"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:08:46 +0100, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:

" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in message
...
All energy sources on earth, past, present and future are derived from
the
sun.

Actually, tidal energy comes from the moon's gravitational pull and
geothermal energy comes from inside the earth, but everything else - coal,
oil, gas and wind is driven by the sun.

and nuclear power?
--
Martin

I'm not sure but I *think* that nuclear power is just as bad for global
warming as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are bad because they create CO2 which
traps the sun's energy, therby increasing the amount of energy in the
earth's weather system. Nuclear just adds the energy directly.

Pete basically got it right. The way to stabilise the climate is to only
take energy which is available instead of unlocking stuff which has been
stored either in fossil fuels, or within the atom. It's all down to the
balance. You have to take out what you put in and vice versa, otherwise the
balance changes.

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:08:46 +0100, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:

" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in message
...
All energy sources on earth, past, present and future are derived
from
the
sun.

Actually, tidal energy comes from the moon's gravitational pull and
geothermal energy comes from inside the earth, but everything else -
coal,
oil, gas and wind is driven by the sun.

and nuclear power?

Quite right, the sun is powered by nuclear fission,

Whoops, I meant fusion, of course :-)

so it could be argued
all the energy sources 'claimed' for the sun are in fact a form of
'nuclear
power'.

If only we humans could attain the holy grail of controllable fission

Ditto, sorry, I meant fusion power, not fission, which is what we already
have.

power
generation, cutting out the middleman :-)

Martin wrote " I can't wait for the hydrogen era to come in.
Looks like the Canadians are getting on top of it! ......."

It seems as if in all this discussion no one is thinking of Hydro
electricity.......We have many rivers that could be harnessed to produce
power.
In Canada the government has its long term plan for renewable energy. This
is taken from info on the Toronto Hydro site...

" EcoLogoTM Program
Toronto Hydro Energy Services' intention in developing and promoting its
Green Power program is to follow the guidelines established by the
Government of Canada's EcoLogo program. Environment Canada developed the
EcoLogo labelling program in the 1980s to certify environmentally-safe
products. To date, the EcoLogo program has certified an array of products
across the consumer spectrum including green energy.

The current guidelines for the government's EcoLogo program include:

Solar technologies (photovoltaics, solar water and air heating)
Water technologies (generation of 20 MW or less of run of the river
facilities)
Wind technologies (turbines; individual or small to medium wind farms)
Recovery technologies (methane from sewage treatment plants or landfills)
Biomass, such as wood waste or food waste
Other (hydrogen fuel cells) ...."



--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

"Charlie Pridham" wrote in message
...

"Martin" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:18:58 +0100, Broadback

wrote:

Martin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:04:45 +0100, "David Hill"
wrote:


And just when I have been notified of a third price rise in the
last
few
months for the bulk gas I use for heating.
The price has now gone up by about 45% this year.


All over Europe, the price of natural gas is linked to the
price of
crude oil.
A plus to these price rises is that it make alternative sources
of
energy more likely. I can't wait for the hydrogen era to come
in.
Looks like the Canadians are getting on top of it!

Hydrogen is created using electricity, which is generated using
fossil
or nuclear fuel.
--
Martin

Not in Canada's case they even call it Hydro :~)

The amount of hydroelectric power available on a global scale makes no
more than a tiny dent in the total fossil fuel requirements. And the
essence of the matter is that it is already being used. Utilising it
to make hydrogen will sinply make further demands on fossil fuel to
make up for the fact that the hydroelectric power will be diverted to
doing something other than what it is doing today.

Hydrogen simply is not an alternative fuel. It is simply an
alternative method of storing conventional fuels.

The real truth of the matter is that there is simply no way out other
than building nuclear stations as fast as possible.

Franz

"Martin Sykes" wrote in
message ...
" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in message
...
All energy sources on earth, past, present and future are derived
from
the
sun.

Actually, tidal energy comes from the moon's gravitational pull and
geothermal energy comes from inside the earth, but everything else -
coal,
oil, gas and wind is driven by the sun.

Not so. Nuclear energy is not derived from the sun. Its source is
whichever stardust aggregated to form the matter of the earth.

Franz

In article ,
Jeanne Stockdale wrote:

Sunpower!

All energy sources on earth, past, present and future are derived from the
sun.
The future for our long-term survival is to shortcut the years of previous
storage to direct access -imho.

The problem with doing that in the UK is that we first need to tow
these islands 20 degrees south.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:08:46 +0100, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:

" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in
message
...
All energy sources on earth, past, present and future are
derived from
the
sun.

Actually, tidal energy comes from the moon's gravitational pull
and
geothermal energy comes from inside the earth, but everything
else -
coal,
oil, gas and wind is driven by the sun.

and nuclear power?

Quite right, the sun is powered by nuclear fission, so it could be
argued
all the energy sources 'claimed' for the sun are in fact a form of
'nuclear
power'.

If only we humans could attain the holy grail of controllable
fission power
generation, cutting out the middleman :-)

Fission power has been i use since 1945 or so. It is perfectly
capable of supplying our energy needs for the foreseeable future, if
we were to get cracking at building power plants as fast as possible.
Fusion power, if it ever comes, is actually going to have side
considerations similar to that of fusion power, namely, what to do
with the ash.

