I suppose that's the future of commercial aviation, cram as many people
as possible into a vast lumbering jet like an airbourne cattle truck,
and get them from A to B as cheaply as possible.
So much for the romance of travel :-)
Bring back Concorde.......
I'm afraid the closet greeny in me recoils at the thought of something which
will burn ????????? tons of fuel over its lifetime and put ?????????? tons
of CO2 into the atmosphere, all so people can get sunburnt on the costa del
fish-n-chips for a couple of weeks a year.
Probably not going to happen like that, most likely these amazing
aircraft will be winging their way on long hauls, eg bringin us Kiwis
and Aussies up your way, hopefully with more comfort. I doubt many of us
will be heading for your "nice" beaches in Spain!
Can't understand how anyone can complain about these aircraft.
BTW, saw the A-380 fly past on BBC television here last night just
before hitting the sack.
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
You really need to get out more! :-))
The scale costs savings mean that more people per gallon of fuel can be carried,
so instead of two B747 flights you can do it with one 380. Compare this aircraft
with the B707 or DC-8 if you want, that will show you where developments have
We are just under the flightpath for Luton airport at the factory, and where we
used to watch noisy and smoky stuff taking off, now we get relatively quiet,
smoke-free and much larger aircraft going up with lesser frequency.
Don't forget also that most of these aircraft are going to the far east where
flight usage is starting to take off (no pun intended!) The West still has
growth in airline use but it is starting to plateau now.
Peter & Rita Forbes
Not an unusual situation with those who call themselves green, the clearest
example ever has to be that of the Severn estuary tidal power scheme which
would provide 16% of the UK's electricity indefinitely with zero emissions
and at very low cost long term. The green's view?, total opposition on the
grounds than some birds will notice the change to the tidal patterns and be
upset!, it beggars belief and severely damages their credibility.
If you take that much energy out it will have a major impact on the ecology
of the area. This has been demonstrated by other such schemes which have
proved to be a very mixed blessing. Simple factors of conservation of
energy. The present tidal energy is necessary for the environment
there....take it out and the environment will change. If you want a silted
up algae ridden estuary then fine, but I don't really see that it would be
much of a gain.
And btw....I don't consider myself "green". My local council don't even
bother to leave me a recycling bin as they do all my neighbours, and I
haven't bothered to complain.
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
Just because something is the least bad to date doesn't make it good!
However, as you probably guessed Peter, I am really playing devil's advocate
here - anybody whose hobby involves spending his weekends in a field
watching gallons of fuel being consumed to no end other than entertainment
can hardly claim to be an out and out greeny ;-) I just have that nagging
feeling it can't go on indefinitely, and that particularly applies to the
continuing growth in largely pointless air travel.
Re, the proposed Severn barrage, my first concern when I heard about it was
not for some tweeters with wet feet but would it stop the Bore - anyone
No, but if you argue against something that is an improvement you won't get
any improvements, this is a typical green attitude, "we don't want it
because it's not a perfect solution" which only serves to maintain the
status quo which, as you rightly say, is unsustainable. If the greens
arguing against improvement they may get some results.
The vast majority of us burn methanol which is a hell of a lot better for
the environment than petrol and very likely to be a major fuel in the
future, but again greens can't see improvements they can only see complete
bans, if they had their way we would all go back to before the industrial
You're right, the use of fossil fuels can't go on forever because A. they
will run out and B. they are far too polluting, so why the heck do you think
it's clever to argue against a project that will at a stroke give us a
renewable source of 16% of the UK's electricity needs?.
It will still be tidal, the tide will just lag behind the sea, I'm not
saying there won't be issues of course there will, but the benefits far
outweigh the problems. And while you may not be arguing on the basis of
wildlife disruption that is most definitely the approach being taken by the
greens on national TV, they just make themselves a laughing stock when a
reporter asks them if the saving of billions of tons of carbon emissions
isn't worth it and all they can do is repeat that some birds will have to
If the Greens and others like them really got their act together, they could be
a very good force for improvement, as many people support their general
viewpoint. But I'm afraid you are right, their attitude is totally wrong and it
gets people's backs up when they refuse to accept general common sense over
issues like this.
Wind farms are another issue where common sense prevents their use. I couldn't
give a toss where they are sited as long as they do their job and don't create a
If we don't get these systems up and running soon, we will be into Nuclear
energy with no Plan B.
