Sign in to follow this  
JohnM

Legally binding climate change agreement

Recommended Posts

I'm not a fan of nuclear (more the waste and mess they leave behind rather than the dangers of a mile Island), however the dangers of CO2 are greater than the waste issues.  

 

Nuclear for base load.  Gas for surge.  Wind, tidal and solar to help where they can.

 

More investment in efficiency.

 

Things are more efficient these days (TV's, fridge, etc) but we have more of them.  Electricity usage isn't going to fall, especially if we have more electric cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of nuclear (more the waste and mess they leave behind rather than the dangers of a mile Island), however the dangers of CO2 are greater than the waste issues.  

 

Nuclear for base load.  Gas for surge.  Wind, tidal and solar to help where they can.

 

More investment in efficiency.

 

Things are more efficient these days (TV's, fridge, etc) but we have more of them.  Electricity usage isn't going to fall, especially if we have more electric cars.

 

Please read the science on thorium MRS's I mentioned. Yes they leave waste, but far less than current LWR's, but what they do leave is only unstable for 120 years or so. Plus we can use them to 'burn' current waste from the existing LWR's.

 

I agree, its what we should be using for baseload. I'd add to your surge suggestions kinetic batteries like hydroelectric at dinorwig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read the science on thorium MRS's I mentioned. Yes they leave waste, but far less than current LWR's, but what they do leave is only unstable for 120 years or so. Plus we can use them to 'burn' current waste from the existing LWR's.

 

I agree, its what we should be using for baseload. I'd add to your surge suggestions kinetic batteries like hydroelectric at dinorwig.

 

I've seen Thorium mention lots over the years, my worry is that its some sort of wonder drug, sounds great but never gets off the paper.  If its so great why isn't it here?

 

Hydroelectric runs into the usual issues of the environment, the best place for them tends to be the places we value as unspoilt.  We need something as storage though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Thorium mention lots over the years, my worry is that its some sort of wonder drug, sounds great but never gets off the paper.  If its so great why isn't it here?

 

Hydroelectric runs into the usual issues of the environment, the best place for them tends to be the places we value as unspoilt.  We need something as storage though.

 

The reason it isn't here is because there has been a very real and documented drive for the nuclear industry to produce plutonium for bombs. The thorium fuel cycle doesn't produce any and was sidelined because of that. No it's not a wonder drug. We'll still have to pay for our electricity if they build them, however we'll be using a more abundant fuel, with less waste and less risks. Please read up on it, you'll be impressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Also, the imaginary number, i, is not an aberrance, it follows directly from the fundamental 1+1=2, as does all other mathematics. It's just that, to get from 1+1=2 to i, takes a long time. And a lot of imagination!

 

Actually, it relates to the fundamental 1 x 1 = 1 and the equally fundamental -1 x -1 = 1

 

Only (-1 x -1 = 1) knackers their calculations.

 

So do the facts that Pi is not a fixed whole number and our solar year is not 365 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe the clue is in the word "more" rather than "complete".

 

I'm sure you would be just as generous in your attitude were it a Labour government doing a similar thing and in no way comparing their actions to Stalinist Russia. No, you wouldn't do something like that at all. :dry:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it relates to the fundamental 1 x 1 = 1 and the equally fundamental -1 x -1 = 1

 

Only (-1 x -1 = 1) knackers their calculations.

 

So do the facts that Pi is not a fixed whole number and our solar year is not 365 days.

 

1st line. A matter of opinion. I'd argue that counting (1, 2, 3, ...) is more fundamental than multiplying, but I accept that both your equations are pretty basic.

 

2nd line. -1 x -1 = +1 does not knacker their equations. The square roots of +1 are +1 and -1, so -1 x -1 really does equal +1. What is difficult is finding a number whose square is -1. There is no such natural number, so mathematicians use their imagination and conjure up the imaginary number which they represent as i. This means that i x i = -1. That was the'problem'. And its solution.

 

3rd line. These two facts don't screw up anything. Pi can be defined to as many decimal points as you like, but it's a bit pointless ;) . The solar year, likewise, can be calculated to hundreds of decimal points, but that is really pointless, as it is not fixed absolutely. It is not a fundamental constant, anyway.

 

All you need is a bit of imagination and you can actually convince yourself that Salford are going to win Super League! Can't you? :sclerosis:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All you need is a bit of imagination and you can actually convince yourself that Salford are going to win Super League! Can't you? :sclerosis:

 

"i" think that the odds on Salford winning Superleague in 2016 are one in the square root of minus infinity. If you plot it at log-e on a graph of games against weeks it works out at about one in 27.866444444333333 recurring.

 

That works out slightly better than the Bradfords Bulls chance of winning Superleague 2016. That's one in the square root of minus knack all.

 

Hope this helps; it's all in my MSc thesis.

;):tongue:

Edited by Wolford6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the real world, its not "i" but "j". any fule kno'

Electrical engineers may, or may not, inhabit the real world, but mathematicians live on a higher, imaginary plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you would be just as generous in your attitude were it a Labour government doing a similar thing and in no way comparing their actions to Stalinist Russia. No, you wouldn't do something like that at all. :dry:

of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All you need is a bit of imagination and you can actually convince yourself that Salford are going to win Super League! Can't you? :sclerosis:

 

Just seen a suggestion that Elliot Kear has signed for Salford; if so, that chance has just increased. If they sign Rhys Williams as well, they'd at least be guaranteed to avoid the middle 8s.

Edited by Wolford6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and an electron is a particle, except when the academics need it to behave like a wave

 

It would be just as true to say that it's a wave except when academics need it to behave like a particle. Pretty hard to explain the physics of semiconductor devices without treating electrons as waves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be just as true to say that it's a wave except when academics need it to behave like a particle. Pretty hard to explain the physics of semiconductor devices without treating electrons as waves.

 

Yes, but they never admit that they don't understand the physics of semiconductors. They invent a convenient theory to "explain" it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but they never admit that they don't understand the physics of semiconductors. They invent a convenient theory to "explain" it.

Because creating a new scientific theory is soooo easy.

They're creating models to see what works as a good basis. You're portraying this as a bad thing when it's how new advances are made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christopher Booker in The Telegraph:

 

Here’s a little riddle for us all to ponder on. Last Tuesday evening, when the temperature outside my back door in Somerset was minus 7 degrees C, I observed that the contribution being made to our national electricity supply by our 5,500 wind turbines was 66 megawatts, or 0.1 percent – just a 1,000th of all the electricity we were using. Three quarters of it, more than 35,000MW, was coming from fossil fuels, nearly 40 per cent of that from our few remaining coal-fired power stations.

Under the Climate Change Act, David Cameron wants to see all those coal-fired stations closed down within seven years or even sooner – with gas-fired power stations to follow soon after. Could he or Amber Rudd please explain how, on similar freezing, windless evenings in a few years time, they plan to keep our lights on?

 

The rest of his column, dealing with female quango chiefs is also a really good read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/12117232/Fat-cat-sisterhood-part-two-I-name-the-Empress-of-Excess.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas prices have dropped below the level that fracking is said to be economic.  So that will slow things down in that area.

The US have made it clear that they'll keep fracking going even if they have to subsidise it because it's a strategic reserve.  They know that they can keep going for a long while because a previous net importer at very high prices, the difference between reduced prices now and the previous prices means that it's affordable to subsidise.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here