Archive for September, 2013

King Canute was probably not a member of the @TheGreenParty

September 26, 2013

Given that the planet is warming and the seas are rising; given that man’s activities are hastening the process; given that our politician’s are listening and taking action to reduce the UK’s impact.

Given these, as facts; Isn’t it time that the Cassandra’s stopped running around crying for something to be done and actually thought about doing something.

I don’t mean demanding an end to the burning of fossil fuels, where the increased use by China has swamped any effect of the reductions being attempted in the West (certainly sidelined UK’s efforts, at great cost to my fuel bill this Winter).

I mean that they should do what Canute did.

He demanded that his ear-aches faced the inevitable and moved his throne farther up the beach, beyond the reach of the rising water.

if The Eco-friendlies want to do something useful, they should encourage governments to plan for the effects of Global Warming.

Move new developments inland.

Consider building design that can withstand the predicted severe weather.

Consider what crops will need to be grown to feed the populace. Land at sea level will be flooded but the moors may become more suitable for farming.

I know it’s easier to pontificate about other people’s indolence but, surely, there must be some members of the Eco tribes, who actually care about the people, who are helpless to take action and who will bear the brunt of the loss of habitat, shelter and food, which the Cassandra’s claim we are doomed to.

 

Advertisements

@dailyexpressuk @theipaper @The GreenParty @David_Cameron Climate change for adults.

September 24, 2013

This is a straight copy from my Fullermoney newsletter.

This is not pseudoscientists hype, or simply just opinion…… It’s numbers.

Go argue with numbers, the basis of proper Science and adult debate.

Four Numbers Say Wind and Solar Can’t Save Climate – Here is the opening and some additional samples from this informative column by Robert Bryce for Bloomberg:  

This month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will begin releasing its fifth assessment report. Like earlier reports, it will undoubtedly lead to more calls to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide worldwide.   As the discussion unfolds, I would urge everyone to keep four numbers in mind: 32, 1, 30 and 1/2. These are the numbers that explain why any transition away from our existing energy systems will be protracted and costly. Let’s take them in sequence.   First, 32: That’s the percentage growth in carbon dioxide emissions that has occurred globally since 2002. In the past decade, these emissions have increased by about 8.4 billion tons. And nearly all of that has happened in the developing world. In Asia, emissions rose 86 percent; in the Middle East, 61 percent; and in Africa, 35 percent.   In the U.S., meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions were 8 percent lower in 2012 than they were in 2002, largely due to a surge in shale gas production, which has reduced coal use. In Europe, carbon dioxide emissions have been essentially flat for a decade.   That 32 percent increase in global carbon dioxide emissions reflects the central tension in any discussion about cutting the use of coal, oil and natural gas: Developing countries — in particular, fast-growing economies such as Vietnam, China and India — simply cannot continue to grow if they limit the use of hydrocarbons. Those countries’ refusal to enact carbon taxes or other restrictions illustrates what Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, calls the “iron law of climate policy”: Whenever policies “focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reduction, it is economic growth that will win out every time.”   Over the past 10 years, despite great public concern, carbon dioxide emissions have soared because some 2.6 billion people still live in dire energy poverty. More than 1.3 billion have no access to electricity at all.   Now to the second number: 1. That’s the power density of wind in watts per square meter. Power density is a measure of the energy flow that can be harnessed from a given area, volume or mass. Six different analyses of wind (one of them is my own) have all arrived at that same measurement.   Wind energy’s paltry power density means that enormous tracts of land must be set aside to make it viable. And that has spawned a backlash from rural and suburban landowners who don’t want 500-foot wind turbines near their homes. To cite just one recent example, in late July, some 2,000 protesters marched against the installation of more than 1,000 wind turbines in Ireland’s Midlands Region.   Consider how much land it would take for wind energy to replace the power the U.S. now gets from coal. In 2011, the U.S. had more than 300 billion watts of coal-fired capacity. Replacing that with wind would require placing turbines over about 116,000 square miles, an area about the size of Italy. And because of the noise wind turbines make — a problem that has been experienced from Australia to Ontario — no one could live there.   And:   Now let’s turn to the third number: 30. This represents the massive scale of global energy use, which is about 250 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, or the output of about 30 Saudi Arabias. (Since the 1970s, the Saudis have produced about 8.2 million barrels of oil per day.) Of that 30 Saudi Arabias of daily energy consumption, we get 10 from oil, nine from coal, seven from natural gas, two from hydro and 1 1/2 from nuclear.   That remaining 1/2 — the final number — represents the amount of energy we get from all renewable sources, not counting hydropower. In 2012, the contribution from all of those sources amounted to about 4.8 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, or roughly one-half of a Saudi Arabia. Put another way, we get about 50 times as much energy from all other sources — coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and hydropower — as we do from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.   My view – If we are going to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions anytime soon, meaning within the next five to ten years, countries need to take two important steps: 1) Increase the production of natural gas which exists within shale formations in most countries; 2) Build new nuclear power stations.

