On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:46:50 +0100 someone who may be Timothy Murphy
wrote this:-

The Daily Torygraph and Scum are in favour of nuclear power. That is
a convincing reason to be against it:-)

That's a silly remark.

Indeed, which is why I put a smiley after 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

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:46:18 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The pretence of the green lobby is that these things are nice and cuddly and
don't have any impact.

That's an interesting distortion, but it doesn't progress the
discussion.

You would probably class me as a member of the green lobby and I
have always said that large wind turbines are big and need to be
sited in the right place. I would be foolish to say anything else,
as people can always go and look at one. However, the studies show
that the majority of the public are happy about them.

They don't blend
in with the landscape or the environment and should be subject to the same
strict planning controls and public enquiries that any other major industrial
development gets.

In what way do you claim that they are not subject to strict
planning controls and public enquiries?

Be careful not to distort in your answer. I already have some
examples in mind.

Instead of this, we have planning authorities acting as judge and jury in
their own cause because the same organisation has jurisdiction over planning
and energy policy.

Which organisation would this be?

Certainly the councils around here have control over planning, but
not energy policy.

We have promoters of these industrial wind sites using
coercion to bully said organisations into moving more quickly than is proper.

If you want to see bullying I suggest you study Donald Trump's
proposed golf course in the Aberdeen area.

In order to produce worthwhile amounts of electricity, there would need to be
massive deployments of these industrial sites to the point that one would not
be able to travel any significant distance before seeing them.

The numbers have already been given in this thread. Compared to the
number of existing pylons the numbers are negligible.

With the demise of the major textile, steel production and heavy industries,
their paraphernalia was removed because chimneys and other vestiges were
deemed ugly.

Not usually. Indeed from near here I can see the preserved bings
from the shale oil industry. Very impressive they are too.

Reasons why chimneys were removed are varied. Gas boilers don't need
big chimneys. It is often easier to knock one down and remove a
future maintenance problem. Removing the chimney provided space for
yet more flats. Some chimneys were preserved.

I am sure that by 2030, we will have TV programs with a latter-day Fred
Dibnah blowing up these windmills to entertain the kiddies. I shall be
pleased to help him place the charges.

I suspect that the children will still be very keen to look at them,
as they are now. If told I suspect they will also wonder about the
people who objected to wind farms, just as people now wonder about
the people who objected to hydro schemes.


--
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

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:50:48 +0100, wrote
(in article . com):
Andy Hall wrote:

windmills...

The reality is that they do and are industrial in nature.

yes, as are the pylons, power lines, telegraph poles, telcomms cabinets
and assorted other bits of industry we live with day in day out.

Exactly, so no need to make it any worse than it already is.

the need for more gen capacity is obvious. As is the fact that some of
it may be windgen.


we're rather wealthier today, and have the funds to make things that
dont look so butt ugly, and the political will to ensure it.

If that were true, nobody would be proposing building industrial windmills in
some of the best natural environment in the country.

illogic


Have fun. It would be more useful to discuss the real issues though, ie
deaths, disease, environment survival, and cost.


The answer to that one is quite simple and is covered by nuclear generation.

how can the important pros and cons of each gen technology be covered
by nuclear generation?


NT

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:49:03 +0100, wrote
(in article .com):

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:50:48 +0100, wrote
(in article . com):
Andy Hall wrote:

windmills...

The reality is that they do and are industrial in nature.

yes, as are the pylons, power lines, telegraph poles, telcomms cabinets
and assorted other bits of industry we live with day in day out.

Exactly, so no need to make it any worse than it already is.

the need for more gen capacity is obvious. As is the fact that some of
it may be windgen.



Of course. It may be. I think that there a lot more disadvantages than
advantages (and I do count visual effect as an important disadvantage) of
industrial windmills for electricity generation. The level of deployment
required to make it worth bothering, is vast and set against the delivery
potential of nuclear, it isn't worth spending time and money on it.



we're rather wealthier today, and have the funds to make things that
dont look so butt ugly, and the political will to ensure it.

If that were true, nobody would be proposing building industrial windmills
in
some of the best natural environment in the country.

illogic

Not at all. I think it's completely logical not to want to see large areas
of land wrecked by industrial eyesores.




Have fun. It would be more useful to discuss the real issues though, ie
deaths, disease, environment survival, and cost.


