Switch off at the socket?
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
:
: "Jerry" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Bill Wright" wrote in message
: ...
: : Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to
70m
: over the next
: : few years, snip trolling racists crap
:
: The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots.
What's racist
: about saying that?

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant but closet resists like you Bill just can't understand
that simple fact, if you were put in a position were you had to
kill a *White* Anglo-Saxon person to stop your family starving
you would do so - just like what happens in Africa or places like
Haiti etc.

:
: Irrelevant, climate change could mean that the UK couldn't
even
: feed it's indigenous 1945 population level never mind it's
1970
: or 2007 population level. Kindly take you BNP style clap-trap
: elsewhere.
: So saying that the population will rise as a result of
immigration is BNP
: style clap-trap is it?

Yes, in the context that you used it.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted,
which instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as
you say, not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

Nope. Atmospheric extraction and carbon capture is an area where the
UK could make a significant impact.

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea how big
the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made extractor would
be?

How many would we need do you think?

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

The atmosphere tends to have a
habit of circulating on a global scale, so our small geographic area
eventually accesses all of the planet's atmosphere. Indeed, any
atmospheric extraction plant in any country would be insignificantly
smaller than the UK, so our limited size is not an issue. The UK has
extracted so much of its underground resources that there are many
suitable voids for the indefinite storage of liquid and solid carbon
deposits.
However, any small country could, with the right technology,
investment and political will (which is the most likely barrier in
the UK), punch well above its weight with carbon capture. Indeed,
with the appropriate carbon trading agreements in place, it could be
as profitable a business as any currently vomiting CO2 across the
planet.

Sadly, no it won't.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:50:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Well, I'm terribly sorry about that, but the point I was replying
to was:

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

and that's what I dealt with.

That's fair enough

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the
USA don't seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty
remote. If they don't agree swingeing cuts and implement them,
anything we do in Britain is totally irrelevant, so it's pointless
trying, and paying a high price for doing so. It's like
volunteering to starve ten years before anyone else sees the need.

And my point is that if everone takes that attitude, we're doomed,
because no agreement will ever be reached if everyone is saying:
"No, you must jump first!"

Absolutely. But Britain jumping first will have no effect at all.
That's my point. We're as significant in that respect as the Cayman
Islands or Tuvalu.

WE can set an example that it can be done. And we know it SHOULD be
done.

Not if it serves no purpose.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted,
which instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as
you say, not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

We still produce just 1.7% of the world's CO2. What difference would it
make if the UK were to sink without trace tonight?

By how many seconds do you think it would delay global catastrophe?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:35:47 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
1GW, enough for two big cities it says and it will have been doing it
for 39 years when it finally closes.

But how much energy did it take to build it? How much to mine the
ore, refine it (these in another country, so it doesn't appear in our
carbon account), ship it to the UK, maybe process it some more, 'burn'
it, make the waste safe for transport, transport it, process it, and
store it INDEFINITELY into the future, for we will be expending energy
looking after and containing nuclear waste long after the sites that
produced it have been decommissioned. How much energy will it take
entirely to decommission the plant safely at the end of its working
life? By the time you've added up that lot, just how much 'net'
energy will the plant have produced?


About 1%-3% of the energy it produces, typically. Is what is used by it
to produce the actual structure and take it down afterwards.

Somewhat better than a windmill.

The data you need is all in David Mackay's excellent and very unbiased
(he is a committed greenie, but with the ability to think and do sums as
well) book, and website www.withouthotair.com


If any? A recent BBC programmes about Windscale/Sellafield cast doubt
on how much energy it ever produced.

They are actually designed with rushed production of weapons grade
plutonium in mind. Power generation was a bit of a smokescreen. A handy
politically acceptable by-product if you like. After all the damned
piles WERE producing a lot of heat, as part of the desired nuclear
reactins., and needed cooling, so it made sense to strap a boiler and a
turbine on the back, and do something with it.


After all, it was primarily
built as a source of weapons-grade plutonium, not to supply
electricity, which was just a public cover story, and the programme
stated that it was sometimes drawing power from the grid rather than
supplying power to it!


Exactly. Historically intersting, but in no way relevant to modern
plants designed to produce power safely and economically, and be
dismantles safely and economically afterwards.


