Energy policy for the 21st Century.

Some facts.

Total energy usage UK, 2001 about 240 million tonnes of oil equivalent.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file11250.pdf

Energy density of oil is 42MJ per kilogram, so the energy consumption of
the UK is around 10^13 J/year or 2.79E12 Kwh

This equates to a total average power consumption of 317.35Gw. Or 317351 MW.

This is probably used at an average efficiency of about 50%..heating is
more efficient, car transport less, electricity generation somewhere
between.. so for a wet finger estimate, to replace all fossil fuel by
alternative power distributed by electrical means represents a total
generation capacity of say 160GW.

The national grid has a current capacity of 77GW So it would require
probably a x3 upgrade to cope with using it as the primary energy
distribution network. Not trivial, but not beyond capital
availability...this paper suggests that something in the region of
£2-£10billiion would cover it. FAR less than the cost of a single windfarm.

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../126/12608.htm

The national grid runs at about 97% efficiency at full load..obviously
somewhat less at reduced power as losses tend to be partly fixed, as
well as load dependent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_UK

With a population of about 58 million, in 2001

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page844.asp

This represents an *average* power requirement (OUTPUT energy, not fuel
used) per capita of 2.7kW.

The biggest wind farm under construction is around 3MW per turbine.

http://www.tfot.info/pod/126/worlds-...wind-farm.html

So to generate 160GW of power takes around 53,000 of these turbines.

The latest and greatest wind farm costs around $3billion (£1.5billion)
for 90MW, therefore the total cost of going €˜all wind power would be
£2.6 trillion pounds.

In per capita terms, at a capital cost of £16.67 per watt, that is a
capital cost of £45k per person for total generation capacity requirements.

The average cost of (conventional) generating capacity is quoted here as
$1000 per kilowatt
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...uclearnow.html

Or £500 per kilowatt, or 50p per watt. Contrast that with £16.67 per
watt for the latest greatest windmill project.

Estimated capital costs for nuclear power are somewhat higher €“ the
above source cites $2000 per kilowatt for an AGR, or £1 a watt. A
capital cost of a mere £2,700 per capita to build nuclear power stations
for all the UKs energy needs. 16 times better return on investment than
offshore windmills. Even allowing for €˜pro nuclear bias in the paper
cited, that has to represent an enormous differential in capital cost
with respect to windmills. Decommissioning costs are estimated to be up
to 15% of the above.

Fuel costs are a relatively insignificant part of the total cost of
nuclear power as has been shown earlier €“ less than .1p per kWh
currently. Running staffing, maintenance and capital depreciation plus
decommissioning represent the largest part of the energy costs. For
example over a 20 year period at say £1 per watt capital cost, a
straight amortization makes the £1000 per kilowatt spread out over
175200 hours, less than 0.56p per unit (kWh) generated.

In addition Wind power is highly inflexible: when the wind blows you
have more than you want, when it doesnt you have none. Expecting that
Scotland will be blowing while England is still, is a dangerous
assumption, and would require even more grid investment to carry power
from one part of the country to another.

Nuclear stations have a different problem: they do not like to cope with
highly fluctuating demand.

That means storage for part of the diurnal cycle would be needed for a
100% nuclear electric scenario.

That takes us on to the next bit of analysis. Non fossil fuel transport.

Batteries are available that will satisfy all transport needs (lithium
ion polymer and the like) €“ but currently at a high price. However
there is nothing intrinsically difficult about making them - no more so
than a typical lead acid battery at 1/10th the price per unit capacity.

Diesel energy density is about 38MJ/liter..and taking an average tank
of €“ say €“ 50 liters, then we need a 1400Mj of battery for an €˜average
car..388Kwh. However an electric only vehicle is likely to be around 90%
efficient as compared with an average of 15-25% for a diesel car (not
only is the diesel at best 30% efficient, but other losses €“ braking,
idling and so on are present: regenerative braking and zero fuel
consumption at idle apart from radio/aircon etc is likely to get a
better comparable efficiency figure overall) So a similar battery needs
to be around 75kWh for similar range €“ 400 miles. In practice for MOST
needs we can go to around half this for reduced range. - about 35kWh.
With this keyed in to off peak charging on an every night basis, the
total transport needs of the country can absorb the electricity at times
when the generating capacity exceeds immediate needs.

Given that the energy spilt between industrial (mainly heating/cooling)
domestic( mainly heating) and transport (mainly heating the air!!) is
broadly equal, we can look at a domestic energy storage situation: Again
these are broad brush strokes, but serves to give an order of magnitude
indication: if each individual has an energy rating of 2.7Kw, and about
a third of that is domestic consumption, then we arrive at an average of
900W/person consumption in the home.

For a 4 person family, to run all day and only use off peak electricity,
we need 16 hours of capacity: say 24 hours capacity 3.6Kwx24hours =
86.4kWh..or a couple of car batteries as described above. In lead acid
terms its 7200Ah at 12v..

Now I found a 200AH truck battery at £142.99 retail
http://www.tayna.co.uk/catalog/305/0...nge-page1.html

And that equates to 36 of those to act as an energy store for a 4 person
household. A shade over £5000. Given the ease with which a new house
could be equipped not with a wet central heating system €“ at
£5,000-£10,000 €“ but with an electrical one at far lower cost, this is
not an excessive figu indeed the need for stored hot water would be
eliminated, as the PEAK power output of such a battery would be well in
excess of 100KW...enough to fill a bath or run a couple of showers. One
would probably wire the house as a DC house at 240v with a €˜smart
charger that would charge when €“ say €“ the voltage rose above a certain
level indicating low load on the national generating capacity. That plus
inverters for legacy AC equipment would enable the house to run for
several days in summer, and at least 8 hours in winter, with no other
power source whatsoever.


Such distributed battery storage, with the cost borne by the user, would
completely solve the daily peak to mean issues of the grid/power station
complex. In addition if electric cars were harmonized to around 240V DC
as well, that would represent an enormous pool of energy storage that
could be used in emergencies. It is accepted that such an uptake of lead
acid batteries would seriously strain the production capacity and actual
lead resources but once in place,, lead batteries are very recyclable.

What about other alternative energies?€“ windmills are obviously
ridiculously expensive..

Well solar power direct is certainly a potential contributor..this article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...9/ccview19.xml

comes up with a capital cost requirement of around $1/watt (50p/watt) as
the economic point. Which sits well with previously calculated figures
of a nuclear power station at around £1/W..with a longer life span and
less maintenance..(no need to scrub the algae off the roof panels with
nuclear).. However such technology is a ways off yet, and would
obviously operate at reduced efficiency in winter, when demand for fuel
is at its highest.

This article
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HT...interview/759/

says we can expect about 50W/sq meter *average* solar energy in the
UK..with a typical conversion efficiency of 10% (and thats bloody
optimistic) we get just 5W per square meter average out of a solar panel.

So for our 160GW national needs, thats 32G sq meters..

About 176 kilometres square, or 110 miles square roughly. About twice
the land area currently devoted to agriculture..

Right. Might be easier to plant it with biofuel? Basically what this
shows us is that we actually produce nearly as much heat as we get from
the sun on land by burning fossil fuels..In our climate solar energy
would be €“ if the price was right €“ cheaper probably than windmills, but
to make any significant impact at all, the area required exceeds even
windmills.

In fact there is not enough agricultural land area to grow our own food,
let alone fuel, and the solar energy density makes wide scale solar
power a complete non starter as far as any significant contribution goes.

Where does this leave us?

The first point is that at current population levels a €˜renewable
energy policy is simply a non-starter. There is insufficient energy
coming into the country as sunlight to meet our energy needs with any
available 'renewable' technology.

Wind power which essentially uses the oceans as solar collectors, is
around ten times as expensive as any other alternative. Its only viable
now as a result of massive subsidies.

The UK, and most of Northern Europe, has almost no alternatives between

- continued use of fossil fuels on a massive scale.
- reducing population levels and lifestyles (and energy consumption) to
something approaching pre-industrial levels.
- go for a nuclear electric base solution, augmented by small scale
production from other means. And switch to battery-electric vehicles in
toto.
-
Nothing else is remotely viable when analysed in detail.

All of the current €˜energy conservation measures that are promoted by
governments at best might reduce the total consumption by a few percent
...that figure of 2.7KW per person average power consumption makes
replacing 10 x 60W bulbs that are on perhaps 20% of the time with 10 x
25W bulbs €¦90W average saving at best. In a 4 person house using an
average of 10.8kW..and indeed the heating effect of the bulbs would be
lost as well, so in reality probably only a saving of 30-50W against a
total energy burn of 10kW..about 0.3%.

Better insulation MIGHT help €“ but whilst energy efficiency of houses
has increased since 1970, per capita domestic heating energy has
increased. Why? Because less people live in large families in flats and
small houses., and more people live in larger spaces. And people travel
more.

Reducing peoples standard of living more than slightly is simply
politically unacceptable.

The final conclusion goes like this.

We cannot sustain the population we now have and anything approaching
the standard of living we have come to expect, without generating more
power than any renewable sources can actually generate, at any cost.

For reasons geopolitical, of resource depreciation, and of climate
change, the continued use of fossil fuels has to be brought down €“ not
by a few tenths of a percent, but by a huge percentage- more than 50% -
in the next 100 years or so.

No viable alternative to nuclear power exists. Not for the scale
required, and even that requires significant investment in electricity
distribution and battery technology to become practicable.

However these are at least soluble problems. Using windmills and solar
panels €“ at least in N Europe, does not even address the problem. Any
more than government inspired initiatives for CFL light bulbs or
upgrading insulation standards do anything more than provide political
spin to reassure a nervous population that €˜something is being done.


Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was NOT
the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in the
context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:
Politically the EU is between a rock and a hard place: on one hand the
clamour for climate change measures is deafening, but also the clamour
against nuclear energy. This leaves governments with little alternative
but to simply fudge the issues, come up with inadequate directives, and
throw the hot potatoes a little further into the future.

You will also note that in the proposed viable future, oil/gas companies
have ceased to exist as a significant force. This in itself should be
enough to realise why any so called 'scientific' study hat is funded by
oil companies should be viewede with some scepticism.

On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy policy for the 21st Century.

snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda

Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not away
of topic for cam.misc?

Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta lot
backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and disburst
ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument agains
Newclean Power.

Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Energy policy for the 21st Century.

snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda


Typical.

Facts are rejected as propaganda, and conclusions logically derived are
vapi.


Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not away
of topic for cam.misc?

nothing is off topic for a .misc group.



Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta lot
backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and disburst
ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument agains
Newclean Power.

Do you speak english?


Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?

No idea what you are on about. Still, nothing new there.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Energy policy for the 21st Century.

snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda


Typical.

Facts are rejected as propaganda, and conclusions logically derived are
vapi.


Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not away
of topic for cam.misc?

nothing is off topic for a .misc group.



Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta lot
backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and disburst
ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument agains
Newclean Power.

Do you speak english?


Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?

No idea what you are on about. Still, nothing new there.

The only alternative, unless you want to use your washing machine et al on a
windy day etc.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:26:51 -0000, "Nobby" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Energy policy for the 21st Century.

snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda


Typical.

Facts are rejected as propaganda, and conclusions logically derived are
vapi.


Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not away
of topic for cam.misc?

nothing is off topic for a .misc group.



Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta lot
backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and disburst
ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument agains
Newclean Power.

Do you speak english?


Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?

No idea what you are on about. Still, nothing new there.

The only alternative, unless you want to use your washing machine et al on a
windy day etc.



a nuclear power plant in every town in every tinpot country on the
planet

cant wait

rosie phutour

wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:26:51 -0000, "Nobby" wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Energy policy for the 21st Century.
snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda

Typical.

Facts are rejected as propaganda, and conclusions logically derived are
vapi.


Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not away
of topic for cam.misc?
nothing is off topic for a .misc group.


Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta lot
backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and disburst
ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument agains
Newclean Power.
Do you speak english?

Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?
No idea what you are on about. Still, nothing new there.
The only alternative, unless you want to use your washing machine et al on a
windy day etc.



a nuclear power plant in every town in every tinpot country on the
planet

cant wait


That, or no towns and no people.

rosie phutour

The only alternative, unless you want to use your washing machine et al on a
windy day etc.

Ok, so /a/ wind turbine may only be working 15% of the time, but
there is wind blowing /somewhere/ in the country all the time.

You might as well say that a gas turbine has to be powered down
once every 90 days for maintenance, therefore relying on gas
for power generation will give power outages four times a year.

--
JGH

wrote:
The only alternative, unless you want to use your washing machine et al on a
windy day etc.

Ok, so /a/ wind turbine may only be working 15% of the time, but
there is wind blowing /somewhere/ in the country all the time.

You might as well say that a gas turbine has to be powered down
once every 90 days for maintenance, therefore relying on gas
for power generation will give power outages four times a year.


Irrelevant. The costs and the scale simply do not add up.

Windpower is an expensive waste of time, space and countryside.
You need a windmill for at least every 1000 people. With redundancy one
per 100 or so, and how many will be out of action needing fixing?

It probably takes as much messing around to fix 2-3 windmills as one
large power station..


--
JGH

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:14:16 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

You might as well say that a gas turbine has to be powered down
once every 90 days for maintenance, therefore relying on gas
for power generation will give power outages four times a year.

Indeed.

The report on intermittency of wind power at
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/ResearchProgr...rmittency.aspx
covers the subject well. I have yet to hear serious criticism of 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

In message
, at
10:14:16 on Sat, 1 Dec 2007, remarked:
The only alternative, unless you want to use your washing machine et al on a
windy day etc.

Ok, so /a/ wind turbine may only be working 15% of the time, but
there is wind blowing /somewhere/ in the country all the time.

Even if that were true (which it isn't) are you suggesting we put wind
farms in ten locations all around the country, each of them individually
capable of powering the whole country just in case that's the only place
with any wind today?
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:50:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Energy policy for the 21st Century.

snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda


Typical.

Facts are rejected as propaganda, and conclusions logically derived are
vapi.


Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not away
of topic for cam.misc?

nothing is off topic for a .misc group.



Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta lot
backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and disburst
ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument agains
Newclean Power.

Do you speak english?


Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?

No idea what you are on about. Still, nothing new there.

Problems:

1. A reasoned numerical argument has zero political impact.
Political discussion is effectively controlled by the media, especially
the papers. They find that scare stories are essential to sell the
papers, increase the ratings etc.

2. Nuclear power has already been politically sabotaged by:
a. Windscale, Harrisonburg & Chernobyl
b. Anything announced by (any) gov't (even if true) is now
inherently mistrusted. I wouldn't believe them now if they said it gets
dark at night.
c. Previously "Atomcraft" was an uneconomic front for the govt's
239Pu production for weapons. Although it may become economic as fossil
fuels rise in price.

3. Even if Global warming turns out to cause a cataclysm and removes 95%
of the World's population. It would be better for the surviving 5% to
cope with a planet that has a more chaotic climates in more places than
areas with unseen poisons that have long term, subtle, and far reaching
impact.




--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:50:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Energy policy for the 21st Century.

snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda


Typical.

Facts are rejected as propaganda, and conclusions logically derived
are vapi.


Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not
away of topic for cam.misc?

nothing is off topic for a .misc group.



Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta
lot backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and
disburst ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument
agains Newclean Power.

Do you speak english?


Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?

No idea what you are on about. Still, nothing new there.

Problems:

1. A reasoned numerical argument has zero political impact.
Political discussion is effectively controlled by the media,
especially the papers. They find that scare stories are essential to
sell the papers, increase the ratings etc.

2. Nuclear power has already been politically sabotaged by:
a. Windscale, Harrisonburg & Chernobyl
b. Anything announced by (any) gov't (even if true) is now
inherently mistrusted. I wouldn't believe them now if they said it
gets dark at night.
c. Previously "Atomcraft" was an uneconomic front for the govt's
239Pu production for weapons. Although it may become economic as
fossil fuels rise in price.

3. Even if Global warming turns out to cause a cataclysm and removes
95% of the World's population. It would be better for the surviving
5% to cope with a planet that has a more chaotic climates in more
places than areas with unseen poisons that have long term, subtle,
and far reaching impact.

I suspect that we are already depending upon something just across The
Channel.Anti nukes seems remarkably quiet just there!

clot wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:50:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Energy policy for the 21st Century.

snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda


Typical.

Facts are rejected as propaganda, and conclusions logically derived
are vapi.


Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not
away of topic for cam.misc?

nothing is off topic for a .misc group.



Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta
lot backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and
disburst ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument
agains Newclean Power.

Do you speak english?


Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?

No idea what you are on about. Still, nothing new there.

Problems:

1. A reasoned numerical argument has zero political impact.
Political discussion is effectively controlled by the media,
especially the papers. They find that scare stories are essential to
sell the papers, increase the ratings etc.

2. Nuclear power has already been politically sabotaged by:
a. Windscale, Harrisonburg & Chernobyl
b. Anything announced by (any) gov't (even if true) is now
inherently mistrusted. I wouldn't believe them now if they said it
gets dark at night.
c. Previously "Atomcraft" was an uneconomic front for the govt's
239Pu production for weapons. Although it may become economic as
fossil fuels rise in price.

3. Even if Global warming turns out to cause a cataclysm and removes
95% of the World's population. It would be better for the surviving
5% to cope with a planet that has a more chaotic climates in more
places than areas with unseen poisons that have long term, subtle,
and far reaching impact.

I suspect that we are already depending upon something just across The
Channel.Anti nukes seems remarkably quiet just there!

They are too busy maintaining that driving a train is in fact stressful
dangerous and should result in early retirement and a million franc
pension..or whatever it is in Euros these days..fortunately they can
afford to live like spoiled brats, because they already have a huge
installed nuclear base.

On Dec 1, 9:18 pm, Ed Sirett wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:50:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Energy policy for the 21st Century.

snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda

Typical.

Facts are rejected as propaganda, and conclusions logically derived are
vapi.

Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not away
of topic for cam.misc?

nothing is off topic for a .misc group.

Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta lot
backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and disburst
ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument agains
Newclean Power.

Do you speak english?

Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?

No idea what you are on about. Still, nothing new there.

Problems:

1. A reasoned numerical argument has zero political impact.
Political discussion is effectively controlled by the media, especially
the papers. They find that scare stories are essential to sell the
papers, increase the ratings etc.

2. Nuclear power has already been politically sabotaged by:
a. Windscale, Harrisonburg & Chernobyl
b. Anything announced by (any) gov't (even if true) is now
inherently mistrusted. I wouldn't believe them now if they said it gets
dark at night.
c. Previously "Atomcraft" was an uneconomic front for the govt's
239Pu production for weapons. Although it may become economic as fossil
fuels rise in price.

3. Even if Global warming turns out to cause a cataclysm and removes 95%
of the World's population. It would be better for the surviving 5% to
cope with a planet that has a more chaotic climates in more places than
areas with unseen poisons that have long term, subtle, and far reaching
impact.

Ooofff...it's about glowballs?

Why TF didn't someone say? The earth has an astonishing ability to
cope with natural disasters, not so much with the human disasters.
Imagine a conniption caused by the meeting of two irresistible feck-
ups.

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:50:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Energy policy for the 21st Century.
snipped off topic vapid and dubious propaganda


Typical.

Facts are rejected as propaganda, and conclusions logically derived are
vapi.


Thise sort of discussing hves it advocate on d-i-y but is it not away
of topic for cam.misc?
nothing is off topic for a .misc group.



Besides since TonyBLiar has secured our borders so neat and putta lot
backbone into our security, secrets serviced and the like and disburst
ollah wese forenbuggas, I don't seeded needs any argument agains
Newclean Power.
Do you speak english?


Maybe even betta we be now we buileded in London innit an Manchessa.
Ands Burmingahms. Issa so safe.

Mebbey we builded em in ToryBLiar house ands inna fat buggah
Philosopher dissatime eh? Innit?
No idea what you are on about. Still, nothing new there.

Problems:

1. A reasoned numerical argument has zero political impact.
Political discussion is effectively controlled by the media, especially
the papers. They find that scare stories are essential to sell the
papers, increase the ratings etc.


well if climate change becomes greater scare...


2. Nuclear power has already been politically sabotaged by:
a. Windscale, Harrisonburg & Chernobyl
b. Anything announced by (any) gov't (even if true) is now
inherently mistrusted. I wouldn't believe them now if they said it gets
dark at night.

Fortunately it isn't the government saying this. It's me, and anyone who
wants to pick up the torch and run with it. In teh end politicians do
what keeps them elected: If that is planning 50 nbuclear power sttaions,
they will grudgingly announce it was their idea all along, with
completely straight faces.


c. Previously "Atomcraft" was an uneconomic front for the govt's
239Pu production for weapons. Although it may become economic as fossil
fuels rise in price.


I am not sure that you realise the implications of what you just said:
It WAS uneconomic becaiuse many of the reactors WERE designed to breed
plutonium. Not to be efficient commercial electricity generators. Nor
yet to be easy to clean up one day.

3. Even if Global warming turns out to cause a cataclysm and removes 95%
of the World's population. It would be better for the surviving 5% to
cope with a planet that has a more chaotic climates in more places than
areas with unseen poisons that have long term, subtle, and far reaching
impact.


When yoiu said unseen pisons that have long term. subrtle and far
reaching effects, I assumed you were talking about carbon dioxide..

.... till I realised you totally misunderstand what atomic waste actually
is and does.

Its a big problem. As big as 0.0001% of the problem that CO2 would be if
it made the planet *totally* uninhabitable, which according to historic
records, gross climate change has done in the past, and may well do
again in the future.

Chernobyl is not a twisted desert stalked by strange mutations. The
remarkable thing about it is how few people HAVE died..OK uou cannot
trust Russia etc to tell all, but according to the most paranoid
anti-nuclear lobby, half of N Europe should be dying of cancer by now:
In fact there is no evidence of even a slight rise in cancer beyond the
relatively immediate location..and that was about the worst reactor
disaster it's physically possible to get.

Gladly or sadly, radioactive waste aint't the monster its cracked up to
nbe. Not nice y, no. Subtle. Not really. Its prettty direct. Poison? no.
Its not that. Some materials like plutonium are by their chemsistry
poisonous..and polonium of course..but look how much he had to eat to
die of it? and look how easy it was to track the stuff every single
place it had been.

Ive posted up te figures for radioactivity due to the nuclear power
industry: it represents 0.1% of natural background. There is far more
risk living on Dartmoor, or flying regularly above 30,0000 feet, or
being an x-ray technician, or indeed having an x-ray yourself..
Ingesting a shard of plutionium is probably about as nasty as getting
asbestos dust in your lungs,. If you are dead unlucky, it stays there
and starts a cancer.

Mostly it neither does that, nor gets there. Its too heavy to blow around.

The lighter stuff is an issue sure, but its all short-lived..iodine,
potassium and the like..unstable, and decays rapidly.


I mean, the whole earth is already a fission reactor..We are in essence
living on the surface of one. Its hardly a strange new concept to
Nature, as it were.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ed Sirett wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:50:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip
Gladly or sadly, radioactive waste aint't the monster its cracked up to
nbe. Not nice y, no. Subtle. Not really. Its prettty direct. Poison? no.
Its not that. Some materials like plutonium are by their chemsistry
poisonous..and polonium of course..but look how much he had to eat to die
of it? and look how easy it was to track the stuff every single place it
had been.

snip

The quote I read was that he lived for a couple of weeks having one sip of
tea, and that he woud have lived less than a week if he took 2 sips.

Bob

On Dec 2, 12:19 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Fortunately it isn't the government saying this. It's me, and anyone who
wants to pick up the torch and run with it.

You seem to be running with this thread. If you were just nursing it
it would wend it's way to a natural sickbed not a natural
philosophistry.

Perhaps a small dose of sodium hydroxide should be administered?

Natrium accidentum nil nisi bonum.

In message
The Natural Philosopher wrote:



Chernobyl is not a twisted desert stalked by strange mutations. The
remarkable thing about it is how few people HAVE died..OK uou cannot
trust Russia etc to tell all, but according to the most paranoid
anti-nuclear lobby, half of N Europe should be dying of cancer by now:
In fact there is no evidence of even a slight rise in cancer beyond the
relatively immediate location..and that was about the worst reactor
disaster it's physically possible to get.


