On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to someone
>> else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since JustStopEverything™
>> are, almost by definition, lowbrow ArtStudents™ and hard left
>> Trotskyites, with no scientific or technical education whatsoever,
>> *actually* achieving any carbon gains is immaterial.
>>
>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About Climate
>> Change that is important.
>>
>
> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on the
> climate.
>   What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no economicaly
> viable stuff)?
>

Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are going
to give up this revenue stream? As more of the world turns to green
technology oil will possibly become cheaper.

If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than
transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green bicycles, no
smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and heels on shoes* etc.
etc.

You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been slaughtered
long before the oil runs out.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 22/03/2024 09:53, Andrew wrote:

>
> And 11+ billion people trying to use what is left

They will be busy cutting down all the trees planted in all the
re-wilding schemes and all the trees planted as carbon offsetting :)

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 22/03/2024 09:59, Andrew wrote:

> It was Luddites like you who condemned the UK railway industry
> to carry on with ancient, filthy, inefficient steam engines
> while the rest of Europe was powering on with electrification
> and modern signalling systems.

More to do with zero money for investment after coming out of a
expensive world war.

Also a common problem with the nationalised industries controlled by
politicians and civil servants, and often with private industry where
there is a monopoly supplier.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 22/03/2024 10:10, alan_m wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:

>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on
>> the climate.
>>    What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no
>> economicaly viable stuff)?
>>
>
> Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are going
> to give up this revenue stream?  As more of the world turns to green
> technology oil will possibly become cheaper.

"Massive" reserves? Reality meet alan, alan meet reality
No tyres for the green bicycles, no
> smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks

You 'say' that like its a bad thing
>
> You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
> livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been slaughtered
> long before the oil runs out.

Yup. If the Greenies have there way.

On 22/03/2024 10:10, RJH wrote:

>
> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?

Many pension funds rely on this - the shareholders being the general UK
population.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>> On 18/03/2024 20:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2024 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>>>> around since I was a lad ...
>>
>>> Because it is shit.
>>
>> How so ?
>>
>
> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
> obsolete 150+ years ago.  Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
[snipped]

Actually wrong in almost every respect, not to be argumentative but
things aren't always how you think they are.

Sailing vessels continued to carry cargoes in great numbers and
profitably, were being made new and the designs improved right up until
the first world war. The thing which finished the age of sail was
literally the war, and the U-Boat because they were so vulnerable to
enemy action and were sunk in their hundreds.

In fact they ran for free, no fuel rerquired with a notoriously low paid
crew, they could be repaired in any port in the world and there were
reliable routes and times. There was plenty of low value, high volume,
non-urgent cargo to be carried.

TW

On 21/03/2024 23:48, SteveW wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 23:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 14:12, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 07:39, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 20/03/2024 18:00, Soup wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>>>>>> obsolete 150+ years ago.  Even the hybrid vessels of that time
>>>>>> (full sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah but early steam engines were 'pants' (shit has been used too
>>>>> often, to my mind, in this thread already).
>>>>>    But even rubbishy steam engines were 'better' than pure sailing
>>>>> ships which is why, as far as I am concerned, dual drive systems
>>>>> will come to the fore .  Engines when docking, in "The Doldrums" or
>>>>> facing a wind. sail (or rather a suitable variation) wence running
>>>>> with the wind .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So ships with early rubbish engines were better (for trade) than the
>>>> sailing ships that they made obsolete so why would sailing ships now
>>>> replace the modern cargo ship with much better engines?  Hybrid
>>>> ships of 150 years ago with both sails and (rubbish) engines also
>>>> disappeared and this wouldn't have happened if there was some major
>>>> benefit in keeping the sails.
>>>
>>> Rising fuel costs and CO2 emissions taxes are driving the costs of
>>> running ships' engines up, while automation of sails has removed teh
>>> costs of a large crew to handle them and rigid structures have
>>> removed the problems of miles of rigging getting in the way for
>>> loading. That changes the cost/benefit anlysis conmsiderably.
>>>
>> So you claim, but you quote no numbers.So just handwavey fluff until
>> you do.
>> People are romantically attached to sailing ships, windmills, toy
>> railway sets - even big ones like Greater Anglia - but that doesn't
>> mean they represent value for money, but it does give people the
>> opportunity to sell you a green narrative where the reality is just
>> greenwashing.
>
> Why do I need to quote numbers? If it makes financial sense to a
> company, they'll go for it and if it doesn't they won't. Nowhere have I
> said that it is viable, just that it may be and those saying that sails
> simply can't work have closed minds and won't even consider it.
>

