and these guys run nuclear power stations....
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 7 Dec 2009 18:29 We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> saying something like: >> It's bollocks. The 2CV was a pre-war design, as any fule kno. > >The pre-war TPV was a _very_ different beast to what was released in >1948. Somebody was busy through the war. The major re-design was necessary because the number of collaborators that could be carried was limited.
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 7 Dec 2009 18:34 We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Pete Fisher <Peter(a)ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> saying something like: >>Given how valuable fossil fuel stocks are as feedstuff for the chemical >>industry over the next few thousand years I don't think it should be used >>for power generation, other than emergency and backup. >> > >Is that the ghost of Fred Hoyle? > >My old mate who used to work down the pit on coal cutting machinery >years ago (and later became the head of Design Technology at a Secondary >School) always says that coal is to precious to just dig up and burn. I've been saying that for decades. There's plenty of ways of heating a house, but damn few ways of making necessary poisons.
From: Leszek Karlik on 7 Dec 2009 19:43 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:18:08 +0100, Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > (And BTW: People who use the above phrase -or who too readily agree > with it- invariably do so with the implication that *they* would never > sink to letting their emotions sway a decision: a statement > exceedingly unlikely, save they were built by IBM.) I always make my decisions emotionally. Just like everyone else. It's just that the training in the use of scientific method means that the emotions in questions are based (in cases where science may be used) on hard data. Most people ignore all this "data" and "reasoning" stuff, since it's too much of a bother, and base their emotions on "a friend told me so" or "I don't like this idea, it may mean I lose my job" or "this politician looks good on TV, I guess what he says must be true". -- Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik NTV 650
From: Leszek Karlik on 7 Dec 2009 20:08 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:19:04 +0100, Doki <mrdoki(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > I'm not making a judgement either way on Nuclear. As I understand it, > the cost of nuclear energy is still a matter of debate... That depends on what you mean "still a matter of debate". In science, EVERYTHING is still a matter of debate. We have not assessed the true costs of burning fossil fuels (greenhouse gases, using up of our petrochemical feedstocks), so the cost of coal energy is also "still a matter of debate". (The big "climate change" discussions in science right now for example are a giant debate on the true costs of using fossil fuels) However, for now the scientific consensus is that the costs of nuclear energy are in more or less the same ballpark as coal now. In many countries they are quite lower. See for example http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html -- Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik NTV 650
From: Stupendous Man on 7 Dec 2009 20:47
>>> Alll of this >>> was erased by Renault's "contribitions" to the Jeep Cherokee. >> >> When did they get involved with the Cherokee? > > Well, they did own AMC at the time, so I assume they gave some technical > assistance. That said, the Cherokee is an enormously long lived model. They originally had the same V-6 that Volvo and DeLorean used, along with a manual transmission known for sounding like a rock crusher. They used a Renix fuel injection system with no ability to store codes or self-diagnose. They also put in the silliest cooling system imaginable. |