It's all in the name
So, if there were a marriage between William Shatner and Hyacynth Bucket ( " It's Bouquet dear...."), would they go with the double barreled option of Shatner-Bucket ?
Mine's the one with the bog roll in the pocket....
24 posts • joined 10 Oct 2007
Nothing to see here... boys will be boys.... this is the academic way.... there is a concensus.... evil oil funded sceptics....
Sorry chaps, the AGW scam is well and truly up. Give it a couple of years for our Prime Ministers father in law to get out of the tax funded trough and even the Gov'mint will let this one die.
Needs popcorn and beer to watch this one unfold - which poses a moral question:
Is it OK to laugh at Richard Black being comprehensively flamed under his own BBC article ? hehehehe
I apologise for my slightly "ridiculous" dyslexia, or maybe I just typed too fast, or can't spell.
I stand by my comments though, in fact I'll raise the bar:-
CO2 is a non problem, solving a "non problem" by throwing fortunes of other peoples money at it is more than a little insane IMHO.
AC said "It's not a panacea, but what is?"
This just might be: - http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=965&start=0
look up Inertial Electrostic Confinement devices in wiki, or Bussard IEC devices
The basic physics principles appear sound - there is no new science needed, just engineering problems to solve, and it won't cost the ludicrous amounts of money some of the other alternatives are needing:
Wind? Yeah wind is OK, IF it's windy and IF the production of turbines is very low emission.
PV? Not efficient enough especially in northern europe & expensive per watt.
Oil? It'll run out and it's more useful in the long run as a base for polymers
Coal? dirty in oh so many ways.
Gas? See oil
Fission? Good but the greenies don't like it and total lifecycle costs are high
Fusion via Tokomac... always 30 years away since the 60's ! and a tad expensive.
Sounds like we're all buggered then.
What we need is a bioengineering boffin to create some sort of self replicating, solar powered carbon dioxide absorbing device that could be spread around the world.
For larger sites they'd need to be securely fastened to the ground and present a large surface area to the atmosphere via a network of upright and spreading connected bracing structures. The conversion engines themselves would need solar derived power, the power harnessing and generating component of the device would need to be sited close to or ideally in situ with the CO2 converter, such that each had an adequate supply of light and atmospheric CO2. We can call them Terrestrial Resource Environmental Engines, (abbreviated to TREE for simplicity).
Where space constraints preclude a full sized TREE installation, maybe a miniature version could be produced along the lines of Portable Local Atmosphere Neutralising Terrestrial Solutions (lets call them PLANTS)
Once self replicating versions of these TREE's and PLANTS can be produced the inventor will be laughing all the way to the bank!
Paris obviously, as who else knows more about getting wood?
gets coat and the knitted balaclava, thanks.
The phrase I'm looking for contains the words:
Horse, Gate and Bolted...
nope, it's gone and clean slipped my mind, ah well, pass the USB stick I gotta copy the database....
PH icon obviously because she's a shining example to us all at keeping highly personal data safely tucked away....
Interesting one this, so rather than rant lets ask ourselves a few sensible questions. For the sake of argument I'm going to be deliberately UK centric as that's what I know most about. Here goes:
1/ Will we be happy with power limits / brown outs? NO!
2/ Is it consistently sunny here? NO
3/ Is it consistently windy ? NO
4/ Always lots of waves? NO
5/ Never a slack tide? NO
Hmm, that kind of sidelides the conventional wisdom of renewables as the entire power source and doing nothing isn't an option. OK lets press on:
6/ Do we have unlimited (100+yrs) Oil / Gas / Coal for our own use? NO, NO, Coal Maybe Yes
7/ OK then, are we happy with the pollution from Coal? NO
8/ Can we mine our own Uranium? NO
9/ Can we fast breed our own fuel with what we already have or can buy in the next few years? YES
10/ Can we produce our own Thorium for that type of reactor? Probably YES
Hmm, that kind of narrows it down to breeder reactors or Thorium for now.
OK more questions, lets be more imaginative now:
11/ Molten Salt Reactors, workable? certainly looks like a YES (thanks Craig etc)
12/ Fusion, via Tokomac style devices? Maybe in 10-40 years!
13/ Fusion, alternatives? Maybe, this one IEC, appears worthy of pursuing:
14/ Geothermal? Maybe it looks promising, (needs trial plants - maybe in economically non viable deep wells.)
