On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:17:26 +0100 someone who may be AJH
wrote this:-

I'm uneasy with nuclear power but accept we're going down that route

The nuclear lobby certainly seem to have stitched things up at the
moment. However, the last time they did so they only managed to
build one of the power stations they planned. With a lot of hard
work they can be prevented from even getting that far.

It looks like any next generation ones will be
saddled with such high supervision costs that they will not produce
economic electricity, especially compared with ones being built or
planned in other countries.

Actually the plan is to use designs from overseas, with less
supervision than currently. However, the one in Finland was not
going too well the last I heard (a few months ago).


--
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 Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:25:58 +0100 someone who may be David Hansen
wrote this:-

At high heads!

Not particularly, though high heads are certainly better for some
types of water turbine and a higher head will mean there is more
energy to be extracted.

Morar is an example of a relatively low head turbine installation.
0.75MW from a 5m head.

Notes:

1) this was opened in 1948 and engineering has moved on. If it has
not already been uprated then it probably will be soon. IIRC they
were getting around a 10% improvement in output with this programme.

2) Morar was originally just connected to the local system around
Mallaig and thus was sized so that it could provide output all day
every day. It is now connected to the external electricity system
and thus more electricity could prudently be generated.


--
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 2006-10-16 13:56:12 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:17:26 +0100 someone who may be AJH
wrote this:-

I'm uneasy with nuclear power but accept we're going down that route

The nuclear lobby certainly seem to have stitched things up at the
moment. However, the last time they did so they only managed to
build one of the power stations they planned. With a lot of hard
work they can be prevented from even getting that far.

No need. It's the best solution.

If the greenies want to go off and build a few windmills somewhere,
then as long as it's an an existing industrial area the numbers not too
high, doesn't involve taxpayer's money and keeps them happy then fine.

In the meantime, the serious consideration and investment can go into
nuclear electricity generation where it belongs.

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Nuclear has never got off the subsidy habit, despite being with us
for a long time.

Source for:

a) subsidies since privatisation

b) claims that future plans for nuclear power include subsidy

And while you are at it who do you think is subsidising who with the CO2
climate change levy on electricity generated by nuclear power?

--
Roger Chapman

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:06:39 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

In the meantime, the serious consideration and investment can go into
nuclear electricity generation where it belongs.

I note that you have offered nothing to back up this assertion.


--
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 2006-10-16 14:21:27 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:06:39 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

In the meantime, the serious consideration and investment can go into
nuclear electricity generation where it belongs.

I note that you have offered nothing to back up this assertion.

There's no need. It would simply be restating the obvious.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:19:22 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Source for:

a) subsidies since privatisation

Taxpayers and billpayers.

Privatisation of what? If you mean the electricity industry then
note that nuclear power stations were excluded from that due to
nobody wanting to buy them, largely due to the unknown (then and
now) decommissioning costs. They remained a burden on the taxpayer
and partly the billpayer via various nuclear levies (often called
non-fossil fuel levies to disguise where the money went).

Eventually some of the nuclear power stations were sold. Those that
were not remained a burden on the taxpayer. Those that were sold
remained a burden on the taxpayer for dealing with spent fuel and
decommissioning. They also remained a burden on the billpayer, for
example via the "Nuclear Energy Agreement" which forced Scottish
Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric to take all the electricity
Torness and Hunterston B managed to produce until recently.

http://www.nda.gov.uk outlines the current situation with regard to
decommissioning, but note that their figures don't cover all sites.

b) claims that future plans for nuclear power include subsidy

Not a claim that I made in that posting. However, the attempt to rig
the planning and regulatory system is a subsidy, one which
developers of wind farms have not been given. There are also
questions to do with various forms of soft loan and rigging the
market. Given the past I think it extremely unlikely that these
subsidy junkies will give up the habit in the future.

Note that there has been nothing to prevent a company putting
forward serious proposals for new nuclear power stations since the
privatisations(s). However, no company has done so and if they were
as attractive as the nuclear lobby claims then presumably a company
would have done so before now.

And while you are at it who do you think is subsidising who with the CO2
climate change levy on electricity generated by nuclear power?

I don't have a good word to say about the Climate Change Levy.
Another tax introduced by Mr Prudent in order to be seen to be doing
something.


--
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

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Source for:

a) subsidies since privatisation

Taxpayers and billpayers.

You should have known I meant the evidence about apparently mythical
subsidies.

Privatisation of what? If you mean the electricity industry then
note that nuclear power stations were excluded from that due to
nobody wanting to buy them, largely due to the unknown (then and
now) decommissioning costs. They remained a burden on the taxpayer
and partly the billpayer via various nuclear levies (often called
non-fossil fuel levies to disguise where the money went).

