The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

"Graceful" is not a word that can reasonably be applied to these
industrial
eyesores.

that always struck me as a real red herring. There are far more seiruos
issues than that in the choices between the differing technologies. It
matters for beauty spots, elsewhere its rather trivial compared to the
real issues.


NT

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:39:26 +0100, Guy King wrote
(in article ):

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.

Really. Hopefully they all have season tickets with Specsavers....



As for The Wrekin's transmitter, what I'd really like is for it to
broadcast FM Radio4. Signal from Sutton Coldfield is crap.

That would always be worthwhile.....

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:12:36 +0100, wrote
(in article . com):

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

"Graceful" is not a word that can reasonably be applied to these
industrial
eyesores.

that always struck me as a real red herring. There are far more seiruos
issues than that in the choices between the differing technologies. It
matters for beauty spots, elsewhere its rather trivial compared to the
real issues.


NT


I don't think that it's trivial at all when one begins to realise that none
of this is for altruistic reasons.

When one reads about the threats by Scottish Power to invest elsewhere than
Scotland because the planning processes were taking longer than they cared
for it becomes abundantly clear that all is not the sweetness and light being
claimed. When one further reads that planning authorities are effectively
acting as judge and jury in their own cause, the whole thing starts to smell
rather badly. Actually rather worse than a red herring.

Trying to pretend that these things are graceful and attractive is a
nonsense. In effect they are and will increasingly become a distributed
industrial site with very poor return considering the amount of open space
that would be defaced.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:35:16 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

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?

The letters pages of the Herald and Scotsman contained the usual
suspects, making their usual false claims.

"Graceful" is not a word that can reasonably be applied to these industrial
eyesores.

Your personal opinion.

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.

The scale of projects is at http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

"Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the
British countryside
"Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of
electricity supply must come from renewable sources. Wind power is
currently the most cost effective renewable energy technology in a
position to help do that. Around 3,500 additional modern wind
turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's
electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore."

To get these numbers in perspective the current Beauly - Denny
transmission line consists of about 800 pylons. The proposed
replacement would consist of about 600 larger pylons.

ROTFL. So we have a trade interest group doing a study commissioned by a
government department.....

Which bit of, "Wicks highlighted the positive findings from the
first DTI commissioned NOP survey – published today" do you have
difficulty understanding? http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060524.html

I am sure that you won't mind me
highlighting the bull**** in some of the greeny rhetoric.

So far you have not managed to highlight any bull****, just like a
number of your predecessors.

Some is
well-meaning, of course, but just impractical in the real world.

I can recall when the same patronising comments were made about wind
generated electricity.

If one looks through the the report produced by the AEA as a source document
for the SDC, there is a very different picture.

Ah, a trade interest group. Incidentally one with a long history of
forecasts which were in time shown to be inaccurate.



--
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

On 10 Jul 2006 12:23:23 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

what volume of material is mined to produce uranium? What volume is
mined to produce coal?

Coal, for producing electricity, is burnt largely as it comes out of
the quarry. Larger lumps may be reduced in size to make them
suitable for feeding into the crushers. Colliery waste tips largely
date from the days when small bits of coal were called slack and
could not be sold as they don't do a lot on a fire grate. The ash
after burning is inert and is often used for building materials.

The ore uranium comes from has to be put through many energy and
materials intensive processes before it is turned into a fuel rod.

If one is mad enough to reprocess the spent fuel rod then this is
energy and materials intensive too. One ends up with large amounts
of highly radioactive acid. This is currently stored in one of the
largest terrorist targets in the world, the infamous waste tanks at
Windscale. The Tomsk-7 explosion indicates what effects a problem
with such a tank is capable of. In theory the contents of the waste
tanks are to be turned into glass blocks. However, the last time I
checked, a few months ago, the three glass block plants have still
never run at anything like their designed capacity. IIRC even if
they did manage to run at their design capacity it would take
decades to deal with the existing waste.




--
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

On 10 Jul 2006 12:28:14 -0700 someone who may be
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.

I think it is.

I note that the point remains unanswered.


--
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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:02:24 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

When one further reads that planning authorities are effectively
acting as judge and jury in their own cause,

Please name the planning authority that is also building wind farms.

Trying to pretend that these things are graceful and attractive

Who is pretending?


--
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

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:54:30 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

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...

Both are talked up by the anti-wind lobby. However, they have been
demonstrated to be nowhere near the problems that the antis claim
they are. For example the latter was a minor problem at Whitemoor,
but this was soon solved. I doubt if the OP is close enough for
there to be any effect.