So to conclude in the next 5 years we'll have to start building breeder reactors or else accept that the lights can start to go out soon.
However, people don't "like" this technology so we should simultaneously invest far more heaviliy in Thorium reactors, MSR's, IEC fusion & Geothermal (we already spend loads on Tokomac). Conventional "renewable" stuff is just posturing and window dressing if you live in the UK
Just my 2c, or 3 or 4.... now flame me, or vote for me :-) !
PH icon as she knows all about everything!
It's a bloody stupid rule anyway, surely the authorities must know by know that the so called "Binary Liquid" pyrotechnics don't actually exist - at least not without a several hour period of privacy and the right tools (containers, ice, the right starter liquids etc) to perform a very exothermic reaction and thus precipitate out the required goods...
Think anyone might notice you have a small chemistry lab running in the toilet for 5 hours? Thought not!
Time for a conspiracy theory that the rule is only still there so that you have to buy overpriced drinks air-side of security!!!!!
If you don't believe me, look it up on the interwebcomputerthingy. Oh hang on, best not do that actually, I can hear the black helicopters coming....
Grabs Tangerine orange jump suit, drawstring hood and cellophane....
It's difficult to find the words as I'm sure we all listened open mouthed as this F***tard explains that name, address, NI number and bank accounts for 25M people have been "lost" but it's OK as that's not sufficient to commit fraud !
If I, or anyone else here in the real world, did anything anywhere near that incompetent, I'd expect to be fired immediately and effectively become unemployable by any sane employer, as would everyone associated with the offending episode.
I'm now off to the Number 10 website to set up an online petition for a vote of no confidence in this government as they have just presided over the most appalling, incompetent breach of confidence yet.
Join me ! Bring pitchforks and flaming torches.....
Of course there's an IT angle, roaming lunatics are what eventually happens to IT management who's jobs and livelihoods have been outsourced to a far flung country....
There's a Paris Hilton angle too, may I be the first to offer to spruce her up a bit next time she's pictured wandering in public... now where's the shaving foam.... !
Shooting down 1294 against losing 788 isn't actually too bad, and most importantly (as you mentioned) they didn't try to invade....
I take issue with some of your terminology though, as I believe you've mixed your metaphors: It's "Couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo" or "Couldn't hit a barn door at 10 paces with a shotgun".
BTW Lester, whatever happened to the Rockall times?
Although such thinking has to be useful in publicising the necessity of weaning us all off fossil fuels, yet again we seem to be looking at the wrong technology.
Fusion via inertial electrostatic driven devices anyone?..... read this summary paper:
Anyone want to join me in a whip round for the 200 mil required?! Joking aside, I'd fund it if i knew how to construct the commercial proposition.
Apparently the key workers on the project plus the patent knowledge now reside within the same company that made the rubber/nitrous oxide rocket engines for the Spaceship One program. One would hope that signifies both intent and capability.
Lets hope they can make it work and we can all raise a glass to the fantastic work of Bussard, Farnsworth, Hirsch et al !
Why do politicians tend to plump for wind farms, when they are so easily argued as a bad solution? Several people have pointed out they tend to typically run nearer to 25%-50% (best case) of rated capacity, so the headline figures tend to look good but are in fact highly misleading.
Lets point out the obvious - it's not always windy !
Regarding alternatives, even in sunny Australia solar power isn't ideal as they have night time too! The output of such installations is severely compromised regarding reliability of output. Although I must admit the solar tower concept appears good - currently being implemented in Oz...
Most agree that we need an alternative to fossil fuels, lets not forget they are a finite resource which WILL run out at some indeterminant time in the future. An interesting point is once demand outstrips demand (15 -20 years or so) the price will rocket and other massively useful things we rely on like plastics will suddenly be at a premium too.
The same finite supply dynamic applies to Uranium, especially as the volume use increases instead of fossil fuels. I'm not saying this will run out "soon" but it's a geological certainty that it will happen at some point.
For renewable sources tidal warrants additional implementation as it's more reliable - the tide always happens, is less intrusive, plus you get a much larger power output per unit area installed (than wind).
What to do? Fusion does seem to be the only currently research avenue to break this energy problem, yet the level of funding for this doesn't approach that spent on looking for new sites of non renewable fossil sources.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019