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

[crimsone]

Then don't buy oil. Blockade a refinery.

If more people actually got up and started standing up against the injustice they percieved instead of sitting on their hands, the world would be a far nicer place. I'm sorry, bu the "oil refineries and government are beyond my control" argument really is a very poor one.

They own these patents because people who use that argument feel it justification enough to sell their ideas, discoveries and inventions to those least worthy of owning such patents just to make a quick buck. Companies depend on consumers - not the other way around!

Edited August 18, 2006 by crimsone

[drgl]

Lightening ed-many thanks for the link-checking it out now...........

[Lightning Ed]

No problem I have some of my own system info and expreience on my site under the solar section.

Ed

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Companies depend on consumers - not the other way around!

Not entirely - where the market is so heavily dominated and controlled by a relatively tiny few, (think oil companies, supermarkets, telecoms giants, global technology giants etc etc etc), and government is so weak and ineffectual as to all intents and purposes collude in the perpetuation of this state of affairs, the vast majority of consumers are not in any position to make an informed choice - they are simply not aware of the wider consequences of their short-term choices, or, in fact, not even aware of all the choices they in fact do have.

Thus the almost self-destructive nature, (if truth be faced), of the current 'economic growth' based societies of the developed world continue, and the vast majorities of populations living in these societies cannot see any alternative, naively believing 'technology' will save them, or the governments and powers that be will somehow 'look after them'.

[crimsone]

Very true Pennine. That's really the biggest and most successful woollen blanket ever pulled over human eyes. How it was allowed to happen I don't know, but I rather suspect that it's something to do with the "me first" attitude. When people care only about themselves, they aren't caring about the future for everybody else

I think though that the true nature of dependance is just as I stated - the issue, as you have more thanincisively described, is that of awareness. The big companies think only of their own interests too, and so even if the consumer can only injure rather than control or take it down, it's enough to rewind the tape somewhat and weaken the corporate position. It just needs people to be aware of the power they truley hold if they choose to wield it, and then to make that choice.

Of course, it would eventually come to a point of no return if things carry on as they are.

[PersianPaladin]

More evidence of the government and powerful zionist-backed lobbies lying to us.

[Stratos Ferric]

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 vaguely recall a story told by a learned mate, I think regarding the Royal Institution, who held a dinner around the turn of the 20th century to celebrate the fact that nearly all that science had to reveal had been discovered.

I think there is as much worthwhile substance in your comment Ed, as there was in their assertion back then. If anything, the increasing rate of technological evolution serves to speed up the rate at which we uncover new learning, rather than diminish significantly the stock of what is left to be learned.

[Stratos Ferric]

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

I think that you and Crimsone (and others) will find that the energy producers have just as much interest in alternatives as the green sector. Anyone who chooses to can laready sign up for green electricity; the problem is you'll pay more for it, so rather like the organic section of your local supermarket it's not the most popular product.

In the UK electricity providers have to increase the supply from renewables year on year, by 1% a year to 15% by 2015/16.

Re the Chernobyl programme; when I watched it my view was that I did not for one moment believe the figures for attributable deaths. Years after Hiroshima people are still dying; Chernobyl will be no different, and given the huge numbers of soldiers and civilians sent in to fight the fire the number of deaths given (was it 17 or something), when compared to the accounts of radiation burns and skin literally falling of people's faces and limbs, totally laughable.

[drgl]

No problem I have some of my own system info and expreience on my site under the solar section.

Ed

It seems to be this really is the way forward. Environmental impact would be low-a solar panel looks like tiles on a roof to me!! Are there any government schemes to have this installed?? OK when it's overcast you go back to "normal" energy but when it's hot/clear you have no problems!! The irony is we use MORE energy when it's hot now as well due to all the A/C!!! Instead of taxing us to death give us help to get things like this installed!! Are there any professional compaines out there that do this all for you?

[Just Before Dawn]

Re the Chernobyl programme; when I watched it my view was that I did not for one moment believe the figures for attributable deaths. Years after Hiroshima people are still dying; Chernobyl will be no different, and given the huge numbers of soldiers and civilians sent in to fight the fire the number of deaths given (was it 17 or something), when compared to the accounts of radiation burns and skin literally falling of people's faces and limbs, totally laughable.

