CaptainPanic

Does he condemn people being rich in general? Or does he condemn rich people who got rich over the backs of others? I think your complaint is a little oversimplified.

I am not sure I understand... you want to stop the foam from going with treated water? Why can't you just scrape the foam off?

That would not be any different in a referendum or in a democracy where you vote for ideas and plans directly. Example: A certain percentage of people decide they want a road built. They gather signatures and put it up for public voting. And instantly, they start a campaign for building the road, and soon after, others start a campaign against the road? And both campaigns will be sponsored (by road building companies or by environmentalists)?

You are talking about Utopia. I am talking about Earth. What will make people read wise arguments instead of other opinion websites and news sources which give it in small bites, and oneliners? What will stop the misinformation and the lies that are spread by people with other interests? A good advertisement works better than a lengthy argument... and that's the main problem with your plan. There's a good example happening right now: I don't know if you are following the news, but the republican party in the USA is about to vote some Christian fundamentalist to be the presidential candidate. This is someone who basically says that science itself is a lie, and that science and reality have a left-wing bias. AND PEOPLE VOTE FOR HIM! People read the news, listen to opinions, talk with friends, and then make a conscious decision to vote for Santorum. As long as people are that dumb, I don't think we should give them more power than they already have. And I am afraid that other democracies have their idiots too, all of them democratically chosen... so Europeans shouldn't point at the US too much. I just mentioned Santorum because he's in the news a lot lately.

I think I read somewhere that, if sufficiently oxygenated, you could theoretically breathe liquid. The reason you drown in water is not because the water is too dense... it's simply because your lungs cannot extract oxygen from water efficiently. Here's a wikipedia page about liquid breathing. And here's an article about a mouse who was breathing liquid.

Well, there exist chemicals which are "anti foam". But I wonder: is there any particular problem with the foam? Why do you want to get rid of it?

Yep. This is the core of what we disagree about. It's pretty hard to make an investment which you will only need in a decade from now. I would advise all countries to consider the issue of energy storage though, and to scout for other locations for similar plans. The future will come eventually, so we will need additional storage. I just don't think that the 1st purpose-built energy storage lake in Scotland should immediately solve all future problems. Take it one step at a time. Surely there is some other glen, valley or lake in Scotland which you can use too?

Nice that you dropped by another time to say thanks, and to confirm that you read our contributions. Reading your opening post again, I wanted to add something... It would be really hard for that much charge to build up in the atmosphere. You probably already realized that your story doesn't work with ordinary lightning, even in the most unrealistically bad weather. But just for fun, I was wondering how many ordinary lightning strikes you would need to create a real lava lake (turning rock into molten rock). A lightning strike contains a few million Joule (let's say 100 MJ). If your area where is strikes is 10x10 meters, and 1 meter deep (i.e. 1x10x10 = 100 m3), you have to heat up 100 ton of earth by about 1600°C. Since sand (SiO2) has a heat capacity of 830 J/kgK, you need 133 GJ. That would mean you need about 1330 lightning strikes to get it that hot... and remember that this is only for a tiny area of 10x10 meters, and only 1 meter deep. (And that's assuming that (1) that's a pretty awesomely big lightning strike, (2) they send all the energy into the earth, and not into the air itself, (3) that hte strikes happen so quickly that the earth cannot cool down... oh, and I simplified the thermodynamics a little (a lot)). If you read those assumptions that I had to make, we can rest assured that mother nature is not going to create lava lakes with lightning.

If weed is legalized, the criminals will soon be out of business. Isn't that good enough for a start? The methods to realize both a minimized consumption and reduced criminal activity might be in conflict. I would set only one of the two targets at first, and only aim for the second after a number of years. That can be regulated with tax to some extent. I don't think there is any particular benefit of having either free market alcohol (with tax!) or state owned alcohol shops. Examples of both exist in the world, and in all cases people still get shitfaced quite drunk.

"Wisdom doesn't come in oneliners." The letters are too big. I don't like that. So, I apologise for copying the fontsize above. In itself, such phrases (perhaps similar to "don't judge a book by its cover") are hollow and empty. Only when applied to a certain case, you can say if it makes sense. I mean, there are instances when you must make a split second decision, and you only see a shadow. (You're lounging on the freeway at sunset, and a shadow rapidly moves towards you... you decide to get off the road only a second before the 18-wheeler roars past).

That's a little too simplistic for my taste... You only need to store the energy from non-continuous sources of electricity, like wind and solar. Since we can say that solar is negligible, you should look at wind only. Also, by managing the grid efficiently, some fluctuations in wind power can be absorbed without such an energy storage. So, looking at the total wind power in the UK (6 GW at peak performance), you can make an estimate of what the capacity of 30 GWh means. It means you can store a good 5 hours of all the UK's wind power at peak performance... But since the grid can compensate for fluctuations too, and there may be other storages too, your grid can go without any wind for quite a significant time. Perhaps a day or so. And that's the goal: to compensate for relatively short term fluctuations. Your bigger dam can store 6 times as much: 30 hours of all the UK's wind energy at peak performance. And given that the grid can absorb fluctuations, and that there may be other storages too, with such a giant dam, the grid can go without any wind for perhaps up to a week... But when does that happen in the UK, especially not in Scotland?? Maybe the time frames (a day vs. a week) are off. But this is the type of argument that matters, imho. There is less interest to store any other energy (coal power can switch up or down within the hour, gas power plants in a matter of minutes or seconds)... so I have left that out of the equation.

