In message , at 22:00:18 on
Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Charles Ellson remarked:

The "taxiway" runway is an alternative to the normal one when the
latter is closed for some reason.

So not alternate runways but primary and secondary.

Yes, the use alternates between the two. They are never *both* in use
(as runways) at the same time, which is what being a "single runway
airport" means.
--
Roland Perry

On Oct 12, 6:17*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 12, 3:29*pm, 77002 wrote:

You usually talk sense. *However, I am with Tony Polson on this one.
Green is the new Red. *I do want to breathe cleaner air in our
cities. *That can be achieved with electric transit. *But, the whole
"Hockey Stick" theory is based on false data. *Climategate brought
that out into the open. *Just look into who supports "climate change",
the "liberal" elite and their useful idiots.

Regardless of that, the case for electric powered vehicles is more
around avoiding pollution at the point of use than avoiding pollution
altogether, unless like say France you mainly get your power from
nuclear.

The point of use is in the congested cities.

In the railway's case it's about what might be providing power well
into the future, though, given the long lead times for such thing, and
about cost saving overall and reliability to some extent.

Time to look at Pebble Bed reactors and Borium. The science has moved
on since the first generation of reactors.

On Oct 13, 8:36*am, 77002 wrote:
On Oct 12, 6:17*pm, Neil Williams wrote:

On Oct 12, 3:29*pm, 77002 wrote:

You usually talk sense. *However, I am with Tony Polson on this one..
Green is the new Red. *I do want to breathe cleaner air in our
cities. *That can be achieved with electric transit. *But, the whole
"Hockey Stick" theory is based on false data. *Climategate brought
that out into the open. *Just look into who supports "climate change",
the "liberal" elite and their useful idiots.

Regardless of that, the case for electric powered vehicles is more
around avoiding pollution at the point of use than avoiding pollution
altogether, unless like say France you mainly get your power from
nuclear.

The point of use is in the congested cities.

In the railway's case it's about what might be providing power well
into the future, though, given the long lead times for such thing, and
about cost saving overall and reliability to some extent.

Time to look at Pebble Bed reactors and Borium. *The science has moved
on since the first generation of reactors.

My mistake "borium" should read "thorium". Bit early in the day for
this stuff.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:40:33 +0100
Bruce wrote:
The alternative reason for warming may well be far more scientifically
sound than the IPCC's claimed "consensus", but it would present a far
more difficult situation for politicians. That's because, unlike
reducing CO2 emissions which is just about practicable, there is
probably nothing that could be done to bring warming under control. So
let's all believe the IPCC, shall we?

And what would you suggest? Do nothing and hope for the best? Climate change
aside , being less dependent on oil and russian gas is a laudable goal
anyway. And you're right, its too late to stop some warming but its not
too late to stop a lot of it.

And if you really don't believe CO2 is a greenholuse forcer but is just an
effect of warming I suggest read up on Venus.

B2003

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:55:47 +0000 (UTC)
Andy Breen wrote:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_dioxide

but the numbers look consistent with other refereed/reputable sources
I've seen.

Another good link:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...2-emissions-ar
e-too-tiny-to-matter.html

B2003

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:15:58 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
I suspect Tony Polson's point is that reducing it by 33% to fourpence
isn't going to solve it.

Its not a question of solving it anymore, its a case of making it less
worse that it would otherwise be.

B2003

In message , at 08:52:15 on Thu, 13 Oct
2011, d remarked:
I suspect Tony Polson's point is that reducing it by 33% to fourpence
isn't going to solve it.

Its not a question of solving it anymore, its a case of making it less
worse that it would otherwise be.

If there's a tipping point (in or out of debtor's jail in Dickens's
tale) saving the fourpence won't help at all.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:24:54 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
If there's a tipping point (in or out of debtor's jail in Dickens's
tale) saving the fourpence won't help at all.

Maybe not. But better to try and fail than just give up and do an Eeyore.

B2003

In message , at 09:37:03 on Thu, 13 Oct
2011, d remarked:
If there's a tipping point (in or out of debtor's jail in Dickens's
tale) saving the fourpence won't help at all.

Maybe not. But better to try and fail than just give up and do an Eeyore.

The cost vs benefit is unfavourable, compared to many more useful things
one could be doing.
--
Roland Perry

d wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:40:33 +0100
Bruce wrote:
The alternative reason for warming may well be far more scientifically
sound than the IPCC's claimed "consensus", but it would present a far
more difficult situation for politicians. That's because, unlike
reducing CO2 emissions which is just about practicable, there is
probably nothing that could be done to bring warming under control. So
let's all believe the IPCC, shall we?

And what would you suggest? Do nothing and hope for the best?


Exactly that. The UK produces less than 2% of world emissions,
probably a lot less. The cost of cutting that in half would destroy
our economy and life as we know it, yet it not would have any
significant effect on climate change. The big emitters are the USA,
China and India, and I think the country with the worst per capita
emissions is Australia. We should follow their lead in reducing
emissions, not lead from the front and cripple our economy and way of
life to set an example. which would be political and economic suicide.
Of course that was Labour's policy. Political suicide is something
that has a strong appeal to a Labour party that has taken a turn to
the left under "Red" Ed.


Climate change
aside , being less dependent on oil and russian gas is a laudable goal
anyway. And you're right, its too late to stop some warming but its not
too late to stop a lot of it.

And if you really don't believe CO2 is a greenholuse forcer but is just an
effect of warming I suggest read up on Venus.


On Venus? Can't I read up on it here? Do Ryanair fly there?