Again you should have known I meant the privatisation of those nuclear
plants that were sold off.

Eventually some of the nuclear power stations were sold. Those that
were not remained a burden on the taxpayer. Those that were sold
remained a burden on the taxpayer for dealing with spent fuel and
decommissioning. They also remained a burden on the billpayer, for
example via the "Nuclear Energy Agreement" which forced Scottish
Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric to take all the electricity
Torness and Hunterston B managed to produce until recently.

You have said that before but I can't see how you can possibly justify
it as an expense when Scotland has been able to export all its surplus
electricity.

You haven't provided a single figure that actually suggests that nuclear
power was a worse investment than coal fired, let alone wind power.

http://www.nda.gov.uk outlines the current situation with regard to
decommissioning, but note that their figures don't cover all sites.

Decommissioning is a relatively small proportion of the overall cost and
should be amortised over the lifetime of the station.

b) claims that future plans for nuclear power include subsidy

Not a claim that I made in that posting. However, the attempt to rig
the planning and regulatory system is a subsidy, one which
developers of wind farms have not been given. There are also
questions to do with various forms of soft loan and rigging the
market. Given the past I think it extremely unlikely that these
subsidy junkies will give up the habit in the future.

Oh yes. The market has been rigged alright but not in the way you
suggest but by requiring British Energy to use the expensive government
owned fuel processor instead of adopting the far cheaper option of waste
storage and by manipulating the base price of electricity to eventually
bankrupt British Energy after which, surprise, surprise, the rules were
changed to make nuclear generation profitable again.

And where is your evidence for your other accusations - nowhere.

Note that there has been nothing to prevent a company putting
forward serious proposals for new nuclear power stations since the
privatisations(s). However, no company has done so and if they were
as attractive as the nuclear lobby claims then presumably a company
would have done so before now.

British Energy has only just been reborn and as long as the possibility
exists that the government will again resort to underhand tricks you
won't get any commercial enterprize interested in owning and running
nuclear powerstations.

And while you are at it who do you think is subsidising who with the CO2
climate change levy on electricity generated by nuclear power?

I don't have a good word to say about the Climate Change Levy.
Another tax introduced by Mr Prudent in order to be seen to be doing
something.

Carbon taxes seem high on the agenda for all 3 parties but applying a
carbon tax to a industry that doesn't directly product CO2 was a
political decision that must have been at least largely influenced by
wind lobby pressure.

--
Roger Chapman

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:52:18 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:06:00 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-


Incorrect. Onshore wind and solar water heating are not subsidised
by government.

What is the DTI’s low carbon buildings grant if not a subsidy?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

The message
from Peter Parry contains these words:

Incorrect. Onshore wind and solar water heating are not subsidised
by government.

What is the DTI’s low carbon buildings grant if not a subsidy?

Prima facie evidence of the Dti pouring money into the nuclear hole? :-)

--
Roger Chapman

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:36:09 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

Incorrect. Onshore wind and solar water heating are not subsidised
by government.

What is the DTI’s low carbon buildings grant if not a subsidy?

I have not gone to the trouble of trying to understand this new
scheme. However, my view of the previous scheme was that the grant
was not worth having for many people. It might even be that the
grant helped inflate prices. A few hundred pounds per solar water
heating installation could be called a small subsidy, but it isn't
in the same league as others.


--
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, 16 Oct 2006 16:44:28 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Oh yes. The market has been rigged alright but not in the way you
suggest but by requiring British Energy to use the expensive government
owned fuel processor instead of adopting the far cheaper option of waste
storage and by manipulating the base price of electricity to eventually
bankrupt British Energy after which, surprise, surprise, the rules were
changed to make nuclear generation profitable again.

The expensive government owned fuel processor is part of the nuclear
"industry". I was aware of the differences between reactor operators
and the fuel processor before you highlighted them.

British Energy has only just been reborn and as long as the possibility
exists that the government will again resort to underhand tricks you
won't get any commercial enterprize interested in owning and running
nuclear powerstations.

And that is the case round the world in comparable countries is it?
Every one of those governments over many years has manipulated
things so nobody has invested in nuclear generation?

Carbon taxes seem high on the agenda for all 3 parties but applying a
carbon tax to a industry that doesn't directly product CO2 was a
political decision that must have been at least largely influenced by
wind lobby pressure.

If only the wind lobby was that powerful. Sadly they are not, unlike
the nuclear lobby.

Anyway, the nuclear "industry" does produce CO2 directly. Not much
at the power station it is true, but either side of the power
station it produced plenty.


--
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

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Oh yes. The market has been rigged alright but not in the way you
suggest but by requiring British Energy to use the expensive government
owned fuel processor instead of adopting the far cheaper option of waste
storage and by manipulating the base price of electricity to eventually
bankrupt British Energy after which, surprise, surprise, the rules were
changed to make nuclear generation profitable again.

