Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Something Very Fishy.............


drgl

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
Garden growth is often limited to spectacular and utterly useless displays of flowers and rather than a healthy and tasty dietary accompaniment,....

Although I agree with a number of your sentiments, sm - especially about supermarkets - the one above makes me very sad.

Beauty is useless, is it? Yes, let's all live in practical concrete bunkers, why bother with "spectacular and utterly useless" architectural frippery? And to hell with music - what a pointless waste of electricity making and playing it. As for art....well, we can stitch together all those silly canvasses and make something useful - like good, plain, practical clothing: you won't, of course, be wanting to wear any unnecessarily pretty clothes, will you, when we all live in this brave new world where utility and efficiency are the only benchmarks?

:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New Zealand
  • Location: New Zealand

Let's all live in beautiful cob houses, made by our own hands and styled, decorated and sculpted by our own creativity. Let's make and dye our own fabrics, and create clothes with our own hands, styling and decorating them as we see fit - just as has always been done untill the modern age. Why don't we have friend around more often - maybe we can help each other out all day with the things we all need and have to do for day to day living. Let's all share our particular skills and talents with everyone else for absolutely free, and at the end of the day lets sit down together in our clean, friendly, and beautiful environment, and all make beautiful accoustic music together around the fire, tell jokes and stories, etc, etc.

OK, maybe some might say that that isn't their cup of tea. I don't know why because to me it would be paradise. Tha said, there is a reason for my saying it...

Efficiency can take two forms - an efficiency of force or an efficiency of application. One is what we have now - we make what we want and screw the costs as long as they don't cost ourselves (whether applied to individuals or corporations). The other is about working with and within what's around us, rather than against it. That in itself can be and allows for beauty in a form more fulfilling than most kids today have ever dared to concieve of.

There's more than one way to do things, and that stretches not just to power, but as you quite rightly suggest, it stretches to the whole world and society itself.

Edited by crimsone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

A good point, C...There is another kind of 'efficiency'. I'd call it 'making do' with what we have? :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
The real problem is that the various 'alternative' power sources are so inefficient. To achieve an adequately useful output we would need extraordinary numbers of solar arrays; wind farms; wave and tide energy machines, etc, given today's equipment.

How much power (as a percentage of today's needs) do the above produce at present and how much could we reasonably expect from such sources in the future? :doh:

Of the more efficient sources –

Geothermal energy is a bit hard to come by throughout the UK.

Hydroelectricity can only be generated where there is enough water and elevation.

Barrages are only appropriate in certain places.

Bio fuels work with existing and fairly efficient power stations but there seems to be something of a reluctance to take the idea aboard possibly because of the CO2 output.

Only nuclear power can provide enough energy to be a useful percentage of our requirements.

All in favour! :)

Geothermal energy: Cornwall, The peak district and vast areas of Scotland are underlain by Batholiths (as the Granites/Metamorphics/Quartz veining attest to) so there are very real regional opportunities to develop the energy.

Hydro-electricity: Have you ever considered the vast quantities of water moved daily, at pressure, to provide us with drinking water in many areas? Surely if we are looking for a 'tapestry' of alternates to provide a reliable output then one element could be reservoir fed cities water supplies.

Great Britain and Ireland (along with much of N.W. Europe has one of the greatest tidal ranges on the planet, as shame to dismiss such a large energy reservoir.

Some Willows (developed/bred? at Wisley) put on a fantastic annual growth (over 25' per season if I remember correctly) providing a very efficient bio fuel/short term co2 uptake medium. The trees also provide very rapid 'wind breaks' bringing other , unusable land into production. Bio fuel from Hemp (producing oil,paper and biomass) is the most efficient plant but has a few 'social stigmas' attached to its usage.

Again, if you look at the 1974 study on 'alternative energy' you'll see that;

A/ 11 out of the 14 'scientists' compiling the report were associated with U.K.A.E.A.