The answer to that one is quite simple and is covered by nuclear generation.

how can the important pros and cons of each gen technology be covered
by nuclear generation?


These are very well known and has already been said several times, if a major
objective is to substantially reduce carbon emission, energy supply has to be
met by something with enough capacity, scalability and viability. taking a
punt on energy consumption reduction, is a hell of a risk and is not likely
to be realised in practice. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the
shortfall needs to be met with nuclear generation.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:07:16 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:46:18 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The pretence of the green lobby is that these things are nice and cuddly
and
don't have any impact.

That's an interesting distortion, but it doesn't progress the
discussion.

I don't think it's a distortion at all. That is exactly how the marketing
runs.....


You would probably class me as a member of the green lobby and I
have always said that large wind turbines are big and need to be
sited in the right place. I would be foolish to say anything else,
as people can always go and look at one. However, the studies show
that the majority of the public are happy about them.

This of course depends on the questions that are asked. If you were to ask
whether people mind about them when they have seen the present scaling levels
and there are a few on a distant hillside a long way from where they live, I
am sure that most people would have no objection. Reason? It doesn't affect
them directly and they are Not In My Back Yard.
Change the question and ask whether they mind when they are at the bottom of
the garden or in large numbers across a lot of open country and the reaction
will be very different.



They don't blend
in with the landscape or the environment and should be subject to the same
strict planning controls and public enquiries that any other major
industrial
development gets.

In what way do you claim that they are not subject to strict
planning controls and public enquiries?

Be careful not to distort in your answer. I already have some
examples in mind.

You're right. In theory they are. The important part is the execution of
the process and in that respect it's very lacking.




Instead of this, we have planning authorities acting as judge and jury in
their own cause because the same organisation has jurisdiction over
planning
and energy policy.

Which organisation would this be?

Certainly the councils around here have control over planning, but
not energy policy.

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

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




We have promoters of these industrial wind sites using
coercion to bully said organisations into moving more quickly than is
proper.

If you want to see bullying I suggest you study Donald Trump's
proposed golf course in the Aberdeen area.

I don't hold Donald Trump in any higher esteem than Scottish Power.



In order to produce worthwhile amounts of electricity, there would need to
be
massive deployments of these industrial sites to the point that one would
not
be able to travel any significant distance before seeing them.

The numbers have already been given in this thread. Compared to the
number of existing pylons the numbers are negligible.

Generation at present is minuscule. What do you believe the number of
industrial windmills to be to generate the aspired to 20% of electricity or
the 50% that will be required? How many Supergrid pylons are there?




With the demise of the major textile, steel production and heavy
industries,
their paraphernalia was removed because chimneys and other vestiges were
deemed ugly.

Not usually. Indeed from near here I can see the preserved bings
from the shale oil industry. Very impressive they are too.

Clearly you find industrial paraphernalia a thing of beauty. I'm afraid I
don't....



Reasons why chimneys were removed are varied. Gas boilers don't need
big chimneys. It is often easier to knock one down and remove a
future maintenance problem. Removing the chimney provided space for
yet more flats. Some chimneys were preserved.

I am sure that by 2030, we will have TV programs with a latter-day Fred
Dibnah blowing up these windmills to entertain the kiddies. I shall be
pleased to help him place the charges.

I suspect that the children will still be very keen to look at them,
as they are now. If told I suspect they will also wonder about the
people who objected to wind farms, just as people now wonder about
the people who objected to hydro schemes.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:46:59 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:35:01 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

This of course is moving the goal posts of the discussion when one realises
that one has made a mistake with the information.

The only problem with this assertion is that I didn't make a mistake
with the information.

Oh come on.

You tried to alter the framework of the discussion from electricity
generation to energy in general to try to imply that nuclear generation
wasn't important because it represented only a small part of total energy
production.

While the figures may or may not be correct, one must also take into account
that one objective is to take fossil fuels steadily out of the equation,
whether they are directly delivered to the point of use (i.e. natural gas) or
via the medium of electricity.

If you do that, then of course generation of electricity by non fossil fuel
means becomes much more important.

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Not at all. I think it's completely logical not to want to see large
areas
of land wrecked by industrial eyesores.

But almost every part of our landscape is already the result of man's
interferance.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:40:20 +0100, Guy King wrote:

|The message
|from Andy Hall contains these words:
|
| Not at all. I think it's completely logical not to want to see large
| areas
| of land wrecked by industrial eyesores.
|
|But almost every part of our landscape is already the result of man's
|interferance.

*Every* part of our landscape is already the result of man's interference.
It all began 6000 years ago when there was Wild Wood from Lands End to John
o Groats. A squirrel could go from Dover to Cape Wrath without touching
the ground. Early farmers then cut down the trees.
--
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.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:40:20 +0100, Guy King wrote
(in article ):

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Not at all. I think it's completely logical not to want to see large
areas
of land wrecked by industrial eyesores.

But almost every part of our landscape is already the result of man's
interferance.



So no need to make it any worse.....

You can get R4 on DAB by the way....

wrote:

Uranium is quite a rare metal.
IIRC, known uranium reserves are smaller than oil reserves
(particularly if shale is taken into account).

So it is not at all clear to me
that nuclear power _is_ a long-term solution to energy needs.

as long as supplies are there for the life of the nuke plant all is
well.

What is the life expectancy of a nuclear plant?

The amount of energy (or rather, negentropy) reaching the earth from the
sun is vastly greater than any conceivable needs.
The question is, how can that energy best be harnessed.

thats another question entirely, and has little to do with what we
should choose now.

It is a different question, but it is relevant
because it suggests that energy shortage
is not the end of life as we know it.

I recall Fred Hoyle suggesting somewhere
that if a strip of trees were planted round the equator
this would give quite sufficient energy for our needs.
(Of course that was long before global warming concern.)


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Timothy Murphy wrote:
wrote:

So it is not at all clear to me
that nuclear power _is_ a long-term solution to energy needs.

as long as supplies are there for the life of the nuke plant all is
well.

What is the life expectancy of a nuclear plant?

Going to depend on design and policies. Real life is whats wanted, some
of Britain's are running long past their designed end of life dates.


The amount of energy (or rather, negentropy) reaching the earth from the
sun is vastly greater than any conceivable needs.
The question is, how can that energy best be harnessed.

thats another question entirely, and has little to do with what we
should choose now.

It is a different question, but it is relevant
because it suggests that energy shortage
is not the end of life as we know it.

We're not facing an energy shortage. Sure prices will rise, but will be
capped to the cost of the next least expensive technology.

As for bluesky stuff, there are plenty of vague ideas, but none are of
real value until real life equipment materialises, is affordable, and
has an acceptable level of issues. Wishful thinking doesnt come into
the question of what to choose today.


I recall Fred Hoyle suggesting somewhere
that if a strip of trees were planted round the equator
this would give quite sufficient energy for our needs.
(Of course that was long before global warming concern.)

Doesnt sound like a very well considered idea.


NT

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:18:13 +0100, Owain wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
You can get R4 on DAB by the way....

In mono...

Umm it's stereo over in these parts.

In article ,
Timothy Murphy wrote:

What is the life expectancy of a nuclear plant?

Google on "candu".

Lots of information about the reactors that we should
be building alongside PWR's and comparison tables of
cost and working life of different reactor tecnologies.

I don't mind nuclear power, in fact it is probably
inevitable. What has dismayed me though is that the
govt first announced our continuing possession of
nuclear weapons, then a few weeks later announced
an expansion of nuclear power stations.

2+2 = Power stations designed to produce weapons
grade plutonium, and all that goes with that.

I think we should go CANDU.

--
Tony Williams.

The message
from Owain contains these words:

You can get R4 on DAB by the way....

In mono...

And low bitrate, and not on a portable round here 'cos the signal
strength's too low.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Tony Williams wrote:

Lots of information about the reactors that we should
be building alongside PWR's and comparison tables of
cost and working life of different reactor tecnologies.

I don't mind nuclear power, in fact it is probably
inevitable. What has dismayed me though is that the
govt first announced our continuing possession of
nuclear weapons, then a few weeks later announced
an expansion of nuclear power stations.

2+2 = Power stations designed to produce weapons
grade plutonium, and all that goes with that.


Sorry, that's a 2+2=5. The reactor design and operating conditions for
sustained base-load power generation are almost exactly the opposite
from those required to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

For the latter, the irradiated fuel needs to be removed and reprocessed
long before the end of its useful energy-generating life. That was one
of the less widely advertised reasons for locating the Calder Hall
reactor on the same site as the (then) Windscale reprocessing plant, so
that some of the fuel could be removed very early. In contrast, by the
time the fuel for a power generating reactor has reached the end of its
economic life, the plutonium content (if the fuel were ever to be
reprocessed to extract it) would definitely not be weapons-grade.


I think we should go CANDU.

Ah yes, a heavy-water moderated reactor whose major byproduct is
tritium. Continuous supplies of fresh tritium are needed to support an
H-bomb programme (Google for "chapelcross tritium") but tritium
effluents are notoriously difficult to control - being mostly water and
steam - and have been a continuing problem for the CANDU system.

However, it would be wrong to single out CANDU for too much individual
criticism. Every nuclear reactor system has its advantages and
disadvantages compared to the others.

And of course the same is true in a broader sense for every energy
generating system. A grown-up debate on energy strategy needs to
recognise the need for diversity. We need a mix of energy sources that
has been specifically optimized to allow each one to do what it's best
at, without leaving the whole of the UK exposed to any individual
weaknesses. That means several different energy generating systems will
each have a useful part of play - but the optimum mix should be chosen
by strategic design, and not as the result of political tug-of-wars or
short-term greed.



--
Ian White

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

This of course depends on the questions that are asked. If you were to
ask
whether people mind about them when they have seen the present scaling
levels
and there are a few on a distant hillside a long way from where they live,
I
am sure that most people would have no objection. Reason? It doesn't
affect
them directly and they are Not In My Back Yard.
Change the question and ask whether they mind when they are at the bottom
of
the garden or in large numbers across a lot of open country and the
reaction
will be very different.

I am not sure that it would. I am currently siting no more than a couple of
hundred metres from one of the largest wind turbines in the country. The
opinions of people here are are very polarised - they either love it or
detest it. I don't think that the pro/anti ratio has changed much since
before it was built, and those in favour want more built along side...

Andy.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:12:11 +0100, Andy wrote
(in article ):


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

This of course depends on the questions that are asked. If you were to
ask
whether people mind about them when they have seen the present scaling
levels
and there are a few on a distant hillside a long way from where they live,
I
am sure that most people would have no objection. Reason? It doesn't
affect
them directly and they are Not In My Back Yard.
Change the question and ask whether they mind when they are at the bottom
of
the garden or in large numbers across a lot of open country and the
reaction
will be very different.

I am not sure that it would. I am currently siting no more than a couple of
hundred metres from one of the largest wind turbines in the country. The
opinions of people here are are very polarised - they either love it or
detest it. I don't think that the pro/anti ratio has changed much since
before it was built, and those in favour want more built along side...

Andy.



I find it difficult to imagine that the number of people liking them will
increase as more are built next to where they live.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:04:49 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

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

As the dodgy dossier made clear, energy policy is a reserved matter
but the Scottish Executive is fully responsible for planning.

Generation at present is minuscule.

Not quite.

What do you believe the number of industrial windmills

Pejorative term.

to be to generate the aspired to 20% of electricity or
the 50% that will be required? How many Supergrid pylons are there?

Figures already given.

Nobody is suggesting generating 50% of electricity from wind farms.
At present prices the costs would be very high.



--
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 Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:58:40 +0100, Owain wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall wrote:
You can get R4 on DAB by the way....
In mono...
Versiwn Cymraeg?

That's fersiwn and as I haven't been to Wales for 14 years (and the
mental scars still haven't healed) I don't know if they've even got DAB.

Owain


I suppose that that would be DSD ? ( ddarlledu sain digidol)

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

I would not have thought it made sense to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels,
in any case, however cheap electricity was.
Surely there are better ways of using electricity to turn wheels?


Possibly not.

Take aircraft. Although the highest energy density of any (oxidisng
chemical) fuel is hydrogen, kerosene is about the best energy per unit
volume.

That seems very improbable to me.
Kerosene is a complicated mixture of hydrocarbons.
It would be a sort of miracle if rotting tree trunks
produced the most efficient propulsive agent.

Well go and look it up then. There are tables on the net of energy
densities and specific weights etc.

Kerosene is NOT the natural product of rotting tree trunks..its a
distillate fraction of what comes out of the ground.


I can't remember the basic synthesis for hydrocarbons, but they are
presumably makable from CO2 and water..somehow..Probably a lot of heat
and pressure..

You said it was easy ...

Well that's how we make plastics from gas, so its not as though its very
hard is it? plastic isn't as expensive as viagra..

Timothy Murphy wrote:
wrote:

But as the lesser of many evils, nuclear has to be considered seriously.
This really is the whole point. All options are non-ideal, the question
is just which is the best mix of options, and nuke is a particularly
strong contender.

Uranium is quite a rare metal.
IIRC, known uranium reserves are smaller than oil reserves
(particularly if shale is taken into account).

So it is not at all clear to me
that nuclear power _is_ a long-term solution to energy needs.

The amount of energy (or rather, negentropy) reaching the earth from the sun
is vastly greater than any conceivable needs.
The question is, how can that energy best be harnessed.


You can use Uranium to make Plutonium. In fact a fast breeder makes more
fuel than it uses..

Timothy Murphy wrote:
wrote:

Uranium is quite a rare metal.
IIRC, known uranium reserves are smaller than oil reserves
(particularly if shale is taken into account).

So it is not at all clear to me
that nuclear power _is_ a long-term solution to energy needs.
as long as supplies are there for the life of the nuke plant all is
well.

What is the life expectancy of a nuclear plant?

well the current crop were built in the 50's and early 60s IIRC.

The amount of energy (or rather, negentropy) reaching the earth from the
sun is vastly greater than any conceivable needs.
The question is, how can that energy best be harnessed.
thats another question entirely, and has little to do with what we
should choose now.

It is a different question, but it is relevant
because it suggests that energy shortage
is not the end of life as we know it.

I recall Fred Hoyle suggesting somewhere
that if a strip of trees were planted round the equator
this would give quite sufficient energy for our needs.
(Of course that was long before global warming concern.)


Indeed. Sadly its all taken up with suburbia instead.

Probably forcing almost everybody to live in high rise flats with trees
in between would solve the problems anyway..perhaps cities should have
to pay carbon tax for the CO2 absorption they are preventing, by being
concreted over.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:24:33 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Nobody is suggesting generating 50% of electricity from wind farms.
At present prices the costs would be very high.


Which is really why it's not worth bothering.....

It is certainly worth bothering to get the percentage to the current
economic limit of 20%. Generation that is relatively cheap to build
and decommission and which has zero fuel cost is something to use
whenever possible.


--
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 Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:42:41 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

I am not sure that it would. I am currently siting no more than a couple of
hundred metres from one of the largest wind turbines in the country. The
opinions of people here are are very polarised - they either love it or
detest it. I don't think that the pro/anti ratio has changed much since
before it was built, and those in favour want more built along side...

I find it difficult to imagine that the number of people liking them will
increase as more are built next to where they live.

You might like to consider Swaffham then.

http://www.glendell.co.uk/industry_env_page/1-030.html and
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_swaffhamII.html show the
first and second turbines. Readers should note that out of shot of
the photo of the second turbine is part of the town.

The SDC's excellent report on wind generated electricity has whole
sections on planning, landscape and so on.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=234

Page 52 (paper page 46) is the start of a case study on Swaffham,
from which what follows is taken.


The first turbine generated three letters against, three for and one
saying it might be alright if it was the right colour. That was all.

One of the people not in favour of the turbine was the then Area
Planning Officer.

"The biggest objector to the erection of wind turbines in Norfolk
was me. I had never seen one other than in a photograph but I knew
that they were wrong for Norfolk. In meetings with Ecotricity I was
the one saying 'No'. However once the application had been submitted
and I became aware of the amount of pollution generated by fossil
fuels in the production of electricity I became convinced that
turbines were an option. I watched the erection of Swaffham 1 and
upon its completion I saw a graceful structure which contrary to my
earlier views did not detract from the historic character of the
town or the surrounding area. Subject to the assessments usual to
this type of application, I now support the use of wind energy in
Breckland for the production of electricity."

Greg Britton

Principal Planning Officer of Breckland District Council and former
Area Planning Officer


"The local community was generally enthusiastic. When Ecotricity
mailed 100,000 households in Breckland asking residents to say 'Yes'
or 'No' to more wind turbines as part of the public consultation on
plans for Swaffham 2, around 89% of the 9,000 respondents voted
'Yes'. Only 6.5% said 'No' and some 3.6% were either undecided or
left their vote blank. Greg Britton recalls that 26 letters were
sent to the planning department over Swaffham 2 – 23 of which
were support letters, including three from district councillors."

SDC text.



--
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 in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:24:33 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Nobody is suggesting generating 50% of electricity from wind farms.
At present prices the costs would be very high.


Which is really why it's not worth bothering.....

It is certainly worth bothering to get the percentage to the current
economic limit of 20%. Generation that is relatively cheap to build
and decommission and which has zero fuel cost is something to use
whenever possible.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh


You're conveniently leaving out of your claim the _input_ energy costs of
producing the structures. No structure, consisting of a concrete base(?),
pilings, mast, ginormous blades, turning gear, generators, control systems,
synchronising apparatus, cables etc. etc. can realistically claim to have
'zero fuel cost'. The 'cheap to build' claim needs to be substantiated with
a 'how much energy needs to be put _in_?'; versus 'how much energy may be
extracted?' Just basing a claim on 'what cost have the beancounters
attributed to this scheme?' , isn't ,IMHO, a valid baseline to draw any
conclusions.
Pounds sterling shouldn't be the base-line but Megajoules in/Megajoules out.

Your prejudices may vary

--

Brian

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:21:56 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:42:41 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

I am not sure that it would. I am currently siting no more than a couple
of
hundred metres from one of the largest wind turbines in the country. The
opinions of people here are are very polarised - they either love it or
detest it. I don't think that the pro/anti ratio has changed much since
before it was built, and those in favour want more built along side...

I find it difficult to imagine that the number of people liking them will
increase as more are built next to where they live.

You might like to consider Swaffham then.

http://www.glendell.co.uk/industry_env_page/1-030.html and
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_swaffhamII.html show the
first and second turbines. Readers should note that out of shot of
the photo of the second turbine is part of the town.

The SDC's excellent report on wind generated electricity has whole
sections on planning, landscape and so on.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=234


This has very little value.

1) It is talking about the addition of one turbine

2) It is from an organisation with an agenda of promoting these things.
If I could read through their site and find opposing views and information
and a balanced summary, then it would have some level of credibility. I
find that information elsewhere, leading me to the inevitable conclusion that
the information it presents, just like that from the wind energy trade
organisation is at best subject to question and verification.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:17:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

Timothy Murphy wrote:
wrote:

But as the lesser of many evils, nuclear has to be considered seriously.
This really is the whole point. All options are non-ideal, the question
is just which is the best mix of options, and nuke is a particularly
strong contender.

Uranium is quite a rare metal.
IIRC, known uranium reserves are smaller than oil reserves
(particularly if shale is taken into account).

So it is not at all clear to me
that nuclear power _is_ a long-term solution to energy needs.

The amount of energy (or rather, negentropy) reaching the earth from the sun
is vastly greater than any conceivable needs.
The question is, how can that energy best be harnessed.


You can use Uranium to make Plutonium. In fact a fast breeder makes more
fuel than it uses..

Renewable energy, then....

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:40:54 +0100, Owain wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall wrote:
I don't know if they've even got DAB.
I suppose that that would be DSD ? ( ddarlledu sain digidol)

Possibly. I never really got past "Oes mae'r cath yn y ffwrn microdon?"
and "Mae tadcu wedi golli ei danedd gosod".

Owain


You have me stumped with these.

First one is something to do with putting a cat in the microwave.

Second is about your father insisting that you brush your teeth? (A guess)

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:26:26 +0100, Owain wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall wrote:
Possibly. I never really got past "Oes mae'r cath yn y ffwrn microdon?"
and "Mae tadcu wedi golli ei danedd gosod".
You have me stumped with these.
First one is something to do with putting a cat in the microwave.

Is there a cat in the microwave oven? (with the compulsory affirmative
and negative responses conjucated down about twenty tenses)

Second is about your father insisting that you brush your teeth? (A
guess)

Grandfather has lost his false teeth.

Admittedly we didn't really aim for a 'steddfod chair in the CSE group.

Owain



So I wasn't that far out. My dictionary has tad-cu and henlad for
grandfather. Gosod seems to have a variety of meanings according to context
and dannedd/danedd seems to have two Ns (or does it?)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:



You can use Uranium to make Plutonium. In fact a fast breeder makes more
fuel than it uses..

