BLUEMOMENT

Just throw another blog on the fire.

Shard wrote:Just throw another blog on the fire.

Wouldn't it create less Carbon if we split the atoms in the blog and warmed our hands over that?

BIOMASS

A local entrepreneur & stove maker, (Bob Talbott) has been developing biomass fuelled commercial heating units with a range of fuels depending on needs of user. Choices include wood pellets, sawdust, wood & MDF scrap, hay bales & . . . ELEPHANT GRASS. There are several farmers growing the crop locally& I think getting some EU & UK grants towards it.

The key point about Elephant grass is that it grows in a season & absorbs the CO2 it gives out when burnt. But id does use land that could be growing food or grazing for food.

Link; http://www.talbotts.co.uk/about.htm

Arghiro wrote:BIOMASS

The key point about Elephant grass is that it grows in a season & absorbs the CO2 it gives out when burnt. But id does use land that could be growing food or grazing for food.

Could he not raise some elephants for the table?

One bite at a time, my lad, one bite at a time.

Mark wrote:Admittedly with the worlds current population Plutonium will run out before long just like all other resources but until then it solves a lot of problems.

Umm, Plutonium is not a resource, only trace amounts of it are found in nature.
The natural resource is Uranium, from which Plutonium may be synthesised. Plutonium is a constituent of "nuclear waste".

Nick wrote:While on paper nuclear makes a lot of sense the problems building and commissioning the two new EPA reactors at Olikuto (Finland) and Flamanville (France) indicate that this is far from a 'silver bullet' or a quick fix.....

.....

And - with no subsidies available and a commitment to meeting the decomissioning costs are there any private firms champing at the bit?

There were several English language articles regarding Olikuto & Flamanville in Der Spiegel which throws some light on the problems. In Finland the contractors would decide, for example, that a temperature pocket was in far too difficult a position so they welded the pocket where it was more convenient. The assumption that the site drawings could be ignored when too inconvenient happened all over but all has had to be rectified. The French discovered, and this is quite difficult to believe if you've experience of French schooling & education and given their nuclear programme, there were plenty of people who can weld, even stainless, but virtually none to nuclear standard. The French are training them. This shouldn't be a surprise; the principle reason the Astute nuclear submarines cost so much and were so late was that all who had the skills with Trident had retired. France has exactly the same problem; her power stations are very old.

Although no direct subsidy, there is a carbon floor which will have, I believe, the effect of guaranteeing a minimum price. In previous years, 1970-85, the banks were burnt as UK governments vacillated over the building programme so nobody really trusts anybody else as both blame each other.

One thing that does stick out is how few people we will have to build ANY of this. Any child, student, looking for a career can almost not fail in HV power distribution but I don't see any real interest in, say, the Heriot Watt University or Glasgow in pushing power engineering. As for nuclear, Karlsruhe is the only European uni doing nuclear power; there were less than 10 graduates throughout Europe each year. We've got a serious youth employment problem?

All I can say is that I'm glad I've kept my mother's old Tilley lamp!

The question is, will I be able to get parafin to run the bloody thing

Rowana wrote:The question is, will I be able to get parafin to run the bloody thing

And will you be able to afford it?

ParaHandy wrote:Although no direct subsidy, there is a carbon floor which will have, I believe, the effect of guaranteeing a minimum price. In previous years, 1970-85, the banks were burnt as UK governments vacillated over the building programme so nobody really trusts anybody else as both blame each other.

Ah, I think I am beginning to understand - the carbon floor was made from the burnt banks, yes?

ParaHandy wrote: One thing that does stick out is how few people we will have to build ANY of this. Any child, student, looking for a career can almost not fail in HV power distribution but I don't see any real interest in, say, the Heriot Watt University or Glasgow in pushing power engineering. As for nuclear, Karlsruhe is the only European uni doing nuclear power; there were less than 10 graduates throughout Europe each year. We've got a serious youth employment problem?

Quite. It isn't new, though. When I got my Electrical & Electronic Engineering degree from Heriot Watt in 1975, only two of us, out of a class of 30 odd, specialised in power rather than electronics. Which was odd given that the then Electricity Boards paid significantly more than the electronics manufacturers.

I am not passing any comment on this, but, for your information and infinite delectation, an activist group of lawyers (yeah, OK, OK), ClientEarth, has made public a complaint that they've submitted to the Financial Reporting Review Panel.

They are suggesting that BP overegged the cake in their BP Annual Report and Accounts 2009, and "set out a partial and limited picture of the company’s likely future market, one that lacks balance and context". The substance of their argument is that BP's projections were based on the International Energy Agency's "reference scenario" (i.e. "business as usual" on carbon emissions), and ignored the IEA's more optimistic "450 scenario" in which “in which collective policy action is taken to limit the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million of -equivalent (ppm -eq)".

They are suggesting that by only giving weight to one IEA scenario, BP failed "to provide information on the main trends and factors likely to affect the future development, performance and position of the company’s business". ClientEarth argue that the "reference scenario" was used to justify exploration and extraction in high risk areas such as the "tar sands" (aka "oil sands") and deep water offshore.

The argument is not about which scenario is "right" or "wrong", but about the provision of fair and accurate information to shareholders under the Companies Act 2006. The ClientEarth submission is online here.

.
BP certainly seem to be less keen to get behind the 'beyond petroleum' tagline these days - it's been relegated to an obscure page on their website that you have to search for to find. One implication of this report is that BP are in effect saying they do not believe in the need to take any action to slow down or ameliorate climate change - or at best are unwilling to participate. I wonder if this story will escape from its current bonds of obscurity into the full light of the public gaze. Interesting.

I wonder if this story will escape from its current bonds of obscurity into the full light of the public gaze.

Well, at least you read it here first.

DaveS wrote:When I got my Electrical & Electronic Engineering degree from Heriot Watt in 1975, only two of us, out of a class of 30 odd, specialised in power rather than electronics.

1970!! Lawrence (I think that was his name - he was the vice-prof) appeared with an awkward shaped device with 3 wires attached and asked if any were interested; nope was the reply so we carried on with usual stuff about synchronous generators but he did show us how to make a flip-flop which wasn't that interesting. Chap by the name of McTeirnan was the computer prof and in 1967 he finally got a computer and what a thrill that was; even the simplest programmes required a reasonable sized suitcase to carry the cards for the reader ...