victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?

Page 12 of 14  
IMM wrote:

or the noocooler bogglers will get you!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
IMM wrote:

Might cost less than trying to get rid of all the CO2 tho.

The biggest single disaters have been caused by other things.
Earthquake in Iran, 30,000 dead. Smilar erahquake in San francisco with modern building regs, 3 dead.
How many died at Bhopal. Non nuclear accident. How many die in coal mines. Non nuclear accidents. How many did Saddam Husseing gas and kil. Non nuclear accident, and, if he had no oil to sell, because we wre all nuclear, how many would he have been ABLE to kill? How many die on oil platforms every year. Non nuclear. How many die when monsoons fail, or bangladesh gets flooded (again) Strong evidnce to link with fossil fuel burning.
In short, the Nuclear power scenario stacks up to one or two accidents - five mile island and chernobyl. Chernobyl was probably no more expensive than an oil tanker sinking in terms of clean up. Fve mile island - I forget, but it hasn't ruined the country.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

despite
Warped logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. What you are saying is that the odd nuclear disaster affecting millions of people is acceptable ...... because other disasters have been worse.

Lets make a nuclear disaster and all join in. The earthquake was a human failure. They knew it was am earthquake zone.

Fossil fuel burning can be drastically reduced by simple low tech means.

And Windscale in 1958...and others around the world.

100,000s are suffering long term effects from the fall out.

--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Franz Heymann wrote:

I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve helieum
Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.

Yes, I tend to agree with you.

I would not be surprised.

That is certainly true.

Yes, the arguments are kind of curious:-
"We mustn't use nuclear power because the waste it generates might after a few hundred years cause a little environmental change in certain deep caves or the bottom of the ocean, so we had better stick to natural gas and oil and coal, which are running out, are absolutely known TO BE causing MAJOR environmental impact, and WILL DEFINITELY affect the WHOLE HUMAN RACE in a few years, extremely adversely".
The real reason is probably to limit the suppies of enriched uranium in case some gets into the wrong hands...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it
fission
number
than
If all power stations were nuclear around the world the waste would pile up and be a huge problem in the future. Silly idea and should be forgotten.

despite
contamination is

--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and
worse
up
It is obvious that you have never given a moments intelligent thought to this question. You are just following the flock. The waste from a nuclear power station is in fact a great deal easier to dispose of safely than the waste from a fossil fuel plant. The trouble lies entirely in the fact that the shepherds who persistently lead the sheep astray on this matter have not even the faintest understanding of the issues involved in comparing methods of disposing of waste from power stations.
Franz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Makes you wonder why the controllers aren't set up to face Mecca at their stations? At least they would be in the right orientation when they get up again. (I have seen similar but luckily only in computer operations rooms and similar - nothing that critical.)
Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The tower didn't face Mecca, they have to turn around. Even if it did face Mecca no one paying attention makes no difference. I have seen civilian planes nearly hit hawk arrestors because of these dickheads.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
IMM wrote:

Yah...well...no...fine ! :-)
And who pays YOUR wages? Phony Liar?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

wages
Confused eh!

Who is he or her?
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snip]

I have now had a quick look with Google, using the search terms - Rubbia radioactive waste - and found a fair selection of papers. Researh on this process is going on in Holland and in Russia. (And probably elsewhere as well) The main motivation for it was originally that it would be a way of getting rid of the plutomium, and hence eliminate the possibility of that material getting into the hands of potential troublemakers.
[snip]
Franz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it
fission
No. In the reactions which are presently considered, there will be a lot of tritium around. Tritium is a gas and it has a long half life. It scares the pants off me.

number
than
despite
contamination is

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tritium isn't all that bad. Its half life of about 12 years is short compared to millenia for fission waste. Tritium is a beta emitter with 18keV electron decay and there is quite a market in tritiated plastics for permanent glow in the dark (and still some requirement for H-bomb initiators). Emergency lighting in some applications is based on it.

You have to get the whole life cycle right though. And they still haven't an adequate solution for long term storage of high level waste.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

helieum
of
I am quite happy about making sensible use of the tritium which one manages to capture. My worry is the stuff which escapes into the atmosphere. Remember it is a gas.