I found the figures extraordinary - kudos to those who were stating it for keeping a straight face. In the whole debate there has been hardly any discussion on the safety of nuclear power - I suppose in order to have this debate, you need to have the facts, and they're rarely made available.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Solar panels, geothermal plants, locally generated wave/hydroelectric/wind power- all sounds to me like the most optimum solution. However, while businesses may be interested in clean power, I don't imagine individual businesses wanting to sacrifice competitiveness and short-term profits in implementing clean technology while their competitors continue to use cheaper but pollutive alternatives- simple market decisions. Some kind of government incentives are probably needed to sway the balance.

With wind power, I've always favoured establishing that out at sea, where it should be more efficient in terms of wind generation and far less destructive to the landscape.

With regards powering cars, the "ideal scenario" I envisage is where people run cars on their own, locally-generated renewable power. That way, car use is necessarily limited by the availability of clean technology- but by no more than that, though such a scenario would be highly implausible in the near future.

I don't have much knowledge on nuclear power, so I haven't formed a strong opinion on it- but with the inherent dangers involved, I tend to lean towards the view that it should be a last resort.

As for Lightning Ed's comment, my experiences are more like Stratos (and indeed his signature) outline. There's so much to discover in the world; often when we learn new things, it illustrates how much more there is still to know.

[crimsone]

I think that you and Crimsone (and others) will find that the energy producers have just as much interest in alternatives as the green sector. Anyone who chooses to can laready sign up for green electricity; the problem is you'll pay more for it, so rather like the organic section of your local supermarket it's not the most popular product.

I agree, but as per the implications of something TWS has just said, Such companies would sooner milk all they can out of what they've got now, as to push forward on the green stuff means that they have something at the moment that would become relatively worthless. Plus of course, it's a great opportunity to market something as a "niche" product - and niche products come at a price premium.

[Altostratus]

I like the idea of using wind power, geothermal and hydroelectricity etc, but the main problem with most of the renewable energy sources, is that they simply don’t produce enough power to sustain the power needs of a country like this. I don’t have the figures to hand, but I seem to recall that one nuclear power plant would produce more power than all the renewable sources combined. In an era with increasing power needs, nuclear power is probably the only viable short term solution.

Nuclear power plants are extremely safe these days – they were also pretty safe 20yrs ago, despite what happened in Chernobyl. Take France as an example – something like 50% of the power is supplied by nuclear power plants. As of yet, there haven’t been any disasters – nor is there any reason to suggest there ever will be. Carbon emissions need to be reduced, and decommissioning the hydrocarbon based power stations and reinstating nuclear power seems the way forward IMHO. Perhaps potentially the most interesting renewable energy source at present, would be tidal power. This has the capacity to produce substantial amounts of power. It seems the govt agree too, as I seem to remember reading somewhere that some plans had been drawn up for a development across the Severn Estuary. It’s nice to know the govt are at least thinking more long term – whether or not this gets implemented or not remains to be seen.

[Just Before Dawn]

Nuclear power plants are extremely safe these days – they were also pretty safe 20yrs ago, despite what happened in Chernobyl. Take France as an example – something like 50% of the power is supplied by nuclear power plants. As of yet, there haven’t been any disasters – nor is there any reason to suggest there ever will be.

There's the past history of a range of accidents at nuclear power plants and re-processing facilities, not just in France, but across the world.

The monitoring of the safety performance of these sites is only really available from the US where legislation exists that forces disclosure of accidents. The US has had a range of partial meltdown events, unforseen discharge events and fires, not just at Three Mile Island, but at Savannah River, Hanford, Detroit, Erwin, Long Island, Santa Susanna, Athens, Dover and Menlo Park, and this list isn't definative. Even the WNC only identifies immediate deaths as a result of these accidents, because no-one knows how widely contaminated the areas around some of these plants were - The sodium reactor meltdown at Santa Susanna is credited with releasing over 1300 curies of Iodine 131 and 15 grammes of Plutonium, all within 50 km of Los Angeles.

Nuclear might be the only realistic short-term answer, and the health impacts of nuclear power may be smaller than coal-power (in terms of asthma, for example), but we need to be honest about the risks and past history of nuclear power generation safety.

[Altostratus]

Nuclear might be the only realistic short-term answer, and the health impacts of nuclear power may be smaller than coal-power (in terms of asthma, for example), but we need to be honest about the risks and past history of nuclear power generation safety.

Absolutely, I’m not saying otherwise. Accidents will always happen and there will be no way of eradicating these. Unfortunately, any accidents/incidences that do occur at nuclear plants, have a tendency to get blown out of proportion. However, getting back to the point, looking at the broader picture, nuclear power plants are relatively safe. I suspect that the mean number of deaths as a result of accidents at gas/coal plants would be greater than at nuclear plants.