I don't think that is so.
The works I consulted suggest that the addition of plutonium to uranium
in MOX plants reduces uranium needs by about 30%.
Against this, extraction of plutonium multiplies high-level waste
about 17 times.
For this reason, the technique is not considered economic at present.

Fast breeders are used principally for weapon production.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:24:33 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Nobody is suggesting generating 50% of electricity from wind farms.
At present prices the costs would be very high.


Which is really why it's not worth bothering.....

It is certainly worth bothering to get the percentage to the current
economic limit of 20%. Generation that is relatively cheap to build
and decommission and which has zero fuel cost is something to use
whenever possible.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh


You're conveniently leaving out of your claim the _input_ energy costs of
producing the structures. No structure, consisting of a concrete base(?),
pilings, mast, ginormous blades, turning gear, generators, control systems,
synchronising apparatus, cables etc. etc. can realistically claim to have
'zero fuel cost'. The 'cheap to build' claim needs to be substantiated with
a 'how much energy needs to be put _in_?'; versus 'how much energy may be
extracted?' Just basing a claim on 'what cost have the beancounters
attributed to this scheme?' , isn't ,IMHO, a valid baseline to draw any
conclusions.
Pounds sterling shouldn't be the base-line but Megajoules in/Megajoules out.

Your prejudices may vary

This is a common view, and imho a mistaken one. Real world energy input
is reflected better by cost than it is by looking at energies used
directly in the manufacture. Why?
1. Business activities other than manufacture come into it IRL, and
often their energy inputs overwhelm manufacture energy use.
2. For every tool or material used in manufacture, it has had to be
manufactured or harvested. For every material or tool used to do that,
those also had to be manufactured. And so on indefinitely.


NT

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:



You can use Uranium to make Plutonium. In fact a fast breeder makes more
fuel than it uses..

I don't think that is so.
The works I consulted suggest that the addition of plutonium to uranium
in MOX plants reduces uranium needs by about 30%.
Against this, extraction of plutonium multiplies high-level waste
about 17 times.
For this reason, the technique is not considered economic at present.

Fast breeders are used principally for weapon production.


No, they aren't. You can't begin to play with fast breeders without
already having everything you need to make weapons-grade plutonium by a
much quicker and easier route.

As I said a few days ago, the quick and easy way is to irradiate uranium
in a very basic thermal reactor, and then put it through a reprocessing
plant. All the existing weapons states had this technology for more than
half a century, and quickly built up more than sufficient stockpiles of
weapons-grade plutonium.

In contrast, the fast breeder was conceived as a way to extract more
energy from 'used' plutonium and uranium that had already reached the
end of its working life in first-generation thermal reactors. It was a
clever concept, but it never had any prospect of being economic.



--
Ian White

Ian White wrote:

Fast breeders are used principally for weapon production.


No, they aren't. You can't begin to play with fast breeders without
already having everything you need to make weapons-grade plutonium by a
much quicker and easier route.

"It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of proliferation
of nuclear weapons than light water-moderated reactors.
An FBR can more easily produce weapons grade material."

In contrast, the fast breeder was conceived as a way to extract more
energy from 'used' plutonium and uranium that had already reached the
end of its working life in first-generation thermal reactors. It was a
clever concept, but it never had any prospect of being economic.

Which is exactly what I said.

However, my main point is that nuclear power stations are often spoken of
as an unlimited source of energy,
whereas in fact the known reserves of uranium
are of the same order as the known reserves of oil.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Ian White wrote:

Fast breeders are used principally for weapon production.


No, they aren't. You can't begin to play with fast breeders without
already having everything you need to make weapons-grade plutonium by a
much quicker and easier route.

"It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of proliferation
of nuclear weapons than light water-moderated reactors.
An FBR can more easily produce weapons grade material."

Since we alread have all the weapsons grade material needed, it makes
little difference. It would make a difference if it were our first nuke
plant, but of course it isnt.


However, my main point is that nuclear power stations are often spoken of
as an unlimited source of energy,
whereas in fact the known reserves of uranium
are of the same order as the known reserves of oil.

that gives decades in which to find more. People dont spend on
exploration until theres a need to.


NT

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:58:14 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote
(in article ):

Ian White wrote:

Fast breeders are used principally for weapon production.