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?

It is more expensive to build offshore. One of the reasons for this
is that the turbines have to be designed to cope with the salt, for
example by using pressurised nacelles. However, in theory these
extra costs are outweighed by the ability to use larger turbines.

Offshore turbines can only be built when government grants
permission. They only did so relatively recently and the first
offshore wind farms are now operating.


--
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

David Hansen wrote:
On 10 Jul 2006 12:23:23 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

what volume of material is mined to produce uranium? What volume is
mined to produce coal?

Coal, for producing electricity, is burnt largely as it comes out of
the quarry. Larger lumps may be reduced in size to make them
suitable for feeding into the crushers. Colliery waste tips largely
date from the days when small bits of coal were called slack and
could not be sold as they don't do a lot on a fire grate. The ash
after burning is inert and is often used for building materials.

The ore uranium comes from has to be put through many energy and
materials intensive processes before it is turned into a fuel rod.

If one is mad enough to reprocess the spent fuel rod then this is
energy and materials intensive too. One ends up with large amounts
of highly radioactive acid. This is currently stored in one of the
largest terrorist targets in the world, the infamous waste tanks at
Windscale. The Tomsk-7 explosion indicates what effects a problem
with such a tank is capable of. In theory the contents of the waste
tanks are to be turned into glass blocks. However, the last time I
checked, a few months ago, the three glass block plants have still
never run at anything like their designed capacity. IIRC even if
they did manage to run at their design capacity it would take
decades to deal with the existing waste.


The pros and cons list goes on... for example coal releases more
radioactivity than nuke plants etc. Heavy metals also. And these
translate into disease and deaths.

Do you know what the death rates are for each mining operation, coal vs
nuke? I dont. Maybe we could then look at relative deaths later in the
process, cost and death rate seem to be the 2 prime issues. (I never
understand people that object to win generation on the basis of
'looks')


NT

David Hansen wrote:
On 10 Jul 2006 12:28:14 -0700 someone who may be
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.

I think it is.

I note that the point remains unanswered.

Its an obviously false point. I wouldnt know quite how to answer it.

NT

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:12:36 +0100, wrote
(in article . com):
The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

"Graceful" is not a word that can reasonably be applied to these
industrial
eyesores.

that always struck me as a real red herring. There are far more seiruos
issues than that in the choices between the differing technologies. It
matters for beauty spots, elsewhere its rather trivial compared to the
real issues.

I don't think that it's trivial at all when one begins to realise that none
of this is for altruistic reasons.

When one reads about the threats by Scottish Power to invest elsewhere than
Scotland because the planning processes were taking longer than they cared
for it becomes abundantly clear that all is not the sweetness and light being
claimed. When one further reads that planning authorities are effectively
acting as judge and jury in their own cause, the whole thing starts to smell
rather badly. Actually rather worse than a red herring.

I dont know what you mean at all, but I fail to see how it could be
relevant. The real issues behind power generation choices are deaths
and cost, planning authority conflicts have little relevance to the
real points afaics.


Trying to pretend that these things are graceful and attractive is a
nonsense.

matter of opinion, but even if youre right I'd say its trivial. Would
you rather have another 10000 people die or would you rather see
windmills?


In effect they are and will increasingly become a distributed
industrial site

sure, just like we already have with telegraph poles, telecomms
cabinets and so on.

with very poor return considering the amount of open space
that would be defaced.

If the only change is the appearance of the lanscape thats a miniscule
cost for the very good return of large numbers of people not dying.
Someone has to get real.


NT

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:16:02 +0100, Guy King wrote:

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..

Of course its about cost. Offshore wind is probably the future but not
until cost has dropped enough to make it compete. Until then its not a
q of maximising return but business survival. No-one is going to invest
in something that will ruin them.


NT

On 11 Jul 2006 00:07:57 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

The pros and cons list goes on... for example coal releases more
radioactivity than nuke plants etc.

The normal radiation releases with nuclear fuel are before and after
they have been in the power station, so the case is not as clear cut
as some claim.

Do you know what the death rates are for each mining operation, coal vs
nuke?

I'm not going to give a simple answer, as there is none.

That depends whether one includes the deaths of coal miners in
China. One of the interesting facets of the nuclear lobby is that it
is happy to discuss these deaths, but not happy to discuss the
deaths from the three nuclear disasters at Mayak. I conclude double
standards are at work.

On China I suspect that we will eventually find an even worse
nuclear mess than in Russia. We do now know rather a lot about the
Soviet Union/Russia's nuclear legacy. That includes pouring
radioactive liquid into the ground, out of sight but not out of mind
as it is a major concern that nobody knows what to do with. In 2004
the liquid was reported as spreading at a rate of 300m per year and
2km from a river tributary that leads to the Arctic.

http://www.bellona.org/reports/Russian_Nuclear_Industry is a good
starting point, but may lead to sleepless nights.




--
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

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:04:57 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

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

The evidence of polling is that some of his neighbours would
disagree, but not many.

The Sustainable Development Commission's report on the subject
gathers many studies on the subject together
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/230505.html


--
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

On 11 Jul 2006 00:20:01 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

with very poor return considering the amount of open space
that would be defaced.

If the only change is the appearance of the lanscape thats a miniscule
cost

Defaced is also a matter of personal prejudice. As is shown by
http://www.bwea.com/media/photo/res/...osstractor.jpg most
of the land can be used as before.


--
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

On 11 Jul 2006 00:09:39 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Its an obviously false point.

There is nothing false about the point I made. Getting the ore and
turning it into fuel rods involves a fair consumption of fossil
fuels and thus greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of the processes do involve electricity and one can claim with
some legitimacy that the electricity involved simply reduces the
amount of energy extracted from the 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

David Hansen wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 00:07:57 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

The pros and cons list goes on... for example coal releases more
radioactivity than nuke plants etc.

The normal radiation releases with nuclear fuel are before and after
they have been in the power station, so the case is not as clear cut
as some claim.

again I dont see the logic there. What matters is total release, where
it happens in the chain does not seem to make a great amount of
difference.


Do you know what the death rates are for each mining operation, coal vs
nuke?

I'm not going to give a simple answer, as there is none.

That depends whether one includes the deaths of coal miners in
China.

If the purpose is to decide which way to go in Britain, then Chinese
conditions dont seem directly relevant to that.

One of the interesting facets of the nuclear lobby is that it
is happy to discuss these deaths, but not happy to discuss the
deaths from the three nuclear disasters at Mayak. I conclude double
standards are at work.

Promotion is of little relevance to the choice between power gen
technologies afaics.


On China I suspect that we will eventually find an even worse
nuclear mess than in Russia. We do now know rather a lot about the
Soviet Union/Russia's nuclear legacy. That includes pouring
radioactive liquid into the ground, out of sight but not out of mind
as it is a major concern that nobody knows what to do with. In 2004
the liquid was reported as spreading at a rate of 300m per year and
2km from a river tributary that leads to the Arctic.

Sure, just as we have the deaths with mining in china. I doubt we'll
duplicate either of these in Britain.


NT

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:29:29 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:35:16 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

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?

The letters pages of the Herald and Scotsman contained the usual
suspects, making their usual false claims.

According to you.





"Graceful" is not a word that can reasonably be applied to these
industrial
eyesores.

Your personal opinion.

... and that of quite a number of people it would appear.



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.

The scale of projects is at http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

"Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the
British countryside
"Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of
electricity supply must come from renewable sources. Wind power is
currently the most cost effective renewable energy technology in a
position to help do that. Around 3,500 additional modern wind
turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's
electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore."

Two THOUSAND.... Geez......



To get these numbers in perspective the current Beauly - Denny
transmission line consists of about 800 pylons. The proposed
replacement would consist of about 600 larger pylons.

ROTFL. So we have a trade interest group doing a study commissioned by a
government department.....

Which bit of, "Wicks highlighted the positive findings from the
first DTI commissioned NOP survey – published today" do you have
difficulty understanding? http://www.bwea.com/media/news/060524.html

Now you bring a government minister into the mix? ROTFLMAO.



I am sure that you won't mind me
highlighting the bull**** in some of the greeny rhetoric.

So far you have not managed to highlight any bull****, just like a
number of your predecessors.

On the contrary. I have highlighted acres of it. You just don't happen to
find it convenient.




Some is
well-meaning, of course, but just impractical in the real world.

I can recall when the same patronising comments were made about wind
generated electricity.

If one looks through the the report produced by the AEA as a source
document
for the SDC, there is a very different picture.

Ah, a trade interest group. Incidentally one with a long history of
forecasts which were in time shown to be inaccurate.


So this must call into question the whole basis of the SDC reports...

David Hansen wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 00:09:39 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Its an obviously false point.

There is nothing false about the point I made. Getting the ore and
turning it into fuel rods involves a fair consumption of fossil
fuels and thus greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of the processes do involve electricity and one can claim with
some legitimacy that the electricity involved simply reduces the
amount of energy extracted from the uranium.

I fail to see what about this situation isnt perfectly obvious, hence
its difficult to reply to it in any useful way.


NT

On 11 Jul 2006 01:24:29 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

again I dont see the logic there. What matters is total release, where
it happens in the chain does not seem to make a great amount of
difference.

The logic is simple, one must consider the whole process. Simply
concentrating on that part of the process at the power station gives
a false picture.

If the purpose is to decide which way to go in Britain, then Chinese
conditions dont seem directly relevant to that.

I tend to agree; but deaths in Chinese coal mines are often
introduced into the discussion by the nuclear lobby, who are not so
keen to discuss nuclear operations in China which probably have
similarities to that in Russia.



--
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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:25:56 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

So far you have not managed to highlight any bull****, just like a
number of your predecessors.

On the contrary. I have highlighted acres of it.

Only in your mind.

You just don't happen to find it convenient.

On the contrary, I find it perfectly convenient to expose the flaws
in your arguments. If something else crops up I may not find it
convenient to continue exposing the flaws, but that's life.

Ah, a trade interest group. Incidentally one with a long history of
forecasts which were in time shown to be inaccurate.


So this must call into question the whole basis of the SDC reports...

Not in the least. I note that you have no real response to the point
though.


--
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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:08:14 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:04:57 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

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

The evidence of polling is that some of his neighbours would
disagree, but not many.

Do you have the results of the poll for the Wrekin site?


The Sustainable Development Commission's report on the subject
gathers many studies on the subject together
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/230505.html




Does it leave any out that don't produce convenient results?

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:11:30 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On 11 Jul 2006 00:20:01 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

with very poor return considering the amount of open space
that would be defaced.

If the only change is the appearance of the lanscape thats a miniscule
cost

Defaced is also a matter of personal prejudice.

Prejudice is an emotionally loaded word which rather suggests that you feel a
need to defend the industrial deployment of your technology.


As is shown by
http://www.bwea.com/media/photo/res/...osstractor.jpg most
of the land can be used as before.


That just shows an ugly industrial windmill in front of a field being
ploughed and a landscape with low rolling hills.
Subtract the industrial windmill and it would look great

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:27:54 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:02:24 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

When one further reads that planning authorities are effectively
acting as judge and jury in their own cause,

Please name the planning authority that is also building wind farms.


I didn't say that planning authorities are building wind farms. However
looking at

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...m?id=643392004

reveals that due diligence is not being done.

Now add in this

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/busi...m?id=299402004

and a picture of nothing short of coercion emerges.

This whole area is not the sweetness and light that you seem to see through
your rose tinted spectacles.



Trying to pretend that these things are graceful and attractive

Who is pretending?


You think that these industrial windmills are attractive?

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:38:17 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:25:56 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

So far you have not managed to highlight any bull****, just like a
number of your predecessors.

On the contrary. I have highlighted acres of it.

Only in your mind.

It appears that yours is completely closed to anything that exposes the
unacceptable aspects of industrial windmills.



You just don't happen to find it convenient.

On the contrary, I find it perfectly convenient to expose the flaws
in your arguments. If something else crops up I may not find it
convenient to continue exposing the flaws, but that's life.

Weak point.


Ah, a trade interest group. Incidentally one with a long history of
forecasts which were in time shown to be inaccurate.


So this must call into question the whole basis of the SDC reports...

Not in the least. I note that you have no real response to the point
though.


The point is very clear. If one contributory report to a set of source
reports is called into question (and you said that it is), then automatically
the others should be as well. You can't have it both ways.

I notice also that the commissioners of the SDC can hardly be described as a
representative cross section of the energy industry.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Fitz wrote:

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?

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.

Honestly - no. Is it expensive? Is it anywhere near comparable to
decomisioning a nuclear power station? I thought that the recent
programme on one of the BBC digital channels about Dounreay was very
interesting. When the government closed it the community was appalled
at the thought of losing their major local employer. As it turned out
they didn't need to worry because the decomissioning is providing more
employment than the plant did when it was running. And it's expected
to take years to sort out. Some of the wleders who built the thing are
now dismantling it again.

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.

Well I'm a lot more relaxed now about radioactivity than I used to be,
but even so it still needs to be treated carefully and with respect.

