably going to do a lot to address the
NOx failures, but expect similar in other big city centres.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim w" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for
a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks
in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.

He's just a poor old man, living in the past and can't see past the end of
his nose.

I bet his grandad thought you'd die if you travelled faster than 30mph.

He was born in 1843 so that might not have been a too-surprising
attitude.

But if so, he was wrong.
New thinking is needed.
Not drivel from the past.

The age of cheap fossil fuel is almost over.
We must use what remains as sparingly as possible to set us on the new
renewable technology.
Which age need never be over.
And won't poison us or our children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pol...Health_effects

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in
use.

Drivel.

Sigh. Try doing some basic research, Harry. Even you should be able to
do that.

Brain dead as usual.
All diesel engines produce NOx and carbon particles.

I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread isn't
about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers petrol and
diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels like LPG and so
on.

The tread is about synthetic diesel engine fuel.
The synthetic fuel is only slightly less polluting than the fossil fuel.
(It has no sulphur)

Stop wriggling.
All diesel engines are polluting regardless of fuel.
You need to get read up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust...icle_emissions

On 29/04/2015 18:05, harryagain wrote:

Yes well lots of things were impossible to the brain dead in the past.
Steam locomotives, motorcars, heavier than air flight, supersonic flight,
space flight, radio, photography. television, computers, jet engine,
microprocessors etc etc.

Thorium reactors, nuclear waste disposal, ..

Plenty of brain dead here, making pronoucements from a positio of total
ignorance (which they think tobe "common sense").
Some I think have no education at all.



I see you recognise yourself.

On 29/04/2015 18:27, harryagain wrote:

That could easily be fixed. apart from the population rise.
And would self-fix if left alone for fifty years.

It would take a lot longer than 50 years to get back to how it was
before they chopped it down.

Unlike nuclear waste.

That will fix itself if left alone.
Look at the lack of effect chernoble is having on everything other than
people.

And atmoshperic pollution.

That will also fix itself.

It will take a lot longer for all the solar panels to decay into nothing.

On 29/04/2015 16:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics,
etc. But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the
costs of waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment
for future generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.

Pious twaddle.

It is fascinating that this particular topic generates so much heat -
alas, none of which can be harnessed.



You mean as in the same way that we view with contempt generations in
the 17th and 8th centuries who cut down the forests of southern England
to provide wood to build ships with? Those *arseholes* !! Why didn't
they think of the future and leave those primeval forests alone for
*us* to enjoy?

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 21:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies.

Well that may be true but doesn't alter reality. Reality isn't
interested in faith, hope, or vision.


That kind of wilful ignorance is just dumb posturing. I take it you have
some kind of education? and know something about history, culture and
the world. You know that Coleridge didn't take up poetry because he
thought it would be an easy way to earn a few Bob? You know that Fascism
wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a world of ready-meals
and Ant and Dec? That the great acheivements of humanity like the
emancipation of slaves and the eradication of smallpox were all
victories fought by people who didn't accept the shallow, complacent
wisdom that said 'That's just the reality'? But still you pretend you
can't see beyond your own nose and that change in the world is driven by
the relentless petty choices of small minded people always selecting the
cheapest option. You know it isn't. Change comes about through vision
and imagination and belief in our ability to bring it about. You know
that already.

Tim W

Change often comes about by accident or by reinvestigating an anomaly
from past results. The chances of getting this fuel process to be
economic IMO are close to zero. Very few people achieve major worthwhile
change by design. Cold fusion seems to be a good case in point. Hope for
the future comes from the young who just don't know it isn't possible.
When a process is economically sound, it will happen, until then nothing
will change. Lithium batteries are a good example. Slavery died out
largely because it was uneconomic, as much as for any other reason. The
majority of people will try to choose the cheapest long term solution, as
that's all they can afford.

Slavery died out because of cheap fossil fuel

Slavery died out in the first world long
before there was any cheap fossil fuel.

coupled with technology.

Yes, technology was the main cause of
the demise of slavery in the first world.

A situation rapidly changing.

No. Its still the reason that slavery isn't useful anymore
and always will be, particularly with technology. Even
domestic slaves have no real use now that we get
technology to do what we used to have slaves do.

