[handlewanker]

Muchos gracias Fizzwizz, the article on the vacuum pumps and the efforts required to "flush" out the last molecules of air were intriguing to say the least, it has definitely inspired me to go beyond the "pond pump" thingy, running in reverse, that I picked up at our local auction.

I'm quite excited about the 100 deg F that is only required, along with a bit of low atmospheric pressure to push things along a bit.

I reckon that the average solar heater on the roof, on a bright sunny day, will get up to almost, and sometimes get to boiling point, so getting the starting point of the energy input is half the battle.

The next bit is to subject the warmed water to a bit of vacuum and see what happens.

I think that if the water is given the higher energy input, free solar at 100 deg C, (or for the wrong side of the road drivers, 212 deg F), then the inadequacy of the vacuum bit can be overlooked to some degree, but that will come with "research" further down the track as it's mid Winter in OZ, and also it's raining cats dogs and many other bits of Flora and Fauna that get caught up in the high winds we're having.

I was surprised at the fact that you can get pretty pure water from evap and condensing, as a guy on the TV, doing one of those survival programs, took a bottle of P....., Urine, and placed it in a hole in the ground with a plastic sheet over it, stone in the middle to form an inverted cone, collecting the condensed "water" in a tin at the bottom, but something must have gone a bit wobbly, because he had a few sips of the "brew", and had to be restrained from throwing up, as, in his own words, "it was like drinking watered down P........"

Now I'm surprised at that, because by rights the condensate should be distilled water, flavourless and pure.....maybe he drank the stuff in the wrong tin....LOL....in another programme a guy did the same type of experiment with the plastic sheet, stone in the middle and a tin at the bottom etc, out in the full sun, and a few chopped up cactus leaves for the liquid source, (no Pee), and after a couple of hours, got a litre of pure H2O for the result.

I realise there is a cut off point in the results, it means is the effort worth it for a couple of litres a day in the suburbs, but if the surface area of the "still' was big enough and located out of the way on a garage roof, it might just be able to "process" a sizeable quantity of Grey water from all that washing machine,bathwater,shower water I tip down the drain, 'cos it kills plants like nothing else.

The kind of volume I'm looking to achieve is about 100 litres a day, and that will keep my garden green without incurring the wrath of the water watchers now that we are in stage 3A of the water restrictions in Melbourne, oh yeah, I get to wash the car too.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

Ya know, I'd be real inclined to just do a simple solar evaporation system, with some mild stirring and a little pumping to keep the feed stock presenting fresh surface area, and a final step of reverse osmosis to make the water drinkable.

Building a well insulated box, you can get some really high temps for heating the water. We built a box here....2 4x8 sheets of plywood for bottom and back, triangle pieces for the sides, with corrugated fiberglass for the collector side. Insulated with R-19 on the inside with a couple of muffin fans, one high on one side, one low on the other...and filled with thermocouples. We got temps as high as 265deg F.

Forward osmosis is the new hot ticket...where you use a saline solution as an intermediary between 2 membranes. The membranes last longer and the system is more efficient. Higher startup costs than a reverse osmosis system, but low cost pumps, valves, and osmotic membranes instead of expensive vacuum hardware.

Cruise ships use waste heat and liquid ring vacuum pumps to provide fresh water...don't know how efficient it is, but it's probably worth looking into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_ring

[rokag3]

The vacuum approach to distilling water just isn't practical. Too many obstacles, too much hardware, and too much energy required.

what about the franklin system to feed a container with hot water (60 celcius) and feed the dome of the container with hot steam (130 centigrade)to evacuate the air then cool down the dome(with the cold salted water who is going to be heated to fill the inside of the container) the condensation of the steam will drop the pressure inside the container then the water will boil the condensate water will be eliminated through a pipe of at least 7 meters deep equipped with a check valve
I am thinking about this for many year.No pump no problems !!!