Franz

"Martin Sykes" wrote in
message ...
"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:08:46 +0100, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:

" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in
message
...
All energy sources on earth, past, present and future are
derived from
the
sun.

Actually, tidal energy comes from the moon's gravitational pull
and
geothermal energy comes from inside the earth, but everything
else - coal,
oil, gas and wind is driven by the sun.

and nuclear power?
--
Martin

I'm not sure but I *think* that nuclear power is just as bad for
global
warming as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are bad because they create
CO2 which
traps the sun's energy, therby increasing the amount of energy in
the
earth's weather system. Nuclear just adds the energy directly.

That will radiate away without changing the temperature of the earth
by a measurable amount.

Pete basically got it right. The way to stabilise the climate is to
only
take energy which is available instead of unlocking stuff which has
been
stored either in fossil fuels, or within the atom. It's all down to
the
balance. You have to take out what you put in and vice versa,
otherwise the
balance changes.

In the ultimate future that is quite true. At some stage it will
become essential to cap the total human population. However, the
amount of energy available in fissile (and fusible) materials is
vastly in excess of that in the available fossil fuels.

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

snip

Fusion power, if it ever comes, is actually going to have side
considerations similar to that of fusion power, namely, what to do
with the ash.


Not according to SEAFP in 1995.
See http://www.fusion.org.uk/focus/index.htm
and navigate to the 'safe and clean' section. If those conclusions are safe,
fusion power plants, if ever built, should not present the same long term
waste management problems as fission plants.

In article ,
BAC wrote:
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

Fusion power, if it ever comes, is actually going to have side
considerations similar to that of fusion power, namely, what to do
with the ash.

Not according to SEAFP in 1995.
See http://www.fusion.org.uk/focus/index.htm
and navigate to the 'safe and clean' section. If those conclusions are safe,
fusion power plants, if ever built, should not present the same long term
waste management problems as fission plants.

Yes. Fission has the problem that it produces a lot of isotopes that
are both biologically active and radioactive with half-lives of a
decade or so, and often one with a half-life of over a hundred
thousand years. Plutonium is BAD NEWS.

Fusion could be nastier in the short term, but none of the products
have very long half-lives. But that DOES assume that the fusion
process doesn't turn the constructional materials radioactive by
neutron absorption or otherwise.

Anyway, don't hold your breath for fusion becoming practical (unless
there is a tritium release).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"

In the ultimate future that is quite true. At some stage it will
become essential to cap the total human population. However, the
amount of energy available in fissile (and fusible) materials is
vastly in excess of that in the available fossil fuels.

Franz


In order to shorten the period within we can take advantage of the
sun's energy, we should go down the road of directly extracting the radiated
energy.
We have (more than ! ) an abundance of water and hydrogen should be
easily extractable therefrom by heat from the sun. It's just a matter imho
of developing the technology to focus the energy appropriately. Not
such a difficult concept when you remember setting fire to paper as a kid
using a magnifying glass.
On combustion the residue is water if my O level Phys/Chem memories
are correct.
Surely this would be less onerous than fission, fusion, nuclear or
fossil burning

Pete

My first step towards sustainable energy would be to put a solar panel and
small windmill on top of every roof in the country and link it to the
national grid. It wouldn't be that difficult to do if it was done on a
national scale.

While we're at it, get rid of these windmills at scenic areas and put
thousands of them beside motorways, after all how much energy is in the
slipstreams of all the cars on the M1 in a day?

Regards,

Stuart

"Stuart" wrote in message
.uk...
While we're at it, get rid of these windmills at scenic areas and put
thousands of them beside motorways, after all how much energy is in the
slipstreams of all the cars on the M1 in a day?

I think that has been done somewhere. The power is used to run the roadside
matrix displays.

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm

Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:35:43 GMT, "Stuart"
wrote:
Why not mount windmills directly on every car?
--
Martin

Because the energy generated would be less than the energy lost to drag :-)

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm

"

In article ,
Jeanne Stockdale wrote:


In order to shorten the period within we can take advantage of the
sun's energy, we should go down the road of directly extracting the radiated
energy.
We have (more than ! ) an abundance of water and hydrogen should be
easily extractable therefrom by heat from the sun. It's just a matter imho
of developing the technology to focus the energy appropriately. Not
such a difficult concept when you remember setting fire to paper as a kid
using a magnifying glass.
On combustion the residue is water if my O level Phys/Chem memories
are correct.
Surely this would be less onerous than fission, fusion, nuclear or
fossil burning

In the UK in December, the isolation is about 1-2 megajoules/sq.metre
per diem. If you can extract energy at 15%, you are doing well. So,
to get 1 KW for 24 hours (assuming perfectly efficient storage), you
need 300-600 square metres dedicated to solar panels. I don't know
the average energy consumption per person, but I should guess a few
kilowatts. Where were you proposing to put the panels?

That excludes the fact that the ones used to generate electricity
or hydrogen use toxic chemicals and cost more energy to make than
they save. Ones used to heat water would be worthwhile, if it
wasn't for the fact that our peak demands are in winter. Solar
power is at best a joke in the UK.

Where it WOULD help is if used by the Texans to run their air conditioners.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.