Let me start with a compliment and an expression of happiness, before going into my comments (comments always sound so negative). It's a good post... and I am really happy that the Scots are building an energy storage. Hopefully this will shut up the critics who say you cannot store wind energy. It's always been possible... but for some reason the anti-wind lobby has always managed to direct the attention to crappy hydrogen storage or batteries, and just omitted cost-effective hydro-electric storage from the analysis. I'm happy to see this on the forum Comments: What matters mostly is the difference in height between the stored water and the bottom reservoir (Loch Lochy). So, in a nutshell, a cubic meter of water stored at the max. height can store more energy than a cubic meter at the bottom... and you can express that in euros or pounds. But to store it at a higher altitude, you need a bigger dam. The question is: is it worth the extra investment to store those extra cubic meters? And in addition, in your case, it is worth the money to dig a pit in the middle of the lake to store more water at lower elevation? I am just guessing that it is simply too costly to excavate a big hole to store more water, because the excavation itself costs money, but it will also (slightly) increase the cost of the dam itself. And that's for some cubic meters of water that you should only need when the dam is nearly empty. A risk analysis should show how often a long period without any wind occurs, when you would need every cubic meter of water to compensate the lack of wind (the dam stores wind energy after all). Also for this reason, it might not be necessary to dig a big hole in the ground. So, in short, the costs of the water stored should be competitive in terms of money per energy stored. And the size of the lake should be proportional to the amount of energy you expect to store, based on the capacity of the wind farms, the general weather patterns, and the risk you're willing to take that the weather is temporarily very un-Scottish. There is no doubt that you can store far more energy in the plan you present. The big question is: is there any use for such a large dam? [edited: fixing typos and adding another comment]

What ajb says it 100% correct. But I'm gonna confuse matters a little... Inconveniently, a "superheater" is a device which can turn saturated steam into dry steam (i.e. steam so hot it first needs to cool down before any condensation can happen). So, superheated steam is a term often used for steam (a vapor, not a liquid!) above its boiling point.

Yes, so when something becomes unaffordable, people don't buy it. Makes sense. But contrary to the alcopops, there is a thriving black market which can supply marihuana at competitive prices. And even though it is illegal, the laws of economics are still valid. A government can legalize weed, but if the taxes are too high, people will buy the illegal stuff. Because the discussion about weed is out in the open in the Netherlands, I know (hearsay and media) that an evening smoking weed is a lot cheaper than an evening drinking alcohol (comparing an evening at home, the difference is even larger if you go out). So, small increases in the price are not likely to have a large impact, because the price of the weed is not really relevant compared to for example the snacks or the (soft)drinks you consume. And large increases in the price only drive people back to the criminals, who aren't exactly stupid and will try to be competitive with the legalized prices. Of course, you can then crack down on the criminals even harder - but then you effectively solved nothing. I sometimes wonder if the mafia has a lobby to keep weed illegal.

Asking tricky questions.

I agree that it doesn't explain it completely. But it's a factor which cannot be ignored.

Bah... simplified American thinking. That quote from George Washington might have been true 2 centuries ago, but it's hopelessly obsolete now. Weapons with which you can keep your freedom and liberty in the 21st century are information, information and information. The quote is from before even the invention of the telegraph. We have internet now. Your shotgun in your gun closet is totally irrelevant. Hell, you could have a tank, or a B2 stealth bomber, and still give up your liberty with a few mouse clicks. This is what I am so sad about. People just don't understand.

1. Segregation. Black people have a smaller chance to be successful because of segregation and discrimination. It's supposed to be abolished everywhere, but it's not. 2. Africa is still relatively poor, and does not have education at a level common in many other countries. I would think this is obvious. It's nothing to be proud of that this is the world we live in... [edited to fix a typo]

I agree with michel123456 Your posts are too long. I'm just not gonna read them.

Queen of Wands, Most people are wth you in your fight for freedom - or at least most people will fight against oppression. And that includes myself. But I struggle with your posts. You write like you're on speed and way too much coffee! Can you please write sentences without all the CAPS? And do you mind writing normal sentences, instead of just some snippets and screams?

It does, actually. But it is also attracted by the rest of the planet, and universe... so it's own gravitational pull is rather negligible.

Googling for the bush popularity in europe is quite straightforward, and will give data points from 2001 until 2008. (Both links also distinguish individual countries in Europe). And here's an article that mentions ratings of both Bush in 2008 and Obama in 2009 in different countries in Europe: Germany - Bush 2008 approval: 12%; Obama 2009 approval: 92% France - Bush 2008 approval: 11%; Obama 2009 approval: 88% The really high ratings didn't last long, I think. I guess they were a result of a general feeling of relief that Bush was gone. Still, Obama scores a LOT better than Bush in Europe. And he still does in 2011. p.s. What is a "fringe perspective"? Never heard of the term, and Google doesn't help.

The founding fathers of the USA already warned their fellow countrymen... but nobody is listening. To quote Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " The core of the problem is that people courageously pick up arms to defend freedom, but do not understand when they give up that liberty that they fought for. The enemy is a clear concept. They're the other guys who are trying to kill you. But the freedom is taken away by your own countrymen. They hollow out your freedom and liberty from the inside, like a parasite. How can you fight that, except by education and understanding. You must first see the problem before you can act... and I fear that most people - in the USA, but also everywhere else in the world - simply don't understand it.

How can you make such a comparison when there were hardly any cars during the prohibition, which also greatly affects the road trauma. You might as well blame cars, or oil companies for road trauma. There is a far stronger correlation over such a time period. I strongly doubt that consumption and price are strongly correlated. Look at beer (alcohol) prices: countries with the most expensive alcohol are often the largest consumers per capita. And cheap beers in supermarkets do not sell better than more expensive brands.

I have already said that this is only relevant if you assume that legalization will increase consumption. But there is nothing to support that, so all your links are irrelevant. If consumption does not go up, there are no unhealthy side effects to legalization.