this video show "the boiler of franklin"

http://fr.video.yahoo.com/watch/1842862

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

Hello All,
The old Bush still as described below must have saved a few lives, but is very hit and miss, it's usually ok to use when you are cleaning up a bit of rough creek water or vegetation moisture but Urine, umm No. The temperatures under a piece of plastic in the Australian outback are less than "controlled" as a result the other liquids contained within Urine can come through, depending on the health of the provider of said Urine, there could be some nasty stuff in there, a well controlled still, will separate all of the disolved solids, but when the contaminent is a liquid in it's pure state, it depends on the boiling point of the contaminent as to whether or not the contaminent will be separated from water if it boils at a lower temperature than water, so less than 100C (212F) it's going to come through, and even if it boils above 100C (212F) it'll also come through if you exceed this temperature in the still. so if you are in the outback and need to give the idea a go, try gum tree leaves and branches as they can give a pleasant if a bit odd taste, from my experience, an old friend of mine claimed it could be used for medicinal purposes, to him that meant he thought he could get wasted on it, but i'm not so sure. Cactus is apparently good too but I haven't tried it personally. The odds of anything coming out of a bush still being "pure distilled water" are pretty slim, but if you "need" to use one you usually won't care as much as you might in other circumstances.

Incidentally there are many records of old time seafarers/global explorers drinking their urine, in order to survive and in some cultures I have been told it is even socially acceptable and a part of local tradition, which is a good enough reason to stay at home I think.

On a slightly different slant I doubt that there would be a great deal of urine to collect, if you were in most climates where dehydration is the big issue as most of the bodies moisture would be lost through sweat rather than what the body sees as a secondary function when in survival mode, urine production drops dramaitcally in hot climates, when I was working in and around furnaces all day, I noticed how many of my co workers would have time off with kidney and bladder issues, it seems the body "forgets" to make urine and the salts accumulate, causing the issues, I used to drink lots of water just to maintain a bit of a flow and I never had any issues. I am not speaking with any sort of proper science here, just my observations.

Best Regards
Rick

[fizzissist]

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/154346/

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

Hello all,
First of all, congratulations on finding the most one sided report ever, WOW, that was harsh, and I am not even an advocate for windmills. I find it hard to beleive that windmills alone, are responsible for the increase in unemployment, mainly due to the fact that they do take some maintenance and as stated are usually fitted as a part of a power distribution grid, rather than as the primary source of generation, which would obviously be a bad idea. I find it to be far more likely that the poor management of green tech groups is to blame, by this i mean the sort of folk that refuse to see the benefits of traditional power production and demonise the whole system, rather than looking at the issue rationally, and using the windmills where it is economic to do so and leaving the established infrastructure in place where it has been proven to be efficient and environmentally benign in the short term. No one gains by ripping out good efficient technology and replacing it with unproven but "possibly" better technology, I would rather see a nice, rational, proving of the technology in areas that have a growing requirement for power, If issues are found then design around them in the next installation if possible, if it is not possible then you've found the limit of the technology. When the technology is ready it will take over without a great deal of force being required, as why wouldn't any one want to use a proven , cheap, reliable system, the very reason that force and lobbying is required is when the technology is not sufficiently proven.

Whether or not CO2 plays a part in global warming, the electricity generated by wind mills is substantially "CO2 guilt" free, apart from the construction and manitenance costs, which should be low if the above system of rational implementation is used. As we all know, despite the "green movement" energy consumption continues to rise, not the fault of anyone but you and I, we as humans just want more of everything, and when this rise of consumption outstrips the electricity production by windmills, of course the CO2 flowrates will rise regardless, but it is unlikely that windmills are causing CO2 outputs to rise directly.

One of my ex employees had an idea, when confronted with the question of "why all the windmills were seemingly not rotating", and "isn't that bad for the environment", he thought it would be a good idea to feather the "sails" and apply an amount of grid electricity to the generators, just enough to keep them turning, the idea being that it would silence the critics. Remember I did say EX employee, maybe they do this in the countries mentioned in order to save face, stranger things have been known to occur. Many windmills are braked in low wind to reduce wear when the wind is not strong enough to provide usable power, it has been said that at low windspeed the maintenance costs outstrip the production value, if this is true, they must be very expensive to maintain in large scale.

