Monday, December 05, 2005
ANOTHER HERALD NUCLEAR LETTER
Why Britain will need nuclear power
It is gratifying to find that nobody disputes the facts in my recent letter explaining why, without more nuclear, we are going to lose two-thirds of our electricity. Regrettably I cannot return the favour to correspondents who now oppose nuclear on other grounds.
David Purves (December 1) objects to nuclear firstly on the grounds that Mr Blair supports it and secondly because since the world has a high population and high living standards it is all our fault and we should just accept Gaia's will.
In fact, Mr Blair's conversion is very much of the eleventh-hour variety and "haven't made up my mind yet and anyway there is still a need for windmills" variety. For eight years he has opposed nuclear power and, indeed, was reported as personally responsible for insisting that his last review described nuclear as "unattractive". Labour bankrupted our nuclear industry by administrative fiat, thus making it enormously difficult to persuade investors to put their wallets on the chopping block again. That he belatedly recognises the urgency with which blackouts are approaching merely proves how obvious it is.
The second point is a matter of philosophy and I would only point out that we are all descended from thousands of generations of humans who did not accept catastrophes.
Your columnist, Iain Macwhirter (November 30), starts off as a "nuclear agnostic" but within a few paragraphs has transformed into believing that the nuclear case has already "come apart" on "scientific, moral and economic grounds". The reason he gives for this damascene conversion is that rising sea levels will cover many current reactors (and most of the world's great cities but this seems less worrying). In fact, current measurements show sea level rising at 2mm a year, twice the historical rate to be sure, but nonetheless sufficiently slowly that to rise by 10 feet will take 1400 years. Since reactors have a design life of about 50 years, even were the rate to increase somewhat, this is hardly reason for panic.
Neil Craig, 27 Woodlands Drive, Glasgow.
Another letter in the Herald. I noticed on Saturday that in their round up of the week they listed electricity supply as the number one topic of letter writers last week - since there were only 4 letters published, including mine, this suggests they have had a number which were unpublishable. I think it is worth making the point about Blair because there is a risk that he will be able to monopolise it.
It is really rather good of the Herald to have published this when it implicitly accuses their columnist of lying about his nuclear agnosticism.
References
Blair's responsibility for the description on the last review - see the FT 25th Feb 03 p3
2mm sea level rise http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/IceSheet_SeaLevel/
It is gratifying to find that nobody disputes the facts in my recent letter explaining why, without more nuclear, we are going to lose two-thirds of our electricity. Regrettably I cannot return the favour to correspondents who now oppose nuclear on other grounds.
David Purves (December 1) objects to nuclear firstly on the grounds that Mr Blair supports it and secondly because since the world has a high population and high living standards it is all our fault and we should just accept Gaia's will.
In fact, Mr Blair's conversion is very much of the eleventh-hour variety and "haven't made up my mind yet and anyway there is still a need for windmills" variety. For eight years he has opposed nuclear power and, indeed, was reported as personally responsible for insisting that his last review described nuclear as "unattractive". Labour bankrupted our nuclear industry by administrative fiat, thus making it enormously difficult to persuade investors to put their wallets on the chopping block again. That he belatedly recognises the urgency with which blackouts are approaching merely proves how obvious it is.
The second point is a matter of philosophy and I would only point out that we are all descended from thousands of generations of humans who did not accept catastrophes.
Your columnist, Iain Macwhirter (November 30), starts off as a "nuclear agnostic" but within a few paragraphs has transformed into believing that the nuclear case has already "come apart" on "scientific, moral and economic grounds". The reason he gives for this damascene conversion is that rising sea levels will cover many current reactors (and most of the world's great cities but this seems less worrying). In fact, current measurements show sea level rising at 2mm a year, twice the historical rate to be sure, but nonetheless sufficiently slowly that to rise by 10 feet will take 1400 years. Since reactors have a design life of about 50 years, even were the rate to increase somewhat, this is hardly reason for panic.
Neil Craig, 27 Woodlands Drive, Glasgow.
