On 22 Mar 2024 at 12:11:46 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 10:49, Andrew wrote:

>> 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.

I think Andrew is also overlooking the 10,000 cargo ships that were sunk in
WW1 and WW2 by U-boats, and the 1100 U-boats that we sank. None of which have
turned out to cause a pollution problem, AFAIK. Plus all the other warships,
of course.

--
First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your oppressors. - George Orwell

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:20:36 +1100, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:14:40 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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

> And that is why we in the west are richer than any socialist country.

Ignorant lie with Norway.

> Because
> the commercial compainies are better (if there's competition) at
> husbanding
> society's resources. If they do so, it costs them less. In Soviet
> Russia, with
> no competition, where reliability of their airliners was lower than ours,
> their solution was just to build more of them than they needed - thus
> wasting
> society's resources.

On 21-Mar-24 7:39, 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.

Back then, the problem with operating both engines and sails was 'the
overheads' (literally in this case) the rigging made access for loading
and unloading difficult, and it needed extra crew to 'operate' all those
sails and maintain the sails & rigging.

I assume modern systems would need neither rigging nor extra crew.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 21-Mar-24 8:52, alan_m 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.
>>
>> It'll be oars next!
>>
>
> I do wonder about the reporting by the companies promoting these ideas.
>
> In this case are the savings in fuel use (reduction in CO2) only for the
> limited time when the sails can be used or are they for the whole of a
> typical round trip journey?
>
> It's much like the output from wind generators. The figures usually
> quoted the are peak output under ideal operating conditions whereas real
> world data over a long period tells us that 30% of this figures may be
> achievable, ignoring for shorter periods the figure may fall to 0%.
>
And for many decades, the published mpg figures for IC engined cars
assumed you were travelling downhill with a following wind (not
actually, but I think you know what I mean.)

Everyone fudges the figures.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 22-Mar-24 9:53, 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.
>>    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

We ought to find some way of getting usable energy out of those 11+
billion people. Maybe Soylent Green took a too limited approach.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 22/03/2024 19:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 21-Mar-24 8:52, alan_m 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.
>>>
>>> It'll be oars next!
>>>
>>
>> I do wonder about the reporting by the companies promoting these ideas.
>>
>> In this case are the savings in fuel use (reduction in CO2) only for
>> the limited time when the sails can be used or are they for the whole
>> of a typical round trip journey?
>>
>> It's much like the output from wind generators. The figures usually
>> quoted the are peak output under ideal operating conditions whereas
>> real world data over a long period tells us that 30% of this figures
>> may be achievable, ignoring for shorter periods the figure may fall to
>> 0%.
>>
> And for many decades, the published mpg figures for IC engined cars
> assumed you were travelling downhill with a following wind (not
> actually, but I think you know what I mean.)
>
> Everyone fudges the figures.

Today it's the range figures for EVs - and 97% of 21 people surveyed agree.

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

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:16:49 +1100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 21-Mar-24 7:39, 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.
>
> Back then, the problem with operating both engines and sails was 'the
> overheads' (literally in this case) the rigging made access for loading
> and unloading difficult, and it needed extra crew to 'operate' all those
> sails and maintain the sails & rigging.
>
> I assume modern systems would need neither rigging nor extra crew.

In fact the Club Med 2 does have stays for the masts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Club.med.2.capri.arp.jpg
and does need lots of crew because its a cruise ship.

Sail ia just not feasible for a container ship

alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

The Marshall Plan provided plenty of money, we spent it on nuclear weapons
and the NHS.

--
Spike

On 22/03/2024 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 14:14, Andrew wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 12:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Utter BS. There are many, many types of 'plastic' that can
>> only be derived from oil.
>>
> Utter BS. Oil is when all is said and done only rotted down organic matter
>
> It's merely a matter of cost.
>
>

You mean the cost to society when the highly specialised
plastics used to make blood collection and processing bags
is no longer available, forcing the NBTS to turn the clock
back 50+ years and resume using glass bottles with rubber
and glass tubing for the taking and giving sets .

I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.

You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
oil.

On 22/03/2024 18:29, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2024 at 12:11:46 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2024 10:49, Andrew wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> I think Andrew is also overlooking the 10,000 cargo ships that were sunk in
> WW1 and WW2 by U-boats, and the 1100 U-boats that we sank. None of which have
> turned out to cause a pollution problem, AFAIK. Plus all the other warships,
> of course.
>

Dohh, And how many of them were nuclear-powered ?.

On 22/03/2024 18:13, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2024 at 10:49:41 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> 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.
>
> There's already a couple of nuke subs in Davey Jones' Locker, not to mention
> all the defunct Russian subs just left to rot in their northern ports. Was
> that the contamination you had in mind or was it something else? The 4 billion
> tons of uranium in the world's oceans, perhaps?
>

The EU has invested a lot of money moving the reactors from those
ex-soviet subs to a safe location where they can be monitored.
They are no longer 'rotting away'.

Uranium is not a problem. It's the highly dangerous and long-
lived by products in spent fuel and containment systems that are
the problem.

On 23 Mar 2024 at 11:32:40 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 18:29, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 12:11:46 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/03/2024 10:49, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I think Andrew is also overlooking the 10,000 cargo ships that were sunk in
>> WW1 and WW2 by U-boats, and the 1100 U-boats that we sank. None of which have
>> turned out to cause a pollution problem, AFAIK. Plus all the other warships,
>> of course.
>
> Dohh, And how many of them were nuclear-powered ?

They were full of oil, petrochemicals, armaments, explosives, all of which
might be imagines to cause pollution. Adding 100 tons (say) of uranium to the
4 billyun tons already in the oceans is, errm, a drop in the ocean.

--
There's no obfuscated Perl contest because it's pointless.

- Jeff Polk

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 11:36:11 +0000, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>On 22/03/2024 18:13, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 10:49:41 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> 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.
>>
>> There's already a couple of nuke subs in Davey Jones' Locker, not to mention
>> all the defunct Russian subs just left to rot in their northern ports. Was
>> that the contamination you had in mind or was it something else? The 4 billion
>> tons of uranium in the world's oceans, perhaps?
>>
>
>The EU has invested a lot of money moving the reactors from those
>ex-soviet subs to a safe location where they can be monitored.
>They are no longer 'rotting away'.

Never heard that before. Do you have a link?
>
>Uranium is not a problem. It's the highly dangerous and long-
>lived by products in spent fuel and containment systems that are
>the problem.

Depends on what you mean by 'long lived'. AIUI the by-products in
spent fuel are not _that_ long lived. A hundred or two years,
certainly, but they do decay to safe levels eventually.

--
Chris

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:30:11 +1100, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 14:14, Andrew wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2024 12:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Utter BS. There are many, many types of 'plastic' that can
>>> only be derived from oil.
>>>
>> Utter BS. Oil is when all is said and done only rotted down organic
>> matter
>> It's merely a matter of cost.

> You mean the cost to society when the highly specialised
> plastics used to make blood collection and processing bags
> is no longer available,

Fantasy, those plastics will always be available.
All you need is carbon atoms and other atoms
which are available from other than oil.

> forcing the NBTS to turn the clock back 50+years and resume using glass
> bottles with rubber
> and glass tubing for the taking and giving sets .

Fantasy

> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.

> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
> oil.

You are utterly clueless about what those plastics can be made
from instead.

On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:

>
> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>
> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
> oil.

I think the point is that we can manufacture plastics, polyurethane, etc
from plant oils.

On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 14:14, Andrew wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2024 12:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Utter BS. There are many, many types of 'plastic' that can
>>> only be derived from oil.
>>>
>> Utter BS. Oil is when all is said and done only rotted down organic
>> matter
>>
>> It's merely a matter of cost.
>>
>>
>
> You mean the cost to society when the highly specialised
> plastics used to make blood collection and processing bags
> is no longer available, forcing the NBTS to turn the clock
> back 50+ years and resume using glass bottles with rubber
> and glass tubing for the taking and giving sets .
>
> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>
> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
> oil.

There is nothing special about 'plastic from oil' .You are utterly
clueless if you think that a simple long chain hydrocarbon can't be
produced from an organic feedstock that hasn't sat in the earth a
million years, but was grown a year ago instead.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 23/03/2024 11:32, Andrew wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 18:29, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 12:11:46 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/03/2024 10:49, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I think Andrew is also overlooking the 10,000 cargo ships that were
>> sunk in
>> WW1 and WW2 by U-boats, and the 1100 U-boats that we sank. None of
>> which have
>> turned out to cause a pollution problem, AFAIK. Plus all the other
>> warships,
>> of course.
>>
>
> Dohh, And how many of them were nuclear-powered ?.

