³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

...how we can get ourselves out of a recession...

a two way grid would generate hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions in income, reduce fuel bills, make the economy more competitve and redistribute wealth from the multinationals to the people and so 'democratise' it. everyones a winner except foreign multinationals and foreign nuclear which is why gordon won't do it.

why is the uk one of the few countries NOT to have a two way grid and even dismiss it?

lions led by donkeys. fighting last century energy models with last century methods. maybe we will just have to wait for the energy dinosaurs to die off before a change is possible which is cold comfort to the ordinary people. Or like the Generals waited till the casualties were so bad they had to contemplate a change in the 'walk slowly towards the machine guns' method.

#1 bookhimdano

Your two way grid scheme to end the probable recession falls down because most ordinary people ( your average ten bob fat cat ) don't have any spare cash to invest in home micro-generation.

On the other hand the corporate multinational cartel has plenty of cash and future earnings ( especially the utilities ). A strong government with true vision would compel the utilities to build.

( a ) A national grid for water

Two pipelines, one from Kielder to London, one across the Pennines from the Lake District to Yorkshire intersecting. A third could be added to cover the south west but the route would depend on existing infrastructure.


( b ) Tidal barrages for the Severn and Morecambe bay.

( c ) Enough new Nuclear power stations to allow a switch to electric cars as well as generating over 50% of all other power needs.

(d ) All works to be completed under strict price increase controls.

Perhaps then at least some people could have saved up enough money by working on said projects to buy themselves photo-voltaic systems for their own home. Then it will be worthwhile having a two way grid, at the moment it will only benefit the minority rich with large roof areas.

Fascinating figures...

Large Hadron Collider: The total cost of the project is anticipated to be € 3.2–6.4 billion:

George Bush's Iraq War: These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month:

I know which I support the most!!!

Well tonight's debate on the LHC, while less hilarious than ITV was surprisingly annoying.

Journalist's caricature of science:

1. Is it a potential threat (e.g. will the world end?)

2. If there's nothing bad to say about it, let's question if it's worth the cash. (e.g. will it produce an advanced tin opener that will make a whole pile of money - something our cretinous audience will understand, since they are incapable of grasping values other than money).

3. Let's talk about all the other things the money could be used for, as if they'd stolen it out of the hands of poor beggar children. (what's 10 billion these days? the value wiped off the shares of a US financial institution?)

4. Because of the rising numbers of media studies students, the fewer number of science students should be encouraged into fields directly of use to mankind (nothing is worth doing for its own sake).

Why cant journalists just say that in this secular age, the LHC is investigating the nearest thing we have to a sense of spiritual value - what do we mean by matter?

On the global warming argument - David King knows well it will take trillions in investment in technologies to combat climate change.

The confrontation between Michael Howard and Roy Mason (beg pardon, Hattersley) reminded me irresistably of the dear departed, sorely-missed Spitting Image.

BALANCING FORCE

About the Alternative Cosmology Group

The Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG) was initiated with the Open Letter on Cosmology written to the scientific community and published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. The letter points to the fundamental problems of the Big Bang theory, and to the unjustified limiting of cosmological funding to work within the Big Bang framework. The epicyclic character of the theory, piling ad-hoc hypothesis upon hypothesis, its incompleteness and the appearance of a singularity in the big bang universe beginning require consideration of alternatives. This has become particularly necessary with the increasing number of observations that contradict the theory's predictions. Big Bang cosmology has been in a crisis since the early 90's when the Cold Dark Matter model began to fail. Fifteen years later, this crisis has worsened, despite the addition of dark energy. Observations fail to show the dramatic differences between the high-redshift and local universe required by the Big Bang theory. We still find normal galaxies, heavy elements, strings and clusters of galaxies at the further and further shifting outskirts of the observable universe. The anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation, the existence of very large-scale structures, the cosmic anisotropy to electromagnetic wave propagation are among many observations that contradict Big Bang expectations. At the same time, non-Big Bang alternatives have increasingly shown promise to coherently explain the observations and to predict new phenomena. We believe, therefore, that a shift in effort in cosmology to these alternatives is essential if the field is to advance.

