Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 10:04:33 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:59:08 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- For me, the main issue is not the marginal cost benefit anyway. - It is that the bulbs themselves are ugly - either they are fat, have stupid spiral shapes or loops. - The light quality is appalling. I'm glad to see that you now admit that your arguments against compact fluorescent bulbs are a matter of personal prejudice. We all have such things, but trying to justify them on spurious grounds is not helpful. It's not a matter of personal prejudice at all. - CFLs do not have anything like a clean spectrum that is a particularly good match to anything pre-existing them. - Eyesight is a very individual thing and people certainly have different responses to light quality and spectrum. - They also have different responses to perturbation and flicker in certain types of fluorescent lamp. Although this does not apply specifically to CFLs, it certainly does to other types of fluorescent fitting The point of the foregoing is thus that different individuals will have different levels of acceptance, for perfectly valid reasons, certainly nothing to do with prejudice. The next point is that these things are mechanically and visibly ugly. That is an opinion, but a reasonable one. Apart from not mechanically fitting in virtually all luminaires that I have, those that would fit would completely spoil the overall appearance of the fitting. I am not about to go out and replace them all when there is little that is suitable on the market and the cost isn't justified. Finally, I strongly object to the games played by government in coercing people into using these things via the use of mandating them in building regulations and even arranging that the fittings won't accept proper bulbs. This is an unnecessary intrusion into people's personal space and I won't accept it. As I already explained, in the event that I bought a new house, these things would be the very first items to be ripped out and replaced with proper light fittings. On the other side of the equation, the cost arguments that you have put forward are extremely weak; this always assuming that people are interested in making a minuscule saving on lighting energy use in the context of total house energy requirement anyway. You go on to attempt to present any nay-sayers as being prejudiced while at the same time brushing their verifiable position under the carpet. If you want to promote this stuff as part of your greeny agenda, that's fine, but at least be honest about it. |
#202
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 10:02:51 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 20:37:18 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- A very 1970s claim, one that was made by the nuclear "industry" when the Mad Woman of Finchley when she asked them to look at Salter's Duck. Mildly amusing, but no more. If there were real commercial viability to these solutions significant private investment would have been made and there would be significant capacity. You appear to misunderstand the effect that government has on private investment. If government is encouraging something then the private sector will not invest in something that competes. Government can get money more cheaply and has more resources. Something which is highly undesirable. However, the private sector will invest if the government creates favourable investment conditions. A good example is the wind turbine industry. The first ones were erected in Scotland and there was a good chance of a useful export business growing. However, government killed it off by promoting nuclear electricity. Looks like they got at least one thing right. When one sees the acres of wind turbines across the flatter parts of Denmark, thank goodness it has not become widespread here - it's a total eyesore. Now we buy the knowledge from Denmark, although we have some spanner plants. That's not a very wise purchase. There are some very strange ideas around energy production in Denmark. At one stage they were burning fish oil as part of the fuel source for electricity production. It looks like Mr Liar is just as incompetent as his predecessors in this respect. He's incompetent in every respect apart from the one the makes sure that blame always falls elsewhere. The wave and sea current industry looks set to go the same way. Thank goodness. Hopefully that will make investment and other resources available for sensible and scalable means of generating energy. Note that the UK got very little exports out of nuclear. There was hardly an export success to justify the policy. I don't think that that particularly matters. If one looks at the issue on a UK or European wide basis, the equations change considerably. The proportions of generation change, but not the basic facts. For example, Germany does not have as good wind resources as the UK, on the other hand it has rather more land on which to grow energy crops. The proportions make a huge difference to energy policy economics. |
#203
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Guy King wrote:
The message om from "Dave Liquorice" contains these words: Last time I looked there wasn't a vast difference in the rated powers between CRT and same sized LCD. LCD's are surprisingly greedy, that big back light... Depends whether you run it at full brightness. Mine's only at 40%. crt consumption also depends on output, but not by as much. NT |
#204
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:53:49 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- Note that the UK got very little exports out of nuclear. There was hardly an export success to justify the policy. I don't think that that particularly matters. That's not what the nuclear lobby said in the past. Exports were going to help pay for the whole thing. However, since they are now talking of importing the knowledge they have played their past pronouncements down. It is interesting that some think that foreign wind turbine engineering is suspect but not foreign nuclear reactors. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#205
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 09:47:29 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:53:49 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- Note that the UK got very little exports out of nuclear. There was hardly an export success to justify the policy. I don't think that that particularly matters. That's not what the nuclear lobby said in the past. Exports were going to help pay for the whole thing. Economic and political circumstances change as does technology. Fossil fuels are more expensive and there is political motivation to reduce carbon emissions. An argument that was valid or not in the past may well have little relevance to the present or future. However, since they are now talking of importing the knowledge they have played their past pronouncements down. Knowledge and expertise are commodities that can be bought and sold. Service industries do it all the time It is interesting that some think that foreign wind turbine engineering is suspect but not foreign nuclear reactors. Do they? I wouldn't know. I think that the large scale *deployment* of wind turbines is questionable but I wouldn't differentiate about where the engineering is done. |
#206
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
|
#207