I think the best use for windmills is, as it has always been, when you find a remote area that is always howling with wind, these are often remote, unfortunately, they are often places of exceptional natural beauty that some might consider spoit by a windmill, at any rate if you have one of these spots and you need electricity, nearby, put up a turbine attach it to a proven form of energy storage and off you go, by reducing line losses alone when electrifying a remote area there is usually a saving, by using a proven method of energy storage you reduce the need for backup generation, via conventional means, yes it will cost more but often, some of the major benefits come from not needing to freight fuel in to site for power generation so storage is better than backup generation from this point of view.

The usual case is that to get a good result, you should use an unbiased engineer to assess the situation in order to get a reasonable outcome. The wind generator manufacturer wants to see their creations on the edges of cities where they get the best publicity, or in massive farms where the wind is, then transmitting the power generated, over long distances where the tyranny of line losses takes over, so don't listen to them. The greens are now divided as some view wind generators as ugly and the others hate any sort of CO2 production so you cannot listen to them as they are not united as a voice. The politicians are confused because the greens or the manufacturers are their normal source of information. Coal producing nations say wind is unreliable and old school power generation engineers who would normally be the most reasonable, now all fear for their jobs, so are badly biased as well. So there really is no good source of information, or unbiased engineers for that matter. I estimate this is the real reason behind why the report noted, could be published in the first place, without good unbiased engineering the kind of issues reported, will always occur and it doesn't matter what the machines or technology is, whether it be cars vs Trains, Steam generation vs wind Generation, Hydrogen vs Oil, the systems need to be designed with an open mind rather than pushing a concept beyond it's usefulness.

Best Regards
Rick

[handlewanker]

Eveni' all, windmills of the mind no doubt.

The very real problem with the energy rush, is to get the reliable one, and much hypothesis and speculation is worth tuppence when it's considered that great minds ground out the figures on great computer models and calculators of immense cost and technological knowhow and apparently are getting it wrong.

But at the end of the day, all that clever thinking is nothing compared to the experience gained by practical knowledge, that many many years ago was practiced by the makers of water pumping and flour grinding mill users in the middle ages, no slide rules even in that era.

I hasten to add that the people that "invested" vast sums of money in the wind technology did so because they probably got a point or two in the wrong place on their calculators, otherwise what excuse do they have for stuffing up bonza in the race to the golden crumpet?

Eventually the energy crisis will dictate just how the race will run, but it will take a lowering of the oil level before anything serious is contemplated, and then anyone that produces energy in any form will be a God, especially if it is sustainable and green, even though unpredictable in volume, somewhere the sun will be shining and somwhere else the wind will be blowing, also somewhere else the tide will be rising and falling, just as it always has been, before Humanoids were around and long after they've gone.

What we've been accustome to is concentrated energy in the form of fossil fuel, and that is what we judge any other energy producer by.

2000 years ago a simple wind generator would have elevated anyone to god like status if you lived in the Roman Empire, the same as Tom Edison's first dimly glimmering light bulb made him a marvel of the age.

In my opinion all alternate forms of energy producers, once made, will, even if they only work sporadically at the whim of Nature, but combined collectively, will be the answer to the future.

Windmills do work, but they must be considered as moving objects and subject to wear and tear, and so should be designed from experience to sustain the rigours of daily useage.

The Humanoids haven't taken the energy requirements seriously enough to warrant a "guns before butter" policy that will occur when the peak oil becomes a reality.

Of course the other problem is there are just too many mouths feeding on the reasources to allow a sustainable and economic energy policy to cater for the common need.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

Hello all,
First of all, congratulations on finding the most one sided report ever, WOW, that was harsh,............Best Regards
Rick

Maybe you should ask T. Boone Pickens why he bailed out of his grandiose windmill plan?

Most one sided report ever, was it? I don't think so. Not hardly. Not even close.

The award for most one sided report ever, AND most inaccurate (conclusions, that is), goes the the IPCC for the TAR and AR4.

And what, specifically, is flawed with the spanish report? I offer here two "opposing" views..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15438619/K...pment-in-Spain

Here, the report I am leaning towards as being more credible. I openly admit my bias in advance.