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.

It rarely came by accident in the past too.

Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.

They always did and that is why humans do a lot better than animals.

So if you have no education,

No one has no education anymore.

you are unlikely to invent anything.

You are unlikely to invent anything even with education.

Or even have an idea of what's possible.

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

It still happens, just differently, most obviously with apps today.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 23:21, Capitol wrote:
The majority of people will try to choose the cheapest
long term solution, as that's all they can afford.

Its not even in the end a choice. A society that chooses expensive not
very effective ways of doing things will not be able to stand against a
society that chooses cheaper and more effective ways.

Europe colonised the world because it had technology at its disposal.

Europe colonised the world long before the steam engine.

Using the technology of ocean going ships.

In many cases driven by religion and greed.

It was money that made it all possible.

It was much more the drive to do it that made it possible.

The concentration of wealth.

Doesn’t explain the Vikings that rampaged
over a surprising amount of the world.

Accumulating yet more wealth.
An upward spiral.
(Which is why socialism always fails.)

Hasn’t failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.

Cheaper is rarely more effective.
Eg Smart bombs v. dumb bombs.
Rifles v. muskets

You get the opposite effect with much technology,
cheaper makes it viable for everyone to have it.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 22:56, Tim w wrote:
You know that Fascism wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a
world of ready-meals and Ant and Dec?

No. it was defeated by hard works and superior technology actually, and a
bit of luck.

Fascism was defeated by money.

Fascism was defeated by the yanks choosing to get involved.

Money to provide the industry and the waepons.

It was about much more than just money.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 29/04/15 10:18, GB wrote:
On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house
of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics,
etc. But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the
costs of waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment for
future generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.


You don't think. You receive other peoples propaganda, regurgitate it,
and call that thinking.

Compared to what my generation recieved - the detritus of a major world
war, coal tips and heavy metal dumps and rivers with no fish in them, we
have achieved miracles in cleaning up the environment.


renewable energy is far more toxic and wasteful of materials than what we
had back in te 70s'


Drivel.
We have created an economy that is now poisoning us all.

It is poisoning us a lot less than it used to at the height of the
industrial revolution. We just don’t get smog like we used to.

The pollutants are just more subtle and widespread.

No, most obviously with smog.

And will be much harder to fix.

Much easier to fix when power stations
don’t churn out exhaust gases and we
use nukes that consume all of the
radioactive materials put into them.

On 29/04/2015 21:58, Simon Brown wrote:

No. Its still the reason that slavery isn't useful anymore
and always will be, particularly with technology. Even
domestic slaves have no real use now that we get
technology to do what we used to have slaves do.

There's no point in using slaves if it's cheap enough to employ people,
and that's what happens - see eg construction workers in the middle
east, lots of China, etc.

It's not technology which has replaced slaves, it's other forms of
abusive labour.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

"Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In ,
wrote:
The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in
use.

Drivel.

Sigh. Try doing some basic research, Harry. Even you should be able to
do that.

Brain dead as usual.
All diesel engines produce NOx and carbon particles.

I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread isn't
about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers petrol and
diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels like LPG and so
on.


Why do you suppose they are trying to fit exhaust gas modifying devices?
Mostly a failure to date

Depends what you mean by a failure. Cats. are very effective on some types
of IC engines, emitting cleaner air than they burn, in terms of NOx, etc.


I didn't know you could burn cats in car engines!

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim w" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks
in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.

He's just a poor old man, living in the past and can't see past the end
of his nose.

I bet his grandad thought you'd die if you travelled faster than 30mph.

He was born in 1843 so that might not have been a too-surprising
attitude.

But if so, he was wrong.
New thinking is needed.
Not drivel from the past.

The age of cheap fossil fuel is almost over.

Not with coal and gas.

We must use what remains as sparingly as possible to set us on the new
renewable technology.

We should be using nukes.

Which age need never be over.
And won't poison us or our children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pol...Health_effects

Nukes don’t produce any of that.

On 29/04/15 22:04, Simon Brown wrote:
Hasnt failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.

when you have a population as low as they have and as much oil/gas as
they have you can afford socialism. Till the oil runs out....



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll