Here is a publication well worth its salt and how knowledge can destroy ignorance if we took the time to see through the belief system that is quoshing judgement in this World.

www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469

but rodin says its a jewish hoax

what to believe?

Its true that nuclear energy can be terribly polluting, yet it is essential.
The profit motive drives us to locate things in the most insane of places all for the sakes of monetary convenience. Safety and practicality takes a back seat to it.

The article makes no mention of geothermal which surprises me and yet doesn't surprise me...
Few people really give it any thought despite its vast potential and its usually because of..yep you guessed it...monetary concerns.

Bear with me I may wander from time to time,

I like Rhodin in many ways because he tends to think oitside the box on many different things, his part about the elohim is a religious fixation, if he had listened to Malvina Reynolds herself a jew, as a child he might have a different outlook on life, a life that his current avatar shows is one with nature and caring for animals and thus a caring being.

However

Lovelock in his wisdom has given us a clue to how our energy problems can be solved and that is many smaller producers of all kinds of different perpetual sources such as geothermal and rivers that always flow.

First lets take a look at what set us off on our journey to where we are basically water power then coal and steam and still we have both today for making electricity in huge quantities as my previous link tells and has and still is costing us dearly, yet the recent accident in Japan has yet to kill anyone due to the after shock and results.

Now take the millions of people who have died due to coal related activities and one will see an astronomical difference since the birth of coal.

There is a river close to us that powered huge industry without one therm of heat being expelled, same as nature does things without the tremendous heat needed.

Many units is far better than one huge concern, smaller nuclear stations could be far better managed than huge stations and be located closer to their end users.

Incorporate this with rivers which once supplied the worlds cotton and still could, I'm sure you can see the form of what I'm saying here.

Big is not always beautiful but less and more of it is the answer I think and local where everyone works towards and for their whole which they also have a say, not one entity that thinks it knows what its doing.

The natural route of power is fragmentation, its time to break it up and share it out and how to.do this is for everyone to start doing as much not as little for themselves as possible.

Otherwise it will soon be everyones time to go without while others take it easy, take a look around us, what do we see.

Ok so the article is by a pro nuke author:

Very nicely written all the same.

Slightly misleading in the grand scheme of things though. effiecency of energy 'production' is one thing, efficiency of 'use' is another.......

Britain has already signed up for a 'new generation' of nuclear power stations:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_t...3_Energy_White_Paper

I'm really not in favour of nuclear power on the whole as it's only being advanced because it benefits some very large corporations, and due to the completely imaginary 'anthropogenic climate change'. However, it may be more justifiable, and would obviously be healthier, if as the apprentice suggests, the production of power was smaller scale and localised. This seems unlikely to happen in the near future while a few huge multinational corporations are the foremost builder of nuclear reactors and a handful of companies completely control energy production and the materials required to produce it. This would obviously also apply to every other form of electricity production.

Interesting topic. Nuclear power does have potential, but not the fission based technology. It's open to too many potential hazards. The process of storing spent fuel rods is costly as well. It takes quite a bit of electricity to keep the rods cool. Then there is storing it once it's cooled, and making sure it doesn't leak. I've read some amazing things about Brown's gas, and it's interesting capabilities of nullifying radioactivity, but how effective it would be in a large scale disposal unit has yet to be seen.

My greatest concern happens to be with potential loss of power, like with Fukushima. As the author has pointed out, there haven't been many immediate deaths as a result. How-ever, the lasting radioactivity will have long-term health effects which may not be immediately apparent.

I'm personally more interested in the development of Nuclear fusion than fission. The work with helium-3 shows some truly interesting possibilities when used with deuterium in a aneutronic reactor. This would be far more efficient, as the reaction would create helium. Basically it would run like like a miniature star without the radiation, and toxic nuclear wastes. This would be ideal, as containment in the event of a disaster would be far more manageable.

I don't see this as the solution to our species' energy needs though. I see it as more of a transitional phase, so long as the current power constructs are still in place. Ultimately I think the goal would be to go toward forms of energy similarly to what Nikola Tesla and others were developing.

Quite honestly Indy there are more than enough rivers that could supply local needs instead of transporting electricity hundreds of miles across countryside, here in the Dales at Aysgarth there was more than enough water power to drive a whole factory now they have a double turbine that would struggle to drive one machine thus they have gone backwards.

It is my idea that this water should be free to anyone wanting to put the time in making life easier for themselves as long as the water goes back into the river unpoluted, not having to pay for what drops out of the sky freely.

If I ever got the chance of land again I would move in and never leave it, like Yates said a cabin built there of clay and wattles made with 9 bean rows I would have there and a hive for the honey bee and live alone in a bee loud glade.

A few sheep, chucks and not forgetting the misses of course lol.

We could all make do and some of us mend, what else would one need in the deep hearts core, if the truth be known just nature who always provides for those who help those who want to help themselves.



Mrindigo wrote:

dubmeup wrote:
Well said dub. I am very dubious about the authors stats on solar/heat energy conversion. I've heard about some scientists in Spain having great success with solar troughs, using them to heat up various different types of salt. They've probably lost their funding now that Spain's economy has gone tits up.

Nice post Apprentice, food for thought indeed.

I once saw a documentary of the solar arrays in the deserts of the USA, this plant

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plan...ave_Desert#section_2

Another solar device is the reflector cooker in Africa these are being used successfully every day, so if we use every available perpetual sorce and were able to buy the DIY kit for getting what we needed the larger producers would eventually outprice themselves from the market and the isolation starvation model of the corporates could start taking place, this is how to put things into practice.

I can tell you as a propper Tom Good that I can make everything I need without mains power and the sun to aid my projects. As a beekeeper I have made my own solar wax extractor which readily melts wax on a nice sunny day with ease and on a good day temp reach 240°F more than enough to fry an egg.

My choice would be over-shot water wheels driving geared dynamo's the wheel is relatively easy and cheap to make and the timber is sustainable.

Mini nuclear plants would be far easier to service and control in the event of an emmergency but tptb only ever think big, take the large carriers they run for 27 years on one fuel up they are the size of a small town so why not a small town, they use them for destruction easy enough.

One thimg that is being instigated is the preservation of our mother load/coal, we are bringing in cheaper coal from abroad and keeping ours for emmergencies, the model is to stop the developement throughout the countries where the reserves are being stolen and when that runs out we will once again be all powerfull with the remaining energy.

Rambling over lol.

What does everyone recon to this alternative energy idea, looks good.

www.openhydro.com/home.html

Based in Newry Northern Ireland.

The Apprentice wrote:
There's only certain parts of the coastline thats suitable for it unfortunately.

Geothermal is just sat there waiting to be used, zillions of watts of power and hardly anyone using it.

There was talk about putting geotherm in Boulby potash in the north east never heard any more since.

It is one of the deepest mines in Europe as well as the mine at Larne in Ireland, so what's keeping them.
andyh wrote: