In uk.rec.cars.misc, you wrote:
"Doki" wrote in message ...

Theres a simple solution: Nuclear power. Of course thanks to witless "greens"
there won't be anymore built and we'll rely incresingly on fossil fuels now
but it would be the solution (unlike renewables with are unreliable).

current nuclear technology is not fossil burning (obviously) but it's not
renewable either. There's nothing witless about 'greens' pointing out that
this is a dangerous and expensive game to play, with nasty waste to deal
with at the end. Roll on fusion...

.... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro.
--
u n d e r a c h i e v e r

... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro.

Greens don't like Hydro. Or Windmills. Or Tidal Barriers. Or Fossil.
Or Nuclear. What makes you think they'll be happy about fusion?

On 1 Apr 2004 11:28:25 -0800, Paul Weaver wrote:
... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro.

Greens don't like Hydro. Or Windmills. Or Tidal Barriers. Or Fossil.
Or Nuclear. What makes you think they'll be happy about fusion?

*some* people who might call themselves green might like or dislike all
sorts of things. I don't call myself a green. The things I dislike most in
power generation are pollution from fossil burning, rubbish incineration and
nukes. And the bills I have to pay. No doubt if fusion ever becomes a
reality it will have some huge disadvantage I can't yet imagine...


--
u n d e r a c h i e v e r

In article slrnc6p76h.9v2.takeme2yourNOMORESPAMPLEASE@scratc h.garylaw.net, u n d e r a c h i e v e r writes:
On 1 Apr 2004 11:28:25 -0800, Paul Weaver wrote:
... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro.

Greens don't like Hydro. Or Windmills. Or Tidal Barriers. Or Fossil.
Or Nuclear. What makes you think they'll be happy about fusion?

*some* people who might call themselves green might like or dislike all
sorts of things. I don't call myself a green. The things I dislike most in
power generation are pollution from fossil burning, rubbish incineration and
nukes. And the bills I have to pay. No doubt if fusion ever becomes a
reality it will have some huge disadvantage I can't yet imagine...


--
u n d e r a c h i e v e r

Probably Talking to someone in the field in the fifties, Nuclear power
was generally seen as *the* future solution then. Fusion has been on the
horizen for a long time. I wonder if it will ever deliver?

David

--
****** David Round - EMail Tel (01248) 382416 *****
*****These are my own views, I represent nobody (Well maybe myself)*****
***********I guarantee nothing - Particularly the spelling**************

Apparently on date Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:43:28 +0000 (UTC),
(D.P.Round) said:

In article slrnc6p76h.9v2.takeme2yourNOMORESPAMPLEASE@scratc h.garylaw.net, u n d e r a c h i e v e r writes:
On 1 Apr 2004 11:28:25 -0800, Paul Weaver wrote:
... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro.

Greens don't like Hydro. Or Windmills. Or Tidal Barriers. Or Fossil.
Or Nuclear. What makes you think they'll be happy about fusion?

*some* people who might call themselves green might like or dislike all
sorts of things. I don't call myself a green. The things I dislike most in
power generation are pollution from fossil burning, rubbish incineration and
nukes. And the bills I have to pay. No doubt if fusion ever becomes a
reality it will have some huge disadvantage I can't yet imagine...


--
u n d e r a c h i e v e r

Probably Talking to someone in the field in the fifties, Nuclear power
was generally seen as *the* future solution then. Fusion has been on the
horizen for a long time. I wonder if it will ever deliver?

It's been delivering for about four billion years, why would you doubt it
works?

In message
slrnc6nhn0.buc.takeme2yourNOMORESPAMPLEASE@scratc h.garylaw.net, u n d
e r a c h i e v e r writes
Roll on fusion...

... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro.
--
Fusion has been 10 years away for at least the last forty. Hydro?
Not enough to go round.
--
Clive

Sales! wrote
[...]
was generally seen as *the* future solution then. Fusion has been on
the
horizen for a long time. I wonder if it will ever deliver?

It's been delivering for about four billion years, why would you
doubt it
works?

The problem with * that * fusion reactor is that it can't be switched
off, can't be refueled and will explode as a nova when the fuel runs
low.

It would never pass Greenpeace's checks, sorry.

--
Mike D

Apparently on date 3 Apr 2004 23:28:41 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
said:

Sales! wrote
[...]
was generally seen as *the* future solution then. Fusion has been on
the
horizen for a long time. I wonder if it will ever deliver?

It's been delivering for about four billion years, why would you
doubt it
works?

The problem with * that * fusion reactor is that it can't be switched
off, can't be refueled and will explode as a nova when the fuel runs
low.

It would never pass Greenpeace's checks, sorry.

The sun isn't really the same thing as a fusion plant, though, no fusion plant
will weigh the same as a million planets so the issues of it going nova don't
apply, it will never be a gigantic object with so much mass it implodes into a
gravity well, once the fusion no longer prevents this.

Similar logic, you can refuel the sun and you can switch it on and off, by
adding or removing various constituent parts, e.g. suck the helium out of the
core and the sun can carry on for another four billion years without
maintenance. Remove enough hydrogen, and the sun stops being massive enough to
initiate fusion by gravity pressures alone.

The real reason fusion plants don't exist, is because they don't know yet how
to make them produce more energy than it costs to make them work. This is a
practical barrier as the sun is a working demonstration that the theory is
fine, and the fusion process does work in the lab. Just, you have to have it
show you a profit or there's no point in doing it in the first place.