Another letter in the Herald. I noticed on Saturday that in their round up of the week they listed electricity supply as the number one topic of letter writers last week - since there were only 4 letters published, including mine, this suggests they have had a number which were unpublishable. I think it is worth making the point about Blair because there is a risk that he will be able to monopolise it.
It is really rather good of the Herald to have published this when it implicitly accuses their columnist of lying about his nuclear agnosticism.
References
Blair's responsibility for the description on the last review - see the FT 25th Feb 03 p3
2mm sea level rise http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/IceSheet_SeaLevel/
Sunday, December 04, 2005
DOES 1 1/2% GROWTH MATTER
Since devolution the Scottish economy has grown by 1% annually while the UK averages 2 1/2%. So what does 1 1/2%, equivalent to under 4 day's pay matter?
Firstly growth is a continuing process. Each year's failure adds to the last. Secondly it is a compound function.To double a value you only have to apply a steady rate growth totaling approxiamately 72% (this is known as the rule of 72. Thus to double Scotland's GNP at 1% will take 72 years, the UK at 2 1/2% takes 29 years. However China, at 10% takes 7 years & Ireland at 7%, 10 years. This means that by the time it takes Scotland to double Ireland's GNP will have doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled again. Except that long before that happens the last person in Scotland under 50 will have moved out.
It need not be this way. We know how to achieve growth because we have the Irish example. We need lower business taxes & less regulation, particularly in the housebuilding sector. That is virtually all Ireland has done.
Ultimately the driver of growth is technological innovation. Scotland has a very good history of this but 95% of innovation is adopting technology from other nations. I am going to be sufficiently politically incorrect here as to mention modern nuclear power stations, GM medicines & GM foods as industries we are allowing to pass us by to satisfy an anti-technology lobby which makes it quite clear they will never be satisfied. In the end the technology we develop has done & will do more to help humanity than all the decisions at G8.
For centuries Britain maintained an average growth rate of 2% which was unprecedented in the 1790s & mediocre by the 1970s. Since then the picture of world growth has been more complicated - some Asian countries have continuous growth rates of up to 10% as have some post-Soviet states, while some western countries, particularly those who have adopted so-called Green policies, have fallen back. Singapore, however managed a very successful greening programme in an overcrowded country without opposing technology or losing growth. World growth now seems to be about 5% & we can expect it to at least maintain that level. Moore's Law is the observed fact that for decades computer capacity per pound has doubled every 18 months & should continue for the foreseable future. As computers power an ever growing part of the economy we can expect high growth to continue to be possible.
There are those who say that growth cannot continue because we face environmental & resource collapse. No. High-tech is, virtually by definition, more resource efficient. There is a delightful line in Back to the Future II where Marty suggests landing their (flying) car on the villain's vehicle. Doc Brown says "That is a 1950s saloon & this is a state of the art DeLorean - they'de go through us like tissue paper". Other modern products tend to be similarly lightweight.
Anyway we are not going to run out of resources. With the exception of oil minerals rarely get destroyed they only get moved around. The definition of an ore is anything from which the mineral can be cost effectively extracted. This is a moving target since, as technology improves, extraction get easier & there are now some waste dumps being mined. Oil is a special case because what we want is usually not the hydrocarbon but the energy stored therein. Conventional oil production has been regularly forecast to peak since 1855 & while someday it will prove right there are estimated to be 14,000 billion barrels (500 years supply) of shale oil, more expensive but not impossible to process. Beyond that Professor Bernard Cohen has calculated that there is enough uranium dissolved in seawater to keep our current economy running for 4.5 billion years.
"See what free men can do" said Burt Rhutan when launching Spaceship One. There are no limits to growth, within this universe & to what will be achieved. We should be a full part of it.
(originally written for publication but not taken)
Firstly growth is a continuing process. Each year's failure adds to the last. Secondly it is a compound function.To double a value you only have to apply a steady rate growth totaling approxiamately 72% (this is known as the rule of 72. Thus to double Scotland's GNP at 1% will take 72 years, the UK at 2 1/2% takes 29 years. However China, at 10% takes 7 years & Ireland at 7%, 10 years. This means that by the time it takes Scotland to double Ireland's GNP will have doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled again. Except that long before that happens the last person in Scotland under 50 will have moved out.