The expensive government owned fuel processor is part of the nuclear
"industry". I was aware of the differences between reactor operators
and the fuel processor before you highlighted them.

And is expensive precisely so it can make the government money out of
what was probably once an essential part of the bomb making process.
Ironically it was always intended as a commercial enterprise even though
the tide had already turned in favour of storage rather than processing.

British Energy has only just been reborn and as long as the possibility
exists that the government will again resort to underhand tricks you
won't get any commercial enterprize interested in owning and running
nuclear powerstations.

And that is the case round the world in comparable countries is it?
Every one of those governments over many years has manipulated
things so nobody has invested in nuclear generation?

What have other countries got to do with building nuclear power stations
in the UK apart from having companies who haven't been shafted by their
respective governments and so continue to be at the cutting edge of
emerging technology.

Carbon taxes seem high on the agenda for all 3 parties but applying a
carbon tax to a industry that doesn't directly product CO2 was a
political decision that must have been at least largely influenced by
wind lobby pressure.

If only the wind lobby was that powerful. Sadly they are not, unlike
the nuclear lobby.

Which is why the nuclear industry has got hammered and the wind lobby
overloaded with subsidy?

Nuclear has always had an uphill struggle in this country not least
because of the way in which CND infiltrated old labour. Atlee even kept
his bomb making plans secret from the majority of his cabinet because he
didn't trust their links with CND and, indirectly, the Soviet Union.

Anyway, the nuclear "industry" does produce CO2 directly. Not much
at the power station it is true, but either side of the power
station it produced plenty.

Ah yes, I provide you with an authoritative source that gives the lie to
your claims and you continue to carry on spouting the opposite with
absolutely no evidence to back it up.

--
Roger Chapman

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:47:34 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

The expensive government owned fuel processor is part of the nuclear
"industry". I was aware of the differences between reactor operators
and the fuel processor before you highlighted them.

And is expensive precisely so it can make the government money

Has government ever made money out of it? I somehow doubt it and
they certainly haven't been making money out of it for some decades
as they have poured money into white elephant plants "justified"
using voodoo economics.

The same story is being repeated with the NDA, which has had some of
the mess dumped on it.

out of
what was probably once an essential part of the bomb making process.

As were the first nuclear "power stations", all the Magnox ones. If
they managed to produce any electricity that was a bonus.

Ironically it was always intended as a commercial enterprise even though
the tide had already turned in favour of storage rather than processing.

When BNFL was set up it was simply the production arm of the AEA. I
find it hard to believe that it was ever intended as a commercial
enterprise, it certainly never operated as one.

What have other countries got to do with building nuclear power stations
in the UK

You were trying to show that the UK nuclear "industry" has been
prevented from building nuclear power stations by the nasty UK
government. If that was the case then presumably history would be
different in comparable countries, but it isn't. Therefore it seems
unlikely that the UK government can be blamed.

Which is why the nuclear industry has got hammered

Decades of almost endless subsidies, after which the "industry" was
still unable to stand on its own feet. If only renewables had that
amount of subsidy to get them going. Indeed we saw the nuclear
"industry" kill off the promising Salter's Duck 25 odd years ago.

and the wind lobby overloaded with subsidy?

It isn't. There was some subsidy, others might call it investment,
to develop the engineering. It is now on a commercial footing,
though there is still some subsidy for wider reasons. This subsidy
is nothing like the various non fossil fuel charges, which largely
went to prop up the nuclear "industry".

Nuclear has always had an uphill struggle in this country

Careful, the bias is showing.

Ah yes, I provide you with an authoritative source that gives the lie to
your claims and you continue to carry on spouting the opposite with
absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Nice try, but anybody who cares to read the relevant parts of the
thread will note that I didn't make any claims about the relative
carbon dioxide emissions between wind and nuclear generated
electricity. Rather I asked for the source of your assertion that
nuclear has marginally lower emissions than wind.

A few things to note:

1) When prodded you provided the source. This is the nuclear lobby
quoting a paper by the Organisation for Economic Development and
Co-operation (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).

2) You may claim that this is an authoritative source. Others may or
may not agree.

3) There are no claims of mine on this particular subject in the
relevant parts of the thread. Therefore you have not given a lie to
anything and I have not spouted the opposite.

4) Were you to ask me about the relative carbon dioxide emissions of
wind and nuclear generated electricity, rather than inventing my
"opinions" in your head and spouting what you think they are, you
might be surprised by my answer. Feel free to ask. If you do the
answer will be backed up by an authoritative source that is not the
mouthpiece of vested interests.



--
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

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

The expensive government owned fuel processor is part of the nuclear
"industry". I was aware of the differences between reactor operators
and the fuel processor before you highlighted them.