Perssonally I think that Whitehaven is the biggest argument against
nuclear. Look what sellafield has doen to the locals! ;-)

--
Steve F

David Hansen wrote:
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?


No, but the most dangerous mining is underground, and south Africa and
Australia have plenty of deep mines also.

Check your facts.

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.



Well as long as MORE is coming from the uranium once processsed, than
goes into the processsing, its still a net loss of CO2 innit?

Do you peer into your electric socket and say 'now little electron,
where did YOU get your shove from..was it a nasty gas powered station or
a shiny Nuclear one, or just a windmill?'

David Hansen wrote:
On 10 Jul 2006 12:28:14 -0700 someone who may be
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.

I think it is.

I note that the point remains unanswered.


Not any more. I wonder if you really are as thick as you come across,
or just trolling.

David Hansen wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 00:09:39 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Its an obviously false point.

There is nothing false about the point I made. Getting the ore and
turning it into fuel rods involves a fair consumption of fossil
fuels and thus greenhouse gas emissions.


So?

Some of the processes do involve electricity and one can claim with
some legitimacy that the electricity involved simply reduces the
amount of energy extracted from the uranium.



Oh fer gawds sake. If it takes one gallon of oil to make enough uranium
to save burning 400 gallons of oil to make electricity for electric trains..

Its easy enough to use electricity to SYNTHESISE hydrocarbon fuels, if
its cheap enough energy.

The argument is as specious as saying '10% of energy will be met by
windmills'

Not on a calm day it won't..

wrote:
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



Although uranium is very very low grade ore, and even when refined you
stll need to separate U235 and U238..a few kilos will ruin a
powerstation for several years IIRC.

So actually not that much compared with coal.

wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 00:07:57 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

The pros and cons list goes on... for example coal releases more
radioactivity than nuke plants etc.
The normal radiation releases with nuclear fuel are before and after
they have been in the power station, so the case is not as clear cut
as some claim.

again I dont see the logic there. What matters is total release, where
it happens in the chain does not seem to make a great amount of
difference.

Oh good. You had better ban God then for making the Earth a nuclear
reactor that has produced far more radiation and radioactive materials
than man ever has.

I am SO glad to hear that its just as dangerous to have these a couple
of hundred miles underground as in your local Tescos parking lot.

On 11 Jul 2006 02:18:16 -0700 someone who may be "Fitz"
wrote this:-

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.

Honestly - no. Is it expensive?

The background is that slag heaps were essentially created for coal
that could not be sold at the time, because it was too small to fit
traditional grates. That doesn't apply to coal used in power
stations, as one look at a merry go round coal train will confirm.

Provided they are looked after properly there is no particular need
to do anything with the heaps, indeed some are now preserved as a
monument to past industries. If they are not looked after properly
then they can become dangerous, which is what happened at Aberfan.

Sometimes tips are removed for various reasons, not just coal ones.
Compared to the effort involved in cleaning up after nuclear the
cost and time involved is minimal. A year or two and the tip is gone
and the land ready for further use. That is not the case with
nuclear, as the hulks of former submarines in the basin at Rosyth
demonstrate. One of the hulks has been there for at least fifteen
years, surrounded by radiation monitors. Then there is Windscale,
which will undoubtedly take at least two centuries to clean up even
if work on creating any more mess there was stopped tomorrow.

Well I'm a lot more relaxed now about radioactivity than I used to be,
but even so it still needs to be treated carefully and with respect.

It needs to be understood and controlled properly. Some people panic
too much when the "R-word" is mentioned. However, that does not mean
one can believe some of the "reassurance" the nuclear lobby puts out
on the subject.


--
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

Fitz wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Fitz wrote:

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?

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.

Honestly - no. Is it expensive? Is it anywhere near comparable to
decomisioning a nuclear power station?

I would say rebuilding new Orleans is CONSIDERABLY more expensive than
decommissioning ALL the nuclear power stations in the world.


I thought that the recent
programme on one of the BBC digital channels about Dounreay was very
interesting. When the government closed it the community was appalled
at the thought of losing their major local employer. As it turned out
they didn't need to worry because the decomissioning is providing more
employment than the plant did when it was running. And it's expected
to take years to sort out. Some of the wleders who built the thing are
now dismantling it again.

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.

Well I'm a lot more relaxed now about radioactivity than I used to be,
but even so it still needs to be treated carefully and with respect.

Perssonally I think that Whitehaven is the biggest argument against
nuclear. Look what sellafield has doen to the locals! ;-)

YOu have to see the nuclear industry in the light of history.