B/ Some very basic mathematical errors (mis-placed decimal points) made both offshore wind and barrage energy mathematically very expensive (instead of every 1km of cable failing every 2 years it should have been every 200yrs!!) an error easily (and quickly) recognized but never rectified/publicised.

C/ the follow up study was shelved at the end of the 'Oil crises' and the setting up of OPEC (along with the exploitation of our own off-shore reserves redressing the balance of power held by the middle east).

If you think about the size and efficiency of the first 'solar powered calculators' with todays models you'll get some idea as to how fast and efficient alternative can become in a very (relatively) short time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New Zealand
  • Location: New Zealand

Some very very good points there GW (there's something odd in calling you GW while talking of alternative energy!).

The Severn Estuary is actually one with the second highest tide differential in the world if I recall. Unfortunately though, the environmental imact of building a tidal barrage there would be too high to consider reasonably. That said, maybe thy'll find another way to harness it if they can be tempted to put money into such research in any reasonable quantity.

On the other hand, I'm still of the opinion that much of our power requirements can be generated at home, and the excess fed back into the grid. The problem of course has already be mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts

The other BIG problem with nuclear fuel is what we do with the waste and how we deal with power stations when they come to the end of their lives. There are HUGE problems with decomissioning, and we have still not, despite Blair's unrelenting pro-nuclear stance, worked out what on earth to do with the waste we produce currently, let alone what to do with the amount we will produce if we allow the proliferation of power stations......

Only on the news this morning they were talking about this and mentioned that current thinkin g says we can bury it deep, but that it will take 20-30 years to develop the correct facilities.....

So what do we do until then??????????? :doh: <_<

Some joined up thinking would be a really good idea.

Edited by Roo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
The other BIG problem with nuclear fuel is what we do with the waste and how we deal with power stations when they come to the end of their lives. There are HUGE problems with decommissioning, and we have still not, despite Blair's unrelenting pro-nuclear stance, worked out what on earth to do with the waste we produce currently, let alone what to do with the amount we will produce if we allow the proliferation of power stations......

Only on the news this morning they were talking about this and mentioned that current thinkin g says we can bury it deep, but that it will take 20-30 years to develop the correct facilities.....

So what do we do until then??????????? :doh: <_<

Some joined up thinking would be a really good idea.

In the 1970's the U.K.A.E.A. seemed to be more about preserving their own research facilities/grants than providing energy. The cost to us as a nation (before the waste issues are added in ) are fantastic so I find all the 'cost' argument/complaints about alternatives slightly bemusing (if not very dangerous). With our ageing Nuclear detterent you really have to think why our Tone is so up for Nuclear power if not to provide the basics for new bombs........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
Although I agree with a number of your sentiments, sm - especially about supermarkets - the one above makes me very sad.

Beauty is useless, is it? Yes, let's all live in practical concrete bunkers, why bother with "spectacular and utterly useless" architectural frippery? And to hell with music - what a pointless waste of electricity making and playing it. As for art....well, we can stitch together all those silly canvasses and make something useful - like good, plain, practical clothing: you won't, of course, be wanting to wear any unnecessarily pretty clothes, will you, when we all live in this brave new world where utility and efficiency are the only benchmarks?

<_<

You misunderstand me. I have nothing against beautiful flower displays as long as they are in context with the reality of life. For example, a garden can be quite easily utilised for crops and for flowers, and a lot of flowers (most of the UK popular ones actually) have medicinal and culinary uses in any case. What annoys me is the waste of good arable land for frivilous purposes and frivilous purposes alone which drives reliance on corporate greed, or people wasting water on such things when it is in short supply. Architecture can be beautiful and functional and music does not need electricity but even if it does, then electricity cleanly generated is surely the target in any case?

I realise what I said was rather extreme, but it is necessary to look at the extreme and move some way (but not all the way) towards it to redress the balance.

The point is that people to a large extent have forgotten what it is to live life and to strive, and thus have diminishing respect for everything around them.