A recent BBC programme about Dounreay revealed that its
decommissioning employs as many people as it ever did when it was
operational. This inevitably means that it will produce incidental
CO2 until decommissioning ends in 2025, even though it hasn't been
operational since 1994.

Indeed. An early set that wasn't designed to be taken apart in the sort
of Elfin Safety regime that would have had post war technologists
sputtering their coffee all over their slide rules.

And that's not even to mention environmental radio-active hazards ...


Which are, frank;ly, alomost non existent.

A school-friend's family had to pour all their milk into the sea
during the incident at the then Windscale plant.


Says who?

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

There are Welsh farmers still unable to sell their lamb after
Chernobyl:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...1466-20822842/

The same BBC programme revealed (newly to me, at least) that there are
heavy particles washing along the coast from Dounreay:


Ther are heavy particles washing along the Channel and bristol channel
from Dartmoor and Exmoor..

natural radon is the greatest source of radioactive related deaths in
the country, by IIRC a factor of several thousand over the nuclear industry.


http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0952-4...b-754751b7c89c

And, don't forget, every spillage, leak, incident, or whatever,
whether it be major like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, or the more
frequent lesser problems, besides the instantly alarming concerns
about radio-activity, have an associated energetic cost in cleanup
operations, etc.


Trivial ion compariso=n to the power generated, and arguably about a
1000 times more diligent than the actual facts say is necessary.

The really big windmills are 2MW so you need 1500 "jumbo jets on a
stick" spread out over the country to have even a hope in hell of
matching this one nuke station.

It is certainly true that wind has its own problems, the chief of
which are that most of the population do not choose to live where most
of the wind is, the number of windfarms that are required to be built
in an impossibly short time, and the only commercial manufacturer in
the UK has just closed. However, planning permission aside, a
windfarm has a much smaller lead time, and a much smaller initial CO2
outlay to recover. We need to use as much wind as we can, but it
clearly won't be sufficient on its own.

WE don't need to use any wind. Its an appalingly inefficient way to
generate usable power. It has no real justification beyond seeming to
the naive, to be a green solution to a real problem. In reality its no
solution at all, but it gets the greenies of peoples backs whilst they
work on real solutions.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[email protected] wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.


Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the difference
in weight between a discharged and charged lithium batery. Much less
than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass, which in
fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the mass increased on
charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd be on to something,
probably a Nobel prize.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 17, 2:36*pm, "Bill Wright"
wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
: Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m
over the next
: few years, snip trolling racists crap

The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots. What's racist
about saying that?

It's just Jerry saying he hasn't got a cogent argument against someone
he disagrees with.

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

snip more trolling from MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

On 16 Sep, 21:45, Owain wrote:
On 16 Sep, 21:14, Java Jive wrote:

But if, following your bad example, we say to the Chinese: "You are
producing too much CO2!" they will just say to us: "Per capita, you
produce twice as much as us! *Don't lecture to us at least until
you've taken your own population in hand!"

Or "stop buying stuff from us, because the emissions from our
factories are actually your emissions but displaced"

Owain

Wise words.

Mary

Switch off at the socket?
 

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:22:00 +0100, brightside S9
wrote:

But the population is rising at an unsustainable rate anyway.

That's the really fundamental problem we have and very few people seem
to be addressing it.
Influential people are needed to sell that, maybe
maybe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stm
is a start.

We either do it voluntarily, or the planet will do it for us or cause us
to do it to ourselves. The first signs of the planet doing it are in
evidence now.
It wouldn't take much for there to be global war once the first real
wobble occurs. The financial system will go first (like it nearly did last
year) and once that has gone everything else goes downhill rapidly.
Lots of people will die though starvation or being killed by someone else
in competition for resources.

Yes. 'Limits to Growth' was written in the 60's.

We managed to find more oil.,, better medicines, better farming, so we
staved off its dire predictions for 40 years. This led many to say we
could stave them off forever.

As the falling optimist said 'I haven't hit anything yet, what's the
problem?'

Its my considered opinion that we did hit something. The end of growth
as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds financial systenm. Now
we are trying to restart growth, but it cannot happen - teh next phase
of this crisis I had expected to materialise about now, but the signs
are its delayed somewhat, and may hit sometime next year.