...it will only benefit the minority rich with large roof areas....

i do understand there are powerful vested interests in denying the uk a two way grid for anyone. Billions in income are at stake as the EON 'More money for us' Boss outlined. Its the usual DDT.

a two way grid unleashes the power of renewables making them cost effective because people can earn money from any means of generating power. Which is why its such a proven and widespread popular success among ordinary people in germany.

but i can see how having a two way grid would be in the multinationals mind 'opening the floodgates'. So they must seek to deny it for everyone by spreading misinformation. The uk is one of the few countries in the eu not to have a two way grid. IS it because everyone else is wrong?

Yes not everyone will be in the first wave. No one ever is. When electricity first came into domestic use it was not a 100% rollout. Does that mean it 'fell down'? No. The same with telephones, internet broadband etc. But because 100% rollout has never happened that does not mean the technology should be prevented. A two way grid will allow people to not only pay money for energy used buy earn money.

However i am open minded. Maybe we should turn our backs on a two way grid that has PROVEN in creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions in income, a boost to the economy, clean, safe, secure energy, a massive tax take from new industries, lower bills for everyone, redistribution of wealth to the people and democratisiation of energy and stick forever with the 'more money for us' brigade and their one way grid and take whatever perception based price rises they feel like dishing out on the people throwing millions into fuel poverty with no end in sight?

There was a rumour about Lehmans six months ago but it died and now it's alive again...only they are dead. Gordon said no boom and bust under him, that wasn't a rumour he said it was the truth...and now we are bust. He also said that no pensioner would have to endure fuel poverty...and they will freeze this coming winter yet the energy companies have profits beyond their wildest dreams. The only positives in this sad world is that we are still here after yesterday....

test

I agree with post #4 (BogusP) and #6 (Barrie) - we do need investment in science and it isn't a waste of money.
I think Roy Hattersley went home very happy last night after being called Paul Mason by mistake!

TWO WAY GRID

Having a science background and having earned my living in applied science, but without first hand knowledge of its application abroad, I can see the theoretical validity of bookhimdano's regular posting.
I recently pointed out the unique situation of an island with respect to tidal power. Since then I have poked about on the web and found a second generation (no pun) scheme from Reading University that looks tempting. Inevitably, Britain has put itself in the hands of the Fat Cat 'power with pollution' brigade and is slow to pragmatic, elegant solutions. 'Twas ever thus.

The Big Bang ? Well, at last we know what John Prescott was so busily engaged in!

the politicians grasp of what needs doing in the economy seems very thin? One wanders off into an anti capitalist rant and the other wanders off to the inheritance tax garden. Deck chair shufflers.

that ghastly geeky boy attitude sums up that vanity science experiment. it might be an interesting problem but not a 4 billion pound problem.

Re: #4. "On the global warming argument - David King knows well it will take trillions in investment in technologies to combat climate change."

A small distinction is required here. David King certainly knows that to reduce world carbon emissions greatly will cost trillions - and be disastrous for the world's poorest. But to eliminate global warming the cost seems to be zero, given the flat-lining of mean global temperature for the last ten years. One bit of good news at least - though Sir David may not yet see it as such, as it might also be viewed by ungenerous commentators as a blow to his and other luminaries' reputations.

Of course, the cost of eliminating climate change of any kind would be no less than the obliteration of planet earth. The climate has always changed, based on the geological record, and no action by man could conceivably stop it doing so.

With all due respect to alternative cosmologies (#6) - which should be judged against the experimental evidence, like every other theory - well done to Brian Cox for advocating real science and the great benefits for all of us it has brought, few of which even the Einsteins and Bohrs of this world have been able to predict beforehand.

"The climate has always changed, based on the geological record, and no action by man could conceivably stop it doing so."

This argument is trumped out all the time by the 'it's a waste of time to do anything about carbon emissions' crowd. Climate changed in the past, it will change in future, even if we are affecting it, we can do anything about it (blah blah).

Those taking this line usually omit how small human populations were in the past (for example 12 million 2000 years ago) and at times of change these groups didn't depend on agriculture for food as we do today and since the populations were small and mobile, there wasn't a problem. In the age of the nation state and 6 billion depending farming for food, a shift in climate is dynamite.

"But to eliminate global warming the cost seems to be zero, given the flat-lining of mean global temperature for the last ten years."

All the climate scientists I've met do not support this view. In colder regions, the climate is changing faster than mean temperatures (such as the ecosystems around Iceland or the sea ice in the North Pole).

The last refuge for climate change deniers is to say there's nothing we can do about it. Here they get close to Jame Lovelock, except Lovelock believes it's worth trying for its own sake and our society might be strengthened as a result of having to pull together.

I found the Sean Smith /Mark Urban film of US troops in Iraq very revealing, especially the prevailing view that the invasion was a terrible mistake, that the US continued presence in Iraq is not achieving anything positive for Iraq or its occupiers; and that the occupying forces should go home.
It was poignant that one of the young soldiers expressing this view was himself killed shortly afterwards. He got his wish to return home, but very sadly for his family and loved ones, in another body bag. The US Embassador should be asked for his comment on the honest criticisms by serving military personnel of the Commander-in- Chief's disastrous policy of invading and occuying Iraq, against the will of the majority of the World community, and without express UN authorisation, although the post invasion so-called reconstruction has received post hoc UN backing.

Dear Jeremy and team re the 'recession' story. Can we know, Is it only the UK in Europe who is suffering and, if as I think it is, why is that so?

is it because we have been tied to America's way of doing things by Labour for 10 years and Tories before likewise? 'The special relationship' (sic) (Ho ho)!

Why aren't we more 'in' with Europe's ways? Everything is done better there... n'est- ce pas? Hospitals Railways just for starters.

A report on things European (everyday things that simple people like me would identify with and find interesting) is as rare as hens' teeth on Newsnight or anywhere on BBc Yet we have to hear about The States all the time!

Isn't it that the recession could have something to do with Northern
Rock scandal, cost of Iraq and Afghanistan? also, when they say (as in Lehman Bros story, Northern Rock etc, Fanny and Thingie and so on) that the money has gone etc-, well can't you ask for people like me, where has it gone to ? (no mortgage money for loans etc) Has it flown off the planet?

Help us understand all the trickery chicanery and usery. Any ideas anyone?
Many thanks from Ivegotanasbo

#15 "All the climate scientists I've met do not support this view [that mean global temperature has been flat-lining]"

Such experts are relying on software models that clearly do not predict successfully. There are now powerful arguments from those well versed in statistics that increasingly show this. So-called climate scientists are involved in one of the most complex areas of study mankind has attempted. When weather becomes climate - and thus smooth and predictable - is assumed to be 30 years. But there is no experiment even proposed by global warming believers that could falsify this absolutely key assumption. All the evidence we have is that weather is unpredictable not only over one week and one month (as we know only too well from experience) but one year, 30 years and 1000 years. Think of it like fractals, not nice, smooth gaussian distributions, if that means anything. Look out for buzz words like Long Term Persistence and Hurst-Kolgomorov behaviour over the next few years. It means we can't predict in this area, that the much vaunted models are worthless, at least as a rational basis for alarmism of any kind.

However temperature may be varying locally - and it always has and always will - the global average that we've been told by alarmists is so crucial refuses to rise and has stubbornly been that way since 1998. This was not predicted by the models - or any headline writer amplifying their claims. We have many other issues to be cool-headed about, including energy policy. Let's not confuse that with irrational alarmism about something not within our control at all.