In WW2 under rationing people shot rabbits and grew vegetables to supplement the meagre rations allocated, what would happen now in a disaster? Obese people on News 24 complaining that the government aren't doing enough I would guess, or heaven forfend a troop of lawyers suing anything that moves for the denial of inalienable comforts like chocolate digestives and additive riddled instant meals.

There has to be a happy medium, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
A good point, C...There is another kind of 'efficiency'. I'd call it 'making do' with what we have? <_<

I'm not entirely sure what the above means- is it meaning make the most of our natural resources, or is it meaning "instead of wanting more than you have, just be greatful for how lucky you are"?

I can see the former being a good route to take, but the latter, while reducing the problems of greed and aimless moaning about problems, tends to lead to complacency and laissez-faire approaches.

As for the other points about efficiency by Crimsone and also Snowmaiden, they do make a lot of sense. I think there's a problem with defining "need" and "efficiency" in that our world is driven by economics and work, such that most people consider that if something isn't work-related, with the aim of financial profit-making and/or sustaining a living, then it isn't necessary. Thus, ironically, non-productive short-term profiteering by companies doesn't get targetted as strongly as things that are of social, asthetic and/or recreational value.

A saying goes that "money is the root of all evil"- I don't generally entirely agree with it, but it seems to be close to the truth when it comes to environmental considerations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
A saying goes that "money is the root of all evil"- I don't generally entirely agree with it, but it seems to be close to the truth when it comes to environmental considerations.

I think the full saying is that 'the love of money is the root of all evil', which is not far from the truth indeed.

Efficiency does not need to mean the end of the aesthetically pleasing. When you break the argument down to its core its a straight question. Ideally should we generate power in a way that minimises environmental impact now and in the future or should we do what is the most profitable?

A different question related to the efficiency/anti-corporate side of things. In an ideal world is it better to trade some of your wonderful garden produce/livestock for a hand-made kitchen by a local craftsman (or indeed trade your skill for his), or to work in a meaningless corporate environment dealing with something intangible that does not need to exist and has only a net detrimental effect on the planet and buy something made cheaply and looking naff from an out of town carbon emmitter (sorry, furniture warehouse)?

Again, extremes, but clearly one has merit whereas the other does not stand up to reason very well.

Can we have it all and have it clean? Possibly, but not in a world like the one we have.

So, to take it back a peg or two, renewables stand no chance, and nuclear is therefore default next best option for the environment.

Its a tough one because if we did go down the extreme route of ruralisation and clean energy etc we would inevitably lose out on things we are now accustomed to, and I am now a very confused puddy tat indeed.

Edited by snowmaiden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
  • Location: Austevoll Kommune North of 60 deg N
  • Weather Preferences: Cold with a metre of lying snow
  • Location: Austevoll Kommune North of 60 deg N

Hi,

I've just been reading the early debate above and am astounded by it

Firstly, for the record I'm in favour of new build. As I've said on other webchats Wind is fine but it is just the icing on the cake - the cake has to be nuclear or some other low carbon energy source.

Secondly, since many of you live away from the south coast you may not realise that our neighbour across the Channel generates 80% of its electricity by nuclear with many power stations on its northern coast - not to mention Cap l'Hague REPROCESSING PLANT (http://www.kare-uk.org/kare-main.htm#cap). Its ironic that the cross channel electricity link was built to enable us to sell electricity to the French but it now works almost continuously in the other direction.

You all might be interested to know that Norway is starting a national debate on whether to build a nuclear power station. I can't think of another nation that is as green as Norway and if it is good enough for them then it's good enough for us.

Rant over

Norway Nut

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Louth, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Misty Autumn days and foggy nights
  • Location: Louth, Lincolnshire
The supposed link between nuclear power and weapons is simply playing on emotion and is one of the best reasons why the whole issue should be looked at by a scientific panel who can best objectively reach some conclusion.

Why then does the IAEA term all states with nuclear power generation capabilities (with the exception of one or two countries with reactors incapable of producing sufficient HEU or plutonium) as latent nuclear weapons states? Why did Swedish physicist Hannes Alven, a Nobel Prize laureate call 'the peaceful atom and the military atom' siamese twins'?