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:41:49 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- The point of the foregoing is thus that different individuals will have different levels of acceptance, for perfectly valid reasons, Of course. certainly nothing to do with prejudice. That does not follow. Everyone has prejudices which sometimes affect how they think of things. Not everyone recognises this, but the prejudices still exist. The next point is that these things are mechanically and visibly ugly. Mechanically ugly in what way? Are they all visibly ugly? I can see that some might consider http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro...asp?ProdID=104 to be visibly ugly, just as some may consider them visibly attractive. However, I can't really see why anyone would consider http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro...asp?ProdID=105 to be visibly ugly, or at least no more visibly ugly than an opal GLS candle bulb. Anyway, most lamps are not visible, they are inside a fitting. Apart from not mechanically fitting in virtually all luminaires that I have, You must have a very interesting collection of luminaires. I can now get compact fluorescent lamps to go into almost every luminaire that I have, a very varied set of fittings. The main exceptions are some 12V eyeball spotlights. Note however, that I could very easily replace them with spotlights to take http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro...asp?ProdID=167 or http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/var...l.asp?var=3608 if these lights were turned on for any period of time. I also have a striplight over a mirror, which could be replaced by a small fluorescent light should it be left on for long times. As I indicated I have recently replaced GLS lamps in some bulkhead fittings by a compact fluorescent lamp that has been on the market for a couple of years. The glass envelope of the bulkhead fitting was too small to take the "Mr Whippy" style lamps, which were previously the shortest on the market. That does not mean that no luminaire has GLS type bulbs. Some do, for various reasons. those that would fit would Ah, so despite the claim above some do fit. completely spoil the overall appearance of the fitting. Depends on the fitting. Brass chandelier style fittings with clear bulbs will certainly look different and perhaps/probably less attractive. However, most fittings have a shade and are intended for opal bulbs rather then clear ones. On the other side of the equation, the cost arguments that you have put forward are extremely weak; I note that the figures on Helen's bulbs have yet to be challenged mathematically, other then some claims about increasing consumption of fuel for heating. On these claims, as you have said, the effect on heating consumption is minimal. While the cost arguments are excellent, cost is not the only reason for doing something. If it was nobody with any knowledge would fit double glazing. The convenience of not replacing lamps so often is a real one in some cases, especially if a bulb is left on for long periods. It can also be a safety issue, as another poster has indicated. Having a lamp that is very reliable is an advantage in some cases. In confined conditions avoiding excessive heat can be a great advantage, which is the main reason I replaced the lamps in the bulkhead fittings. So far I have not mentioned the environment, but there are two advantages to mention. Firstly reducing carbon dioxide emissions by reducing consumption. A programme to fit energy saving bulbs in all houses would reduce electricity consumption and hence carbon dioxide emissions. The second environmental reason is the life cycle. A lamp that lasts 15 years has less energy and components than the 15-30 GLS bulbs it replaces. While the compact fluorescent has more components it lasts much longer. Even better is to separate the control gear from the tube. One can get some fittings that do that for PL and 2D tubes. It is a pity there are not more, but the numbers are growing. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#208
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:38:22 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:41:49 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- The point of the foregoing is thus that different individuals will have different levels of acceptance, for perfectly valid reasons, Of course. certainly nothing to do with prejudice. That does not follow. In this case it does. Everyone has prejudices which sometimes affect how they think of things. Not everyone recognises this, but the prejudices still exist. Certainly. `Especially in the area of leaving things out that don't suit the agenda. The next point is that these things are mechanically and visibly ugly. Mechanically ugly in what way? Are they all visibly ugly? I can see that some might consider to be visibly ugly, just as some may consider them visibly attractive. These are especially ugly However, I can't really see why anyone would consider http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro...asp?ProdID=105 to be visibly ugly, or at least no more visibly ugly than an opal GLS candle bulb. They are fat and lumpy with a plastic piece at the bottom and are opalescent. I wouldn't use an opal tungsten bulb either. Anyway, most lamps are not visible, they are inside a fitting. That depends on the fitting. Apart from not mechanically fitting in virtually all luminaires that I have, You must have a very interesting collection of luminaires. I have, and I am certainly not about to ruin their appearance with inappropriate bulbs. I can now get compact fluorescent lamps to go into almost every luminaire that I have, a very varied set of fittings. They may just about mechanically fit but still appear ugly if the bulb can be seen. The main exceptions are some 12V eyeball spotlights. Note however, that I could very easily replace them with spotlights to take http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro...asp?ProdID=167 or http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/var...l.asp?var=3608 if these lights were turned on for any period of time. I also have a striplight over a mirror, which could be replaced by a small fluorescent light should it be left on for long times. These are absolutely horrible. completely spoil the overall appearance of the fitting. Depends on the fitting. Brass chandelier style fittings with clear bulbs will certainly look different and perhaps/probably less attractive. A great deal less attractive to the point of totally ruining the appearance. However, most fittings have a shade and are intended for opal bulbs rather then clear ones. The ones that you buy might do. On the other side of the equation, the cost arguments that you have put forward are extremely weak; I note that the figures on Helen's bulbs have yet to be challenged mathematically, other then some claims about increasing consumption of fuel for heating. On these claims, as you have said, the effect on heating consumption is minimal. While the cost arguments are excellent, cost is not the only reason for doing something. If it was nobody with any knowledge would fit double glazing. Quite. So here we have the suggestion of implementing something that saves very little money and looks plug ugly. There aren't really any significant other arguments in favour of these things, and those are weak. The convenience of not replacing lamps so often is a real one in some cases, especially if a bulb is left on for long periods. It can also be a safety issue, as another poster has indicated. I will accept that if somebody has difficulty in changing lamps then these may be attractive, but notice that for Helen, the yuk factor exceeds the convenience. As to safety, if people can't take reasonable care of where they put things in order to avoid fire, then they are going to be in trouble sooner or later anyway. This is Darwinism. Having a lamp that is very reliable is an advantage in some cases. In confined conditions avoiding excessive heat can be a great advantage, which is the main reason I replaced the lamps in the bulkhead fittings. So far I have not mentioned the environment, but there are two advantages to mention. Firstly reducing carbon dioxide emissions by reducing consumption. A programme to fit energy saving bulbs in all houses would reduce electricity consumption and hence carbon dioxide emissions. In overall context this is a very weak argument indeed. Reduction of consumption via this means is a drop in the bucket, even assuming it worked. It is far more sensible to address the issue of consumption in the right order rather than using what is effectively political marketing hype like this. In the meantime, carbon emission in respect of power generation can very easily be addressed by a move towards nuclear generation. As to any "programme" to fit these bulbs into all houses, it smacks of a totalitarian society with big brother organising people's lives. There needs to be freedom to choose what is used as part of a personal living environment. The second environmental reason is the life cycle. A lamp that lasts 15 years has less energy and components than the 15-30 GLS bulbs it replaces. While the compact fluorescent has more components it lasts much longer. Even better is to separate the control gear from the tube. One can get some fittings that do that for PL and 2D tubes. It is a pity there are not more, but the numbers are growing. that is so insignificant in the overall scheme of things that it isn't even worth discussing. |
#209