If you look at Elena Vladimirovna's website, it makes very interesting
reading during her biking visits to Chernobyl.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/ki.../chapter1.html

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/ki...afterword.html

Far more people died as a result of the reactor going pear shape, the
official figures being a state secret.

Stephen.


--
http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk
Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes
Using a British RISC Operating System 100% immune to any Windows virus.
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was NOT
the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in the
context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:

ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:59:19 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was NOT
the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in the
context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:

ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!

Yebbut it all hardly applies to d-i-y, does it?

:-)

--
Frank Erskine

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:03:35 +0000, Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:59:19 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was NOT
the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in the
context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:

ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!

Yebbut it all hardly applies to d-i-y, does it?


Yeah it does....when the cooker you wired in goes BANG....you have to
nip out for fission chips....

I'll get me coat..



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:39:07 +0000, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:03:35 +0000, Frank Erskine
wrote:


Yebbut it all hardly applies to d-i-y, does it?


Yeah it does....when the cooker you wired in goes BANG....you have to
nip out for fission chips....

Not me - I'm a vegetarian. Although I did have to eat out quite a bit
a few weeks ago whilst the kitchen was non-existant. You can only take
so many meals cooked on a camping stove...

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:59:19 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was NOT
the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in the
context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:
ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!

Yebbut it all hardly applies to d-i-y, does it?

:-)

It would be nice if it did..whatever happened to cold fusion haha :-)

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:59:19 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was NOT
the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in the
context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:
ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!

Yebbut it all hardly applies to d-i-y, does it?

:-)

Try telling that to this chap:

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:59:19 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was
NOT the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in
the context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:
ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!

Yebbut it all hardly applies to d-i-y, does it?

:-)

Try telling that to this chap:

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html


Yep. we all have dangerous radioactive waste in our smoke alarms!

I reckon with a days research and a search of the back garden I could
come up with enough vegetable poison to kill 20 people or so..with very
little effort..

Monkshood
Deadly nightshade,
Hemlock
Yew berries.
Foxglove.

And thats before hitting the woods for mushrooms.

On 2 Dec, 00:58, John Rumm wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:59:19 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was NOT
the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in the
context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:
ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!
Yebbut it all hardly applies to d-i-y, does it?
:-)
Try telling that to this chap:
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html

Or, indeed, John Hutchinson at http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/Jo...avity-Lab.html

I don't blame twits for thinking all you can do is pedal faster.
Hutchinson's stuff was confiscated by the
Canadian Government, obviously because it was insignificant!

Nice to hear from you, John!
--
Cheers,

John.

John.

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

On 9 Dec, 11:20, foolsrushin wrote:
On 2 Dec, 00:58, John Rumm wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:59:19 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was NOT
the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in the
context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:
ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!
Yebbut it all hardly applies to d-i-y, does it?
:-)
Try telling that to this chap:
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html

Or, indeed, John Hutchinson athttp://www.nottaughtinschools.com/John-Hutchison/Antigravity-Lab.html

I don't blame twits for thinking all you can do is pedal faster.
Hutchinson's stuff was confiscated by the
Canadian Government, obviously because it was insignificant!

Nice to hear from you, John!

--
Cheers,

John.

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/- H
By the way, I do not like the packaging and sale of the ideas of
neglected innovators, but it is acceptable if they get, say, 70% of
profits after costs! Eric Laithwaite had to support his own
investigations after his retirement.
--
'foolsrushin.'

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was NOT
the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in the
context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:

ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!



Sorry. My mistake. Yes, and yes. But even if we poured money into
fusion, it would still be at least 25 years away by my reckoning..we
know what we have to do. Build an H-bomb that we can repeatedly set off
without it destroying the thing we put it in.

Its like trying to build and internal combustion engine with cardboard.

Fission has to be the stopgap. It WILL happen, and the sooner the
better,. The alternatives are simply WORSE.

And we can't hang around waiting for something to turn up. If it does,
great. Shut them down. But as yet there is no alternative I can see that
makes overall sense.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was
NOT the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in
the context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:

ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!



Sorry. My mistake. Yes, and yes. But even if we poured money into
fusion, it would still be at least 25 years away by my reckoning..we
know what we have to do. Build an H-bomb that we can repeatedly set off
without it destroying the thing we put it in.

Its like trying to build and internal combustion engine with cardboard.

There is actually a new plasma containment taurus about to be built in
Europe. The suggestion is it may be the first that is large enough to
contain a fusion reaction for long enough for it to become self
sustaining, and hence produce more energy than it consumes to initiate.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...244574,00.html


Fission has to be the stopgap. It WILL happen, and the sooner the
better,. The alternatives are simply WORSE.

Yup, not suggestion one should wait for fusion power, just accelerating
the delivery of it would be a good thing.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was
NOT the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but in
the context of right here, right now, I can see no other alternative:

ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!