The issue is between the world of emotional narratives and the world of
hard economic and engineering facts.

In short between the ArtStudent™ mind that asks 'will it work' and the
Engineering and company finance director mind that asks 'it it *worth*
doing'? A question that requires the ability to count beyond ten with
your socks on.

Sadly today ArtStudents™ are fully in control of the government
narrative, as no one has stopped to ask the question 'Are renewable
energy plants, grid stabilisation batteries, long range interconnectors,
electric cars and heat pumps *actually worth it*? Or is it all something
that has Putin rubbing his hands with glee as he envisages a woke
defenceless Europe staffed by 'queers' and running off fairy farts
whilst he has and army with diesel tanks and career criminals.

Massive taxation hikes and subsidy grants have preserved the illusion
that 'alternative energy' can actually work and be profitable. The truth
is without subsidy, not one solar or wind farm would be in existence,
and no one would buy an electric car ever.
Or even think about putting sails on a container ship.

--
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

On 21/03/2024 23:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>
>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>> that to
>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>> something and
>> get *that* shipped.
>>
> There is another issue apart from customer impatience, and that is
> simple economics.
>
> the ship costs a certain amount of capital, and that is on usually a
> bond type loan from some big financial house, on a fixed rate of
> interest. The more cargo can be shifted per year, the more money there
> is to repay that bond. Conversely the faster you move the ship, the more
> fuel it burns per tonne mile, and so there exist some compromise that
> returns the best rate on capital.
>
> On a nuclear ship, where fuel cost is so low its irrelevant, you want to
> go as fast as possible without placing undue wear on the propulsion system.
>
>

An amazing number of container ships come to grief every decade.
The thought of these contaminating the oceans and making
salvage ops *very* expensive is the reason why nuclear powered
commercial shipping is a non-starter.

On 21/03/2024 18:27, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:46:16 +1100, Soup <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:

>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are timesensitive, and need
>> every last ounce of speed?
>
> Quite a few, and those move by air.

So those that are time sensitive move by air?
So what is the point of worrying (over much) about the speed of ships?

> Why can you not see that there "may" be advantage in sail assist. Ships
> would not be reliant on wind, just taking advantage of it where it
> helps. They would not go "finding" wind - that is the purpose of weather
> routing, they would be TOLD where wind was, strength and direction and
> DECIDE whether it was to their advantage to change their route. As for
> journey times, going a little faster, while using less fuel, does not
> mean taking more time.
>
> I am not saying that it a wonderful solution, but it may turn out to
> make some difference. No-one is mandating it, but it is surely worth
> trying?
>
>
No. Not if you are in business to make money.

It is perfectly possible to look at prevailing winds on sea routes and
do calculations and am sure people have.

As someone else pointed out the way sailing ships sailed are not the
same as today's sea lanes

A modern sailing ship would do far better to mount a wind turbine on top
than sails. That would work with a wind in any direction including
straight into the wind.

But *at best* a huge fuckoff wind turbine might produce 2-3MW if it
didn't capsize the ship. and a big container ship needs at least 60MW.

And the wind even at sea is not always there.

In practice you would be carrying around something that mostly was
simply dead weight and needless capital expense for at best a couple of
percent fuel saving, and you simply *cannot* do better than that. There
is a formula relating sail area and wind speed to power output that is
derived not from constructional ingenuity, or from vivid imagination,
but from *physical laws*.