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 14:11:04 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- In the meantime, carbon emission in respect of power generation can very easily be addressed by a move towards nuclear generation. Carbon dioxide emission can be reduced a bit by such a move. However, nuclear power stations are inflexible and large. To deal with the former one must either absorb the surplus generation during periods of low consumption, by building large and expensive things like Dinorwig, http://www.fhc.co.uk/electric_mountain.htm or sell it to someone else (possible to an extent across time zones). Even with the proposed new designs one cannot turn such stations on and off. To deal with the latter one must have a lot of standby plant ready to respond rapidly. This could be something like Dinorwig, or partly loaded coal plants. Of course the latter push up carbon dioxide emissions. Sudden failure is far more of a problem with a small number of large centralised plants, such as nuclear ones, than with a large number of small decentralised plants. As to any "programme" to fit these bulbs into all houses, it smacks of a totalitarian society with big brother organising people's lives. I would agree, if people were banned from removing such fittings and there was an army of Prescotts checking up. A lamp that lasts 15 years has less energy and components than the 15-30 GLS bulbs it replaces. that is so insignificant in the overall scheme of things that it isn't even worth discussing. I note that you were unable or unwilling to discuss the issue. So far your arguments remain unconvincing. Unless you come up with any new arguments you may have the last word. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#210
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 14:11:04 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- In the meantime, carbon emission in respect of power generation can very easily be addressed by a move towards nuclear generation. Carbon dioxide emission can be reduced a bit by such a move. However, nuclear power stations are inflexible and large. To deal with the former one must either absorb the surplus generation during periods of low consumption, by building large and expensive things like Dinorwig, http://www.fhc.co.uk/electric_mountain.htm or sell it to someone else (possible to an extent across time zones). Even with the proposed new designs one cannot turn such stations on and off. To deal with the latter one must have a lot of standby plant ready to respond rapidly. This could be something like Dinorwig, or partly loaded coal plants. Of course the latter push up carbon dioxide emissions. Sudden failure is far more of a problem with a small number of large centralised plants, such as nuclear ones, than with a large number of small decentralised plants. That depends on the uptime of the plants used, and each plant type is different. Nuclear has the highest uptime of all. Every plant has downtime so transmission networks are always designed to deal with this without disruption. NT |
#211
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Andy Wade wrote:
wrote: 17" monitor might be rated at 130w, but in practice I dont think they eat anywhere near that. I'll make a very rough estimate of 40w for my old 17" crt, based solely on stick your hand on and see how warm it is. What does a 17" lcd eat? If it were 15w that would be 25w saving. "Stick your hand on and see how warm it is" is hardly going to be very accurate. Surface area, surface texture and ventilation will make big differences to the perceived temperature rise. of course. Nice to see some better figures supplied. Here's some reliable measured data: Iiyama 17" CRT (VisionMaster Pro): 90 W (at 0.66 PF) Dell 18" LCD (1800FP): 42 W (at 0.65 PF) (both displaying same "average" image) 25w for 8 hour workday = 0.2kWh x5x50 = 50kWh/yr @10p each thats £5 pa less leccy, if used 9-5 5 days. Roughly nothing. So, in reality, you need to double those figures. Still not a lot, but certainly more than nothing, and significant when you multiply it by the number of monitors in the land. I guess it depends what youre seeking to calculate. For most end users the question is whether its worthwhile to drop the crt and replace with lcd. If we take 7 years as a reasonable use life, an lcd used 9-5 5 days will save around £70 over its life, which doesnt make replacement worthwhile. Consumpion of electrical energy matters to the nation of course, but so does the energy used in manufacture, distribution and running the businesses involved in making those monitors available. Based on the above figures I could not conclude that replacing good crts with lcds was an environmentally sound move. NT |
#212
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 14:40:18 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 14:11:04 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- In the meantime, carbon emission in respect of power generation can very easily be addressed by a move towards nuclear generation. Carbon dioxide emission can be reduced a bit by such a move. However, nuclear power stations are inflexible and large. To deal with the former one must either absorb the surplus generation during periods of low consumption, by building large and expensive things like Dinorwig, http://www.fhc.co.uk/electric_mountain.htm or sell it to someone else (possible to an extent across time zones). Even with the proposed new designs one cannot turn such stations on and off. I'm sure that there's plenty of scope for converting a Scottish loch or two. To deal with the latter one must have a lot of standby plant ready to respond rapidly. This could be something like Dinorwig, or partly loaded coal plants. Of course the latter push up carbon dioxide emissions. Sudden failure is far more of a problem with a small number of large centralised plants, such as nuclear ones, than with a large number of small decentralised plants. I am quite sure that that can easily be addressed. As to any "programme" to fit these bulbs into all houses, it smacks of a totalitarian society with big brother organising people's lives. I would agree, if people were banned from removing such fittings and there was an army of Prescotts checking up. They seem to be pretty good at checking up on things like totty and cowboys as long as it's at the taxpayer's expense. I doubt whether that would leave much time for inspecting light bulbs. A lamp that lasts 15 years has less energy and components than the 15-30 GLS bulbs it replaces. that is so insignificant in the overall scheme of things that it isn't even worth discussing. I note that you were unable or unwilling to discuss the issue. Since you seem to be unable to appreciate scale and context then it is difficult to have a discussion So far your arguments remain unconvincing. I'm not attempting to convince anybody of anything. I have simply highlighted that light quality and aesthetics are an issue, whereas you seem to feel that it's OK having lighting that makes the place look like a corporation toilet as long as some apparent saving can be made or one can feel warm inside through believing that one has done something to help the planet. Each to his own. In the context of the energy requirement for a house, that for lighting is a very small part, and if the householder does have interest in cost saving, there are more effective ways to do so. In the context of the energy requirements for an industrialised nation, the argument becomes weaker still. You may also find the ecological arguments compelling. I don't. Granted there is a need to reduce carbon emissions, whether or not one believes in the imminent demise of the planet through global warming. However, this is most effectively achieved by replacement of fossil fuel generating capacity with nuclear. |
#214
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:48:43 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- I'm sure that there's plenty of scope for converting a Scottish loch or two. I have proposed that a number of Scottish hydro schemes are converted to pumped storage, Sloy being the obviuous starting point. However, that is not to make things easier for more nuclear stations. Of course there is a lobby against converting a loch or two. One of the late Tom Weir's activities was to "defend" the countryside against such schemes. To deal with the latter one must have a lot of standby plant ready to respond rapidly. This could be something like Dinorwig, or partly loaded coal plants. Of course the latter push up carbon dioxide emissions. Sudden failure is far more of a problem with a small number of large centralised plants, such as nuclear ones, than with a large number of small decentralised plants. I am quite sure that that can easily be addressed. At a cost. There are better ways to spend the money. I'm not attempting to convince anybody of anything. Then why have you continued the discussion for so long? whereas you seem to feel that it's OK having lighting that makes the place look like a corporation toilet You haven't been paying attention then. I reject assertions that such lamps are bound to make houses look like "a corporation toilet" or "a factory". It is possible to employ such lamps in such a fashion, but that is also true of any other sort of lamp. By making sensible use of such lamps one hardly knows they are in use. Granted there is a need to reduce carbon emissions, whether or not one believes in the imminent demise of the planet through global warming. However, this is most effectively achieved by replacement of fossil fuel generating capacity with nuclear. I have already demonstrated some of the flaws with such an approach. Below is another of these flaws. A nuclear programme has been tried before, with government assistance/encouragement. It was privatisation that exposed the finances, which had been hidden for decades, to the cold light of day. "The market" didn't like the figures and all the nuclear plants were withdrawn from the sale, much to the disgust of many party politicians at the time. However, these plants continued to be propped up by electricity customers, via the so-called non fossil fuel obligations and other dodges [1]. Later a few bits of the nuclear portfolio were privatised, only to go belly up. They were then rescued by dodgy government deals that involved yet more responsibility, this time for decommissioning, being loaded on the long suffering taxpayer. [1] The so-called Nuclear Energy Agreement, which was in force for 15 years until 2005, forced Scottish Power to take 74.9% and Scottish Hydro-Electric to take 25.1% of all the electricity Torness and Hunterston B managed to produce, whether they wanted to or not. So much for the free market. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#215
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:45:14 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:48:43 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- I'm sure that there's plenty of scope for converting a Scottish loch or two. I have proposed that a number of Scottish hydro schemes are converted to pumped storage, Sloy being the obviuous starting point. However, that is not to make things easier for more nuclear stations. I don't see why not. As you said, a means of storage of energy is a useful partnership with nuclear generation. Of course there is a lobby against converting a loch or two. One of the late Tom Weir's activities was to "defend" the countryside against such schemes. To deal with the latter one must have a lot of standby plant ready to respond rapidly. This could be something like Dinorwig, or partly loaded coal plants. Of course the latter push up carbon dioxide emissions. Sudden failure is far more of a problem with a small number of large centralised plants, such as nuclear ones, than with a large number of small decentralised plants. I am quite sure that that can easily be addressed. At a cost. There are better ways to spend the money. It would be far better to have a concerted effort at constructing a comprehensive nuclear generation infrastructure now than to tit around with alternative technology, which is at best a distraction and at worst a waste of money. I'm not attempting to convince anybody of anything. Then why have you continued the discussion for so long? I'm simply making a set of points and exposing some of the bull**** surrounding low energy lighting. whereas you seem to feel that it's OK having lighting that makes the place look like a corporation toilet You haven't been paying attention then. Oh I have. That's your problem. I reject assertions that such lamps are bound to make houses look like "a corporation toilet" or "a factory". I'm sure you do. It doesn't fit with your agenda. It is possible to employ such lamps in such a fashion, but that is also true of any other sort of lamp. By making sensible use of such lamps one hardly knows they are in use. You may not. To me they are instantly recognisable and the light intolerable. Granted there is a need to reduce carbon emissions, whether or not one believes in the imminent demise of the planet through global warming. However, this is most effectively achieved by replacement of fossil fuel generating capacity with nuclear. I have already demonstrated some of the flaws with such an approach. Below is another of these flaws. A nuclear programme has been tried before, with government assistance/encouragement. It was privatisation that exposed the finances, which had been hidden for decades, to the cold light of day. "The market" didn't like the figures and all the nuclear plants were withdrawn from the sale, much to the disgust of many party politicians at the time. However, these plants continued to be propped up by electricity customers, via the so-called non fossil fuel obligations and other dodges [1]. Later a few bits of the nuclear portfolio were privatised, only to go belly up. They were then rescued by dodgy government deals that involved yet more responsibility, this time for decommissioning, being loaded on the long suffering taxpayer. [1] The so-called Nuclear Energy Agreement, which was in force for 15 years until 2005, forced Scottish Power to take 74.9% and Scottish Hydro-Electric to take 25.1% of all the electricity Torness and Hunterston B managed to produce, whether they wanted to or not. So much for the free market. This is irrelevant. a) technology continues to advance b) the economic situation is not the same as it was decades ago and won't be in the future c) other countries manage to operate nuclear generation schemes perfectly effectively. |
#216
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:22:08 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- I have proposed that a number of Scottish hydro schemes are converted to pumped storage, Sloy being the obviuous starting point. However, that is not to make things easier for more nuclear stations. I don't see why not. As you said, a means of storage of energy is a useful partnership with nuclear generation. It is also useful for storing electricity from other forms of generation. It would be far better to have a concerted effort at constructing a comprehensive nuclear generation infrastructure now Not cost effective and it also has engineering difficulties, some of which I have outlined. than to tit around with alternative technology, which is at best a distraction and at worst a waste of money. It is already working very well and has a number of not so well known advantages, such as stabilising the local electrical system. This measured very carefully when the first large (for the time) wind farm at Delabole was connected. Voltage was stabilised and the tap changers operated far less often. whereas you seem to feel that it's OK having lighting that makes the place look like a corporation toilet You haven't been paying attention then. Oh I have. That's your problem. I am not experiencing any problems in this discussion. Quite the reverse in fact. I reject assertions that such lamps are bound to make houses look like "a corporation toilet" or "a factory". I'm sure you do. It doesn't fit with your agenda. Incorrect. This is irrelevant. So you assert. a) technology continues to advance Engineering does indeed continue to advance in many fields, though some of the anti-renewables lobby seem unaware of it, or are deliberately ignoring it. Scottish Hydro Electric has been getting 5-10% more out of refurbished hydro stations. The cost and output of wind turbines has changed dramatically in the past decade. As a result relatively large wind farms like Black Law are a reality http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060213_bl.html Wave generated electricity has advanced a long way since Salter's Duck, as http://www.oceanpd.com/default.html shows. Nuclear engineering has still to overcome the inability to turn large reactors up and down frequently. There has been some work in this area, but it has yet to demonstrated in a big power station. b) the economic situation is not the same as it was decades ago and won't be in the future It wasn't decades ago that British Energy was bankrupt. c) other countries manage to operate nuclear generation schemes perfectly effectively. A few do and a very few are seriously planning to add more stations. It is time to move forward, not try to resurrect failed old policies of the past. It is a great pity that a tired old man, who once promised a New Britain, has fallen into the arms of the nuclear lobby it seems as part of his desperate efforts to escape his legacy, Iraq. The Sustainable Development Commission have an excellent report on the subject, only 36 pages long. Those with an open mind might like to read it. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#217