And is expensive precisely so it can make the government money

Has government ever made money out of it? I somehow doubt it and
they certainly haven't been making money out of it for some decades
as they have poured money into white elephant plants "justified"
using voodoo economics.

Since THORP has only been running since 1994 it is not surprising that
in the decades before then they didn't make money out of it. BNFL
apparently insists that it is profitable but some outside observers are
equally sure than it is not. I see no reason why, having tied British
Energy into long term processing contracts they didn't want, and
obtained other contracts THORP shouldn't have been profitable, if only
it could have been made to work properly. That it is now to be closed
down means the reprocessing plant itself will not have been profitable
over its lifespan but it was politics that has driven it from start to
finish. Storage of spent fuel has always been the cheaper option and
reprocessing only makes sense if there is a desperate need for the
salvaged plutonium and uranium. Otherwise you just get a greater volume
of radioactive stuff to store.

The same story is being repeated with the NDA, which has had some of
the mess dumped on it.

Nuclear mess is the NDAs raison d'etre.

out of
what was probably once an essential part of the bomb making process.

As were the first nuclear "power stations", all the Magnox ones. If
they managed to produce any electricity that was a bonus.

So your attempts to conflate military essentials with civilian
commercial concerns is just an attempt to muddy the waters.

Ironically it was always intended as a commercial enterprise even though
the tide had already turned in favour of storage rather than processing.

When BNFL was set up it was simply the production arm of the AEA. I
find it hard to believe that it was ever intended as a commercial
enterprise, it certainly never operated as one.

I was referring to THORP which was allegedly intended to be a commercial
operation.

What have other countries got to do with building nuclear power stations
in the UK

You were trying to show that the UK nuclear "industry" has been
prevented from building nuclear power stations by the nasty UK
government. If that was the case then presumably history would be
different in comparable countries, but it isn't. Therefore it seems
unlikely that the UK government can be blamed.

I have absolutely no idea what you are rabbitting on about. The UK
Government has created a climate where no commercial concern would
venture without cast iron guarantees that the goalposts can't be shifted
again as soon as the mark is committed to the project.

Which is why the nuclear industry has got hammered

Decades of almost endless subsidies, after which the "industry" was
still unable to stand on its own feet. If only renewables had that
amount of subsidy to get them going. Indeed we saw the nuclear
"industry" kill off the promising Salter's Duck 25 odd years ago.

Money for bombs. Windmills aren't quite such a good deterrent. If you
looked into it you would probably find a much better reason for
terminating subsidised research into Salters Duck than the faint
prospect of marginal competition to nuclear generation. Scaling up even
to windfarm size must have been a huge problem.

and the wind lobby overloaded with subsidy?

It isn't. There was some subsidy, others might call it investment,
to develop the engineering. It is now on a commercial footing,
though there is still some subsidy for wider reasons. This subsidy
is nothing like the various non fossil fuel charges, which largely
went to prop up the nuclear "industry".

Take away the ROCs and the whole industry would fold up their tents and
slip quietly away.

And as I have mentioned before the climate change levy doesn't exactly
prop up the nuclear industry.

Nuclear has always had an uphill struggle in this country

Careful, the bias is showing.

I don't recall endless marches and demonstrations from the back the bomb
brigade or even the existence of an organisation on a par with CND or
the anti nuclear greens.

Ah yes, I provide you with an authoritative source that gives the lie to
your claims and you continue to carry on spouting the opposite with
absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Nice try, but anybody who cares to read the relevant parts of the
thread will note that I didn't make any claims about the relative
carbon dioxide emissions between wind and nuclear generated
electricity. Rather I asked for the source of your assertion that
nuclear has marginally lower emissions than wind.

Ah so you categorically deny you are the same David Hanson who claimed:

"Anyway, the nuclear "industry" does produce CO2 directly. Not much
at the power station it is true, but either side of the power
station it produced plenty."


A few things to note:

1) When prodded you provided the source. This is the nuclear lobby
quoting a paper by the Organisation for Economic Development and
Co-operation (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).

That was the Dti who are a government department. The OECD is an
international organisation with considerable scientific expertise.

2) You may claim that this is an authoritative source. Others may or
may not agree.

You obviously don't but you are still not prepared to put up figures or
referees to back up your unjustified assertions.

3) There are no claims of mine on this particular subject in the
relevant parts of the thread. Therefore you have not given a lie to
anything and I have not spouted the opposite.

Quote just above doesn't express your opinion then? Ingenious though to
argue it isn't just because it was in a separate thread. Different hat
for a different thread?

4) Were you to ask me about the relative carbon dioxide emissions of
wind and nuclear generated electricity, rather than inventing my
"opinions" in your head and spouting what you think they are, you
might be surprised by my answer. Feel free to ask. If you do the
answer will be backed up by an authoritative source that is not the
mouthpiece of vested interests.