When I attended an engineering meeting may years ago at the Prodrive
rally team, on behalf of a client trying to sell them an infinitely
variable gearbox design, the question was asked by the MD, Dave
Richards, of his engineering director 'how much time, do we lose in gear
changes, and how much time by sub-optimal gear ratios 'and the
engineering guy said 'well each gear change is 60ms and we do around 500
per stage under acceleration so that 30 seconds spent coasting instead
of at full power. and that would be around...0.5 seconds per stage.

And that was it, Dave Richards thanked us and said 'for what you want me
to pay for that gearbox I can spend a week tyre testing and guarantee
myself 2 seconds a stage'.

And that is how you win world WRC championships. Not by doing
qualitative analysis, but by being brutally hard nosed about things. A
top F1 racing driver might cost you 8 million and only net you 0.5
seconds a lap, but a top aero guy might only cost you 150,000 and net
you the same advantage

That formula relating wind speed and sail area I don't have to hand,
but it exists, its real, and even if you could get closer top it than
the Betz limits, in the end the numbers don't add up to a significant
increase in performance. You can get more by drag reduction making the
ship a bit longer or adding a nose on it..

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 22/03/2024 01:23, RJH wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2024 at 00:17:32 GMT, "Rod Speed" wrote:
>
>>> Why can you not see that there "may" be advantage in sail assist.
>>
>> Because its trivial to see that it can't work with a
>> container ship and isnt even viable for a cruise ship.
>
> FSVO 'viable'. Not everyone thinks in terms of a positive financial return
> before they do what they do.
>
Owners of commercial companies do. If they don't, they go out of business

> Related, plenty of media coverage of the polluting nature of cruise ships, for
> example. Sails, even a couple of fluttering handkerchiefs, might be a sales
> success.
>
That would imply that they think there passengers give a flying fuck
about the environment. If they did they would be on a cruse liner.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 22/03/2024 09:07, Paul wrote:
> On 3/21/2024 4:26 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 07:39:54 +0000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/03/2024 18:00, Soup wrote:
>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>>>>> obsolete 150+ years ago.  Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
>>>>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah but early steam engines were 'pants' (shit has been used too often,
>>>> to my mind, in this thread already).
>>>>   But even rubbishy steam engines were 'better' than pure sailing ships
>>>> which is why, as far as I am concerned, dual drive systems will come to
>>>> the fore .  Engines when docking, in "The Doldrums" or facing a wind.
>>>> sail (or rather a suitable variation) wence running with the wind .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So ships with early rubbish engines were better (for trade) than the
>>> sailing ships that they made obsolete so why would sailing ships now
>>> replace the modern cargo ship with much better engines? Hybrid ships of
>>> 150 years ago with both sails and (rubbish) engines also disappeared and
>>> this wouldn't have happened if there was some major benefit in keeping
>>> the sails.
>>
>>
>> Quite, but the objective today isn't necessarily economy, but the
>> (misguided) objective of reducing CO2 output at almost any cost.
>>
>> It'll be oars next!
>>
>
> OK, look at the atmospheric CO2 graph versus year,
> and show me the progress all this "relentless" reducing
> of CO2 has had.
>
> We've made no progress at all. There is no hopeful
> deviation in the curve. None whatsoever. Could the
> progress show up in the year 2060 or 2080 or something ?
> No.
>
> *******
>
> This is plan B.
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/12/world/solar-dimming-geoengineering-climate-solution-intl/index.html
>
> Paul

Yes, that's the latest boondoggle. Instead of subsidised windfarms,
subsidised umbrellas.

All 100 times more costly than just dealing with a modest rise in
temperature, which
(a) May not in fact happen and
(b) even if it does, may be nothing to do with CO2

The ArtStudents™ are in control . No one is thinking this through in the
dash for green cash.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 22/03/2024 10:49, Soup wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 18:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:46:16 +1100, Soup <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are timesensitive, and need
>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>
>> Quite a few, and those move by air.
>
>   So those that are time sensitive move by air?
>   So what is the point of worrying (over much) about the speed of ships?
>

Fuel is not the only cost running a ship. There may be savings in fuel
costs to be made with slower speeds but increased costs associated with
running and financing the ship.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 22/03/2024 09:53, Andrew wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to
>>> someone else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since
>>> JustStopEverything™ are, almost by definition, lowbrow ArtStudents™
>>> and hard left Trotskyites, with no scientific or technical education
>>> whatsoever, *actually* achieving any carbon gains is immaterial.
>>>
>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About Climate
>>> Change that is important.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on
>> the climate.