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:13:51 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:22:08 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- I have proposed that a number of Scottish hydro schemes are converted to pumped storage, Sloy being the obviuous starting point. However, that is not to make things easier for more nuclear stations. I don't see why not. As you said, a means of storage of energy is a useful partnership with nuclear generation. It is also useful for storing electricity from other forms of generation. It would be far better to have a concerted effort at constructing a comprehensive nuclear generation infrastructure now Not cost effective and it also has engineering difficulties, some of which I have outlined. One has to look at the present and projected future costs and requirements as well as technology becoming available. than to tit around with alternative technology, which is at best a distraction and at worst a waste of money. It is already working very well and has a number of not so well known advantages, such as stabilising the local electrical system. This measured very carefully when the first large (for the time) wind farm at Delabole was connected. Voltage was stabilised and the tap changers operated far less often. Anything can be done on a small scale. The question is what would be required in terms of land area and deployment of windmills to supply a significant proportion of electrical demand as opposed to a few percent. whereas you seem to feel that it's OK having lighting that makes the place look like a corporation toilet You haven't been paying attention then. Oh I have. That's your problem. I am not experiencing any problems in this discussion. Quite the reverse in fact. That's OK, then. I reject assertions that such lamps are bound to make houses look like "a corporation toilet" or "a factory". I'm sure you do. It doesn't fit with your agenda. Incorrect. It's interesting that you have sought to sweep aside anything that doesn't fit...... This is irrelevant. So you assert. a) technology continues to advance Engineering does indeed continue to advance in many fields, though some of the anti-renewables lobby seem unaware of it, or are deliberately ignoring it. I have no interest in what lobbies do - I am simply looking at acceptabilities and practicalities. Scottish Hydro Electric has been getting 5-10% more out of refurbished hydro stations. The cost and output of wind turbines has changed dramatically in the past decade. As a result relatively large wind farms like Black Law are a reality http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060213_bl.html It seems that not everybody sees this blot on the landscape through the same rose tinted spectacles that you do. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=58232006 Wave generated electricity has advanced a long way since Salter's Duck, as http://www.oceanpd.com/default.html shows. Is this a joke? The announcement by this firm that it has secured £13m in new investment takes the total investment to around £20m. This is barely even venture capital. It's all very nice as marginal technology, but the level of investment is nowhere near the kind of levels needed to make this a viable mainstream technology. Nuclear engineering has still to overcome the inability to turn large reactors up and down frequently. There has been some work in this area, but it has yet to demonstrated in a big power station. I am quite sure that solutions will be found to address this. b) the economic situation is not the same as it was decades ago and won't be in the future It wasn't decades ago that British Energy was bankrupt. So what. Any kind of major power generation technology or facility has a lifecycle of decades. Economics, technology and market conditions can change many times over during that period. c) other countries manage to operate nuclear generation schemes perfectly effectively. A few do and a very few are seriously planning to add more stations. I am sure that there will be more as the realisation dawns that this is the only way to plug the energy generation gap. It is time to move forward, not try to resurrect failed old policies of the past. That's certainly true. It should be done in a completely new way and with modern nuclear technology, not that of the fifties. It is a great pity that a tired old man, who once promised a New Britain, has fallen into the arms of the nuclear lobby it seems as part of his desperate efforts to escape his legacy, Iraq. Yes I know. I really don't know what Gordon Brown is thinking about. The Sustainable Development Commission have an excellent report on the subject, only 36 pages long. Those with an open mind might like to read it. I have looked at this organisation in the past and will certainly read their report. I will also look very carefully at the backgrounds of the authors and see whether they can be reasonably said to have an open mind. |
#218
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:49:13 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- Anything can be done on a small scale. The question is what would be required in terms of land area and deployment of windmills to supply a significant proportion of electrical demand as opposed to a few percent. Already done several times. A search engine will pull it up. The answer is vastly fewer wind turbines than there are currently large pylons. The cost and output of wind turbines has changed dramatically in the past decade. As a result relatively large wind farms like Black Law are a reality http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060213_bl.html It seems that not everybody sees this blot on the landscape through the same rose tinted spectacles that you do. Ah, so now you don't have an engineering objection, just a visual one. Good, Black Law demonstrates how to have a large wind farm with few objections of any sort. Anyway 81% of the public are in favour of wind farms http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060524.html ================================================== ====================== Wicks highlighted the positive findings from the first DTI commissioned NOP survey – published today – saying that "despite all the hot air and scepticism from certain quarters, 85% of the general public support the use of renewable energy, 81% are in favour of wind power and just over three fifths would be happy to live within 5km of a wind power development." ================================================== ====================== It's all very nice as marginal technology, but the level of investment is nowhere near the kind of levels needed to make this a viable mainstream technology. Not tomorrow. However, over the next decade or two it will go the same way as wind has gone. The progress of onshore wind is shown in http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060327.html and many other reports. Nuclear engineering has still to overcome the inability to turn large reactors up and down frequently. There has been some work in this area, but it has yet to demonstrated in a big power station. I am quite sure that solutions will be found to address this. It might be. Of course they have been trying for decades and, rather like practical electricity from fusion, it always seems to be some way off. I am sure that there will be more as the realisation dawns that this is the only way to plug the energy generation gap. "The only way" is an interesting assertion. Rather obviously it is, at best, incorrect. One might prefer some of the other ways to other other ways, but there are other ways, including minimising any such gap. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#219
