BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower
Four Corners last night did their bit to annoy Australian Troofers (I rarely deliberately misspell for ridicule, but they deserve it) by showing this BBC documentary about the collapse of WTC 7. Unfortunately, it would seem only the preview is available, and (if it is like the first section of the whole show) it may give the impression that the makers think the conspiracists have some good points.
Overall, though, the show did a pretty good debunking job. If anything, they were too soft on the obviously problematic psychology of truthers. They have incredibly little evidence (well, none actually) to support their ideas, yet having decided that there is a hidden truth, absolutely anything is taken as confirmation of the secret.
I find the slightly premature reporting (by the BBC, following Reuters, who followed someone else) of the collapse a particularly odd piece of "evidence" for them to latch onto. Assuming a conspiracy for a moment, why on earth would the people running it need to announce the collapse to the media at all? It's not as if they were not going to notice. Many witnesses say the building was creaking and deteriorating before their eyes: it's not as if a collapse was actually unexpected at the time the BBC ran the story. It is far from surprising that someone standing near a reporter somewhere in the city (who may not have been actually been within sight of the building) may have used the word "collapse" before it happened, and that reporter passed it on believing the building had already collapsed. Didn't troofers ever play "chinese whispers" at a party when they were kids?
So the BBC reporter's explanation makes complete sense. But the psychology of the troofers means they just can't accept that a mistake is the obvious explanation.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
The literary life
High-pitched buzzing from the booksy girls and boys | The Spectator
Paul Johnson talks about the literary scene in London in the 1950's and beyond, and it makes for an entertaining column.
Paul Johnson talks about the literary scene in London in the 1950's and beyond, and it makes for an entertaining column.
Meanwhile, on the demonic front
Something clever?: Is your computer possessed by a demon?
An evangelical from the US apparently put forward these propositions in a book in 2000:
Fascinating.
An evangelical from the US apparently put forward these propositions in a book in 2000:
- Demons can possess anything with a brain, including a chicken, a human being, or a computer.
- "Any PC built after 1985 has the storage capacity to house an evil spirit."
Fascinating.
When wind turbines fail
Spinning to destruction: Michael Connellan on the dangers of unreliable wind turbines | Technology | The Guardian
Here's a good read on the engineering challenge of building wind turbines that don't fall apart, and how that challenge has sometimes not been met.
Here's a good read on the engineering challenge of building wind turbines that don't fall apart, and how that challenge has sometimes not been met.
Novel writing all washed up
First Things - Revisiting the Novel
The post above, from the very readable First Things blog, is a complaint by someone about how he has lost interest in novels, and is finding it hard to get back into them. (He's doing that by reading Jane Austen, though, which certainly wouldn't be the approach I would try.) My weekend thoughts on To Kill a Mockingbird has also inspired me to get around to posting on this topic.
I too have developed something of a problem with finding engaging fiction in the last few years. I used to read a lot of science fiction up to about the end of the 1980's when, despite the apparent good news of the end of the Cold War in the real world, it seemed that science fiction went pretty deeply pessimistic and ugly. Old optimistic authors I used to like (Niven and Pournelle, for example) stopped producing really good work. Arthur C Clarke's prose style (never a strong point of his books anyway) became ever worse, and as for Heinlien's last rambling novels of the 1980's, the less said the better.
I still get a hankering to read science fiction from time to time, and not being aware of any current American authors to my taste, in the last couple of years I have tried a few British science fiction writers who seem to be well reviewed. Peter Hamilton can be good in parts, and I quite like his future technology ideas, but I feel he often badly needs more editing. Ken McLeod's underlying socialist politics is just too obvious. "Blindsight" by Peter Watts was another go at the "first contact"sub-genre that I felt pretty much went no where. (For some bizarre reason, he thought it a good idea to have a main character who is literally a vampire, which the novel treats as a real human sub-species.)