Franz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is also very much lighter than air and so as a gas is rapidly off up into the stratosphere and can escape. You need to worry when it reacts with oxygen to form tritiated water - then it can get into the food chain and do real damage.
To put this radioactivity into perspective 18keV electrons are only a little bit more energetic than the electron beam inside a colour TV tube.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Hobden wrote:

My 30 year old triumph spitfire in stock form at leagal speeds would do better than 40mpg. It didnt after I had tuned it up to 110bhp, admittedly :-) BMC A and B series engines were also capable of well in excess of 40mpg.
Ford 1600 engines were alwasy carp its true, but at least you coudl tweak em up to ridiculous power easily. Fuel injection has been the greatest benefit.

And elecric fans, to redice power loss on cooling fans.
However, we now use fatter tyres (more rolling resistance) and travel fatser, and in general spend so much time in congestion that average fuel consumption is in fact worse.

I totally agree on that one. Catalytic convertors work extremely well in places like califirnia, where temperatures are higher and the big problem was unburnt hydrocarbons producing smog.
They arer wuite good in countries where average jorneys are long enough for them to get up to temp as well.
Not so here, and the stuff in fuel now to repalce lead, is highly toxic and carcinogenic ...diesels are disgusting. They nee filters and catalysts too.

No, ther are more issues at stake than lung irritation. On the global warming front, you are still using fossil fuels with fuel cells.
I attended a 'clean energy' conference some years back attended by represntatives from teh finacial, oil, and automotive industries.
The oil men want fuel cells, because it menas they still get to sell oil.
The automotive men wanted hydrigen, because it meant they could still sell cars.
The financial lot, shook their heads and walked out early. "If its sll tio be enfirced by legistlation, the government will ensure its barely profitable"
I asked the one question - "what is the most energy efficient way of transporting a ton overland" "Railways" muttered someone from the back...and that was it.
Not one preson in that room was actually interested in what was the ultimately sanest transport policy. "Not my problem".
All these latrenatives are being touted by groupps with vested interests in preserving their installed base of manufacturing capability.
Ther IS no installed base of electric ras manufactures: Up till a couple of years ago there wasn't a suitable battery. There is now.

No argument there. And windmills, and tide power and hydroelectric and burning biomass and burning rubbish - especially paper, and CHP and and and...a million ways to make power that cannot be put in a car.
As you may know, I have a little hobby. Flying electric model aircraft. Up to tow years ago there was no way to even approach the power and energy densities of a tank of fuel. There is now. And its tipped the balance so that applied to cars, it comes out damn near equal overall in terms of power and range to weight of a tank of petrol and what is needed to make it turn the wheels..
I can buy all I need to use this technology NOW.
I can't buy a fuel cell.
I am sure that I weill be able to buy both in a few years time, BUT with fuel cells still using FUEL I am convinced teh electric will win ot, because you can generate electricity inso many more ways than "burning" FUEL.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, electric cars are "equal" to petrol right now in range and performance. Apart from the zero emissions at point of use (brilliant as cities are cleaned right up), what else is there to tip the balance? Generating more electricity (very dirty procedure at present) at power stations is going to produce more emissions. Cleaning this up is an expensive nightmare, not to mention the electrical distribution system for re-charging vehicles.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
IMM wrote:

They CAN be. One allegedly is.

Yes, but the alternatives are worse. At least the potential to generate electricty from non fossil sources exists: hydrogen cars still need hydrogen, and have neither the range, nor indeed the possibility to generate the hydrogen cheaply except by electricity. The battery wins over the hydrogen car. Period.
Whatever is dirty in a power statin is dirtier in a car. If you can go froim fuel to power in a car at a certain level ofeffciency, then certainly you can go from fuel to power, and electricity at least as efficiently and at least at same level of pollution in a power station. In fact its possible to do better when the weight limitations of car engines are removed.
Otherwise we would have to look at biofuels - methanol, biodiesl etc. - and hope that the economics of production make more sense.
I don;t think they do.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

performance.
more
to
to
Deserts are waiting to be farmed.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
has
travelled.
to
ago
will
cars)
think
too
I have been reading about the immense progress being made in fuel cell technology for more than twenty years now. Why are they not yet in daily use in every household?

I have read a report one experimental fuel cell unit installed in Holland, where it was mentioned that "At the point of shutdown, the unit was also sustaining a power generating efficiency of more than 46 percent, well above a conventional combustion-based power plant that typically generates electricity at efficiencies of 33 to 35 percent".
That does not sit well with whoever it was who recently said something about conventional power stations operating at 60%.
Franz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.