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090...-renewable.pdf

[fizzissist]

...And another thing...

In the first link in my last post, it claims 45,000 jobs created by wind energy alone.

??? Doesn't anybody see the problem with using energy to CREATE jobs? That's backwards. Why not just put everyone to work on pedal-powered generators making energy?

The idea that benefits the most is the one that requires the fewest employees creating the most power. That way, people can be the most productive.

It's like we're going back to the trireme mentality.

[handlewanker]

Fizzwizz, I think your analogy of the pedal power for all is a bit flawed in the statement that it is better to make more with less people power.

I'm no socialist, that is jobs for all doing anything as long as it uses muscle power instead of machines etc, or something like that, but when you reduce the input to maximise the output, you end up with an elite society that monopolises the resources simply because they have the means to afford them.

The whole future of the industry, and if anyone thinks green power isn't an industry, wait till the oils gone, then see who gets to afford it, but I digress, the whole future of energy production, if you want to condense it to minimum Humanoid activity input, will reduce the output availability to only those that can afford it.

This will solve the problem of inferior production methods, such as wind power not being able to supply the needs of the many, because the cost will be so high the many will probably be reduced to living in caves and cooking over open fires again.

The elitists won't give a sh!t, they have the money and can afford the high tech energy products, so who cares if the scruffy unwashed plebs are without electric power? When the lights are being turned off it will reduce the demand and wind power etc will fill the demand of the priviliged few.

The big problem in the past has been the fact that energy from fossil fuel has been so underpriced it was practically being given away.

The alternate energy sources, soon to be, will not meet the demand of the masses, so the solution of the powers that be is to reduce the demand by making it humungeously expensive, and the need for huge energy producers will no longer be required.

All the energy requirement would then be met by exotic green machines, that only those with the money can afford to use.

If you think this is ludicrous, it's happening in South Africa and elsewhere right now.

A guy with ten kids living in a tin shack in shanty town probably never had a light bulb blow in his entire life, because he never had electricity in his entire life, not on his meage wages, but if you suddenly threw a few million extra consumers onto the grid, how would the existing power plants cope?

Here's an example, I pay A$0.18 per KW/hr for my electricity in the Lucky Country of OZ, but what if the coal burners turned off and the coal went to China for foreign exchange, leaving us with all that lovely clean green electric energy at A$0.90 per KW/hr?

A sure as God made nasty little green apples, I would turn my lights off, because I don't like the idea of bankruptcy in place of going to bed as soon as it got dark, but my next door neighbour would burn his till midnight because he's an executive with pots of boodle.

The moral is, you can't demand cheap power just because you can't afford it.
Ian.

[dynosor]

[/quote]

it's happening in South Africa and elsewhere right now. A guy with ten kids living in a tin shack in shanty town probably never had a light bulb blow in his entire life, because he never had electricity in his entire life, not on his meage wages,

Apparently those that can't afford to pay for electricity are experts at bypassing the metering system - problem solved:


"there were only 50 to 60 per cent legitimate connections and the balance were stealing electricity through illegal means like ‘ Kundi-Connections."
From: http://210.212.95.90/main/samachar/patrika/dec2006.pdf

For amusement value, read: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080422042333AATE0fa

http://www.google.com/search?q=escom+%22stealing+electricity%22&hl=en&sa fe=off&sa=2

[handlewanker]

The point is, when the crunch comes, whatever the price, some will be able to afford it, and it would not be too much beyond the imagination to see that a government with limited energy producers will be able to exercise quite a lot of power for a priviliged few.

I suppose burning candles is an option if you are that hard up, but you certainly won't be burning oil lamps....LOL.
Ian

[ulsongunner]

Home manufacturing, with CNC or even hand assembly, with P2P networks sharing designs and collaborating on projects, decentralizes production, reduces logistics to almost nothing along with fuel expenditures - coupled with open-course education turning everyone into pseudo engineers not only allows us to improve technology while increasing efficiency, but also allows us to adapt and develop solutions no matter what the climate does. A chicken in every pot? Better yet, a fabrication shop in every garage.

