On 8 Jan, 12:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:29:25 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-
In operation. Provided one ignores the emissions involved in
converting the ore dug out of the ground into fuel rods.
Done electrically, from nuclear generated el;ectricity, they are very low.
It is interesting that when it suits them the nuclear lobby say that
there is no such thing as green electricity, as it all goes into one
grid.
Well if no one bought electricity from coal oil and gas stations, and
everyone bought it from nuclear hydro and windmills, they other power
stations would shut down wouldn't they?
I have never heard that statement BTW.
Provided
the emissions involved in dealing with the spent fuel rods (which
are very high if one reprocesses the fuel but much less with storage
at the site). With these two provisions the emissions in operation
are low.
Emergy use does *not* equal emmissions. There is no reason to suppose
that reprocessing generates Co2.
The evaporator to concentrate highly active waste and the glass
block making plant are two examples of processes where there are
carbon dioxide emissions.
In building. Nuclear power stations involve a lot of concrete. They
also involve large amounts of rare materials. All of these have to
be produced.
So do bloody windmills,. So do solar panels. Concrete anyway.
Wind farms involve a fair amount of concrete, they also involve
things like copper in the cables. Solar panels don't involve much
concrete.
I refute that rare materials are needed for nuclear power stations.
No, you rebut it.
While much of a nuclear power station is no different to a coal
fired one, the reactor is a different matter. This is full of all
sorts of large scale precision assemblies made from various
materials.
would understand that we don't have an energy
problem. We have a resource and pollution problem. The planet is awash
with free energy, only limited by the cost of turning it into
electricity, and the pollution that may, or may not, result.
A point environmentalists have made for a considerable time.
No, they haven't. The are focussed totally on conserving energy,
The usual claim is that they don't mention conserving energy enough
in their enthusiasm for promoting renewable generation. It is mildly
amusing to see how the claims vary.
Their position is actually available for those seriously interested
in the subject to see, "Our energy needs could be met with safe and
efficient renewable energy technologies and serious investment in
energy efficiency. Investment in these sensible alternatives would
be undermined if UK ministers are allowed to foist a new nuclear
power programme on Scotland."
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campaigns/nuclear/
Yup. So they are lying? whats new there.
I have showed you that no other non fossil altetanitce is remotely
scalable or economic, at the levels the country NEEDS, and you still
persist in believing these romantic bunny huggers?
The fact is that solar, wind and biofuels are simply too low energy per
unit area. You need MASSIVE areas of land to generate the amounts needed.
Uranium is the other way. Its MASSIVELY power dense. Far more so than
even the best fossil fuel. Your generators become small and very powerful..
It may not suit other climates, but it suits us perfectly. Its not the
question of it being a bad choice, its the ONLY choice, and the bunny
huggers know it. But like anyone else who runs on a faith based
ideology, they can't bear to admit they are wrong.
I'd be delighted if 20 windmills off S****horpe could supply the
countries entire energy needs at competitive costs. The fact is they
can't. And never will be able to either.
Ive done the calculations.
100 nuclear power stations or 100,000 VERY large windmills.
You don't HAVE to be a genius to work out that with only 265,000 sqaure
kilometers of land available, and offshore cabling costs of 1 million
quid a mile, how stupid it would be to use windmills.
Likewise see Peter Parrys post, he is getting 3W a square meter in
daylight on a solar panel in an dull winter. Never mind after dark..
we need at least 300GW (peak) to run this country in winter. Thats 100
Giga square meters of panels, (at a cost of around £100000G..thats a
hundred trillion quid..) and a total land area of 10k square
kilomters..thats a 60 x 60 mile patch of land.
Sure, Go one. Wreck my planet with your bull****.
I think I spot a flaw in your plan to cover vast tracks of the
countryside with solar (PV) panels. You say we need 300GW. Well, if we
collected all the solar panels ever made, we would still be
approximately 287.6GW short.
T