No, I dont. As I have tried to explains o many times, there is a huge
metaphysical divide between those who deal with the RealWorld™ and
ArtStudents™, who deal exclusively with *what people think* (or can be
*induced to believe*) is the real world.

In ArtStuident™ world, there is an infinite supply of fossil fuel which
we have to stop using because it is going to set the planet on fire. I
kid you not.

In the real world there is a very limited supply of *accessible* fossil
fuel and we have already burned more than half of it, especially oil and
gas, and most of the oil and gas does not lie under the control of
Western democracies. Excluding the USA and Norway, you are buying it off
religious fanatics or Vladimir Putin,

>>    What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no
>> economicaly viable stuff)?
>>
>
> And 11+ billion people trying to use what is left

Ukraine coming to a town near you.

Or nuclear power.
Your choice

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 22/03/2024 10:13, alan_m wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 09:53, Andrew wrote:
>
>>
>> And 11+ billion people trying to use what is left
>
>
> They will be busy cutting down all the trees planted in all the
> re-wilding schemes and all the trees planted as carbon offsetting :)
>
Number still dont add up

Best output from biomass is about 0.2W/sq meter

You cannot support today's global populations without energy not derived
from 'today's' sunlight.

And any attempt to do it will result in far far more climate change than
burning last years billion years of sunlight, as fossil fuels.

Get yourself a thermal camera and look at the temperature of a solar
farm a city, a field full of wheat and a forest and see which ones heat
the planets surface the most...

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 22/03/2024 09:59, Andrew wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 08:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 08:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 07:39:54 +0000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/03/2024 18:00, Soup wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>>>>>> obsolete 150+ years ago.  Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
>>>>>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah but early steam engines were 'pants' (shit has been used too
>>>>> often,
>>>>> to my mind, in this thread already).
>>>>>     But even rubbishy steam engines were 'better' than pure sailing
>>>>> ships
>>>>> which is why, as far as I am concerned, dual drive systems will
>>>>> come to
>>>>> the fore .  Engines when docking, in "The Doldrums" or facing a wind.
>>>>> sail (or rather a suitable variation) wence running with the wind .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So ships with early rubbish engines were better (for trade) than the
>>>> sailing ships that they made obsolete so why would sailing ships now
>>>> replace the modern cargo ship with much better engines?  Hybrid
>>>> ships of
>>>> 150 years ago with both sails and (rubbish) engines also disappeared
>>>> and
>>>> this wouldn't have happened if there was some major benefit in keeping
>>>> the sails.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quite, but the objective today isn't necessarily economy, but the
>>> (misguided) objective of reducing CO2 output at almost any cost.
>>>
>> No. The objective today isn't necessarily economy, but the  (cynical)
>> objective of *pretending* to  reduce CO2 output at almost *no* cost.
>>
>> People who can do sums are well aware that most people cannot, so a
>> *story* about 'saving carbon'  works just as well as real carbon
>> savings, and at far lower cost.
>>
>> And even people who can do sums cant necessarily *think*.
>>
>> Year ago our buyer spent weeks negotiating 10% off the price of all
>> resistors used in our product. The product cost fell by 5p!
>>
>> In the middle of the unit was a huge  fuck off toroidal transformer
>> costing £25!! one percent off that would have made *far* more difference.
>>
>> No: people are lazy, innumerate, and not especially bright, but they
>> still all think that their propaganda derived opinions are as good as
>> anyone elses, because Blair told them they were.
>>
>>> It'll be oars next!
>>>
>> The ArtStudents™ are in charge. Almost any idiocy is possible.
>>
>
> It was Luddites like you who condemned the UK railway industry
> to carry on with ancient, filthy, inefficient steam engines
> while the rest of Europe was powering on with electrification
> and modern signalling systems.
>
No, it was idiots like me who calculated that railways ought to be
mostly shut down

> Sometimes the best person to be in charge is someone who
> knows nothing, or very little,

What an utterly ArtStudent™ statement. We are in the right buggers
muddle we are in because that is precisely what we *have* had for the
last thirty years.