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:24:42 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:49:13 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- Anything can be done on a small scale. The question is what would be required in terms of land area and deployment of windmills to supply a significant proportion of electrical demand as opposed to a few percent. Already done several times. A search engine will pull it up. The answer is vastly fewer wind turbines than there are currently large pylons. Hardly the same profile. The cost and output of wind turbines has changed dramatically in the past decade. As a result relatively large wind farms like Black Law are a reality http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060213_bl.html It seems that not everybody sees this blot on the landscape through the same rose tinted spectacles that you do. Ah, so now you don't have an engineering objection, just a visual one. I didn't say that. Visual and environmental impact are the ones most often raised. Practicality is another matter. Good, Black Law demonstrates how to have a large wind farm with few objections of any sort. Not if one reads the various articles. Anyway 81% of the public are in favour of wind farms http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060524.html Hardly an impartial source, is it? ================================================== ====================== Wicks highlighted the positive findings from the first DTI commissioned NOP survey – published today – saying that "despite all the hot air and scepticism from certain quarters, 85% of the general public support the use of renewable energy, 81% are in favour of wind power and just over three fifths would be happy to live within 5km of a wind power development." ================================================== ====================== Notice the percentage drop markedly when it is close to home or somewhere they might like to go on holiday. It's all very nice as marginal technology, but the level of investment is nowhere near the kind of levels needed to make this a viable mainstream technology. Not tomorrow. However, over the next decade or two it will go the same way as wind has gone. The progress of onshore wind is shown in http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060327.html and many other reports. Not an impartial source. Nuclear engineering has still to overcome the inability to turn large reactors up and down frequently. There has been some work in this area, but it has yet to demonstrated in a big power station. I am quite sure that solutions will be found to address this. It might be. Of course they have been trying for decades and, rather like practical electricity from fusion, it always seems to be some way off. Hardly in the same league in terms of pushing back the frontiers of science I am sure that there will be more as the realisation dawns that this is the only way to plug the energy generation gap. "The only way" is an interesting assertion. Rather obviously it is, at best, incorrect. If one looks at projected requirements, the alternative energy sources with all factors taken into account are not going to represent more than a tiny percentage. In other words they are a distraction. One might prefer some of the other ways to other other ways, but there are other ways, including minimising any such gap. I was somewhat amused to read that one of the objections to nuclear generation in the SDC paper was the undermining of energy efficiency. There's nothing wrong with sensibly applied energy efficiency without compulsion, but that is a very weak argument in comparison to some of the others in terms of being a justification for not using nuclear generation. |
#220
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:02:23 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- Good, Black Law demonstrates how to have a large wind farm with few objections of any sort. Not if one reads the various articles. Feel free to detail the various articles about objections to Black Law, which you claim exist. Anyway 81% of the public are in favour of wind farms http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060524.html Hardly an impartial source, is it? The DTI, a well known part of the nuclear lobby? Not tomorrow. However, over the next decade or two it will go the same way as wind has gone. The progress of onshore wind is shown in http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060327.html and many other reports. Not an impartial source. Are you claiming that they have lied about the history of wind generated electricity? Or perhaps you are claiming that their report on future possibilities is wrong? If so, your cl.aims need to be rather more than just a four word assertion. I was somewhat amused to read that one of the objections to nuclear generation in the SDC paper was the undermining of energy efficiency. Your amusement does not undermine their point, which is well made and accurate. There's nothing wrong with sensibly applied energy efficiency without compulsion, but that is a very weak argument in comparison to some of the others in terms of being a justification for not using nuclear generation. There are indeed plenty of other arguments to be made and which they make. Attempting to salami slice arguments and so pick them off one by one is a well known tactic, but not one that will succeed here. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#221
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:19:52 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:02:23 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- Good, Black Law demonstrates how to have a large wind farm with few objections of any sort. Not if one reads the various articles. Feel free to detail the various articles about objections to Black Law, which you claim exist. I already posted the one from The Scotsman. Anyway 81% of the public are in favour of wind farms http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060524.html Hardly an impartial source, is it? The DTI, a well known part of the nuclear lobby? "The British Wind Energy Association is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries" Not tomorrow. However, over the next decade or two it will go the same way as wind has gone. The progress of onshore wind is shown in http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060327.html and many other reports. Not an impartial source. Are you claiming that they have lied about the history of wind generated electricity? Or perhaps you are claiming that their report on future possibilities is wrong? If so, your cl.aims need to be rather more than just a four word assertion. "The British Wind Energy Association is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries" "Our primary purpose is to promote the use of wind power in and around the UK, both onshore and offshore." "We have a professional staff of fourteen at our Islington offices and an annual turnover in excess of one million pounds." I am simply pointing out that they have a vested interest in this industry and therefore cannot be relied upon to be impartial. Nobody said anything about telling lies except you. I was somewhat amused to read that one of the objections to nuclear generation in the SDC paper was the undermining of energy efficiency. Your amusement does not undermine their point, which is well made and accurate. It may not for you, but certainly does for me. Their other summary points have a level of reasonableness, but this one is not. There's nothing wrong with sensibly applied energy efficiency without compulsion, but that is a very weak argument in comparison to some of the others in terms of being a justification for not using nuclear generation. There are indeed plenty of other arguments to be made and which they make. Attempting to salami slice arguments and so pick them off one by one is a well known tactic, but not one that will succeed here. Exactly, so why are you doing it? |
#222
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006 07:07:14 -0700 someone who may be wrote this:- That depends on the uptime of the plants used, and each plant type is different. Nuclear has the highest uptime of all. So it has always been claimed by the nuclear lobby. However, reality was always somewhat different and this is becoming more common knowledge. For example, "Several British Energy reactors which were revealed yesterday to be physically deteriorating, are believed to be close to being uneconomic to run. According to British Energy's figures, the three oldest, at Hinkley, Hartlepool and Heysham, are barely operating 50% of the time, partly because they need to be inspected more frequently." thats only 3, not the mean uptime of the lot. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...813468,00.html Every plant has downtime so transmission networks are always designed to deal with this without disruption. Indeed, that is one of the advantages of an integrated system. However it is simple statistics that one large centralised plant is more likely to fail than the equivalent number of small decentralised plants are likely to all fail at the same time. no, because youre only looking at one factor, as I explained. If all else were equal, sure, but IRL it isnt. NT |
#223
