As I Arrived At The Boat Club For A Swim Colin And Gary Were Just Coming Back From A Paddle To Helensburgh.

Asgard

WELL begun; half done. That proverbor, rather, its obverseencapsulates the problems which have dogged civil nuclear power since its inception. Atomic energy is...

This article from The economist magazine talks about using Thorium as a Nuclear Fuel instead of Uranium.  Thorium has several advantages over Uranium and in the view of the author of this article the most important is the relative resistance to proliferation compared to Uranium.  I learned a few things from this article.  The things I learned was that the US did build a few bombs out of U233 which is the fissile element formed from the fertile Thorium.  I was always a bit unsure as to whether or not any bombs had been built.  The article also confirms my prior understanding that U233 makes a poor nuclear bomb material because of the presence of small amounts of other radioactive isotopes that emit hard gamma radiation that messes up the other mechanisms required for a bomb.

We did a really fun hill walk today. This is Tinto Hill from the Wiston side. The walk was around 5km with 450m of elevation gain.

Heading out for a cycle around Cumbrae (at Millport)

"UV" -

Reflections on Scottish Independence as set out in "A Green Yes"

On September 18, 2014 Scotland will vote whether or not to become an Independent Country.  Currently I am reading the White Paper issued by the Government of Scotland titled "Scotland's Future".  I am about 45% of the way through it and expect to reflect on it once I have finished it.  Currently I am undecided as to how I will vote.  That is why I am reading "Scotland's Future".  

The Scottish Green Party supports Independence and they have issued a document which sets out their main reasons for supporting Independence.  This blog is to reflect on this document.  

Extracts from "A Green Yes" that I like:

Whichever way Scotland votes, the referendum will leave some people celebrating, and others deeply dismayed. It’s vital that celebration does not turn into divisive triumphalism. The result will be far more readily accepted by the losing side if the winners act with respect and a constructive spirit; that will be as difficult for some as losing would be. (page 4)

Oil and Gas

Some still make the case for a Yes vote with tired old slogans about “Scotland’s oil”. Even if there was no environmental consequence from burning fossil fuels, Scotland’s remaining reserves would only offer an economic future for a few more decades. Greens want an independent Scotland to be successful far longer than that! 

But the hard truth, for all fossil fuel nations, is that we can’t even afford to burn what we have. The world has far more fossil fuel in existing reserves than can safely be used, if we’re remotely serious about preserving a liveable environment. So as well as opposing new extraction from deep-water oil drilling, opencast coal, and unconventional gas technology such as fracking, we need to leave a great deal of our oil and gas in the ground, or support a more diverse range of petrochemical uses which don’t involve greenhouse gas emissions. 

Scotland has the skills to do that, and with the usable portion of oil and gas funding public investment in renewables to replace future revenue, we have the opportunity to make this transition rapidly. The UK will only ever see North Sea oil as a revenue source; Scotland could see it as a springboard, taking us from reliance on polluting and finite energy sources to the cleantech of the future. (page 6) 

The document "A Green Yes" has the following section titles:

A Green Yes

Could Westminster Deliver?

Will Holyrood Deliver?

Transition

Developing a Constitution

Parliament and Democracy

Currency

Ending the 'Tyranny of Big'

Oil & Gas

Welfare

Closing the Wealth Gap

Peace & Security

Employment

Immigration/Asylum

The document is quite short, only 8 pages long. From reading this document the main points that I take away are:

They remind us that the White Paper sets out the current Government of Scotland's view on what should happen post independence but that post independence these policies would need to be decided democratically by whichever parties form a new government.  To that end they state, "The development of a written constitution should be led by a new constitutional convention, to be established before the end of 2014, with political parties involved but not in sole charge.  

"A Green Yes" suggests that the Government of Scotland should have a "Plan B" with regards to currency because in the longer term they expect Scotland to have it's own currency and as an interim measure having a "Plan B" would improve the negotiating position of the Government of Scotland when discussing a Currency Union with the Rest of the UK.  

"A Green Yes" recognises that if every other oil producing nation in the world takes the view that it is their right and duty to produce every barrel of oil then there are significant implications with regards to climate change.  Based on the above extract they seem to have a realistic view that Scotland will not shut down the oil wells the day after independence but are suggesting that after this Scotland should be striving to leave the oil in the ground and using what oil is produced as a springboard to "Cleantech of the future".  The document is silent on Nuclear Power but I am not optimistic about the ability of the Scottish Green Party to embrace nuclear power.

"A Green Yes" has a strong emphasis on reducing inequality.