A warning to the 1%. You need us! #occupy

September 18, 2013

We have a large population of unemployed people, if you count in those in education and training.

This was anticipated decades ago and initially the plan was to teach people how to enjoy their leisure time. Unfortunately, Glasnost came and the 1% saw the masses as deadweight, rather than a threat.

So we got “Education,Education,Education”. Not just here but Globally.

We also got privatisation. I.e. asset-stripping The State: Also, a Global phenomenon.

We now have an engineered crisis, which is being exploited, globally, to bring in Austerity measures, with a view to cutting the living standards of the masses to a minimum, on par with Victorian London and the conditions found in places such as Brazil’s favela’s.

It will be gradual.

Too quick and there could be revolution, despite the tight electronic surveillance and DNA profiling now available to our spooks.

Why do the 1% want this?

Is it just myopic greed?

When the masses are reduced to the state of survival existence, disease will become epidemic and endemic. The 1% will be vulnerable to these diseases, which will mutate rapidly among the plagued masses.

What will they do? Eradicate the masses, as we would eradicate rats (or are eradicating badger’s)?

With the masses gone, there will be a severely restricted customer base, a severely limited source of revenue, a severely limited need for any industry, whatsoever.

The 1% will become poor, because what is money? Money is simply the means to get other people to do things for you.

The 1% need to take a lesson from History.

When the Black Death had ravaged Europe, destroying whole villages, the 1% of the day found that no crops were being harvested, no goods manufactured, because there weren’t sufficient masses to work for them.

Those people, with any skills, or work related knowledge, became a valuable commodity and their price shot up.

Those, who wished to exploit such people, found that gold plate was no good without bread to put on it and swapped their gold plates for pewter one’s, with bread. Many rich family lines were pauperised and many a labourer bought up their grand residences.

The 1% need the 99%.

They need the 99% to be content, healthy and with money to spend. Money is only a means of buying services. It’s no good in a vault, or on a balance sheet.

If you have amassed all the money in the World, you have nothing.

So, keep the 99%.

Employ them, even if it’s only make work.

Let The State re-nationalise those concerns, which are best run at National level.

E.g. The Utilities. Encourage inefficiency in terms of employee numbers.

So what if worker’s skive off and sleep behind packing cases?  At least they’re not at home brooding.

Employ more road sweeper’s, maintenance workers, fence painter’s.

When you drive your Rolls down the High Street, wouldn’t you rather see well-dressed contented plebs and charming little novelty shops, than drab unpainted buildings with endless charity shops and moneylender’s?

Think of the film “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Pottersville might have been more agreeable to the cormudgeonly nature of Mr. Potter but wouldn’t Bedford Falls have provided him with greater wealth?

The 1% may think it’s advantageous to steal pennies from the poor but it’s not.

It’s almost a predator-prey scenario.