Take Ed Miliband. He might have got his A levels in maths and physics,
but his Marxist parents popped him into a career on Oxford PPE where you
learn how to be an ignorant cunt with totally irrational theories. And
how to lie through your back teeth.
His energy and climate change act was not advised by anyone with any
engineering or corporate cost accounting background, but by the
renewable energy lobby, greenpeace and friends of the earth.

> but is surrounded by people
> who do have the knowledge and can advise ALL the options
> and consequences.

Which will and are totally ignored. No one has compared the cost benefit
on net zero with the cost benefit of doing nothing and spending less
money on contingency preparation., Despite that being the way parliament
is supposed to behave before any major policy change with deep economic
effect is undertaken.

We shrieked at the cunt Miliband. It wont work. It will be massively
expensive and drive energy prices through the roof. It wont make a fairy
fart's bit of difference to carbon dioxide emissions, in fact it will
likely make them worse. .

But he grinned and told us we would learn to love Big Brother and be
miserable and poor because that's what Marxism likes people to be.

And we got called 'climate deniers' 'in the pay of big oil'.

And you are no different

And we have been proved right.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

On 22/03/2024 10:10, RJH wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2024 at 23:24:59 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2024 18:34, RJH wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 11:48:34 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/03/2024 08:56, RJH wrote:
>>>>> That's that, and while you obviously believe what you write, it'd be clearer I
>>>>> think if you simply state that fossil fuel consumption has no impact on
>>>>> climate. If you do it's more refutable - but more 'honest'.
>>>>
>>>> Its not that simple. If a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil *can*
>>>> 'cause' an ice age, clearly so too *can* man made CO2.
>>>>
>>>> The question is how *much* effect does it have, and is it worth trying
>>>> to Do Something About It?
>>>>
>>>> In my mind the cost benefit is firmly on the side of 'fuckit, the planet
>>>> has seen far more deleterious things, and survived, and in fact so have
>>>> we, and the cost of attempting but not actually fixing it because China
>>>> and India cannot condemn their populations to death, is a guarantee of
>>>> the death of millions in the West due to energy poverty, and will leave
>>>> us short of a bob or to needed to cope with the effects of a slightly
>>>> warmer (or indeed colder) climate'.
>>>>
>>>> And I suspect that's what the smart money knows, too.
>>>>
>>>> The whole carbon dioxide climate change clown show is just carefully
>>>> crafted bullshit that no one in the know believes in, in the slightest.
>>>>
>>>> It's just a terribly convenient political and commercial lie.
>>>>
>>>> It legitimises higher taxes, that end up in renewable pockets, higher
>>>> government intervention that ends up in more and richer members of the
>>>> political class, and fucks the peasants, which is a sport the powers
>>>> that be are currently finding amusing, due to the amount of Peruvian
>>>> Marching Powder they stuff up their noses. Higher oil and gas prices so
>>>> that Saudi sheiks and Uncle Vlad get even more money to support
>>>> Greenpeace with, because the name of the game isn't to reduce carbon
>>>> emissions, it's to make the oil assets under your country worth as much
>>>> as possible, by suppressing the only real competition which is of course
>>>> nuclear power.
>>>
>>> Yes, OK, all of that. Anthropogenic climate change is unknowable to the
>>> accuracy you happen to require. That, as I mentiuoned, is that.
>>>
>>> But why snip the other part of my post:
>>>
>>> . . . consuming fossil fuels have other, not directly climate-related,
>>> problems
>>> - air/land/sea pollution, extraction, waste, unequal accumulation of wealth.
>>> And the whole geopolitics of the stuff. All good reasons to think about
>>> scaling back
>>
>> Oh sure, and the greatest of which is the damned stuff is running out.
>
> Not in my lifetime. But it will. Plus the known and hidden consequences of
> extraction and consumption.
>
>> I
>> don't mind filthy rich arabs buying up racehorses. What else can they do
>> with it?
>
> They can manage to arm themselves, for one.
>
>> But I do object to being forced into fuel poverty by a bunch if
>> Russian thugs, and their EU stooges..
>
> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>
Indeed. My profits in shelll shares almost offset the extra money I have
to pay for oil and road fuel and general inflation

