UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #201   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,560
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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.




  #207   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,560
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,560
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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.



  #213   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills

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."

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.




--
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
  #214   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,560
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,045
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 759
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,045
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,045
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,356
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,560
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,560
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,120
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,122
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,120
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,896
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,136
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DIY roof mount wind power? anyone? Jim UK diy 65 November 25th 05 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"