TOT turbines

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

Do you have a reference for that claim? I highly doubt it. I'm not an
expert, but reading around the net from various sources I get the
impression that there isn't a unified climate theory. There are papers
from climatologists who explicitly assert that there isn't. So whatever
the computers model, it can't be a unified theory, therefore they cannot
have predictive power.

That's a bit like saying that car tyres aren't necessarily useful because
of all the competing tread patterns. With climate theory and models,
there are some things that we can be confident about and others that are
uncertain. We can say with reasonable confidence that the measured
increase in carbon dioxide will increase retention of heat, and will
result in a temperature rise, but the exact rise has some uncertainty.

I've seen a couple of TV programmes where respected climatologists from
the "pro-warming" and "skeptic" camps were invited to debate, where the
greenies and corporate-shills were left out for a change, and there was
less difference between their scientific opinions than the media usually
likes to portray.

Natural science isn't about programming computers. It's about making
observations in the real world and stating theories about those
observations. The only place a computer has in that work is as a word
processor.

By that logic, computers would be useless for weather forecasting too.

Martin wrote:

On 27 Feb 2012 03:30:01 GMT, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

Martin wrote in
m:

Small errors in the climate models can create silly predictions.

"Climate models" are not really science. They don't predict anything.
Science is empirical work, stating theories and trying to falsify them.
Once you have a theory you can stick it into a computer if you like and
see what comes out, but that is not really relevant. If your theory
doesn't model reality, the endeavour is pretty much useless anyway. At
this point there isn't a even unified theory of world climate at all,
that is still a matter of research. So whatever it is they are sticking
into their computers, is meaningless.

I am not arguing with that.

I would. The first and last but one sentences are overstatement, and the
last is massive overstatement.

Martin wrote:

Here is something to get your teeth into

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/gre...credulity.html

What's my comment? That of all the hundreds of news articles on the
subject, that looks like it could be the most extreme of the skeptic
articles, consisting almost entirely of misrepresentation and insinuation?

J G Miller wrote:
On Monday, February 27th, 2012, at 11:24:00h +0000,
Bill Wright declared:

The leaders of the left have always middle or upper class.

Always?

Arthur Scargill middle class -- the son of a miner and a cook?

Ramsay MacDonald was the illegitimate son of
John Macdonald, a farm labourer, and Anne Ramsay, a housemaid.

James Keir Hardie was the son of David Hardie, a ship's carpenter,
and Mary Keir, a domestic servant.
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Harold Wilson, Wedgewood-Benn, the Millibands,
Harriet Harman.

Bill

On 26/02/2012 19:51, Andy Champ wrote:
On 26/02/2012 16:09, Peter Duncanson wrote:


I can't put my finger on the exact number, but about 100 people died
during the evacuation. I don't know all the causes but some were
hospital patients who were not fit to be moved, certainly not over
damaged roads and the distances necessary to find other hospitals with
spare capacity. NHK World broadcast a documentary about evacuees who
were on routine kidney dialysis. Some could be accomodated in hospitals
just outside the evacuation zone, most had to be transported much
further.

It is too soon to know how many people will die because of exposure to
radiation. I suspect that it may not be possible to say that any
particular death was caused by it. However, statistical patterns might
strongly suggest radiation as a cause.

I am not against nuclear power stations. However, it is very clear that
greater caution should be used when deciding what is "safe enough". This
applies to things other than nuclear power stations. People died in
tsunami shelters because the water rose much higher than expected.



I'd like to see the source for that 100 number. Even so, it's not
significant. Getting on for 16,000 people were killed by the earthquake.
Why are we even interested in the 5 who were killed in the plant? And
the ... err... zero who were killed by radiation ... perhaps the number
is a clue?

If your number is correct it looks as though 100 people were killed as a
result of a reaction to a possible danger that hasn't killed anyone.
That may be a symptom of an overreaction.

That said, I don't like nuclear power. It's expensive and dirty. But
what are the choices? Coal is filthy. Oil and gas won't last long. Hydro
is small scale only (and yes, I do know about the Hoover dam.) Wind and
solar are expensive, unreliable, and land hungry. (you can't farm under
solar, and you can't safely build within half a mile or so of a big wind
turbine). Tidal? A few percent is possible, even in Britain, at the cost
of the wildlife in the Bristol Channel and Morecambe Bay. And go back to
a low energy economy? Only if we can go back to a 17th century
population - before fossil fuels - which means that 9 out of every 10 of
us die.