> And we (the UK) could have bridged the relative shortage with rationing.
>
What do you think massive price rises are? Rationing for the poor.

>

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 22/03/2024 10:24, alan_m wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 10:10, RJH wrote:
>
>>
>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>
> Many pension funds rely on this - the shareholders being the general UK
> population.
>
>
Precisely. This Left Wing 'myth that 'they' these mystical shareholders
are not in fact YOU with a pension ...

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 22/03/2024 10:10, alan_m wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to
>>> someone else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since
>>> JustStopEverything™ are, almost by definition, lowbrow ArtStudents™
>>> and hard left Trotskyites, with no scientific or technical education
>>> whatsoever, *actually* achieving any carbon gains is immaterial.
>>>
>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About Climate
>>> Change that is important.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on
>> the climate.
>>    What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no
>> economicaly viable stuff)?
>>
>
> Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are going
> to give up this revenue stream?  As more of the world turns to green
> technology oil will possibly become cheaper.
>
That is predicated on the false simple minded ArtStudent™assumption
that 'green' technology results in less fossil fuel burned. The CO2
levels at Mauna Loa utterly refute that.

> If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than
> transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green bicycles, no
> smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and heels on shoes* etc.
> etc.
>
> You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
> livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been slaughtered
> long before the oil runs out.
>
Actually petrochemical feedstocks is not a big issue. We cant grow
enough carbon organic compounds for energy but we sure can to make
synthetic hydrocarbons for e.g. plastic and synthetic rubbers.

No. The problem is not even energy. There is more uranium floating
around than we could possibly ever need for thousands of years. The
problem is in fact transport fuel.

The likelihood is that synthetic hydrocarbon fuel will be so expensive
that it will completely change the transport dynamics of today. Working
from home will be the norm.

Last 5 mile electric trucks from the railway hub will deliver your
online goods.
If you want to go to Australia an electric short range taxi will take
you to an electric train station which will take you to Southampton
docks where a nuclear powered ship will take a week to get to Sydney.

The world will de globalise and devolve from an international elite to
smaller fiefdoms.

And anyone with the fossil fuel to run a mechanised war will invade
their neighbours.

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 22/03/2024 09:35, Soup wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 10:41, Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many university projects make it into the real world.
>
> No idea.
> But I know ours didn't it was for a 'solar powered, liquid piston,
> stirling engined, irrigation pump'.
>  We got it working in the lab but it was far to finicky for use in
> African villages (its intended area of operation).
>   Still hear of villages using wee diesel generators running pumps or
> man/animal powered pumps or nothing at all "that land is useless".

That seems to epitomise most of the university projects I know about,
innovative solutions to a problem that turn out either not to be
commercially viable or are impractical in the field.

The drone that prompted my query is definitely innovative, but I can't
see it being anything other than, at best, a niche market. The stealth
aspect might appeal for military aircraft, but I don't see it being
adopted by civil aviation, if only because of the cost of having the
technology certified for use by the aviation authorities. The war in
Ukraine shows that the need is for cheap drones that can be manufactured
in bulk, which that does not appear to be.