I am presently reading the first novel by Charles Stross (The Atrocity Archives), and while it is passable so far, it immediately struck me as being like a novel length treatment of ideas found in Heinlein's novella "Magic Inc". This is, I suppose, the fundamental problem for new science fiction: all the major themes were done by great novels within the first 50 or so years of the genre. It surely is a challenge to re-visit the sub-genres in a way that is fresh and worthwhile.
The thing I find common in these authors is the lack of readily likeable characters. Perhaps Peter Hamilton comes closest in this regard, but as I say, I think he has other faults.
Away from science fiction, I find the themes of most recent novels don't appeal. Probably due to my interest in religion generally, examinations of characters' lives from a purely secular point of view just seem somewhat lacking in significance to me. (This is a major fault in Australian film too: religion as something important to the characters is rarely present, or if it is, it is only ever portrayed in a negative light.) That there would be consideration of the "bigger picture" could be expected of the famous Catholic authors of the 20th century, but as First Things commented in June, those days seem long gone. I tried Shirley Hazzard recently, who seemed to be reviewed as if she had many of the qualities of older, mid 20th century fiction, but (as I have posted before) I actually found her style woeful, despite the high praise she generally receives.
As for the famous Catholic writers, by the 1990's I had read all of Waugh. However, I have only recently just read my first Graham Greene novel. (The Bomb Party, a short, less well regarded work.) It was pretty good, and I liked his style. I think I will be trying more. But it is kind of depressing that I have to be dipping back 60 years to find fiction that appeals.
So the point of this ramble is that it has occurred to me that, just as nearly everyone in their 40's starts thinking that popular music has peaked and is in decline, it seems to me that almost no good fiction has been written since around 1990.
Pity really.
The post above, from the very readable First Things blog, is a complaint by someone about how he has lost interest in novels, and is finding it hard to get back into them. (He's doing that by reading Jane Austen, though, which certainly wouldn't be the approach I would try.) My weekend thoughts on To Kill a Mockingbird has also inspired me to get around to posting on this topic.
I too have developed something of a problem with finding engaging fiction in the last few years. I used to read a lot of science fiction up to about the end of the 1980's when, despite the apparent good news of the end of the Cold War in the real world, it seemed that science fiction went pretty deeply pessimistic and ugly. Old optimistic authors I used to like (Niven and Pournelle, for example) stopped producing really good work. Arthur C Clarke's prose style (never a strong point of his books anyway) became ever worse, and as for Heinlien's last rambling novels of the 1980's, the less said the better.
I still get a hankering to read science fiction from time to time, and not being aware of any current American authors to my taste, in the last couple of years I have tried a few British science fiction writers who seem to be well reviewed. Peter Hamilton can be good in parts, and I quite like his future technology ideas, but I feel he often badly needs more editing. Ken McLeod's underlying socialist politics is just too obvious. "Blindsight" by Peter Watts was another go at the "first contact"sub-genre that I felt pretty much went no where. (For some bizarre reason, he thought it a good idea to have a main character who is literally a vampire, which the novel treats as a real human sub-species.)
I am presently reading the first novel by Charles Stross (The Atrocity Archives), and while it is passable so far, it immediately struck me as being like a novel length treatment of ideas found in Heinlein's novella "Magic Inc". This is, I suppose, the fundamental problem for new science fiction: all the major themes were done by great novels within the first 50 or so years of the genre. It surely is a challenge to re-visit the sub-genres in a way that is fresh and worthwhile.
The thing I find common in these authors is the lack of readily likeable characters. Perhaps Peter Hamilton comes closest in this regard, but as I say, I think he has other faults.
Away from science fiction, I find the themes of most recent novels don't appeal. Probably due to my interest in religion generally, examinations of characters' lives from a purely secular point of view just seem somewhat lacking in significance to me. (This is a major fault in Australian film too: religion as something important to the characters is rarely present, or if it is, it is only ever portrayed in a negative light.) That there would be consideration of the "bigger picture" could be expected of the famous Catholic authors of the 20th century, but as First Things commented in June, those days seem long gone. I tried Shirley Hazzard recently, who seemed to be reviewed as if she had many of the qualities of older, mid 20th century fiction, but (as I have posted before) I actually found her style woeful, despite the high praise she generally receives.
As for the famous Catholic writers, by the 1990's I had read all of Waugh. However, I have only recently just read my first Graham Greene novel. (The Bomb Party, a short, less well regarded work.) It was pretty good, and I liked his style. I think I will be trying more. But it is kind of depressing that I have to be dipping back 60 years to find fiction that appeals.
So the point of this ramble is that it has occurred to me that, just as nearly everyone in their 40's starts thinking that popular music has peaked and is in decline, it seems to me that almost no good fiction has been written since around 1990.
Pity really.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
A great movie
"To Kill a Mockingbird" was on TV today, being played as part of a Father's Day themed set of movies.
Its semi-melancholic remembrance of parental love still gets to me emotionally. (This is the first time I have re-watched it since having children, but it has always moved me.) Its effectiveness is all the more remarkable in light of the simplicity and the economy with which it was made: black and white film; a studio backlot set; direction and storytelling that is measured in pace but never flashy. I have always thought the score is particularly effective. (It was by Elmer Bernstein, who had a ridiculously long career in movie music.)
It is, of course, also an excellent example of the discretion with which older movies (and books) could deal with adult themes. If the film were being made today, in the "need to see everything" modern style of most movie storytelling, there would likely be flashbacks to illustrate the rape /seduction scene, rather than a simple reliance on the trial testimony.
Watching it made me check again whether Harper Lee is still alive. She is, and the Wikipedia entry for the book shows a photo of her receiving 2007 Presidential Medal of Freedom less than a year ago. She has always sounded very modest, but she deserves to be extremely proud of the legacy of her one novel.
Its semi-melancholic remembrance of parental love still gets to me emotionally. (This is the first time I have re-watched it since having children, but it has always moved me.) Its effectiveness is all the more remarkable in light of the simplicity and the economy with which it was made: black and white film; a studio backlot set; direction and storytelling that is measured in pace but never flashy. I have always thought the score is particularly effective. (It was by Elmer Bernstein, who had a ridiculously long career in movie music.)
It is, of course, also an excellent example of the discretion with which older movies (and books) could deal with adult themes. If the film were being made today, in the "need to see everything" modern style of most movie storytelling, there would likely be flashbacks to illustrate the rape /seduction scene, rather than a simple reliance on the trial testimony.
Watching it made me check again whether Harper Lee is still alive. She is, and the Wikipedia entry for the book shows a photo of her receiving 2007 Presidential Medal of Freedom less than a year ago. She has always sounded very modest, but she deserves to be extremely proud of the legacy of her one novel.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
End of the world, or not, post
I'm getting mightily annoyed with the way the media, and particularly science journalists, are reporting the "end of the world" stories regarding the LHC. Not because they are being sensationalist (though a small fraction are), but because they are, more often than not, being overly dismissive while at the same time clearly ignorant of the detail of the debate.
For example, the science editor at The Times is Mark Henderson, who himself has no science background, and certainly looks very young. He wrote in The Times that:
Henderson and his ilk seem to have missed this comment by Mangano, the physicist most credited with this year's safety review, reported earlier this year:
Plaga's concerns are particularly newsworthy because, as I noted a few posts back, he seems well and truly within the mainstream of astrophysicists. He writes:
Therefore I don't know who else to ask in the physics world as to whether the Mangano response is conclusive.
Well, in the interests of citizen science journalist, I have sent a short email to Plaga himself, asking if the Mangano/Giddings comments on his paper has caused him to change his mind.
I will let you know if I get a response.
UPDATE: No response yet, but I just wanted to clarify that, as explained here, on 10 September the LHC is only planning on getting the first beam circulating in one direction. There won't be any no particle collisions until they get another beam, going in the opposite direction, up and running. According to the Guardian:
For example, the science editor at The Times is Mark Henderson, who himself has no science background, and certainly looks very young. He wrote in The Times that:
"Utterly ridiculous" ideas generally don't get responded to by detailed safety studies, Mark.Once again the cry has gone up that the accelerator could create a black hole that would devour the planet. Legal challenges have sought to halt it, and these have been more widely reported this week than the project itself.
Yet the claim is utterly ridiculous. ...
This isn't a story that's worthy of serious discussion, even as kooky fun. It might sound harmless, but it feeds stereotypes of crazy and reckless boffins who know everything about nothing and nothing about everything, and encourages the contemptible but widespread view that scientists are not to be trusted.
Henderson and his ilk seem to have missed this comment by Mangano, the physicist most credited with this year's safety review, reported earlier this year:
"If it were just crackpots, we could wave them away," the physicist said in an interview at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, known by its French acronym, CERN. "But some are real physicists."Mark and most other science journalists writing reassuring articles this week also seem to have missed the issue raised only in August by astrophysicist Rainer Plaga that there might be another mechanism (other than the earth being eaten by a black hole) by which micro black holes might be dangerous. Yes, Mangano and Giddings have responded to this claim, but isn't this a newsworthy addition to the current reporting?
Plaga's concerns are particularly newsworthy because, as I noted a few posts back, he seems well and truly within the mainstream of astrophysicists. He writes:
The luminosity of a mBH accreting at the Eddington limit with the parameters assumed above corresponds to 12 Mt TNT equivalent/sec[11], or the energy released in a major thermonuclear explosion per second. If such a mBH would accrete near the surface of Earth the damage they create would be much larger than deep in its interior. With the very small accretion timescale (≪ 1 second) that was found with the parameters in section 3, a mBH created with very small (thermal or subthermal) velocities in a collider would appear like a major nuclear explosion in the immediate vicinity of the collider.I have asked nice physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who has discussed the LHC safety issues before at length at her Backreaction blog, about this. Unfortunately, she has not seen Plaga's paper or Mangano's reaction, and is showing little interest in reading them any time soon. (I think she doesn't really believe any micro black holes are likely to be created, and that may well explain her lack of concern.)
Therefore I don't know who else to ask in the physics world as to whether the Mangano response is conclusive.
Well, in the interests of citizen science journalist, I have sent a short email to Plaga himself, asking if the Mangano/Giddings comments on his paper has caused him to change his mind.
I will let you know if I get a response.
UPDATE: No response yet, but I just wanted to clarify that, as explained here, on 10 September the LHC is only planning on getting the first beam circulating in one direction. There won't be any no particle collisions until they get another beam, going in the opposite direction, up and running. According to the Guardian:
So, even in the worst case scenario, we all have at least another few weekends ahead of us. Drink up, be merry, ask questions, etc."If the beam goes all the way round on the first go, that would be quite amazing. It's never happened in the history of particle colliders," said Cern's James Gillies. If the test is successful, scientists may try to send the beam around in the opposite direction, though first collisions are not expected until next month.
They expect to spend a few months getting to grips with the machine before putting it to work in earnest.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Colbert and Palin
One of the interesting things about watching Colbert Report is trying to work out at what point he (the person, not the character) might genuinely be agreeing with, or at least sympathetic to, a conservative position. I really get the feeling it happens from time to time, but it is just fleeting impressions, and it's hard to know the truth. (I certainly believe he is more mature about politics than Jon Stewart, and is capable of actually liking conservative figures.)
On the other hand, I do think that his episodes this week have been showing a liberal narkiness that is so strong, he is too clearly breaking out of character with too many of his jokes.
This makes today's forthcoming episode especially interesting, to see how he handles the extremely well received Palin speech. Colbert the character should be absolutely swooning. But just how much attack will Colbert the person manage to fit in, and will it come across as sour?
UPDATE: So, how did Colbert go? It's a bit of a mix really, with some jokes working well, and others failing. The first couple of minutes of the following clip are good, then the section about Guiliani fall flat. But, if nothing else, you should watch for the last section, featuring a 21 year old college blogger who had been promoting Sarah Palin. There's a very big laugh to be had there, but not from Stephen:
On the other hand, I do think that his episodes this week have been showing a liberal narkiness that is so strong, he is too clearly breaking out of character with too many of his jokes.
This makes today's forthcoming episode especially interesting, to see how he handles the extremely well received Palin speech. Colbert the character should be absolutely swooning. But just how much attack will Colbert the person manage to fit in, and will it come across as sour?
UPDATE: So, how did Colbert go? It's a bit of a mix really, with some jokes working well, and others failing. The first couple of minutes of the following clip are good, then the section about Guiliani fall flat. But, if nothing else, you should watch for the last section, featuring a 21 year old college blogger who had been promoting Sarah Palin. There's a very big laugh to be had there, but not from Stephen:
Dolphin wars
New Scientist Environment Blog: Dolphin serial killers?
It's being suggested that some dolphins are killing other dolphins as a culturally learned behaviour. Not so cute after all...
It's being suggested that some dolphins are killing other dolphins as a culturally learned behaviour. Not so cute after all...
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Wow
I caught nearly all of the Sarah Palin speech when it was replayed on CNN tonight. Whether or not she can survive the rough and tumble of live interviews and debates is yet to be seen, but (a little to my surprise) my reaction to her RNC speech was that it did feel like I was watching the historically important birth of a political star.
She is a political natural if ever there was one, yet at the same time has a very authentic feel about her whole personae, which is what I find just seems to be lacking in the Obama family, and in Hillary Clinton too. (Not to mention hair-do boy John Edwards.)
Reaction all over the place has been strong, with the notable and very, very bitchy exception of Andrew Sullivan, whose over-the-top pursuit of Palin from the start has caused him to lose any credibility he may have once had as a reasonable pundit.
She is a political natural if ever there was one, yet at the same time has a very authentic feel about her whole personae, which is what I find just seems to be lacking in the Obama family, and in Hillary Clinton too. (Not to mention hair-do boy John Edwards.)
Reaction all over the place has been strong, with the notable and very, very bitchy exception of Andrew Sullivan, whose over-the-top pursuit of Palin from the start has caused him to lose any credibility he may have once had as a reasonable pundit.
Not a good look
Arctic Ice Shelf Breaks Away in Canada - Science - redOrbit
For other Arctic melt news, Brian at LP had a good post this week that is worth looking at, as it pulls in images from a few different sources to show the extent of ice melt, and the decreasing depth of what remains. (But note that some headlines of the last couple of days about the ice cap now being an island have been exaggerating.)
As for other bad news from the north, there was a short, but worrying, report earlier this week about methane release from the seabed near Siberia. I think we'll be hearing more about this soon.
Meanwhile, the sceptics at Marohasy are getting worked up about the revised "Hockey stick" graph of Mann. Most skeptical commenters there are well beyond any possibility of being convinced that they may be wrong. It's denialism as a matter of faith. Personally, I've never worried too much about the hockey stick controversy, after I decided that it's not a good idea for the sake of the oceans to let CO2 increase to heights unseen for thousands or millions of years, regardless of the air temperature outside.
I note that Marohasy skeptics rely a lot on information sourced at CO2 Science. I am not sure how much more the guys who run that site could do in website design to make their motive obvious. (It features a hummingbird at a flower which has flourished with all that yummy CO2.) Their brief is clearly is to make everyone embrace CO2 as the "feel good" gas.
It has quite the opposite effect on me: it makes it very hard to take them seriously, right from the first glance.
For other Arctic melt news, Brian at LP had a good post this week that is worth looking at, as it pulls in images from a few different sources to show the extent of ice melt, and the decreasing depth of what remains. (But note that some headlines of the last couple of days about the ice cap now being an island have been exaggerating.)
As for other bad news from the north, there was a short, but worrying, report earlier this week about methane release from the seabed near Siberia. I think we'll be hearing more about this soon.
Meanwhile, the sceptics at Marohasy are getting worked up about the revised "Hockey stick" graph of Mann. Most skeptical commenters there are well beyond any possibility of being convinced that they may be wrong. It's denialism as a matter of faith. Personally, I've never worried too much about the hockey stick controversy, after I decided that it's not a good idea for the sake of the oceans to let CO2 increase to heights unseen for thousands or millions of years, regardless of the air temperature outside.
I note that Marohasy skeptics rely a lot on information sourced at CO2 Science. I am not sure how much more the guys who run that site could do in website design to make their motive obvious. (It features a hummingbird at a flower which has flourished with all that yummy CO2.) Their brief is clearly is to make everyone embrace CO2 as the "feel good" gas.
It has quite the opposite effect on me: it makes it very hard to take them seriously, right from the first glance.
Another world
The Forbidden World: Books: The New Yorker
If you have an interest in stories about ex-priest heretics burned at the stake in Italy in 1600 (and who doesn't?) this book looks promising.
If you have an interest in stories about ex-priest heretics burned at the stake in Italy in 1600 (and who doesn't?) this book looks promising.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Black hole danger not gone??!!
0808.1415v1.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Bloody hell - I was curious as to why there had been another sudden burst of publicity against there being any danger from micro black holes potentially being created at the Large Hadron Collider.
Here's my guess: it's to counter this paper (linked above) called "On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders" which it appeared at Arxiv on 10 August.
The author - R Plaga - is a mainstream, well published, astrophysicist, as far as I can tell.
Here's the Wikipedia entry on this recent controversy, which I had missed until today. Giddings and Mangano, who gave the LHC the "all clear" earlier this year, have responded to Plaga's paper.
I have no time to read up on this right now, but sheesh, I wish this was all sorted with more time before they flick the switch on the LHC.
It is also further vindication of my long held position that physicists at CERN had never previously done a really thorough consideration of all the possible dangers from the operation of the LHC.
UPDATE: this is really hard for a non-scientist to follow, but it would seem that Mangano point to what is almost a mathematical mistake in Plaga's paper. Not at all sure that I have understood the point, though, and I would like to know if Plaga acknowledges a mistake.
His argument is that, if certain models are right (which of itself is probably a very big "if,") micro black holes could represent a planetary danger even if stars clearly have survived naturally created ones over the millennia.
You know, one of the underlying concerns that worriers have had about the LHC is whether danger from such experiments is a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox. That's why I still do not feel relaxed and comfortable, when safety issues are still being proposed by credible figures just a month before the machine is switched on.
Bloody hell - I was curious as to why there had been another sudden burst of publicity against there being any danger from micro black holes potentially being created at the Large Hadron Collider.
Here's my guess: it's to counter this paper (linked above) called "On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders" which it appeared at Arxiv on 10 August.
The author - R Plaga - is a mainstream, well published, astrophysicist, as far as I can tell.
Here's the Wikipedia entry on this recent controversy, which I had missed until today. Giddings and Mangano, who gave the LHC the "all clear" earlier this year, have responded to Plaga's paper.
I have no time to read up on this right now, but sheesh, I wish this was all sorted with more time before they flick the switch on the LHC.
It is also further vindication of my long held position that physicists at CERN had never previously done a really thorough consideration of all the possible dangers from the operation of the LHC.
UPDATE: this is really hard for a non-scientist to follow, but it would seem that Mangano point to what is almost a mathematical mistake in Plaga's paper. Not at all sure that I have understood the point, though, and I would like to know if Plaga acknowledges a mistake.
His argument is that, if certain models are right (which of itself is probably a very big "if,") micro black holes could represent a planetary danger even if stars clearly have survived naturally created ones over the millennia.