Sorry. My mistake. Yes, and yes. But even if we poured money into
fusion, it would still be at least 25 years away by my reckoning..we
know what we have to do. Build an H-bomb that we can repeatedly set
off without it destroying the thing we put it in.

Its like trying to build and internal combustion engine with cardboard.

There is actually a new plasma containment taurus about to be built in
Europe. The suggestion is it may be the first that is large enough to
contain a fusion reaction for long enough for it to become self
sustaining, and hence produce more energy than it consumes to initiate.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...244574,00.html


Fission has to be the stopgap. It WILL happen, and the sooner the
better,. The alternatives are simply WORSE.

Yup, not suggestion one should wait for fusion power, just accelerating
the delivery of it would be a good thing.


If only money were all it took...:-(

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I would of course prefer that nuclear fusion energy was
NOT the only viable solution: perhaps by 2100 it will not be, but
in the context of right here, right now, I can see no other
alternative:

ITYM Fission... fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!



Sorry. My mistake. Yes, and yes. But even if we poured money into
fusion, it would still be at least 25 years away by my reckoning..we
know what we have to do. Build an H-bomb that we can repeatedly set
off without it destroying the thing we put it in.

Its like trying to build and internal combustion engine with cardboard.

There is actually a new plasma containment taurus about to be built in
Europe. The suggestion is it may be the first that is large enough to
contain a fusion reaction for long enough for it to become self
sustaining, and hence produce more energy than it consumes to initiate.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...244574,00.html


Fission has to be the stopgap. It WILL happen, and the sooner the
better,. The alternatives are simply WORSE.

Yup, not suggestion one should wait for fusion power, just
accelerating the delivery of it would be a good thing.


If only money were all it took...:-(


I like this from that article.

(its a torus=doughnut BTW,not taurus = bull)

"The project has been criticized by environmental groups like
Greenpeace, who argue that the enormous cost will suck funds away from
other areas of alternative energy research, with no guarantee that an
effective method of simulating and harnessing the fusion process will
ever be found."

As opposed to putting it into windmills one supposes with a complete
guarantee that it will never solve anything at all.;-)

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:59:19 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!

The history of fusion research has always been that it is just close
enough not to cut off funding, but not close enough to expect
answers (other than, "we need more research"). The claim that fusion
is supposedly just around the corner and will solve all energy
problems at a stroke sounds very convenient for the researchers.

Is past history a guide for the future? Not necessarily, but it is
sometimes.


--
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:

fusion would be great if only someone would put the
investment in now!

The history of fusion research has always been that it is just close
enough not to cut off funding, but not close enough to expect
answers (other than, "we need more research"). The claim that fusion
is supposedly just around the corner and will solve all energy
problems at a stroke sounds very convenient for the researchers.

Is past history a guide for the future? Not necessarily, but it is
sometimes.

Well with IETR coming on stream soon we ought to know for sure.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Energy policy for the 21st Century.

Some facts.

Total energy usage UK, 2001 about 240 million tonnes of oil equivalent.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file11250.pdf

snip

You can't trust the government with 20 grams of CDs, why would you want them
to have anything to do with several tonnes per year of nuclear waste?

Bob

PS all governments are the same - all you are choosing at polling time is
what colour broomstick you get ****ed up the ass with. Perhaps optional
nails through the broomstick and levels of rust are a factor, but after the
broomstick, it really makes no difference.

Bob Smith wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Energy policy for the 21st Century.

Some facts.

Total energy usage UK, 2001 about 240 million tonnes of oil equivalent.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file11250.pdf

snip

You can't trust the government with 20 grams of CDs, why would you want them
to have anything to do with several tonnes per year of nuclear waste?


You don't. Fortunately its handled by relative professionals to a
standard of quality and competence that would be unthinkable in Downing
Street.

You can imagine it already can't you. Gov't reactor No 1 melts down, and
the audit trail shows and endemic culture of incompetence from
government through political appointees down to the 'equal
opportunities' deaf dumb and blind idiot who actually threw the wrong
switch, and every last man jack of them refusing to resign and claiming
'anyone can make a mistake'...




Bob

PS all governments are the same - all you are choosing at polling time is
what colour broomstick you get ****ed up the ass with. Perhaps optional
nails through the broomstick and levels of rust are a factor, but after the
broomstick, it really makes no difference.


So don't leave it up to government.There is no earthly reason why beyond
saying 'we won't stand in the way of planning permission and we won't
implement measures to make it impossible to make a profit ever' that
they have to have anything to do with nuclear power. Governments really
haven't had much to do with it at all..for years...and they have hived
off what's left to private enterprise.

The numbers show that right now, with sensible restrictions and safety
measures - which is all that is the government need be involved in, its
pretty much a competitive energy source that, unlike windmills, needs no
subsidy. That's without even imposing carbon taxes on it.

What is keeping private investment out, is the uncertainty about legally
imposed decommissioning costs, and the inability to get planning
permission. Government doesn't need to encourage it: they just need to
stop getting in the way of it for purely political reasons.