Oh dear.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 23/03/2024 11:36, Andrew wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 18:13, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 10:49:41 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
>> 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.
>>
>> There's already a couple of nuke subs in Davey Jones' Locker, not to
>> mention
>> all the defunct Russian subs just left to rot in their northern ports.
>> Was
>> that the contamination you had in mind or was it something else? The 4
>> billion
>> tons of uranium in the world's oceans, perhaps?
>>
>
> The EU has invested a lot of money moving the reactors from those
> ex-soviet subs to a safe location where they can be monitored.
> They are no longer 'rotting away'.
>
> Uranium is not a problem. It's the highly dangerous and long-
> lived by products in spent fuel and containment systems that are
> the problem.

Name one.

If its long lived it isn't highly dangerous, by definition.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 23/03/2024 15:21, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 11:36:11 +0000, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2024 18:13, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 10:49:41 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> 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.
>>>
>>> There's already a couple of nuke subs in Davey Jones' Locker, not to mention
>>> all the defunct Russian subs just left to rot in their northern ports. Was
>>> that the contamination you had in mind or was it something else? The 4 billion
>>> tons of uranium in the world's oceans, perhaps?
>>>
>>
>> The EU has invested a lot of money moving the reactors from those
>> ex-soviet subs to a safe location where they can be monitored.
>> They are no longer 'rotting away'.
>
> Never heard that before. Do you have a link?
>>
>> Uranium is not a problem. It's the highly dangerous and long-
>> lived by products in spent fuel and containment systems that are
>> the problem.
>
> Depends on what you mean by 'long lived'. AIUI the by-products in
> spent fuel are not _that_ long lived. A hundred or two years,
> certainly, but they do decay to safe levels eventually.
>
The only ones of any concern at all are caesium 137 (half life 30 years)
and strontium 90 (half life 28 years) because they are bioactive, and
have half lives long enough to be around for a hundred years or so. But
they are safe enough if stored underwater.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 23/03/2024 16:39, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:
>
>>
>> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
>> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
>> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>>
>> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
>> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
>> oil.
>
> I think the point is that we can manufacture plastics, polyurethane, etc
> from plant oils.
>
Of course it is but Andrew has been reading the guardian or the
communist manifesto or something and is all emotional about the wrong
things.

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 23/03/2024 16:39, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:
>
>>
>> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
>> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
>> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>>
>> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
>> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
>> oil.
>
> I think the point is that we can manufacture plastics, polyurethane, etc
> from plant oils.
>

Assuming you don't also need the same plants to feed the world population.

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

On 23/03/2024 17:21, alan_m wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 16:39, Pancho wrote:
>> On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
>>> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
>>> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>>>
>>> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
>>> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
>>> oil.
>>
>> I think the point is that we can manufacture plastics, polyurethane,
>> etc from plant oils.
>>
>
> Assuming you don't also need the same plants to feed the world population.
>
>
Well if you look at the consumption of oil by the petrochemical industry
as feedstock versus energy, the amount required for feedstock is pretty
low.

When oil and gas become uneconomic to drill for energy, if people want
plastics it might still be competitive....

AND once you HAVE fed the people biodigesters that produce methane from
their shit are just fine to make chemical hydrocarbon feedstocks :-)

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 23 Mar 2024 at 17:49:40 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Well if you look at the consumption of oil by the petrochemical industry
> as feedstock versus energy, the amount required for feedstock is pretty
> low.

It's around 5 to 10%, AIUI. The rest is burned.

--
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 Sun, 24 Mar 2024 04:21:43 +1100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/03/2024 16:39, Pancho wrote:
>> On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
>>> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
>>> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>>>
>>> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
>>> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
>>> oil.
>> I think the point is that we can manufacture plastics, polyurethane,
>> etc from plant oils.
>>
>
> Assuming you don't also need the same plants to feed the world
> population.

That is not assumed. The plastics used for blood transfusion doesnt
use enough plants to matter feeding the world population wise.

On 23/03/2024 18:16, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2024 at 17:49:40 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Well if you look at the consumption of oil by the petrochemical industry
>> as feedstock versus energy, the amount required for feedstock is pretty
>> low.
>
> It's around 5 to 10%, AIUI. The rest is burned.
>
I didn't think it was even that high.

But you seem to be right.

How much of that is however essential, is another matter.

If the case on your mobile phone was polycarbonate or polylacytl, how
much would you care?

Or if instead of acrylics fibre, your hoody was made of recycled bamboo
fibre?

As prices climb upwards, anything that can be made of something cheaper,
will be.

I'm probably far more worried about the high price of fertiliser when
natural gas prices soar.

But there again, surplus nuclear electricity could manufacture it. Once
you have built the reactors.

--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)