"BAC" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

That article does not go into a solitary detail about the reactions
and reaction products of fusion reactions. The reaction being
studied is one involving the fusion of a deuteron with a triton. The
end products are an alpha particle and a high energy neutron. The
secondary radioactive products produced by these particles before they
are thermalised are not usually discussed when talking about fission.
{:-((

Franz

"Stuart" wrote in message
.uk...
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.

That is a possibility, but would require an unbearable skewing of the
economy, because of the capital and maintenance cost of solar cells.

[snip]

Franz

"Martin Sykes" wrote in
message ...


"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.

A mere sop to Cerberus.

Franz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:35:43 GMT, "Stuart"
wrote:

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.

both solar panels and a small windmills are net users of energy.

Yes. I, too, had forgotten the energy costs of producing the cells
and small windmills in the first instance.


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?

Why not mount windmills directly on every car?

{:-))

Franz

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


Solar Panels on the M27 in Hampshire

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
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.

Between 1/2% and 1% ofm our present rate of consumption.

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)

As Martin has pointed out, photovoltaic technology consumes more power
than it produces.


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)

All these can provide only a negligible fraction of the current rate
of consumption of energy.

Biomass, such as wood waste or food waste
Other (hydrogen fuel cells) ...."

Fuel cells use fossil fuels or alcohol. The latter requires more
energy to distil than the energy which will be recovered from the
cells.

Biomass has been under consideration for 40 years and it is still
regarded as not being a viable cource of energy on a large scale.
Besides, how do you propose using the biomass without releasing CO2
into the atmpsphere? Leave the trees be. They are storage places for
CO2 produced by ourother activities.

To a good approximation any words like "eco" and "green" which occur
in a paper on energy usuallt means that that papewr may be left
unread.

There is at present no way of avoiding the construction of common or
garden (got it in!) fission stations as fast as possible, and the
problem gets more urgent every year that passes without action being
taken in that direction.

Franz
..

" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in message
...

"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.

Sorry, but the meaning of that sentence escapes me entirely.


We have (more than ! ) an abundance of water and hydrogen
should be
easily extractable therefrom by heat from the sun.

There is no direct way of using solar heat to decompose water into
hydrogen and oxygen
Electrolysing water just to burn it again is not a *source* of any
energy whatsoever. It merely provides a method of storing and
transporting energy.

It's just a matter imho
of developing the technology to focus the energy appropriately.

What would this technology consist of?

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.

Your memories of chenmistry are very badly flawed. Burning carbon
does not yield any water at all. It yields mainly CO2 under ideal
burning conditions. The CO2 is the ****** in the woodpile which we
are trying to get rid of.

Surely this would be less onerous than fission, fusion,
nuclear or
fossil burning

Fusion is as yet unproven.
Fission is fine. The only ****** in the woodpile is the anti-nuclear
lobby, which has its knickers quite seriously in a twist. Fission
stations pollute vastly less than coal, gas or oil stations do.

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeanne Stockdale wrote:



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.

Agreed that conventional solar panels are not efficient in the UK. and only
of marginal efficiency in sunnier climates.
I propose therefore not to stick the panels anywhere.

Pete

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

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.

Your memories of chenmistry are very badly flawed. Burning carbon
does not yield any water at all. It yields mainly CO2 under ideal
burning conditions. The CO2 is the ****** in the woodpile which we
are trying to get rid of.




I was trying to illustrate the power of the sun correctly harnessed.
I am aware that burning paper causes the same problems as burning other
fossil stuff -CO2 etc.
Its the burning of hyrogen that I hope would produce water alone.

Pete

Franz Heymann wrote:
"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




Ah, but the Canadian company has successfully generated hydrogen from
water using sun power. A lot of possibility there, it is very advanced
they have conducted viable commercial tests.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

That article does not go into a solitary detail about the reactions
and reaction products of fusion reactions. The reaction being
studied is one involving the fusion of a deuteron with a triton. The
end products are an alpha particle and a high energy neutron. The
secondary radioactive products produced by these particles before they
are thermalised are not usually discussed when talking about fission.
{:-((


I thought you were implying that a (theoretical) fusion reactor would
produce similarly long lived 'nuclear waste' to existing fission reactors.
The article quoted implies it would not. Not being a nuclear physicist
myself, I saw no reason to doubt the worth of SEAFP's conclusions.

Franz asked "..... Why not mount windmills directly on every car? ....."

Why bother when most cars have their alternators doing nothing most of their
journey, they could be used to charge up a 2nd battery, If you think of how
much potential electricity could be produced each day from our traffic, cars
and lories etc, it would add up to a lot, and with no extra fuel used.
Alternatively, make all vehicles petrol/electricity combined so that the
electricity produced would go to power the car in urban situations, thus
saving fuel and co2 emissions.
Also.What about a microwave powered engine.


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

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
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.

{:-))

Let's get back to gardening:
When Porter was at the Royal Institution, there was a very active
research programme on trying to disentangle the details of the quantum
processes by which photosynthesis proceeds. My own opinion is that
solar energy will become a viable alternative for replacing fossil
fuel energy when we know enough to produce photosynthesis on an
industrial scale without the need for green plants.
Is there a chemist amongs urglers who knows the status of research on
the physics of photosynthesis?

Franz

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"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




Ah, but the Canadian company has successfully generated hydrogen
from
water using sun power.

By what process?

A lot of possibility there, it is very advanced
they have conducted viable commercial tests.

I have my doubts, and will continue to have them until I know what
magic process was used.

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
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.

That's about the strength of it.

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

Ans in the Sahara, if only there were folk living there.

Franz