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:33:37 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:- I already posted the one from The Scotsman. I have read that one before. Note that the article blurs objections against Black Law with those against other wind farms. The few arguments against Black Law were generic, largely made by a noisy, but small, group of people who object to any wind farm. Even the bird/wildlife lobby didn't object to Black Law and use it as an example of how they can work with wind turbine promoters in the right circumstances. Now that most of it is commissioned the loudest noise in the area is still the sound of motor vehicles on the road. When these are not moving one can hear the sound of humans speaking, sheep and birds. One cannot hear the turbines from any distance, unless standing under them (when it is still possible to converse in a normal voice). The turbines are big, but they look rather graceful as they turn slowly. The locals are largely happy, though no doubt one could find a die hard anti if one tried hard enough. In a few years the larger Eaglesham Moor will be operating, which is excellent news. If only some other sorts of power station made so little impact on people and animals. According to http://www.sundayherald.com/56592 Longannet kills 21 million fish a year. The DTI, a well known part of the nuclear lobby? "The British Wind Energy Association is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries" Correct. However, they were referring to a study conducted for the DTI. Exactly, so why are you doing it? I am making many points. Sorry if they are inconvenient, but I will continue to make them for as long as I want to. Here is another point, about how much uranium is left, http://www.sundayherald.com/56616 "AS the use of nuclear power expands, it will become increasingly ineffective at combating global warming, warns a report by an independent think tank published today . "The Oxford Research Group argues that a worldwide shortage of high- grade uranium ore will force new nuclear reactors to exploit increasingly lower-grade ores for their fuel. Because that requires more energy to extract, the process will result in ever-greater amounts of climate-wrecking pollution." -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#224
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
"AS the use of nuclear power expands, it will become increasingly ineffective at combating global warming, warns a report by an independent think tank published today . "The Oxford Research Group argues that a worldwide shortage of high- grade uranium ore will force new nuclear reactors to exploit increasingly lower-grade ores for their fuel. Because that requires more energy to extract, the process will result in ever-greater amounts of climate-wrecking pollution." ? If uranium is already being used to generate energy, then that energy is what would be used to do the ore extraction. That does not compute. As long as you get more energy out of the uranium than is being used to extract it, its a net plus on the energy stakes. Ive heard the same argument about biofuels too. The oil lobby has not gone away ..;-) |
#225
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Andy Hall wrote: snip stuff about carbon It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have wasted more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power generation and the technology behind it. Do you (or indeed others) include the costs of decommisioning plants and long term storage of waste in the overall running costs of the industry? That's a genuine question by the way. I've always been against nuclear, partly because of the long term legacy of the waste but mostly on the basis that it appeared to be immensley expensive in total, but the majority of that cost was hidden by the decomissioning costs being 'disregarded' or squirreled away somehow. -- Steve F |
#226
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On 10 Jul 2006 03:32:50 -0700, "Fitz" wrote:
| |Andy Hall wrote: | |snip stuff about carbon | | It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have wasted | more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power | generation and the technology behind it. | |Do you (or indeed others) include the costs of decommisioning plants |and long term storage of waste in the overall running costs of the |industry? Both coal mining and oil extraction are dangerous industries, and kill lots of workers. The choice is between killing workers today, and probably not killing others way in the future. -- Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst* method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies. |
#227
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:46:06 +0100 someone who may be Dave Fawthrop
wrote this:- Both coal mining and oil extraction are dangerous industries, and kill lots of workers. The same can be said of uranium mining. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#228
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On 10 Jul 2006 03:32:50 -0700 someone who may be "Fitz"
wrote this:- Do you (or indeed others) include the costs of decommisioning plants and long term storage of waste in the overall running costs of the industry? All of that has now been dumped on the taxpayer. Originally only the mess from the military and semi-military Magnox programmes was to be dumped on the taxpayer. British Energy were supposed to pay for decommissioning the stations they operate, but they pleaded hardship and government were only too keen to step in with our money. While the past may not be a guide to the future I suspect that in this case it will. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#229
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
Fitz wrote:
Andy Hall wrote: snip stuff about carbon It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have wasted more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power generation and the technology behind it. Do you (or indeed others) include the costs of decommisioning plants and long term storage of waste in the overall running costs of the industry? That's a genuine question by the way. I've always been against nuclear, partly because of the long term legacy of the waste but mostly on the basis that it appeared to be immensley expensive in total, but the majority of that cost was hidden by the decomissioning costs being 'disregarded' or squirreled away somehow. Ever thought about the decommissioning cost of coal slag heaps? Aberfan springs to mind...or the decommissioning costs of all the gas and oil fired power stations in the world...New Orleans springs to mind. Anyone who is actually HONEST about the true global costs of energy production, will rapidly see that nuclear is a lot cleaner, and a lot cheaper in the long run. First and second generation reactors were built partly experimentally, partly to make weapons grade fuel, and never with the cost of decommissioning to an absurdly stringent level of radioactive leakage, with no one prepared to countenance it within a 1000 miles of their homes.. in mind. |
#230
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:46:06 +0100 someone who may be Dave Fawthrop wrote this:- Both coal mining and oil extraction are dangerous industries, and kill lots of workers. The same can be said of uranium mining. It could be said, but it would not really be correct. Most uranium is IIRC open cast mining. A fairly benign business in comparison. |
#231
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:46:10 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:- Both coal mining and oil extraction are dangerous industries, and kill lots of workers. The same can be said of uranium mining. It could be said, but it would not really be correct. Most uranium is IIRC open cast mining. Fascinating. So, do you think that coal mining in Canada, Australia and South Africa consists of Dai Williams going down in a cage to hew coal from a narrow seam with his trusty pick and shovel? -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#232