Andy

critcher said....................
the so called damage to wildlife on the Gwent levels is no more than a
huge increase in sea levels would be, assuming that the global warming
scenario is correct.Do not forget that the severn barrage would be
capable of controlling the amount of tide let in to area behind the
barrage whenever there was a tidal surge.The control of the generating
systems on the severn barrage is one of the high points of the barrage.
The tidal range could be controlled so as to prevent flooding etc.

On 27/02/2012 13:02, tony sayer wrote:

That said, I don't like nuclear power. It's expensive and dirty.

You mean the high level waste then?..



You snipped the bit where I explained how it's the best of a bad lot.

Andy

In article ,
lid says...


Here's an article about the results of her energy policy.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...816669,00.html

Why not change your user name from bright to DIM?

BRIGHT people read the posts they are responding to first ...!

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:44:23 +0100, Martin
wrote:

The effect on an economy of electricity being provided from renewable
energy in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...816669,00.html


--

Terry

On 26/02/2012 21:33, Peter Duncanson wrote:
The radiation level would have to be very very high to kill someone
straight away. Radiation can cause cancer that may to lead to death.

There are various other effects, and as this explains much depends on
both overall dose and dose-rate:
http://epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/radeffects.shtml


The trouble is that the EPA numbers were defined on the back of a few
nasty experiences, including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. There's
pretty good evidence that high level radiation causes high level
sickness. However, just as we have a problem with analysing the effects
of drinking at low levels (red wine is good for you. Or is it?) we
don't have good data for low level radiation. Horoshim and Nagasaki
also caused a lot of social deprivation, and population movements, both
of which also cause ill health.

We really don't know whether radiation at 0.001% of lethal is dangerous
or not. The precautionary principle says be careful - but then if the
choice is starve, or a 1 in 10,000 risk of cancer?

If your number is correct it looks as though 100 people were killed as a
result of a reaction to a possible danger that hasn't killed anyone.
That may be a symptom of an overreaction.

People were evacuated once the radiation level became too high. "Too
high" is a level at which continuous exposure will lead to various
health problems.


"Too high" is a level at which continuous exposure is thought to be a
risk of various health problems. I wish we had good data.

Way back in the 1950s I was in the RAF with an interesting job servicing
airborne navigation computers linked to planes' radar systems. This work
was done in a comfortable air-conditioned workshop. The planes were
Valiant bombers which were the nuclear deterrent at the time. They were
intended to drop atom bombs on the Soviet Union in response to a Soviet
attack on the UK. As part of the preparations I and my colleagues
received training in what we should do in the event of a nuclear attack
that left at least some of our planes useable but the airfield and
surrounding area contaminated with radioactive material. It was our job
to leave our nice safe underground bunker once or twice a day to measure
radiation levels at various places on the airfield until the levels had
decreased low enough for the aircrews to board the planes and get them
in the air without incurring a damaging amount of radiation exposure
that would leave them too ill to fly the planes to the targets.

As well as carrying geiger counters for making those measurements we
would wear personal dosimeters at all times. We were told that we would
not be expected to continue working outside the bunker once we had
accumulated a "lifetime dose" of radiation. Even without any knowledge
of the medical effects of radiation we guessed that a "lifetime dose"
acquired over a few days would have a very different, and probably more
severe, effect than the same total dose over years or decades.


Your RAF experiences are also based on wartime dosage limits. And
probably the belief that a dead erk doesn't really matter.

That said, I don't like nuclear power. It's expensive and dirty. But
what are the choices? Coal is filthy. Oil and gas won't last long.
Hydro is small scale only (and yes, I do know about the Hoover dam.)
Wind and solar are expensive, unreliable, and land hungry. (you can't
farm under solar, and you can't safely build within half a mile or so of
a big wind turbine). Tidal? A few percent is possible, even in Britain,
at the cost of the wildlife in the Bristol Channel and Morecambe Bay.
And go back to a low energy economy? Only if we can go back to a 17th
century population - before fossil fuels - which means that 9 out of
every 10 of us die.