Once we ran on coal, and the coal miners unions screwed the country.
They wanted more for a dirty dangerous job, which is fair enough. We had
North Sea Oil, and nuclear power stations, and a 2 years stockpile of
coals, so Maggie said 'mine coal, or don't, and see if I care' and they
chose not to. And she didn't. One dirty dangerous marginally profitable
industry died a death.

Then the bearded real ale swilling CND folks got all nervous about
'atomix', so Maggie said 'bugger you, we'll build oil and gas generators
instead: I don't care' and so we did, and she didn't. We broke the OPEC
cartel wide open with that one, and the society you see today, is
largely BECAUSE we had North Sea Oil.

It's run out. We've got no coal, no oil, a bunch of Petrodollar funded
terrorists getting all hot under the burkah, and a load of excess CO2
making it all worse.

And too few aging and unreliable - but profitable - nuclear power
stations. But enough infrastructure to install more if we want. Better
ones. Safer ones. Cleaner ones. More profitable ones.

And electric cars within a year or three of being really really
there..only cost is hilding them back..

And petrol at £1.02 a liter.

Go figure.

ALL we have to do is stop panicking about atomic energy, and let it do
what it does best. Vast amounts of power at better prices than todays
oil/coal. And FAR less pollution.

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:48:10 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

You can't trust the government with 20 grams of CDs, why would you want them
to have anything to do with several tonnes per year of nuclear waste?


You don't. Fortunately its handled by relative professionals to a
standard of quality and competence that would be unthinkable in Downing
Street.

The discs were not created or put in the post in Downing Street.

Next contestant please.



--
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 2007-12-02 08:31:16 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:48:10 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

You can't trust the government with 20 grams of CDs, why would you want them
to have anything to do with several tonnes per year of nuclear waste?


You don't. Fortunately its handled by relative professionals to a
standard of quality and competence that would be unthinkable in Downing
Street.

The discs were not created or put in the post in Downing Street.

Next contestant please.

The decision makers in terms of the initial and continued employment of
those involved certainly reside in Downing St., except when playing
croquet at country estates in Buckinghamshire, of course.

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:48:10 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

You can't trust the government with 20 grams of CDs, why would you want them
to have anything to do with several tonnes per year of nuclear waste?

You don't. Fortunately its handled by relative professionals to a
standard of quality and competence that would be unthinkable in Downing
Street.

The discs were not created or put in the post in Downing Street.

The person who sets overall policy for the unit is.

Next contestant please.

In message , at 15:17:01 on
Sun, 2 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
The discs were not created or put in the post in Downing Street.

The person who sets overall policy for the unit is.

While it's tempting, you can't blame every civil service failing on the
Minister.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:31:16 +0000, Dynamo Hansen
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:48:10 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

You can't trust the government with 20 grams of CDs, why would you want them
to have anything to do with several tonnes per year of nuclear waste?


You don't. Fortunately its handled by relative professionals to a
standard of quality and competence that would be unthinkable in Downing
Street.

The discs were not created or put in the post in Downing Street.

Next contestant please.

Thank you David , I thought you'd never ask.

I thought you'd like to know, 2 more CFL's failed in the conservatory
this week out of the seven originally installed sometime since
02/05/2005, 2 had already failed leaving 3 of the 7 still in service.

However I digress.

I have run a small company since 1986 supplying the NHS.

Since 1991 they insisted we operate a quality system which is audited
by an independant outside body, and that our products were built to a
harmonised Europpean Standard. We did what they asked, the type
testing to European standard put the price of our products up 19%, The
cost of ISO 9,000 adoption and compliance we absorbed ourself. True,
it has by now got to be a bit of a farce, the auditor uses his one
half day visit per year to swap stories with the secretaries about how
well his son is doing at Uni, USW. How, when he retires he's going to
open a Gourmet Beach Bar in New Berwick etc, but anyway the audits are
done. It still costs us, I reckon £2.5k + 6 working days salary / year

But then what we found was that Health Authorities would put contracts
out to tender and then take the cheapest bid regardless of compliance
status. Since the competition did not have the costs of compliance
they won every tender.

We noticed also that the NHS itself, it's Hospitals and Health
Authorities in general had no system for quality control, let alone
having it audited by an outside body. When challenged they said BS
5750 / ISO 9000 is not appropriate for what we do. Totally incorrect
of course, by definition, those standards are 100% capable of
universal application to any and all activities. They are in fact
standards for a self produced standard governing your own activity. .

So there we have it. The government (In Downing Street) does not
impose it's own rules (and not the law of the land either) to it's own
departments. This goes a long way towards explaining how it comes
about that HMRC has rooms full of unopened letters, how they are
shipping disks with the personal data of half the country through
insecure channels without encrypting it, and why their service in
general is absolute cr*p, and why they pay over the odds for services
bought in because their suppliers have to meet the cost of jumping
through hoops 250 metres high, while their own quality aspirations are
positively sub-terranean.

I do hope you find this response helpful.

Oh, & BTW. They don't last 25 years. ;-)

DG