OT - What will be completely unacceptable in 100 years - or even 50

Seems either/both vegetation or/and animals. I would hazard ANYTHING with Carbon in it can be metamorphosed (given time , the millions of years ) into fuels . Saying oil is from dead dinosaurs is a bit tongue in cheek but true(ish). The main takeaway is given the time scale fossil fuels are not regarded as renewable.

you cant ruin the efficiency of renewable power any more than it is ruined to start with

No, oil is some sort of water plnat I think..

"petroleum is formed when large quantities of dead organisms, mostly zooplankton and algae, are buried underneath sedimentary rock and subjected to both intense heat and pressure."

windmills just reproduce by seed don't they?

You know, I think you can...

Using it to make liquid fuels would be a good way to do it...

Tim

The 'version' taught to children is:-

Oil ~ Marine organisms Coal ~ Vegetation

well of course only an idiot would think of using it to charge cars, or make hydrogen with. That's why I always suggested nuclear power There is so much energy available efficiency doesn't matter much.

And hot on the heels of that we have ... Sizewell C. Not a moment too soon.

The BBC article on this was actually sensible, hard though this may be to believe.

Has it been built, then? How many announcements have we had in the past about new nuclear power stations that haven't happened?

But I'd guess being a good Tory you believe every word they utter.

I am hoping against hope that this government seeing the total financial disaster that Covid has made of Rolls Royce, will inject obscene amounts of cash for a major shareholding and force them into better gas turbines for electricity generation and small modular reactors as well.

We have no hope of deploying as many reactors as we will need without having a factory assembled type approved design that can be rolled out in quantity, and Rolls Royce is the only UK company with the engineering nous and discipline to develop one.

I never said that farmers not using winch systems was due to stupidity, it was you that brought that idea up.

I suppose if nothing else it demonstrates your thinking deficiencies.

which part of 'we don't know' did you miss?

no-one in the business ever did. It was marketing bs. Nuke power was wanted to produce weapon material, public acceptance was needed. It's odd how many seem to take that comment at face value.

or they can agree that the tech needed to be used to produce weapons, not because free leccy had any part in it. The first nuke power plant reactors were in fact hopeless at generating eleccy.

NT

As schoolkids we were taught it's dinos etc. Reality is we don't know what the formation timescale is.

NT

It was the only possible conclusion that any reasonable person could draw from your two statements

" the heavy weight of steam tractors was a real problem, it compacted the ground"

And yet despite this

"mostly they did not use winching*

More especially as a prominent feature of ploughing engines is the winch underneath the boiler. As noted in the link. Are you seriously suggesting that they didn't realise what this was for ?

If you do actually have any real expertise in any DIY area, which you may understandably wish to share with other people, then I can only suggest that in order to retain at least some semblance of credibility, you resist the obvious temptation to post the sort of absolute bollocks which you posted above.

You know it makes sense.

michael adams

...

Um, I?m pretty sure that we DO know that they?re not renewing at an economic rate. Conditions now are very different from the Carboniferous period when oil and coal were formed.

Tim

Indeed. There was about 4 - 10 times the amount of atmospheric CO2, and it was a degree or two warmer than today ;-)

Carbon dating doesn't work back more than 50,000 years. Long after the Carboniferous.

There are others way to date back to that.