Peter & Rita Forbes
On Sat, 20 May 2006 12:53:37 +0100, Peter A Forbes
chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the last of
their cup of tea, paid the bill and wrote::
In another context entirely, we have to deal with the Wildlife Lobby
who are at present against us restoring the Cromford Canal. Won't
listen to reasoned arguments, won't help by providing advice when it
would clearly be in their interest to do so: the restoration will go
past some of their nature reserves but they refused to provide input
to the environmental study we've funded.
To top it all, we organised a Sponsored Walk on public footpaths and
they moaned they hadn't been consulted!
Brian L Dominic
Friends of the Cromford Canal: http://www.cromfordcanal.org.uk
(Waterways World Site of the Month, November 2005)
Newsgroup readers should note that the reply-to address is NOT read:
To email me, please send to brian(dot)dominic(at)tiscali(dot)co(dot)uk
I agree totally, they potentially have a lot of power to improve things and
I would gladly back them if they got their act together as I suspect many
would, their present approach does little more than serve the interests of
the oil companies, hence me getting rather annoyed about them at times 8-).
There's a really daft side to the wind farm debate that seems to have been
missed, most of the _successfull_ objections to them are not from locals or
greens but from the RAF, not as you might think because they might fly into
them while practising low flying but because the rotating blades are
apparently very good at jamming their tactical radar!, one has to wonder
what use a tactical radar is if it can be overcome by any enemy that can
build windmills around their country 8-).
It's worse than that, the reason the government is cold on the idea of
building more nuclear plants is not as they will claim the objections or the
risks, it's because there isn't enough high grade uranium ore in the world
to fuel them for the life of the plants if many countries go that way!.
There is of course a lot of uranium around but they have always omitted the
fact that most of it is in forms that require more energy to extract than is
produced by burning the resulting fuel.
With commercial fusion reactors still many decades away we are up the
proverbial without a paddle unless we get renewables on line in significant
Anyway, off my soap box, this is an engine group after all, my Lister
generator is still waiting for me to get my garage sorted out so I have room
to work on restoring it.
that's not actually true, the potential supply of ore is finite, but
there is enough for fifty to a hundred years, and of course if you
build a fast breeder reactor the fuel reserve is exponentially longer.
The global uranium reserves with mining costs up to US $ 80 per
kilogram amount to about 2 million tonnes.
If mining costs of up to 130 $/kg are taken into consideration the
global uranium reserves are increased by further 3 million tonnes. The
uranium resources are estimated to be 15 to 20 million tonnes.
A million tons of uranium reserves correspond to an energy equivalent
of 14 billion tonnes hard coal when used in light water reactors.
Fast breeders will better that by a factor of 60, so a million tons of
uranium reserves correspond to an energy equivalent of 840 billion
tonnes hard coal when used in fast breeder reactors
Current proven global hard coal reserves are 478,771 million tons,
stretch the definition of coal all the way to vase lignite and global
reserves stand at 909,064 million tons.
Coal (ALL forms) 939,061,000,000 tons
Uranium equivalent coal tonnage 840,000,000,000 tons
Since burning coal released considerably MORE radioactive material into
the atmosphere than nuke plants, the "Green" aspect of burning that
coal would be a double whammy to the enviornment.
the reality is that there is no nuke vs renewables etc options open to
the UK, we have a very simple and stark option, do you want light and
heat, yes or no, if the answer is yes then nuke is the only way it can
you can dislike this choice as much as you please, it doesn't alter the
facts one iota.
we either have a nuclear future, or we have a post apocalyptic future
with a national sustainable population of maybe ten million if we are
lucky, and the "economy" as we know it today will have vanished never
Barring accidents, all of you posting here who are not already drawing
a state pension will live to see which way things go.
Lots of stuff taken word for word from the web site of The European Nuclear
of course there's no reason to beleive their 'facts' to be at all distorted
However, you do very carefully cut out one paragraph that doesn't suit your
"These ten countries possess about 96% of the global uranium reserves. With
their 2 million tonnes, all 439 world-wide operated nuclear power plants can
be supplied for several decades."
So actually those several decades of life is if, and only if, the existing
number of power stations is maintained. But of course we only get about 16%
of the world's energy needs from nuclear at the moment so would have to
increase the number by over 6 times so even with the low grade ore that
several decades becomes sevaral years. Considering that it takes over a
decade just to build a nuclear station and their life would be several
decades there is no rational reason to build them.