You need to let your prey prosper, using your strength to fight off other predator’s, who’d see you starve.

@dragonjones Rubber tubing for hydraulic structured devices, umbrella’s picture frames, tents and li-lo’s

September 17, 2013

Further to my friendly-to -people’s -eyes umbrella, I came across another idea, where hydraulic tubing could be used.

I saw a large (2m x 1.5m) world map, printed on cloth.

A great idea, in that it could be folded for transport, but a pig, in terms of making a support to hold it taut.

It occurred to me that, if it was sewn onto a frame of rubber tubing, it could still be easily folded, yet able to be rapidly restored to a taut and crease free form.

It would also be exceedingly light, without the need for very strong wall fastenings.

The frame could be 5mm O.D. by 1m.m. I.D. tubing with a built in reservoir that could be filled with tap water.

The reservoir, on these values, would need to hold about 7cc’s of water and the frame could probably be inflated by simply fitting the cap on the reservoir. Removing it would allow the deflation.

(Filling would probably be facilitated by capillary action).

I can understand why such idea’s aren’t taken up in this country (everything is run by Banker’s, who only look at large Guaranteed profits, such as ripping off State assets) but I can’t understand why the Chinese and Asian truffle hounds haven’t seized on this technology.

Similarly, pup tents and self- filling lilo’s (hydraulically inflate frame, which draws air in, then trap the air.).

 

@TheGreenParty Wind turbines shouldn’t be connected to the National Grid.

September 17, 2013

At school, I was shown that polythene, when heated, in the absence of air, will break down (pyrolysis) into the ethylene gas, from which it is made.  (A sidenote: ethylene is the gas used to rioen fruit brought in on cargo ships)

A recent you tube video (just Google pyrolysis) showed one Japanese promoter taking his kit to third world villages, where they crammed any plastic waste into the device, to produce liquid fuels to be used to run generator’s etc.

It was a little simplistic, neglecting things like production of HCl from PVC and the need for fuel to carry out the pyrolysis, but the process could be used, on industrial scale, here, along the same lines used by oil refineries to crack raw oil to produce pure chemical feedstocks.

This must be cheaper than conventional oil cracking and less  politically problematic than fracking. It has the advantage of automatically dealing with the additives, dyes etc. associated with used plastics.

The big draw back is the need to input energy to the process.

There is a solution, which ties in with the main drawback to most alternative/green sources of energy.

Devices, such as wind turbines, are sporadic in output and are actually a handicap in terms of being connected to the National Grid.

There is a serious mismatch between suplly and demand.

The solution needed is for a way to store the energy produced by these Wind Turbines, which seem to be the Government’s preferred option for showing Green credential’s.

By combining the pyrolysis with the sporadic output of wind turbines, we could reduce landfill and increase the viability of windfarms.

In some cases, such as the wind turbines in Liverpool’s Docklands, the transport costs for recycled plastics would also be minimised.

As an afterthough, one might even consider pyrolysing other organics, such as newspapers (and fastfood-flyer’s), to produce charcoal, to be used as eco-friendly fuel.

The above might not be a fully rounded solution but it would be better than paying rich people to shut down their wind turbines, on windy days, or shipping plastic waste to China.

@David_Cameron child protection time for solutions to the lessons learned.

September 17, 2013
Another child has died and the various agencies have been castigated and the great and good have once again pronounced that lessons must be learned.
Why hasn’t this happened?
Why are there still lesson’s to be learned?
We already have teacher’s, police, medico’s and Social services holding case meetings and sharing information.
This is probably part of the problem.
The files are filled, concern is expressed but no action is, or can, be taken, because no one person is directly responsible, or has direct legal power to take effective action..
The case leader’s, for these various bodies, are invariably people on high salaries, commensurate with their “responsibilities”. Unfortunately they are, too often, able to declare a lack of legal power to act. There needs to be one person, from Social Services, in charge of each case/child, with authority, possibly with rapid access to associated judicial authorisation, and direct responsibility to order effective action to be taken.
Where care home placement is required, then, despite Osborne’s austerity, there should be adequate spare capacity.
The nominated person must be more than just concerned about a fleeting public censure.
He/She must be aware that the high salary is balanced by a potential to be, in a sense, defrocked and possibly imprisoned by a Judge.