When Britain first embarked on a nuclear program, it had just fought and
nearly lost a war where its aces to oil was threatened, and only its
natural coal mines had kept it going. And it faced a potential threat
from the SovBloc too. Well it thought it did anyway.

Coal supplies were getting harder to extract, there was a MAJOR
pollution problem from coal fired heating..and a major political problem
from nationalised unionised coal and power industries, which were felt
to be infiltrated with pro soviet agitators.

Nuclear power represented a far smaller amount of pollutant, and a
chance to both join the nuclear club to at least book a table at the UN
security council, and the ability to stockpile enough fuel for many many
wars..and wit fast breeders, to make weapons grade plutonium too.

With people dying from lung cancer and chronic bronchitis from coal
pollution, acid rain devastating the continent, and rivers devoid of
fish, nuclear didn't seem a bad price to pay...and IMHO it wasn't.

What happened in the 70's was a knee jerk reaction against nuclear,m
that coincide with the development of North Sea Oil and natural gas.

It was politically easier to avoid the nuclear issue, trash the coal
industry, and simply burn the oil. This is no longer a viable option.

Nuclear is eminently suitable for baseband power generation. There is a
strong case for making up to around 60% of all power generation nuclear.

The issue of fuel rod reprocessing versus simply dumping the hot rods
deep down somewhere, and concreting them in, is worthy of debate, I
accept. As is building power stations with eventual decomissioning in
mind, which the originals never were.

But as the lesser of many evils, nuclear has to be considered seriously.

The global damage from global warming potentially far exceeds all the
nuclear accidents that ever were and probably ever will be.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:12:05 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

The issue of fuel rod reprocessing versus simply dumping the hot rods
deep down somewhere, and concreting them in, is worthy of debate, I
accept.

Nobody has proposed dumping the hot rods deep down somewhere, and
concreting them in, so your "debate" would be a rather false one.

However, there is a debate to be had about reprocessing versus above
ground dry storage. In my view the latter is highly desirable for
the fuel remaining as nuclear power stations are eliminated.

That then just leaves the question of what to do with the mightmare
at Windscale.


--
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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:54:10 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

The argument is as specious as saying '10% of energy will be met by
windmills'

Not on a calm day it won't..

Oxford University studied the weather records going back to the
1970s in considerable detail. Their conclusion was that there has
never been a period of even one hour where the whole of the UK has
experienced wind speeds too low or two high to operate wind
turbines. That study ignored offshore wind. Thus, while the output
of wind farms dispersed around the UK will always be variable it
will never be zero.

Over the time periods that matter in the UK electricity system, 1-2
hours ahead and a few days ahead weather forecasting is already
accurate enough for wind generated electricity to be integrated with
other sources very well. At less than one hour small variations are
mopped up by the same balancing services that deal with other
variations in supply and demand.


--
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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:50:49 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Do you peer into your electric socket and say 'now little electron,
where did YOU get your shove from..was it a nasty gas powered station or
a shiny Nuclear one, or just a windmill?'

Nice try. However, I know rather a lot about electrical systems.

Electrons [1], don't come from anywhere. Rather they are waggled
backwards and forwards, over surprisingly small distances.

[1] which don't really exist but are rather something of an
artificial construction.


--
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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:51:22 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Not any more. I wonder if you really are as thick as you come across,
or just trolling.

Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of those with no
better arguments.


--
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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:55:33 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

It appears that yours is completely closed to anything that exposes the
unacceptable aspects of industrial windmills.

Yawn. My mind is completely open, to good arguments. Bluff and
bluster, on the other hand, does not impress me. For instance I have
changed my mind on nuclear generated electricity, after listening to
the arguments of all sides. The anti-lobby have by far the most
convincing set of arguments.


--
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

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:50:49 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Do you peer into your electric socket and say 'now little electron,
where did YOU get your shove from..was it a nasty gas powered station or
a shiny Nuclear one, or just a windmill?'

Nice try. However, I know rather a lot about electrical systems.

Probably less than me however.



Electrons [1], don't come from anywhere. Rather they are waggled
backwards and forwards, over surprisingly small distances.

I note with interest that whereas I said 'where did you get your SHOVE
from' YOU changed it to say 'don't COME from anywhere.'

In order presumably to appear smart, when in fact I was well ahead of
you all the time.

So ending up actually looking both deceitful AND stupid.

Your not a member of the Nu Laber party are you?



[1] which don't really exist but are rather something of an
artificial construction.