Civil nuclear programmes are intrinsically linked to military programmes. That doesn't mean that all countries who have a civil programme choose to engage in military research (though most do) or that they intend to create nuclear weapons (most probably don't), but the vast majority could do so with a change of policy which is, at the outside, an election away. Civil nuclear programmes are therefore by nature contributory to proliferation, whether the nation states involved chose to create and deploy nuclear weapons or not. That's not emotive, it's a dispassionate assessment of the process of acquiring sufficient equipment, raw materials and personnel skills to run a civillian nuclear programme. It's also reflected in evidence gathered by the IAEA during NNPT compliance checks.

That's not to say the risk isn't worth taking, but dismissing the risk as emotive doesn't stop it from existing.

If we're going to have a genuine, open and realistic debate on our future energy requirements, then we need all the cards on the table, and we need to be open and honest about the risks, impacts and benefits of all methods of power delivery, including realistic assessments of what energy conservation could deliver.

The original subject of the thread, the programme on the impact of Chernobyl, was an interesting watch, though it was very careful to use the term 'attributable' deaths - very careful wording, for a reason I suspect. Similarly, the Chernobyl radiation issue is complicated by the general rise in background radiation as a result of open-air weapons tests, reactor meltdown tests, reactor disposal and poor-quality storage and re-processing facilities largely, though not exclusively in the former Soviet Union.

I also wish, when the safety of nuclear reactors are discussed, that we get a bit more on the real safety record. Everyone knows about Chernobyl, and a fair number remember Three Mile Island in 1979. In the UK we are aware of a fire and then beach discharge at Windscale, then Sellafied in 1957 and 1983. There are, of course many others.

Edited by Just Before Dawn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Still/Hot or extremes. Fog/Damp etc boring...
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL

I'm amazed at thread. I have not read it all but techically what has been said on the first page is SO WRONG about renweable energy I dont really know where to start.

Also cars CAN NOT and will NEVER run on water. Please at least understand the basic rules of the law of conservation of energy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New Zealand
  • Location: New Zealand

... Says you.

I do understand conservation of energy thankyou.

If you are going to make sweeping statements like that and accuse everybody on an entire page of a thread of being utterly stupid, please at least take the time to actually write a meaningful reply that actually adds something to the thread. Of course, unless you wish to attempt to see things from a perspective other than your own, this probably won't be possible for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Still/Hot or extremes. Fog/Damp etc boring...
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL

If you understood the law of conservation of energy you would see the water idea a non starter. As it happens the topic has already been covered here:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...mp;#entry764457

In summary - and this has been proven, the whole water powered concept is impossible, and the cars that claim to be powered by it is simply a con: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell the only half working idea is a hybrid concept, but alas its still a concept, and not a workable solution, and it can never be more than a hybrid, unless there is a source of power to run the system, but thats what were trying to find afterall.

"Turbines are very obtrusive, ugly and grossly inefficient." Is another comment I read and imo a very missleading one.

How can you really say any freely generated power is inefficient, technically they could optimise the generator efficiency but then your effectivly tuning for specific weather needs and since those are not consistant you have to engineer around it lowering efficiency at a given point but over all you generate more power from the given enviroment.

I am pro the Nuclear programme. But given the choice I would rather be self sufficient on power. Right now all my home lighting is provided by solar, as is the power to charge my laptop , cameras and mobile phone, and has been since the beginning of the summer. This and other changes around my home slashed my power and gas usage by 60-75% over the same time last year. Its a bonus to my pocket, just as much as it is to the enviroment. Recently the planning laws were relaxed to an extent to help micro power generation, and as a result I am looking at small scale wind generation to assist the solar.

"Nuclear Power is simply dangerous, thats the bottom line. Its in no way of any benifit to man kind. It destroys the enviroment. I cant see why that they dont use friendly sourses of power, wind wave solar etc. There are so many toxic by-products pumped into the enviroment that we still dont know the effects off."