No, they aren't. You can't begin to play with fast breeders without
already having everything you need to make weapons-grade plutonium by a
much quicker and easier route.

"It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of proliferation
of nuclear weapons than light water-moderated reactors.
An FBR can more easily produce weapons grade material."

That's a very thin argument along the lines that one shouldn't process oil
products because of the possibility of making explosives.



In contrast, the fast breeder was conceived as a way to extract more
energy from 'used' plutonium and uranium that had already reached the
end of its working life in first-generation thermal reactors. It was a
clever concept, but it never had any prospect of being economic.

Which is exactly what I said.

However, my main point is that nuclear power stations are often spoken of
as an unlimited source of energy,
whereas in fact the known reserves of uranium
are of the same order as the known reserves of oil.


Hmmm..... reports on that vary widely and are based on a number of
inter-related and more complex factors than are involved in oil discovery and
production. The mid-field view is that there is supply of nuclear fuel
(including all means to produce it) well into the 22nd century.

Andy Hall wrote:

"It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of
proliferation of nuclear weapons than light water-moderated reactors.
An FBR can more easily produce weapons grade material."

That's a very thin argument along the lines that one shouldn't process oil
products because of the possibility of making explosives.

You misunderstand my posting.

I simply observed that FBRs are associated with weapon production,
and when challenged gave the above quote.

FBRs are not in fact regarded as a good prospect for energy production
for other reasons, in particular the vastly increased
high-level waste production.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:55:03 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall wrote:

"It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of
proliferation of nuclear weapons than light water-moderated reactors.
An FBR can more easily produce weapons grade material."

That's a very thin argument along the lines that one shouldn't process oil
products because of the possibility of making explosives.

You misunderstand my posting.

I simply observed that FBRs are associated with weapon production,
and when challenged gave the above quote.

FBRs are not in fact regarded as a good prospect for energy production
for other reasons, in particular the vastly increased
high-level waste production.



That would appear to depend on the particular implementation.

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

"It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of
proliferation of nuclear weapons than light water-moderated reactors.
An FBR can more easily produce weapons grade material."

That's a very thin argument along the lines that one shouldn't process oil
products because of the possibility of making explosives.

You misunderstand my posting.

I simply observed that FBRs are associated with weapon production,
and when challenged gave the above quote.

"Associated" - by whom? Certainly not by the weapons producers
themselves. As I keep trying to tell you, FBRs are not, have never been,
and never will be the practical way to make weapons-grade plutonium.

Even if you had said that a fully developed FBR fuel cycle would put a
lot more plutonium into circulation, that still wouldn't be a valid
point because the material would not be in an accessible or usable form.

If you want something to worry about, make it the amount of Pu-239 that
already exists without benefit of FBRs.


FBRs are not in fact regarded as a good prospect for energy production
for other reasons, in particular the vastly increased
high-level waste production.

The cumulative amount of high-level waste produced by *any* fission
reactor system is almost exactly proportional to the cumulative amount
of heat energy that has been generated. There is no significant
difference between thermal reactors and fast reactors in this respect.



--
Ian White

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:04:58 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

This has very little value.

I'm glad to see that you didn't have any real answers to the points
raised, other than moaning about biased sources. Excellent.


--
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 Fri, 14 Jul 2006 07:45:54 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock"
wrote this:-

You're conveniently leaving out of your claim the _input_ energy costs of
producing the structures. No structure, consisting of a concrete base(?),
pilings, mast, ginormous blades, turning gear, generators, control systems,
synchronising apparatus, cables etc. etc. can realistically claim to have
'zero fuel cost'. The 'cheap to build' claim needs to be substantiated with
a 'how much energy needs to be put _in_?'; versus 'how much energy may be
extracted?' Just basing a claim on 'what cost have the beancounters
attributed to this scheme?' , isn't ,IMHO, a valid baseline to draw any
conclusions.

It is always reassuring when all the opposition can do is come up
with junk that was discredited long ago.

http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#payback

"How long does it take for a turbine to 'pay back' the energy used
to manufacture it?

"The comparison of energy used in manufacture with the energy
produced by a power station is known as the 'energy balance'. It can
be expressed in terms of energy 'pay back' time, i.e. as the time
needed to generate the equivalent amount of energy used in
manufacturing the wind turbine or power station.

"The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in
its manufacture within six to eight months, this compares favourably
with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months."




--
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