There is also tidal stream generation. This puts turbines in the sea to
harness its to and fro tidal movement. There is potentially as much
energy as we need available in the tidal movement of the sea. At the
moment our technology can handle only a comparatively rapid flow. Most
of the energy is in lower speed flows.
http://www.marineturbines.com/

This turbine is in operation and connected to the grid.
http://www.seageneration.co.uk/

It is much less conspicuous than a wind turbine.


Well, speaking as someone who takes small boats out to sea I'm not
entirely sure I like the idea of windmill type things under water. Out
of sight shouldn't be out of mind... but the big question is how much
power could we make from it?

The biggest number I've seen from any live site is 150kW

Andy

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:36:25 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

On 26/02/2012 21:33, Peter Duncanson wrote:
The radiation level would have to be very very high to kill someone
straight away. Radiation can cause cancer that may to lead to death.

There are various other effects, and as this explains much depends on
both overall dose and dose-rate:
http://epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/radeffects.shtml


The trouble is that the EPA numbers were defined on the back of a few
nasty experiences, including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. There's
pretty good evidence that high level radiation causes high level
sickness. However, just as we have a problem with analysing the effects
of drinking at low levels (red wine is good for you. Or is it?) we
don't have good data for low level radiation. Horoshim and Nagasaki
also caused a lot of social deprivation, and population movements, both
of which also cause ill health.

We really don't know whether radiation at 0.001% of lethal is dangerous
or not. The precautionary principle says be careful - but then if the
choice is starve, or a 1 in 10,000 risk of cancer?

If your number is correct it looks as though 100 people were killed as a
result of a reaction to a possible danger that hasn't killed anyone.
That may be a symptom of an overreaction.

People were evacuated once the radiation level became too high. "Too
high" is a level at which continuous exposure will lead to various
health problems.


"Too high" is a level at which continuous exposure is thought to be a
risk of various health problems. I wish we had good data.

Way back in the 1950s I was in the RAF with an interesting job servicing
airborne navigation computers linked to planes' radar systems. This work
was done in a comfortable air-conditioned workshop. The planes were
Valiant bombers which were the nuclear deterrent at the time. They were
intended to drop atom bombs on the Soviet Union in response to a Soviet
attack on the UK. As part of the preparations I and my colleagues
received training in what we should do in the event of a nuclear attack
that left at least some of our planes useable but the airfield and
surrounding area contaminated with radioactive material. It was our job
to leave our nice safe underground bunker once or twice a day to measure
radiation levels at various places on the airfield until the levels had
decreased low enough for the aircrews to board the planes and get them
in the air without incurring a damaging amount of radiation exposure
that would leave them too ill to fly the planes to the targets.

As well as carrying geiger counters for making those measurements we
would wear personal dosimeters at all times. We were told that we would
not be expected to continue working outside the bunker once we had
accumulated a "lifetime dose" of radiation. Even without any knowledge
of the medical effects of radiation we guessed that a "lifetime dose"
acquired over a few days would have a very different, and probably more
severe, effect than the same total dose over years or decades.


Your RAF experiences are also based on wartime dosage limits. And
probably the belief that a dead erk doesn't really matter.

Of course. We understood at the time, without being told, that the
personal dose monitoring was to ensure that we were sufficiently fit to
do what we needed to do for as long as the job needed to be done. After
that......

As part of our training we were given one of the hand-held geiger
counters for a couple of days so that we could experiment with it and
become familiar with it. One on my colleagues was playing with it in our
workshop and got very high readings. He was using it in the vicinity of
a aircraft radar system that was being tested. I went to help him. When
he was near the radar dish the reading was high. It remained high and
*constant* as he moved away until suddenly it dropped to zero. After a
bit of head-scratching I realised what was going on. The pulse rate
shown by the meter was the same as the pulse rate of the radar. The
circuitry of meter was responding to radar-frequency interference rather
than beta particles or gamma rays.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
J G Miller wrote:
On Monday, February 27th, 2012, at 11:24:00h +0000,
Bill Wright declared:

The leaders of the left have always middle or upper class.

Always?

Arthur Scargill middle class -- the son of a miner and a cook?

Ramsay MacDonald was the illegitimate son of
John Macdonald, a farm labourer, and Anne Ramsay, a housemaid.

James Keir Hardie was the son of David Hardie, a ship's carpenter,
and Mary Keir, a domestic servant.
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Harold Wilson, Wedgewood-Benn, the Millibands,
Harriet Harman.

Lord Prescott?
--
JohnT