Our current, global-centric, centralized command administration and governance model is too slow, too big, way too top heavy with corruption to deal with society under ideal conditions let alone deal with climate change, man made or natural.

With a fool proof printer-like CNC set up I would be able to not only pursue mechanical systems, models, etc, but also develop roof top agriculture systems like automated watering, heliostats for stirling engines heated by parabolic mirrors (which could also run off of a variety of other fuels). Just some ideas. I personally don't believe that policy produces results, only innovation, progress and technology with quality education the underlying foundation. Economic progress comes from improving our ability to make more with less, access more resources and colonize new environments be they new continents or new planets. I see a concerted effort by politicians to encourage "green" living which looks suspiciously a lot like de-industrialization. We should be refining industrialization, not rolling it back. A personal manufacturing revolution has the best chance to not only democratize production and thus the ultimate denominator in economics, but also multiply exponentially our ability to create and innovate thus improve our ability to problem solve collectively. However, personal manufacturing would put many corporations out of business and strip many elitists of their power permanently.

Considering how there have been entire geological periods in earth's natural history (Cambrian, Devonian, Triassic, Cretaceous) where we have had NO polar ice caps, dinosaurs running wild in Antarctica, etc, its safe to say that climate change is a natural process, and even if we did crawl back into grass huts and reduce the population by 90%, the ice caps could still melt. Seems as if this climate change scare is more about stopping the inevitable progress that threatens the elites than "saving" the planet.

Mass transportation alone would save energy and improve productivity. Other investments as a nation in infrastructure would be infinitely more beneficial than wind power or solar power. Solar power isn't a bad supplementary power source but far too much can happen to cripple a any system dependent on sunlight or weather conditions. Geothermal, generation 3 and 4 nuclear power, transmutation of nuclear waste, fusion, and even home stirling systems running on various home-brewed fuels would be better bets. But hey, working on wind power is not a waste of time, nor is solar, just as long as we don't start making it mandatory, regulating other options out of contention or funding projects with an absurd amount of public money.

One last bone I have to pick with the establishment is the state of education ... humanities are fine, and people should be able to pursue them but engineering, vocational skills, and the likes are the very essence of manipulating and improving our conditions, the very driver of progress. Nations with a strong emphasis on these subjects generally have a very advanced society, world class infrastructure and the ability to deal with problems with more efficiency. America doesn't even come close to nations like South Korea, Japan, or Germany, though the US used to, and certainly still could.You can't be serious about facing any problem if you aren't even serious about ensuring you have the smartest most capable population possible first.

Peace.

[dynosor]

Click blue arrow above to read reference post.

Very well put! All of it.

If it isn't a rude question, where were you born and educated?

[fizzissist]

Fizzwizz, I think your analogy of the pedal power for all is a bit flawed in the statement that it is better to make more with less people power.

I'm no socialist, that is jobs for all doing anything as long as it uses muscle power instead of machines etc, or something like that, but when you reduce the input to maximise the output, you end up with an elite society that monopolises the resources simply because they have the means to afford them.

Oh, you mean like using CNC to produce parts? You're not using CNC, are you? I'd hate to know that you're an elitist who monopolises resources.
Dreadful, those CNC machines....reducing input to maximise output.

The moral is, you can't demand cheap power just because you can't afford it.
Ian.

I'm amused that you can extrapolate that moral from this discussion.

[handlewanker]

Well Fizzwizz, I agree with you that CNC is the answer to producing parts more economically than the old labour intensive way, but the guy (Ulsongunner) thinks that having a CNC in every garage will solve the problem, where's the power coming from, you know, mass users keep the price down etc, knowing that the oil will run out and there aint no replacement fuel that is "give away cheap" as oil was, but perhaps in Thailand they have vast amounts of Bamboo that can be burned in their power plants.

I don't suppose he even considered the infrastructure that would heve to be in place to service all those fragmented manufacturing facilities, just picking up the odd jobs and delivering the small amounts of material they would be using.