Go on, surprise me with some real facts.

--
Roger Chapman

AJH wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:44:04 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


The negatives: support
response times seem to have got slower lately


Thanks for all that John, what support issues have you had? As I only

Personally none.

You can see their log of current issues he

http://www.plus.net/supportpages.htm...=servicestatus

(they are generally good at keeping you up to date when there are problems)

They had a high profile problem a while back when they attempted to
bring online a new storage solution for their main email system - some
poor engineer ended up formatting the live disk and not the new one!
This resulted in loss of some customer email. There have been one of two
spells were the usenet feed has glitched - but that has usually be
sorted in a few days. There is an ongoing program of upgrades adn
investment going on which inevitbly means the occational glitch as they
switchover to new systems.

The main backlog of support problems seems to have come from the roll
out of DSL Max (BTs upgrade product offering 8MB/sec downstream 448K
upstream).

Historically call answer times were under ten mins at peak times. They
are current running slower than that, but the trend is back in the right
direction:

http://www.plus.net/supportpages.html?a=212

(the lines are open 24/7 so I can usually get through with no delay at 3am!)

want to arrange internet access via adsl and not e-mail or usenet only
access to web browsing and my hosted domain's pop server is necessary.

Can't see there being any problem with that. They generally don't port
filter access to servers on other ISPs - unless you choose a package
that precludes access to binary newsfeeds or P2P traffic.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:01:20 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:58:18 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:44:09 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

The simple answer for our energy needs is go nuclear

We have tried that before. It ended in white elephants like Torness.

The French seem to manage quite well, and are apparently the only
country in the EU who have met their Kyoto commitment already.

Given their "advantage" in having lots of nukes any Kyoto "commitment"
could only be met by overstating their CO2 emissions in the first
place, something that just requires a bent bureaucrat in Paris -
assuming they could find a spare one who wasn't full time employed on
fiddling EU subsidies on anything and everything. As it's the French ,
full time in this instance means 4 hours a week with statutory coffee,
fag and **** breaks as agreed with the union and the minister for
"employment".

The French can't even commit to using soap and water in a morning, so
reducing CO2 emissions is way down on their priorities, relegated to a
wet Wednesday with a full moon in April 2009. Top priority is a 3 hour
lunch break, "employment" for life and the right for a dog to ****
anywhere.

The facts are the French are still churning out roughly the same CO2
now as they did back in the late 80's, roughly 2/3 of the UK CO2 on a
per citizen basis, which bearing in mind their hopeless productivity
and general contribution to life on this planet is 2/3 too much.




--

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:13:32 +0100, Matt
wrote:


Given their "advantage" in having lots of nukes any Kyoto "commitment"
could only be met by overstating their CO2 emissions in the first
place, something that just requires a bent bureaucrat in Paris -
assuming they could find a spare one who wasn't full time employed on
fiddling EU subsidies on anything and everything.

I believe it is met by the EU having a joint pool which is shared by
many. Apparently the Kyoto commitment will put the end of the world
off by 6 months and for some inexplicable reasoning if you shut down
UK industry and send its plant (minus the environmental protection
features like fume scrubbers which no one wants) to India or China
then their CO2 or whatever doesn't matter and doesn't contribute to
the end of the world. Pretty neat.

As the greenwashers say, it's not what you do but how you present it
that matters.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:33:14 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

I was referring to THORP which was allegedly intended to be a commercial
operation.

I'm glad you have now clarified what you were talking about.

If you
looked into it you would probably find a much better reason for
terminating subsidised research into Salters Duck than the faint
prospect of marginal competition to nuclear generation. Scaling up even
to windfarm size must have been a huge problem.

There were certainly problems to be solved, for example IIRC in the
hydraulics. Whether they could be solved or not was a question that
was not allowed to be asked, undoubtedly because vested interests
were worried about what the answer might be. Salter's Duck wasn't
the only example. Scotland's lead on wind turbines was lost to
Denmark due to poor government decisions. There is every chance that
our new lead on wave and tidal devices will go the same way, despite
the recent announcement.

Take away the ROCs and the whole industry would fold up their tents and
slip quietly away.

Except that the wind industry started long before ROCs.

That is not to say that there are no problems with ROCs. The
"engineering neutral" approach has perhaps led to an over-emphasis
on wind, something I have said before and will probably say again.
However, that does not mean there should be sudden changes because
wind and hydro are showing what is possible and some other
renewables need a little longer to mature.

By the way I have remembered that in this or another thread someone
asked about my source of figures for the current position in
Scotland. It is the Scottish Renewables Forum
http://www.scottishrenewables.com/da...oute%20Map.pdf
which takes as its starting point Executive figures for 2002.

