The horrors of biofuels.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 27 Apr 2010 06:15 On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:52:27 +0100, "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> They thought it would be the solution to their polluting, motorised >> wanderlust but this BBC radio programmed tells a very different story. >> Isn't it great that bicycles don't need biofuels? but bicycles will not get you anywhere much. We want to travel but the faster you go the more you pollute. A good way of cutting some carbon would be for leaders in politics and business stopping flying almost non stop to meeting and having carbon footprints 20 or 30 times bigger than the average driver. Ditto long haul to beaches the same as ones nearer home. Want to see the Taj Mahal? Buy a postcard! -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 27 Apr 2010 06:19 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:58:11 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >And we probably would have done if >it hadn't been for loud mouthed but tiny brained right-on dole scroungers >and out of work students looking for a cause protesting about anything with >"nuclear" in the title. more to the point, uranium is finite and we do not have any. Theres a case for nuclear, but you didnt state it above! -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Brimstone on 27 Apr 2010 06:47 "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:v4edt5t3raktf7pfma5hlu7ode2tolujhq(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:52:27 +0100, "Brimstone" > <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> They thought it would be the solution to their polluting, motorised >>> wanderlust but this BBC radio programmed tells a very different story. >>> Isn't it great that bicycles don't need biofuels? > > but bicycles will not get you anywhere much. > We want to travel but the faster you go the more you pollute. > A good way of cutting some carbon would be for leaders in politics and > business stopping flying almost non stop to meeting and having carbon > footprints 20 or 30 times bigger than the average driver. Ditto long > haul to beaches the same as ones nearer home. Want to see the Taj > Mahal? Buy a postcard! > -- If you must reply to people via someone else's post, please get the attribution right.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 27 Apr 2010 07:23 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:47:46 +0100, "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >If you must reply to people via someone else's post, please get the >attribution right. apols, yours was the first post I got. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Dylan Smith on 27 Apr 2010 07:34
On 2010-04-27, ash <ash.filmer(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > There is also the issue of safety - are you old enough to remember the > events surrounding the meltdown of Chernobyl as I remember it well. > There is no such thing as a 'safe' dose of radioactive contamination. Chernobyl is a huge red herring - no one anywhere else in the world ever built a reactor as dangerous as the Soviet RBMK reactor. This reactor design is heavily flawed and was known to be heavily flawed before the first one was even built. Somewhat ironically, the socialist Soviets cared much less about safety than the capitalist west. Some of the misfeatures of the RBMK reactor: - Essentially a "fail dangerous" design, not only with a positive void coefficiency (meaning that voids in the neutron moderator - water - would mean less neutron absorption, meaning an increase in the reaction; if the water boils, this means lots of voids, which means you get a positive feedback - and the thing that finished it off was that the control rods moved slowly and the ends of the control rods were *hollow*, so when the operators hit the button to shut it down, as the control rods went in they increased the reaction speed still further, and then the top blew off). - It had no secondary containment building Then there was the string of official denial, right from the plant operators onwards. Despite being told there were glowing bits of reactor core scattered around the turbine hall, the bureaucrats in charge of the plant insisted that the radiation readings (which were actually offscale high) were only the highest reading on the gauges. |