"A Green Yes" reminds me that when/if Scotland becomes an Independent Country that the expectations set out in "Scotland's Future" are uncertain.  The future is like that.  I would expect that some of the things that Government of Scotland wants will not come to pass or will only be achieved with greater than expected cost.  Other things will go better than expected.  If we want certainty we are in the wrong world.  

I am still undecided about which way to vote in the referendum.

You can find "A Green Yes" at:

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/11/Green-Yes-document.pdf

You can find "Scotland's Future" at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348

I was down at the Boat Club today. David Jenkins and I did a 500m swim in around 16 minutes without wetsuit. Water temperature 9 degC. Highish tide going out. After our swim I needed to get more steps. These birds were sitting on The Esplanade railing across from the Old West Kirk. (at Greenock Esplanade)

Stacey Hearl and I went down for an Open Water Swim 🏊 today. It was just after the turn of low tide. It was overcast and dead calm. My swim was 448m in 13:49. Water temperature 7 degC. #greenock #rwsabc #openwaterswimming #shoreline #beach (at The Royal West of Scotland Boat Club)

Europe: Carnivore Paradise?

Bears, wolves, lynx and wolverines are flourishing in Europe, largely in humanized landscapes and not in parks. Can North America learn from the “coexistence model” that characterizes the continent’s approach to conserving big carnivores?

Thoughts on our visit to Prague

Helen and I returned from our holiday in Prague last night. We had a good time, I’ve returned feeling relaxed and somewhat recharged.

I liked Prague a lot and I was thinking about what makes it such a nice city (for tourists like us).

In no particular order:

1 - Friendly and honest people. 2- A great city centre for walking around. 3 - Good public transport. 4 - Green space easily accessible from the city centre. 5 - Good affordability. 6 - A compact city centre with plenty of bars, pubs and Restaurants.

I will discuss this more in my future blogs.

Dome City Blog 4 - Welwyn Garden City and my proposals for a Dome City

I have looked at an old map of Welwyn Garden City and I estimate that this town is around 7.5 square kilometers.  The population according to Wikipedia is 43,000.  Welwyn Garden City is considered that classic example of a “Garden City”.  Recent proposals are to build 5 new Garden Cities in Southern Britain to help reduce the current chronic housing shortage.  The proposals that I have read suggest that each of these cities would house around 15,000 people.

Garden Cities are attractive to people and politicians because they are considered to be great communities and a very pleasant place to live.  If we accept that new Garden Cities are a good place to live what would that suggest about my proposals for a Dome City?

In a previous blog I worked out that the Geodesic dome I am proposing would have a area are within it of 25.3 square kilometres.  assuming 43,000 people per 7.5 square kilometers this would allow a population of 143,000 people.  As I have stated previously my goal wold be to have 100,000 people living in the city so the effective density of this dome city would actually be less than Welwyn Garden City.

I have visited Welwyn Garden City once to have lunch at my Prefessor's house when I was doing my MSc.  While this visit was a long time ago and I wasn't paying really close attention I do remember my Professor's house as being in a quiet cul-da-sac with lots of green space around.

Assuming when get get the lighting within the centre of the dome right this suggests to me that the dome city could provide a very comfortable environment for it's residents.

Reasons that I would like to live in a dome city are:

The ability to walk everywhere within the city.  There would certainly need to be elevators when one is going up or down more than a few levels but once on any level you would never be further than 500m from your destination.

I live in Scotland where it rains alot.  The dome city will provide a roof over my head at almost all times allow me to be outside of my house much more.  I would hope that this would encourage more "outdoor" activities like sport, walking, cafes, open air concerts etc.

I feel that since people would walk around more that they would come into contact with their neighbours on a more regular basis.  I would hope and expect that this would engender better feelings of community.

I wouldn't need to own a car for day to day living.

Given the high population density I would see that public services would be easier and less expensive to provide.  Examples are:

With a electrical power plant located very close to the city combined heat and power is a real possibility.  The energy provider would be able to supply district heating at relatively low cost.  

I imagine that garbage collection could be made more efficient since people could carry their waste and recyclables to larger bins.  

Schools could also share facilities much more easily.  In addition, parents would have a greater choice of schools for their children since every school is accessible on foot by any child.  

Waste could be disposed of in an incinerator located within the city providing additional district heating options and reducing the amount of waste going to landfill.

Sewers could be smaller since they would not have to deal with rainfall.

I am sure there are more examples that I haven't thought of yet but I hope these do show you how costs could be reduced and services improved.

I hope you have found this interesting.