Ah so you categorically deny you are the same David Hanson who claimed:

"Anyway, the nuclear "industry" does produce CO2 directly. Not much
at the power station it is true, but either side of the power
station it produced plenty."

My remark relates to incorrect claims by the nuclear lobby that
nuclear generated electricity is carbon-free. It is not carbon-free,
though it is low-carbon compared to, for example, coal. I could
perhaps have worded it slightly better had I not typed it in a rush.
However, it is not a statement about the difference between carbon
emissions of nuclear and wind-generated electricity.

The failure to spell my name correctly perhaps indicates that you
are not paying as much attention as you think. It is a minor point,
but still worth making.

That was the Dti who are a government department.

A government department who simply quoted the Organisation for
Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency
(NEA).

The OECD is an
international organisation with considerable scientific expertise.

They are an international organisation. I have no idea about their
scientific experience, but their engineering experience is not well
regarded by some and neither is their economic expertise.

I note that you didn't comment on whether their Nuclear Energy
Agency should be regarded as an impartial source of information.

You obviously don't but you are still not prepared to put up figures or
referees to back up your unjustified assertions.

We first need to separate what I have said from what some claim I
have said. I have said that nuclear-generated electricity is not
carbon-free, for example the quote above.

On the difference between carbon emissions from wind and
nuclear-generated electricity I think that the Sustainable
Development Commission working paper on the subject is largely
correct and I would not dissent from it at the current level of
knowledge.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=337

From section 4.7, with my emphasis added:

"Nuclear power is therefore not carbon free. But *** with CO2
emissions at a level comparable to a major low carbon alternative,
wind power, *** the impact of indirect emissions is not included in
the following analysis of nuclear’s potential contribution to
reducing the UK’s CO2 emissions. This is in recognition of the fact
that in a low carbon economy, the indirect emissions from nuclear
power, along with other low carbon technologies, would be
substantially reduced."

The working paper includes a long discussion on the difficulties of
making such comparisons which is worth reading, as are all the
working papers and the report that came out of them
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.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

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

I was referring to THORP which was allegedly intended to be a commercial
operation.

I'm glad you have now clarified what you were talking about.

It shouldn't have needed any clarification since the subject was British
Energys spent fuel processing costs.

If you
looked into it you would probably find a much better reason for
terminating subsidised research into Salters Duck than the faint
prospect of marginal competition to nuclear generation. Scaling up even
to windfarm size must have been a huge problem.

There were certainly problems to be solved, for example IIRC in the
hydraulics. Whether they could be solved or not was a question that
was not allowed to be asked, undoubtedly because vested interests
were worried about what the answer might be. Salter's Duck wasn't
the only example. Scotland's lead on wind turbines was lost to
Denmark due to poor government decisions. There is every chance that
our new lead on wave and tidal devices will go the same way, despite
the recent announcement.

All to be blamed on the nuclear lobby rather than a government run by
arts graduates for arts graduates.

Take away the ROCs and the whole industry would fold up their tents and
slip quietly away.

Except that the wind industry started long before ROCs.

They are about the only thing standing between commercial operators and
overnight ruin.

That is not to say that there are no problems with ROCs. The
"engineering neutral" approach has perhaps led to an over-emphasis
on wind, something I have said before and will probably say again.
However, that does not mean there should be sudden changes because
wind and hydro are showing what is possible and some other
renewables need a little longer to mature.

By the way I have remembered that in this or another thread someone
asked about my source of figures for the current position in
Scotland. It is the Scottish Renewables Forum
http://www.scottishrenewables.com/da...oute%20Map.pdf
which takes as its starting point Executive figures for 2002.

Ah so you categorically deny you are the same David Hanson who claimed:

"Anyway, the nuclear "industry" does produce CO2 directly. Not much
at the power station it is true, but either side of the power
station it produced plenty."

My remark relates to incorrect claims by the nuclear lobby that
nuclear generated electricity is carbon-free. It is not carbon-free,
though it is low-carbon compared to, for example, coal. I could
perhaps have worded it slightly better had I not typed it in a rush.
However, it is not a statement about the difference between carbon
emissions of nuclear and wind-generated electricity.

Your remark came directly after mine about direct production of CO2.
Neither the nuclear industry or myself claim that it is carbon free over
the whole lifecycle.

The failure to spell my name correctly perhaps indicates that you
are not paying as much attention as you think. It is a minor point,
but still worth making.

Clutching at straws. You are lucky you didn't get called Hansom (as in
cab). I am sure my spell checker would oblige.

That was the Dti who are a government department.

A government department who simply quoted the Organisation for
Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency
(NEA).

How do you know they simply quoted the figures without testing the
underlying hypothesis.