Also Fizzwizz, I'm retired, get up every morning but still tired....LOL......and the CNC bit aint gonna work fo' ya'all, cos' yo' aint got the inclination to work for a dollar a day like the Chinese do, and untill yo'all get that sum right, aint nobody gonna consider yo' products cos' they jus too damm expensive compared to the Chinese throwaway imports.

Of course you lot can always close your borders and make things (using what for energy?) and sell them to yourselves, like Dad planting vegies and Mum buying them from him.

I can just imagine how the plebs are going to face the energy cost crisis when the crunch comes.

If you think the government will be sympathetic to your needs, don't forget the phrase "Brother can you spare me a dime", pay up or move along.

There is no fuel alternatives once the oil is gone, cos' we collectively have so underpriced it we forgot that in the real world nothing lasts forever, now the winter of discontent will seperate the men from the boys so to say.

In a way CNC manufacture is in the same boat, it has managed in one fell swoop to reduce the earning capacity of the mass of everyday workers, who previously were fully employed and able to buy the goods with the wages they earned.

What fool in their tiny mind contemplates reducing the earning capacity of a population and hasn't considered a viable alternative to replace the lost jobs and money, that surely must be a bottom line mechanic, an accountant, the originator of the phrase "a dollar saved is a penny earned"....The phrase actually is, "a penny well spent is a dollar earned", but only the Chinese have put that into reality.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

So, Ian, I guess what we can derive from what you're saying is that the moral here is "He who so shall, so shall he who".

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

Hello All,
Seems we are all foretelling the coming of the Apocalypse (Energy Crunch), Having seen all of the Mad Max movies and dare i say, Waterworld(possibly the worst movie of it's kind), Is it possible that we are going a bit far with the doom and gloom, yes, it might be hard to get used to a low energy use lifestyle, but will it be possible? I think probably yes, Human folk generally find a way of doing whatever they want sooner or later, regardless of the available resources, so the energy will come from somewhere, most likely biomass of some sort I think, maybe that supply of Thai Bamboo, but the energy is likely to be more expensive, If that is a problem read on.

If you want cheap energy look to the "Third world" they haven't really got much to spend so have found a solution, I once read that the most common source of cooking fuel in a particular African nation was "Dung", Dung was also high on the list when it came to the materials for dwelling construction. I consider this to be the far end of the spectrum of energy supply, but it is a viable Biomass energy supply system where it is being used. Cheap, Renewable, CO2 neutral, Locally produced, I know it's not the most pleasant idea but certainly better than the thought of living "Waterworld" for real.

Sorry, my attempt at a little "end of the world" humour and how did we get from "Windmills Anyone?" to "a printer -like CNC" in every workshop? BTW for anyone interested in the "Printer-like CNC" look up the "REP RAP project" from Bath University, it is unlikely to save to world but worth a look.
Best Regards
Rick

[handlewanker]

Could be Fizzwizz, to whit to whom...LOl.

I don't think the energy crisis will bite in the next 50 years, but a price rise as it gets to sub economic production caused by all the alternative energy users drifting onto alternative fuels etc, will escalate a chaos in the petroleum industry, probably invite a war situation as the Middle East starts to lose revenue.

I wonder what the military are going to use when oil production dwindles, to power all their war gizmos protecting yo'all from the rampages of the "other mob" 24/7.

Could be that they'd be caught up in "another fine mess Stanley", except this time it will be protecting yo'all from someone sabotaging the alternative energy production cells that are putting the OPEC mob out to grass.

I can't help but think 'ol Pikkens, the wind farm chappie down Texas way, is being a bit premature getting outta the windmill business, but seeing as how the alternative energy situation is very premature (too far ahead of it's time) at this moment in time, I expect by the time the alternative energy producers start to count in the Watts war, the present day windmills will be obsolete, at least in fifty years time if'n they last that long.

Like I said, when the crunch comes, whatever the price and no matter how low the efficiency, those that want it will pay whatever it takes, no bout a doubt it.

There was an interesting article on one of the TV Geo programs some time back, about a village in Africa where the women and older children set out at dawn to go and collect wood for the cooking fires and got back at dusk with a small load, having used up the wood stocks locally over the years.