You know, one of the underlying concerns that worriers have had about the LHC is whether danger from such experiments is a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox. That's why I still do not feel relaxed and comfortable, when safety issues are still being proposed by credible figures just a month before the machine is switched on.
Bet he didn't see this coming
Bristol Palin's Boyfriend Going to GOP Convention - Republican National Convention
Get your high school girlfriend pregnant, and then have to appear at international media event. Nothing like pressure, hey.
Maybe this should be added to sex education classes under the category of possible consequences of unprotected sex.
Get your high school girlfriend pregnant, and then have to appear at international media event. Nothing like pressure, hey.
Maybe this should be added to sex education classes under the category of possible consequences of unprotected sex.
Clean energy news
Wind Energy Bumps Into Power Grid’s Limits - Series - NYTimes.com
This article is from last week, but it's an interesting look at the problems that the use of wind farms cause for the power grid in the US. It's not clear to me what sort of problem this may represent in Australia, as I think we have a pretty co-operative inter State grid system now, don't we?
I still don't like the idea of widespread use of windmills. I don't care what supporters say, the sight of tens of them on a horizon bothers me as an unnecessary visual intrusion on nature. Plans to put them all out of sight at sea seem a better prospect, and would avoid the bat killing issue which I assume would be a major problem in many parts of Australia. (Not to mention that flying foxes are believed to be spreading the deadly Hendra virus, so handling dead ones is not a good idea.)
As for solar energy, long time readers will remember that I like the look of the Infinia corporation's solar stirling engine. It still seems to be building up to big scale manufacturing, but the pace (as with many renewable energy ideas) seems very slow.
I see recently that another solar stirling power company (Stirling Energy Systems) has applied to build a full scale power station using 30,000 dishes in the California desert! It will be very interesting to see if this goes ahead, and can compete well with other forms of solar thermal.
One issue is that other types of solar thermal (the ones that heat fluid in a pipe) have a more direct way of getting some overnight energy storage (eg using melted salts, etc.) I am not sure if SES has an idea for overnight power.
Finally, how is the South African demonstration pebble bed reactor going? Still progressing, it seems, but again, there seems little sense of urgency about such projects.
This article is from last week, but it's an interesting look at the problems that the use of wind farms cause for the power grid in the US. It's not clear to me what sort of problem this may represent in Australia, as I think we have a pretty co-operative inter State grid system now, don't we?
I still don't like the idea of widespread use of windmills. I don't care what supporters say, the sight of tens of them on a horizon bothers me as an unnecessary visual intrusion on nature. Plans to put them all out of sight at sea seem a better prospect, and would avoid the bat killing issue which I assume would be a major problem in many parts of Australia. (Not to mention that flying foxes are believed to be spreading the deadly Hendra virus, so handling dead ones is not a good idea.)
As for solar energy, long time readers will remember that I like the look of the Infinia corporation's solar stirling engine. It still seems to be building up to big scale manufacturing, but the pace (as with many renewable energy ideas) seems very slow.
I see recently that another solar stirling power company (Stirling Energy Systems) has applied to build a full scale power station using 30,000 dishes in the California desert! It will be very interesting to see if this goes ahead, and can compete well with other forms of solar thermal.
One issue is that other types of solar thermal (the ones that heat fluid in a pipe) have a more direct way of getting some overnight energy storage (eg using melted salts, etc.) I am not sure if SES has an idea for overnight power.
Finally, how is the South African demonstration pebble bed reactor going? Still progressing, it seems, but again, there seems little sense of urgency about such projects.
Star Wars creeps closer
US army has laser guns in its sights - tech - 02 September 2008 - New Scientist Tech
Although not planned as anti-personnel weapons, the effects on people of a moving laser would presumably be pretty ugly.
The article is also noteworthy for use of the word "ruggedised".
Although not planned as anti-personnel weapons, the effects on people of a moving laser would presumably be pretty ugly.
The article is also noteworthy for use of the word "ruggedised".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)