The OECD is an
international organisation with considerable scientific expertise.

They are an international organisation. I have no idea about their
scientific experience, but their engineering experience is not well
regarded by some and neither is their economic expertise.

Yes and some people think the world is flat.

I note that you didn't comment on whether their Nuclear Energy
Agency should be regarded as an impartial source of information.

It would have a lot more distinguished detractors if its figures were
anything like as suspect as you claim.

You obviously don't but you are still not prepared to put up figures or
referees to back up your unjustified assertions.

We first need to separate what I have said from what some claim I
have said. I have said that nuclear-generated electricity is not
carbon-free, for example the quote above.

When I quoted the figures from the Dti you cast doubt on their accuracy
in such a way as to suggest they were worthless.

On the difference between carbon emissions from wind and
nuclear-generated electricity I think that the Sustainable
Development Commission working paper on the subject is largely
correct and I would not dissent from it at the current level of
knowledge.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=337

From section 4.7, with my emphasis added:

"Nuclear power is therefore not carbon free. But *** with CO2
emissions at a level comparable to a major low carbon alternative,
wind power, *** the impact of indirect emissions is not included in
the following analysis of nuclear’s potential contribution to
reducing the UK’s CO2 emissions. This is in recognition of the fact
that in a low carbon economy, the indirect emissions from nuclear
power, along with other low carbon technologies, would be
substantially reduced."

Perhaps I should emphasise that you have taken that paragraph out of
context to provide a misleading take on the report as a whole.

"The release of CO2 from nuclear power is estimated by most industry
sources to be between 2-20 tonnes per gigawatt-hour of electricity,
about the same as windpower if construction and component manufacture is
taken into account."

It so happens that the 2-20 range puts a better gloss on nuclear power
than the 11-22 range quoted by the Dti so can this government department
be trusted even as much as the Dti?

The working paper includes a long discussion on the difficulties of
making such comparisons which is worth reading, as are all the
working papers and the report that came out of them
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html

But back to what you said befo

"Anyway, the nuclear "industry" does produce CO2 directly. Not much at
the power station it is true, but either side of the power station it
produced plenty."

Plenty is a comparative term and the implication was that the favoured
generator was wind power. All you have succeeded in doing so far is
confirming that what I said about the comparable CO2 costs of wind and
nuclear was correct and that there is no magic totally CO2 free
generation to be had.

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:11:07 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:


I note that you didn't comment on whether their Nuclear Energy
Agency should be regarded as an impartial source of information....

I think that the Sustainable
Development Commission working paper on the subject is largely
correct and I would not dissent from it at the current level of
knowledge.

If it came to a choice about impartiality I think the NEA would be a
long way ahead of the Sustainable Development Commission.

SDC
Headed by - Lord Porritt of Hampstead, lawyer, ex head of Friends of
the Earth and anti-nuclear campaigner.
Director - Andrew Lee, ex-director of campaigns at WWF UK and
anti-nuclear campaigner.
3 vice "chairs". 1 a member of Greenpeace and an anti nuclear
campaigner. 1 the ex-director of "Green Alliance" and an anti nuclear
campaigner.

Of the rest of the board about half have an anti nuclear background.
The only common thing many share is that most of them have no
knowledge or educational background in science, engineering or power
production.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:01:40 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Plenty is a comparative term

Plenty is indeed a comparative term. My use of it was fairly
obvious, plenty is greater then zero. However, as I have already
indicated, were I producing a polished paper rather than just
discussing things in a casual manner I would use a different word.

Claims of zero-carbon emission by the nuclear "industry" are common.
For example their paid PR consultant Bernard Ingham made such a
claim on "Any Questions" on Radio 4 a year or two ago. He also said
that anyone who disagreed with his opinion was, "an enemy of the
people." It is mildly amusing to see others with the same attitude,
but it does not make their arguments any more convincing.

and the implication was that the favoured generator was wind power.

There is no need for any implication. I favour renewables, including
wind and oppose new nuclear generation.

However, there are two notes to this position:

1) don't imagine that this is for reasons of carbon dioxide
emissions. I have said before and I will undoubtedly say again that
if carbon dioxide emissions were the only criteria then nuclear
generation would be very attractive.

2) I might be convinced that selective life extension of some
nuclear generators is a suitable stopgap. There is no need for this
at the moment, but there might be circumstances where this is the
least worst option.

Should you wish to introduce some more evidence to back up your
assertions then I may consider it. Otherwise you may have the last
word.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Plenty is a comparative term

Plenty is indeed a comparative term. My use of it was fairly
obvious, plenty is greater then zero. However, as I have already
indicated, were I producing a polished paper rather than just
discussing things in a casual manner I would use a different word.