Of course then you bring the fast breeder into the argument, well all I can
say is that if you think a reactor cooled by liquid sodium or lithium is a
good idea then you're in a small minority!, so far only experimental
prototypes exist and no one considers them economic to build.
it was the first link to come up, there were many more, all saying tha
that's the thing about independently verifiable facts, they withstand
quite right, no REASON at all
no, you ascribe motives that do not exist
oh yes, and you carefully cut paragraphs of mine that don't suit your
arguments, like that 2 million tons is at 80 bucks a kilo.....
and represents about a tenth of world resources
which will go sixty times further if used in fast breeders.....
so, a six hundred fold increase.
which annuls your "argument" that there ain't enough.
see above, several, say 7, years from 2 millon tons
that makes 70 years with global stocks, taking us to, 2100 or so with
that makes 420 years with fast breeder, taking us to 2500 or so...
it takes SEVERAL years to build a coal fired power station, and their
service life is about the same as a nuke plant
there goes another pillar of your argument
yes, "efficiency", maybe you've heard about it, it's all the rage,
especially with enviornmentalists
of course it would appear that you are arguing that the nuclear lobby
must run inefficient processes, merely so you can improve your anti
so now you spout "pop science" while ignoring the real science, again
because it is the only way you can mount an effective argument
ALL, without exception, ALL reactors "Breed", fast breeders just do it
at a higher ratio, and they have not been "prototypes" since about
1950, and lots of people, including india are currently building them
I also not you snip the bit about a choice between lights on or lights
off, if you want lights on then nuke is the only option.
Why should I repeat everything you said?, others can read the thread for
themselves can't they?, it's only common courtesy to keep the reply short
and to the point. In my experience it's only trolls who come up with that
old chestnut because they love to see their words repeated again and
So even according to your own figures we would only get 70 years of power
from a nuclear powered economy without going to fast breeders, so my
children will see us run out of energy instead of me seeing it, WOW that's a
really great improvement isn't it!, so much better than developing
renewables that, erm, never run out...
Yes isn't science a wonderful tool for pursuading us that something is safe
against all common sense, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the people
living in the shadow of Chernobyl were told that it was safe because of all
the science, or nearer to home maybe the Buncefield residents were told the
same tale. I'm an engineer by trade and no one on this earth will ever
convince me that a reactor cooled by liquid sodium at 500 degrees is a good
Well argue with yourself My Fawkes, 'cos I'm not falling for it.
oh yes, talking of old chestnuts
"he doesn't agree with me, ergo I shall brand him a troll".
yeah, gives us 70 years MINIMUM to perfect commercial fusion.
and it's not just energy they will run out of, it is everything,
you DO know how much energy it takes to produce food in a modern
economy don't you?
clue, we now require 2000 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of
35 years ago it was parity
50 years before that it was 2000 to 1 in the other direction.
this is why eco idiots are all idiots.
ALL the renewal power on the entire planet today, which is ALL solar,
globally, ALL wind, globally, and ALL wave power, globally, and ALL
geothermal power, globally, won't run one full size aluminium smelting
you must be a crap engineer (hint, I'm an engineer) if you can't run
nuclear has killed and injured less people than coal, by a vast margin.
you whine like some ninny about nuclear being dangerous, then get in a
car, and more people die on the roads than almost anything else, but
that's different innit....
nuke accidents are high profile, like aeroplane crashes, but that still
doesn't alter the odds or the statistics, nuke are like air travel, far
far far safer than any of the alternatives we are using today.
yeah, "he doesn't agree with me, and he has answers to every specious
claim I make, so I'm not going to talk to him any more"
Sorry Greg, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, I was referring
to myself there - I am an engine enthusiast, hence ref to devil's advocate.
Oh and running vintage SEs on methanol is a new one on me - I wouldn't fancy
having to re jet all my engines to suit!
I'm not, I think it is a wonderful project, just curious about possible
effect on the Bore which is something of a local attraction.
Sorry if I've annoyed anyone, after a number of years on this group I guess
it is too easy to fall into the trap of imagining that one is among people
who know where you are coming from.
No need to apologise, Nick, better a decent discussion than nothing at all!
We can't always read minds though.... :-))
Peter & Rita Forbes
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.