--
Colin Bignell

On 22/03/2024 10:49, Andrew wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 23:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>
>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>>> that to
>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>> something and
>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>
>> There is another issue apart from customer impatience, and that is
>> simple economics.
>>
>> the ship costs a certain amount of capital, and that is on usually a
>> bond type loan from some big financial house, on a fixed rate of
>> interest. The more cargo can be shifted per year, the more money there
>> is to repay that bond. Conversely the faster you move the ship, the
>> more fuel it burns per tonne mile, and so there exist some compromise
>> that returns the best rate on capital.
>>
>> On a nuclear ship, where fuel cost is so low its irrelevant, you want
>> to go as fast as possible without placing undue wear on the propulsion
>> system.
>>
>>
>
> An amazing number of container ships come to grief every decade.
> The thought of these contaminating the oceans and making
> salvage ops *very* expensive is the reason why nuclear powered
> commercial shipping is a non-starter.

Why would they contaminate the oceans any more than they are already?

Reactors are sealed. The sea has 4billion tonnes of uranium in it
already, of which at least 2% is U235.

And oceans are fucking big places.

By the time the pressure vessels had rotted through, what was inside
would be harmless and low radioactivity and anyway sitting at the bottom
of the biggest spent fuel tank you can imagine.

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 22/03/2024 11:18, alan_m wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 10:49, Soup wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 18:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:46:16 +1100, Soup <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are timesensitive, and need
>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>
>>> Quite a few, and those move by air.
>>
>>    So those that are time sensitive move by air?
>>    So what is the point of worrying (over much) about the speed of ships?
>>
>
>
> Fuel is not the only cost running a ship. There may be savings in fuel
> costs to be made with slower speeds but increased costs associated with
> running and financing the ship.
>
That is what I said, if you look at the cost accounting of freight
transport, there is a sweet spot where your asset is moving enough
freight annually to repay the interest on the loan, but not enough to
overly increase fuel costs.

ArtStudents never think about money, because they live their whole lives
being paid by grants from taxpayers.

--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:52:29 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>>
> Indeed. My profits in shelll shares almost offset the extra money I have
> to pay for oil and road fuel and general inflation
>

Good for you - most didn't have that luxury.

>> And we (the UK) could have bridged the relative shortage with rationing.
>>
> What do you think massive price rises are? Rationing for the poor.

Sometimes, sometimes, you would do well to think beyond the market. TEQs:

https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/teqs/

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 22 Mar 2024 at 10:24:10 GMT, alan_m wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 10:10, RJH wrote:
>
>>
>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>
> Many pension funds rely on this - the shareholders being the general UK
> population.

And many are coming round to divesting from fossil fuels.

Investing in and benefitting from something isn't intrinsically right. IOW -
do the ends justify the means?
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

In message <utjsi2$2tgps$2@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
>On 22/03/2024 10:49, Andrew wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 23:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>
>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can
>>>>get that to
>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>>something and
>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>>
>>> There is another issue apart from customer impatience, and that is
>>>simple economics.
>>>
>>> the ship costs a certain amount of capital, and that is on usually a
>>>bond type loan from some big financial house, on a fixed rate of
>>>interest. The more cargo can be shifted per year, the more money
>>>there is to repay that bond. Conversely the faster you move the
>>>ship, the more fuel it burns per tonne mile, and so there exist some
>>>compromise that returns the best rate on capital.
>>>
>>> On a nuclear ship, where fuel cost is so low its irrelevant, you
>>>want to go as fast as possible without placing undue wear on the
>>>propulsion system.
>>>
>>>
>> An amazing number of container ships come to grief every decade.
>> The thought of these contaminating the oceans and making
>> salvage ops *very* expensive is the reason why nuclear powered
>> commercial shipping is a non-starter.
>
>Why would they contaminate the oceans any more than they are already?
>
>Reactors are sealed. The sea has 4billion tonnes of uranium in it
>already, of which at least 2% is U235.
>
>And oceans are fucking big places.
>
>By the time the pressure vessels had rotted through, what was inside
>would be harmless and low radioactivity and anyway sitting at the
>bottom of the biggest spent fuel tank you can imagine.

How about nuclear powered tugs? Cut the towline if the cargo bursts into
flames.
>
>

--
Tim Lamb