Oh what a pompous and pretentious statement. Plenty is indeed greater
than zero but then so is absolutely every measure of a positive quantity
right down to the smallest single subatomic particle.

Claims of zero-carbon emission by the nuclear "industry" are common.
For example their paid PR consultant Bernard Ingham made such a
claim on "Any Questions" on Radio 4 a year or two ago. He also said
that anyone who disagreed with his opinion was, "an enemy of the
people." It is mildly amusing to see others with the same attitude,
but it does not make their arguments any more convincing.

I don't know whether Ingham does act for anyone in the nuclear industry
but appearing on Any Questions he would be voicing his own opinions.
Claims of zero-carbon emission by the nuclear industry are no more
dishonest than those relating to the wind industry. In both cases they
should be qualified by the same explanation that the claim relates to
the actual generation of electricity and not to the lifetime cost of the
project.

and the implication was that the favoured generator was wind power.

There is no need for any implication. I favour renewables, including
wind and oppose new nuclear generation.

No the implication was that the comparison favoured wind energy which is
just not true.

However, there are two notes to this position:

1) don't imagine that this is for reasons of carbon dioxide
emissions. I have said before and I will undoubtedly say again that
if carbon dioxide emissions were the only criteria then nuclear
generation would be very attractive.

In the medium term at least it is going to be more difficult to meet CO2
reduction targets if more nuclear isn't part of the equation. It is also
going to be more expensive which adds to the likelihood of targets being
missed if nuclear is ruled out.

2) I might be convinced that selective life extension of some
nuclear generators is a suitable stopgap. There is no need for this
at the moment, but there might be circumstances where this is the
least worst option.

If nuclear is to continue to play a useful role in electricity
generation the new stations have to be put in hand very shortly
otherwise the long rollout would see the UK short of energy by the time
Sizewell B closes in 2015.

Should you wish to introduce some more evidence to back up your
assertions then I may consider it. Otherwise you may have the last
word.

If only.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Peter Parry contains these words:

If it came to a choice about impartiality I think the NEA would be a
long way ahead of the Sustainable Development Commission.

Thanks for that Peter. I didn't think to look beyond the fact that this
was another government institution.

Silly of me to overlook the role of Tony's Cronies in the governance of
this country.

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:43:17 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

If it came to a choice about impartiality I think the NEA would be a
long way ahead of the Sustainable Development Commission.

IIRC you have made similar accusations about the SDC before. If not
it was someone else. They were unconvincing then and they remain
unconvincing now.

People can check on the veracity of your assertions by looking at
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/page...issioners.html and
deciding for themselves. The quick check is to study the
commissioner who steers the work on energy, a director of AEA
Technology plc http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/bulkin.html

The idea that the rather mild SDC is a hotbed of people who would
never give nuclear generated electricity a hearing is disproved by
the simple expedient of reading their reports. Far from giving a
simple "anti-nuclear" stance, as some assert, they outline the
complexities of the discussion well. Sorry if this doesn't fit into
sound bites. They also indicate the level of support for various
propositions amongst the members when necessary, including their
report on nuclear generation.

If you really think they are a hotbed of anti-nuclear zealots then
take a look at http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Main_Page and
compare and contrast.

Two things to note about Nuclear Spin:

1) unlike their opponents, they are clear about who they are and who
funds them.

2) unlike their opponents, they do let others have a say. For
example the Sunday Times "cash for access" accusations against Ian
Fells have been removed and they have put his explanation up for all
to see, together with their own comments on it.

http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Ian_Fells is the Nuclear Spin
page on Mr Fells. The accusations are at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...807791,00.html should
anyone wish to read them.



--
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, 18 Oct 2006 16:32:16 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:43:17 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

If it came to a choice about impartiality I think the NEA would be a
long way ahead of the Sustainable Development Commission.

IIRC you have made similar accusations about the SDC before.

Not accusations, simply comments based upon a bit of research.

If not
it was someone else. They were unconvincing then and they remain
unconvincing now.

Feel free to point out the errors.

How many of the commissioners have a scientific or engineering
background?

People can check on the veracity of your assertions by looking at
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/page...issioners.html and
deciding for themselves.

Where they will find exactly what I said.

The quick check is to study the
commissioner who steers the work on energy, a director of AEA
Technology plc http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/bulkin.html

One out of 19?

The idea that the rather mild SDC is a hotbed of people who would
never give nuclear generated electricity a hearing is disproved by
the simple expedient of reading their reports.

All of which "impartially" conclude that nuclear is a bad idea.

Far from giving a
simple "anti-nuclear" stance, as some assert, they outline the
complexities of the discussion well.

They are far too experienced to put out a simple message - they
include too many media spin specialists on the board. Of course they
will put out a pile of verbiage - but it won't alter the preconceived
message.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/