An alternative to HS2 @richard_branson @TheGreenParty @AtkinsCareersUK @balfourbeatty @kiergroup @David_Cameron

September 9, 2013

If HS2 is really about capacity, then I’d like to advocate my idea of guided dirigibles for freight.
In fact, I’d like to expand it to a second network of transport.
As an analogy, consider how the body has two vascular systems; one is for transport of red blood cells and the other is for white blood cells.

I would have:

Trains being used almost entirely for pedestrians.

Motorways for cars.

And the new network doubling up for container freight and cyclists.

As with the vascular systems of the body, there would be region’s, where the various travellers would necessarily cross over but the intention would be to minimise this, especially long distance sections, where speed would be key.

The new network could, to a large extent, exploit the existing canal system but would also require new bridges and roadways. Their nature would, however, require less land surface than motorways or railways.

So a re-cap of dirigible freight.
Essentially it is based on cable car technology, which has proven very reliable. The erection of such a network would be a lot less problematic than building railways or motorways.

Like motorways, there could be three lane traffic, depending on the nature of the loads to be transported.

Access would be required for maintenance, so B-grade roads would need to be built, with the advantage that these could double up as highways for cyclists.
The dirigibles would be tied to the cable ways, picking up and depositing container loads at marshalling yards, where the containers can be transferred to trucks, trains and boats, as required, near cities and ports.
Because the dirigibles can be adjusted to give neutral buoyancy to the containers, the cable network would have minimum wear, reducing maintenance costs.
By taking freight off roads, Motorway maintenance would be reduced, meaning less traffic queues and therefore lower fuel imports. Most problems on motorways are caused by trucks leap-frogging each other. This would be reduced. there would be less soot particulates from their diesel engines and fewer truckers dying of associated lung damage/cancer.
Cyclists would be freer to travel between towns, especially if those towns constructed networks minimising the risks created by mixing cyclists with cars and buses.
One other aspect, which might be of greater concern to those outside London, is that this network would be less problematic than conventional freight, when considering hilly terrain.
This is particularly the case, when considering the limited routes East-West across the backbone of the country. i.e. The Pennines

 

i@independent.co.uk Please don’t encourage @Ed_Miliband in his depredations

September 6, 2013

Every time a political leader thinks of a new way of spending public money, it makes a demand on The Treasury.
This, in turn leads to a rise in taxation and a cut in my ability to pay for necessities.

Your Editor’s mild acceptance of Ed Miliband’s proposal to replace Union funding with a raid on the Public Purse is, for me, alarming.
Having to pay for political campaigns would be a triple insult. Not only would I have to suffer a drop in my quality of life to fund it, I would have their lies and false promises pushed in my face.
It’s equivalent to the playground bully hitting you with your own hand and asking you why you are doing it.
The third part of the insult is that such a policy maintains the present moribund cartel of career politicians, stifling any influx of those who want to actually represent the voters.
At present, if I want to join a group of people, with like opinions, I pay a subscription to cover common expenses. My group may secure donations from sympathetic patrons but its members don’t go demanding money from all and sundry.
Political parties should not be given access to public funds.
As it is, the main political parties would still have an advantage over independents and emerging political groups (NHA party, UKIP) in that their MP’s already have access to the public purse through their Independent (allegedly)  Parliamentary Standards Authority.
I’ve no doubt that they would find some format, whereby party subs were tax-exempt, or allowable as parliamentary expenses.

Please oppose the main parties being funded from the public purse; if only so I don’t have to pay to have my TV viewing destroyed by Party Political broadcasts.