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.