It need not be this way. We know how to achieve growth because we have the Irish example. We need lower business taxes & less regulation, particularly in the housebuilding sector. That is virtually all Ireland has done.
Ultimately the driver of growth is technological innovation. Scotland has a very good history of this but 95% of innovation is adopting technology from other nations. I am going to be sufficiently politically incorrect here as to mention modern nuclear power stations, GM medicines & GM foods as industries we are allowing to pass us by to satisfy an anti-technology lobby which makes it quite clear they will never be satisfied. In the end the technology we develop has done & will do more to help humanity than all the decisions at G8.
For centuries Britain maintained an average growth rate of 2% which was unprecedented in the 1790s & mediocre by the 1970s. Since then the picture of world growth has been more complicated - some Asian countries have continuous growth rates of up to 10% as have some post-Soviet states, while some western countries, particularly those who have adopted so-called Green policies, have fallen back. Singapore, however managed a very successful greening programme in an overcrowded country without opposing technology or losing growth. World growth now seems to be about 5% & we can expect it to at least maintain that level. Moore's Law is the observed fact that for decades computer capacity per pound has doubled every 18 months & should continue for the foreseable future. As computers power an ever growing part of the economy we can expect high growth to continue to be possible.
There are those who say that growth cannot continue because we face environmental & resource collapse. No. High-tech is, virtually by definition, more resource efficient. There is a delightful line in Back to the Future II where Marty suggests landing their (flying) car on the villain's vehicle. Doc Brown says "That is a 1950s saloon & this is a state of the art DeLorean - they'de go through us like tissue paper". Other modern products tend to be similarly lightweight.
Anyway we are not going to run out of resources. With the exception of oil minerals rarely get destroyed they only get moved around. The definition of an ore is anything from which the mineral can be cost effectively extracted. This is a moving target since, as technology improves, extraction get easier & there are now some waste dumps being mined. Oil is a special case because what we want is usually not the hydrocarbon but the energy stored therein. Conventional oil production has been regularly forecast to peak since 1855 & while someday it will prove right there are estimated to be 14,000 billion barrels (500 years supply) of shale oil, more expensive but not impossible to process. Beyond that Professor Bernard Cohen has calculated that there is enough uranium dissolved in seawater to keep our current economy running for 4.5 billion years.
"See what free men can do" said Burt Rhutan when launching Spaceship One. There are no limits to growth, within this universe & to what will be achieved. We should be a full part of it.
(originally written for publication but not taken)
Thursday, December 01, 2005
AUSTRALIA HAS DESERTS WI' WINDAES TOO
"Poverty" makes you fat 11/30/2005
Which shows how absurd conventional definitions of poverty are
Residents in Sydney's [poor] south-west are among the fattest in the state, with more than half the inhabitants of the Campbelltown and Camden area overweight or obese, new figures reveal.
Meanwhile, Sydney's affluent eastern suburbs and North Shore have the lowest percentage of overweight and obese residents, with just one in five women above the healthy weight range.
Figures from the NSW Health Department, compiled for The Sun-Herald from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 adult health surveys, highlight the correlation between weight and wealth. They come as doctors grapple with the nation's obesity crisis and experts call for the regulation of food outlets and subsidising of healthy, fresh food. Compiled from interviews with 32,877 people across the state over three years, the figures also draw attention to the disparity between obesity levels in rural and city regions.....
Social researcher Neer Korn, a director of research organisation Heartbeat Trends, said the figures showed the direct correlation between socio-economic status and obesity problems. "People from a lower socio-economic background eat more junk food and they have less time to care for themselves," Mr Korn said. [Another nitwit! Has she never heard of the long hours at work that many middle-income put in?] "If you have a nanny and you're not working, you have all day to go shopping for food to get something nice to cook for dinner which is healthy, and you can afford gym membership." Mr Korn said Australia's obesity problem was more pronounced in rural areas because fresh food was more expensive [What rubbish! He hasn't got a clue! He must never have lived in a country town and found out how much informal exchange of fresh fruit and vegetables there is] and the health message was a lower priority for residents there. "Try getting fruit and vegies in Wilcannia - it's so expensive there, it's much cheaper just to go to Maccas," he said.