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:43:15 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ): On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:33:37 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- I already posted the one from The Scotsman. I have read that one before. Note that the article blurs objections against Black Law with those against other wind farms. It doesn't really matter. None of them are an attractive proposition. The few arguments against Black Law were generic, largely made by a noisy, but small, group of people who object to any wind farm. Evidence? This one was built on the site of an old open cast mine, so pretty much anything would have been upside. Even the bird/wildlife lobby didn't object to Black Law and use it as an example of how they can work with wind turbine promoters in the right circumstances. Which are very few and far between. Now that most of it is commissioned the loudest noise in the area is still the sound of motor vehicles on the road. When these are not moving one can hear the sound of humans speaking, sheep and birds. One cannot hear the turbines from any distance, unless standing under them (when it is still possible to converse in a normal voice). The turbines are big, but they look rather graceful as they turn slowly. "Graceful" is not a word that can reasonably be applied to these industrial eyesores. The locals are largely happy, though no doubt one could find a die hard anti if one tried hard enough. In a few years the larger Eaglesham Moor will be operating, which is excellent news. Hardly Currently, according to figures from the BWEA site, there is about 1700MW of wind generating capacity. This is equivalent to 2-3 generating sets at one of the traditional coal fired power stations - in other words a drop in the bucket. I am pretty sure that people will not be happy at the number and scale of projects needed to deliver the hoped for 10% of capacity by 2010 and aspired 20% by 2020. If only some other sorts of power station made so little impact on people and animals. According to http://www.sundayherald.com/56592 Longannet kills 21 million fish a year. The DTI, a well known part of the nuclear lobby? "The British Wind Energy Association is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries" Correct. However, they were referring to a study conducted for the DTI. ROTFL. So we have a trade interest group doing a study commissioned by a government department..... Government departments don't have a clue what they are doing in the first place other than what they think will please the current minister. They then commission a report by an organisation with a vested interest in a particular technology and outcome. At best the result is going to be a combination of that organisation's agenda plus telling the customer what he wants to hear. The shenanigans surrounding part P of the Building Regulations were another example of exactly the same thing. I am really surprised that you would even suggest this as a serious discussion point. Exactly, so why are you doing it? I am making many points. Sorry if they are inconvenient, but I will continue to make them for as long as I want to. They are not inconvenient at all. I am sure that you won't mind me highlighting the bull**** in some of the greeny rhetoric. Some is well-meaning, of course, but just impractical in the real world. Here is another point, about how much uranium is left, http://www.sundayherald.com/56616 "AS the use of nuclear power expands, it will become increasingly ineffective at combating global warming, warns a report by an independent think tank published today . "The Oxford Research Group argues that a worldwide shortage of high- grade uranium ore will force new nuclear reactors to exploit increasingly lower-grade ores for their fuel. Because that requires more energy to extract, the process will result in ever-greater amounts of climate-wrecking pollution." This is just rubbish. If one looks through the the report produced by the AEA as a source document for the SDC, there is a very different picture. - There is an overall projected increase in raw uranium requirement but this is well within the capacity of identified supplies, let alone projected ones. Demand in Europe is expected to decrease, despite the projected increase in generating capacity. - Political risk is not considered high, with most production in OECD countries or those with a good relationship with OECD countries. - Reprocessing of spent fuel becomes economically viable if the price of raw uranium increases - New reactor technologies in 3rd and 4th generation plant will reduce the requirement for raw uranium |
#233
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:44:07 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:- ? If uranium is already being used to generate energy, then that energy is what would be used to do the ore extraction. That does not compute. You are assuming that all the energy used in converting what is dug out of the ground into fuel rods comes from uranium. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#234
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:46:06 +0100 someone who may be Dave Fawthrop wrote this:- Both coal mining and oil extraction are dangerous industries, and kill lots of workers. The same can be said of uranium mining. what volume of material is mined to produce uranium? What volume is mined to produce coal? This affects how many does/will kill. NT |
#235
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:44:07 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:- ? If uranium is already being used to generate energy, then that energy is what would be used to do the ore extraction. That does not compute. You are assuming that all the energy used in converting what is dug out of the ground into fuel rods comes from uranium. not a very good point. NT |
#236
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
The message
from Andy Hall contains these words: "Graceful" is not a word that can reasonably be applied to these industrial eyesores. I love 'em. From our kitchen window we can see The Wrekin and I'd love to see it adorned with beautiful wind turbines. Sadly some lout has already put a transmitter up there, so that's fairly unlikely. The smooth lazy hypnotic turning of wind turbines is worth going out of your way to enjoy. As my son said "It's like children doing cartwheels on the spot" -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
#237
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:16:02 +0100, Guy King wrote
(in article ): The message from Andy Hall contains these words: "Graceful" is not a word that can reasonably be applied to these industrial eyesores. I love 'em. From our kitchen window we can see The Wrekin and I'd love to see it adorned with beautiful wind turbines. Sadly some lout has already put a transmitter up there, so that's fairly unlikely. I'll write to National Grid Wireless for you and send them your appreciation. The smooth lazy hypnotic turning of wind turbines is worth going out of your way to enjoy. I suspect that many of your neighbours would disagree http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/feat..._wrangle.shtml |
#238
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
The message
from Andy Hall contains these words: The smooth lazy hypnotic turning of wind turbines is worth going out of your way to enjoy. I suspect that many of your neighbours would disagree Quite possibly, but there are quite a lot of people who actively like wind turbines. As for The Wrekin's transmitter, what I'd really like is for it to broadcast FM Radio4. Signal from Sutton Coldfield is crap. -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
#239
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
In article , Guy King
writes The message from Andy Hall contains these words: The smooth lazy hypnotic turning of wind turbines is worth going out of your way to enjoy. I suspect that many of your neighbours would disagree Quite possibly, but there are quite a lot of people who actively like wind turbines. As for The Wrekin's transmitter, what I'd really like is for it to broadcast FM Radio4. Signal from Sutton Coldfield is crap. Enjoy http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/the-wrekin.asp -- Tony Sayer |
#240
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:16:02 +0100, Guy King wrote:
I love 'em. From our kitchen window we can see The Wrekin and I'd love to see it adorned with beautiful wind turbines. I just hope that you get the sun glint from the blades or worse are within the area of land swept by the blades shadows. Blinking daylight at around 1Hz will soon drive you potty... Wind turbines have a place, it's called off shore, where they are more efficient as the wind is less disturbed by ground obstacles. Odd that off shore isn't being pushed as hard as on shore, I wonder if the little fact that it is more expensive to build off shore has anything to do with it? No, it can't can it? We are building wind turbines to save the planet not make maximum profits for shareholders.. -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DIY roof mount wind power? anyone? | UK diy |