A close family friend was a chief engineer at a uk Nuclear power plant, She recently retired. I just thought you may like to know that the background radiation levels in her place of work were less than that of those living on the volcanic rock of devon/cornwall.

Nick H says many factual comments on the front page about how cleaner Nuclear can be.

drgl asks "I wonder how much energy would be generated if every households roof was effectively a solar panel as opposed to tiles? It wouldn't make much inpact on the existing environment from an ansthetic point of view?"

The answer to this is infact more than you need to run your own house. You may be interested in this site: http://community.livejournal.com/green_power_gen/ Rowan Langley has installed his own 500w solar system and his house entirely runs on this.

You, Crimsone, actually mention geothermal pumps, which is a great idea. Aircon is vital for some parts of the world and imo except for some places of work a luxary in the UK, using the earths natural temp to your own advantage and insulating your house from the elements both hot and cold is a brilliant way to cheaply get cooler air.

The ironic thing is that aircon etc, is used on the hottest days with the hottest ambient temps, meaning that the compressor half of the aircon units have to work extreamly hard - eating massive amounts of energy to do their cooling. If people were to use the ground as a kind of heatsink, then in some cases the power required by the aircon can drop by other two thirds.

However your view of water as a fuel is missunderstood. You know full well that when you burn Oxygen and Hydrogen you will generate alot of energy, the waste product then being water. In exactly the same way it takes a similar (or more due to process inefficiency) to split the water back in to its discrete molecules, ready to be burnt off again as heat and then return to water. There is no short cut to this process. There simply cannot be. Water again is not a fuel its a byproduct of combustion.

Ps. my first post was a tease, experience has taught me that energy and anything green often has strong almost irrational/unfounded views associated with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I think we need the same kind of shift it took to take a 15 century water mill owner, who understood how the energy he milked from the water could be 'harnessed' by cogs or belts to drive other machines to a mill owner whose water wheel became a steam engine which became a internal combustion engine which in turn became an electric motor.

The notion that a 15th century mill owner would grasp how electricity and magnets could do what his wheel did is maybe fanciful but the 'new' way of milking our universe for energy will pobably be just as queer for us to get our heads around as it would be for him to concieve our 'energy' today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Still/Hot or extremes. Fog/Damp etc boring...
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL

Trouble is we have a greater understanding of our world today that leaves the posibility of coming across such groundbreaking discoveries today much more remote than before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
Trouble is we have a greater understanding of our world today that leaves the posibility of coming across such groundbreaking discoveries today much more remote than before.

I'm not so sure about that. Knowledge is present-based and subject to revision. Todays efficient and modern is tomorrows defunct and old hat. Until you harness the power of the universe you have some not insignificant distance to go after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Still/Hot or extremes. Fog/Damp etc boring...
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL

Ok, I do agree with the principle of what you are saying, there is definately alot of unknowns but equally alot of fundementals have been discovered or are better understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New Zealand
  • Location: New Zealand

Thnks Lighning Ed. I must admit, my post was a bit of a bait to try and get you to explain your intent better :)

I'm not so sure on the water thing though - but then, people were sceptical about the possibility of anything we have today at some point, so perhaps were simply just missing one piece of the puzzle at te moment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Still/Hot or extremes. Fog/Damp etc boring...
  • Location: Warlingham (J6 M25) 175m ASL

I'm stubborn in the fact that I dont ever think so. lol. I would happily eat my words however and sit in a corner and sulk (and then celebrate at my limitless source of power) if somone eventually does prove otherwise. The world as we knew it would never be the same again :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: frogmore south devon
  • Location: frogmore south devon

even if you did make a major breakthrough, do you think the oil companies and the goverment would let you threaten there billons of earning i don't think so :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: frogmore south devon
  • Location: frogmore south devon
Do you think you have a say over what the government and oil companies demand?

That's a poor justification for not doing the right thing. Sorry, but it is.

they have been making electric cars for over sixty years, who buys all the patents and puts them out of reach guess who

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...