Ian Caterson, Boden Professor of Human Nutrition at the University of Sydney, said the availability of food was a major contributor to the increasing obesity problem. He told a WeightWatchers-hosted discussion forum on obesity last week that an American study found the abundance of food outlets accounted for 68 per cent of the increase in obesity levels. He recommended introducing legislation to police the number and type of food outlets [No disguising the Fascism there!] that could be built in any one area to ensure people could obtain, say, fresh fruit as easily as fast food....
More here
That greater self-discipline might make you both richer and slimmer is not of course mentioned
***********************
LINKS: My Home Page. If this blog ceases to be updatable, or is difficult to access, there is a mirror site for it here which may work better. My other mirror sites (viewable in China) are: Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Gun Watch and Socialized Medicine. The mirror archive for this site is here. Email me (John Ray) here. RSS site feed: http://www.whitepage.com.au/rss.php?u=libertas
______________________________________________________________
This is from a new site AUSTRALIAN POLITCS from the everburgeoning stable of John Ray. Where does he get the time? Thankfully he does even tho' I'm not really interested in the Biblical & wouldn't consider myself conservative, but the Greenie Watch stuff is invaluable.
Which shows how absurd conventional definitions of poverty are
Residents in Sydney's [poor] south-west are among the fattest in the state, with more than half the inhabitants of the Campbelltown and Camden area overweight or obese, new figures reveal.
Meanwhile, Sydney's affluent eastern suburbs and North Shore have the lowest percentage of overweight and obese residents, with just one in five women above the healthy weight range.
Figures from the NSW Health Department, compiled for The Sun-Herald from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 adult health surveys, highlight the correlation between weight and wealth. They come as doctors grapple with the nation's obesity crisis and experts call for the regulation of food outlets and subsidising of healthy, fresh food. Compiled from interviews with 32,877 people across the state over three years, the figures also draw attention to the disparity between obesity levels in rural and city regions.....
Social researcher Neer Korn, a director of research organisation Heartbeat Trends, said the figures showed the direct correlation between socio-economic status and obesity problems. "People from a lower socio-economic background eat more junk food and they have less time to care for themselves," Mr Korn said. [Another nitwit! Has she never heard of the long hours at work that many middle-income put in?] "If you have a nanny and you're not working, you have all day to go shopping for food to get something nice to cook for dinner which is healthy, and you can afford gym membership." Mr Korn said Australia's obesity problem was more pronounced in rural areas because fresh food was more expensive [What rubbish! He hasn't got a clue! He must never have lived in a country town and found out how much informal exchange of fresh fruit and vegetables there is] and the health message was a lower priority for residents there. "Try getting fruit and vegies in Wilcannia - it's so expensive there, it's much cheaper just to go to Maccas," he said.
Ian Caterson, Boden Professor of Human Nutrition at the University of Sydney, said the availability of food was a major contributor to the increasing obesity problem. He told a WeightWatchers-hosted discussion forum on obesity last week that an American study found the abundance of food outlets accounted for 68 per cent of the increase in obesity levels. He recommended introducing legislation to police the number and type of food outlets [No disguising the Fascism there!] that could be built in any one area to ensure people could obtain, say, fresh fruit as easily as fast food....
More here
That greater self-discipline might make you both richer and slimmer is not of course mentioned
***********************
LINKS: My Home Page. If this blog ceases to be updatable, or is difficult to access, there is a mirror site for it here which may work better. My other mirror sites (viewable in China) are: Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Gun Watch and Socialized Medicine. The mirror archive for this site is here. Email me (John Ray) here. RSS site feed: http://www.whitepage.com.au/rss.php?u=libertas
______________________________________________________________
This is from a new site AUSTRALIAN POLITCS from the everburgeoning stable of John Ray. Where does he get the time? Thankfully he does even tho' I'm not really interested in the Biblical & wouldn't consider myself conservative, but the Greenie Watch stuff is invaluable.