The solution put to them was to collect the dung laying about and use it in a digester to produce Methane for a two burner gas stove.

The thing worked, but I never heard any more about how it went down with the locals.

Now that the worlds Humanoid populace is exploding, maybe there is an answer to the energy problem after all, as long as everbody does their bit, lots of bits might work, and that too might solve the job loss problem, people with licences to collect all the bits for methane production plants, anything is possible when the Devil drives.

Down in OZ we get Methane from old waste tips that are currently in full production.

BTW Rick, I wouldn't look too much at the third world, nobody in their right mind wants to, by choice, live on a dollar a day grubbing rice from dawn to dusk, knee deep in a rice paddy, that is not unless you're a hippy type that wants to get back to basics and thinks that living in a mud brick hovel is cool.

It might be trendy among the commune types, but for up market sophisticates, brick/wood houses with clean running water on tap, electric lighting, water borne sewage and paved roads are the in thing, ask any Indian, African or Chinese peasant, and anyone else living in a one roomed mud/tin shack with a dirt floor no matter how warm and cosy it gets in Summer.
Ian.

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

Hello Ian, Mr Fizz and all others,

I completely agree, The third world is not pleasant to look at, As you say mudbricks and dirt floors, not great, but it must be said bricks are pretty much just burnt Mud aren't they? I like a good raised wooden floor, something I can polish, and keep the dustmites away, preferrably Oak, I know oak is not particularly available in Australia, but it is here in the UK, and some of it is relatively sustainable plantation, believe it or not the Victorians foresaw that we would need Oak a hundred years later and planted trees to ensure a future supply, proving that sustainability is not a new thing. Apparently more than half the worlds population lives in houses of "raw" Mud in some form or another and many more live in "proper" brick houses so it could be said that Mud is the humans building material of choice. Many building techniques that we think of as traditional in Europe use mud and Poo as their main constituents, for example the very attractive Tudor style beam houses often used wattle and dawb (sticks and mud) for the infill between the beams and any wall described as being made of "Cob" is just good mud and many of these houses have been standing since Will Shakespear was a boy.

As for the use of Human waste as an energy source, it seems logical enough to me especially as the "Product" is piped in huge quantities to centralised treatment plants, rather than Pumping it out to Sea as at Bondi, find a nice big Clay pit, fill it, Cap it, prefferrably Cap it first, then wait a while and tap it,burn the stuff in a generation plant or even to produce process heat for local industries, when it stops producing Methane, the organic remains would have to have an Agricultural use. I find it interesting that since the Victorian age when sewers were installed we as a race have become so disgusted by our own by products, Pre Victorian times, Urine was actually collected door to door in some European communities, it was used as an industrial chemical resource for just about everything from tanning leather to Hat production and the "fulling" of woven cloths, not to mention for the production of gunpowder.
I am not suggesting a return to open sewers and Urine collection but we already have most of the infrastructure in place for collection so why not use it rather than throwing it away.
As for the windmills, I can see from my bedroom window a Windmill that was in use from 1636 until 1932, built from Oak and pretty impressive, when you look at it up close and squint you can imagine just how impressive it must have been in 1636, I wonder how many Kw/Hrs it has produced and whether or not it paid back the investment in terms of energy of it's creation or maintenance? I suspect that compared to grinding grain by hand it "paid back" pretty quickly. But how many jobs did it destroy? Our modern perspective is pretty skewed by our access to modern engineering. I think it is policy that creates or destroys Jobs, not the technology, Having read much of the report posted by Mr Fizz (Hello, Mr Fizz) recently, I think it agrees, the problem is that people deflect the blame away from themselves and towards the technology and the technology is rarely able to defend itself. Of course spending Public money on Windmills will reduce investment elsewhere, but the big unanswerable is how would the money have been invested or squandered otherwise? How much has been "invested or squandered" destroying rather than building things since 911? how many permanent jobs has that created? and what is the payback? There are many reasons to spend money that neither "pay back" nor do they "create Jobs", Only hindsight will tell us whether it is right or wrong. Lets face it, the current economic situation is proof enough that globally high level management/Governments are not infallible.

Best Regards
Rick