On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:49:17 +0000, Derek Geldard
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:37:32 +0000, judith wrote:

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels.

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

Ooo-oooooooooooooh "British Scientists" call it "a revolution"

and there was I thinking it was a figment of the imagination of a
Bowldy-Headed hack in the Grauniad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy

That's good news then ...

Can I buy them online ? No

Can I buy them offline ? No

Can I buy them at all ? No

Can I see some samples No

Has anybody seen them working No

Does anybody know how long they'll last Not even Dynamo Hansen

Best have another look at that authoritative article then :

"Britain was unlikely to benefit from the technology for some years
because other countries paid better money for renewable electricity,
it added."

Looks like it's our fault, cheapskates that we are.

"Our first solar panels will be used in a solar power station in
Germany," said Erik Oldekop, Nanosolar's manager in Switzerland.

California, Germany, Switzerland, Far away places with strange
sounding names, no wonder our money is not good enough for them.

"We aim to produce the panels for 99 cents [50p] a watt, which is
comparable to the price of electricity generated from coal."

How do you work that out ?

"We cannot disclose our exact figures yet as we are a private company
but we can bring it down to that level. That is the vision we are
aiming at."

Fools and their money are soon parted.

DG

You must be well below the poverty line.

wrote:
On 7 Jan,
David Hansen wrote:

And as most gas is used in industrial processes and heating homes, nuclear
power � which produces only electricity � can do little to replace it.

There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water for piping to
homes rather than (or as well as) electricity. Nuclear doesn't have to be big
either, Nuclear powered subs don't have Gigawatt power reactors.

There may be disadvantages of Nuclear, but home heating at great efficiency
isn't one of them.

In principle there is almost NOTHING that cannot be done with
electricity instead of gas and oil.

Heating with electricity is simple.

The reasons gas is used, is that when you are converting gas to
electricity in the first place, it makes no sense.

You can in principle synthesise gas, given water, CO2 and enough
electricity..

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There is a practical irreducible minimum to which energy use can be
reduced before it impacts severely on lifestyle and social conditiopns.
We simply cannot even get food from field to fridge without transporting
it in huge quantities. We cannot simply knock 80% off everyones fuel use
and 80% off their car use.

Ergo we have to find alternatice energy policies, not as he says'; focus
on conservation'

Absolutely correct. While it's possible 'we' can stabilise or even
moderate put energy requirements there's simply no chance of a
'developing' country doing this - and why, indeed, should they be expected
to?

It's rather like these conservation ****s going on and on about rain
forests being cut down to make way for food production. *Of course* it may
be a bad thing for the world - but do you really expect 'a starving
peasant' to care more for the world than his children?

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Owain wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
"Other research, however, shows that seven out of 10 people say
seeing turbines reminds them to save energy, said Matthew Rhodes,
Encraft's managing director.
So there's obviously a market for 'model' wind turbines that don't
actually do anything, then - as useful reminders.

But do people save more energy than is consumed by the motor used to
keep the model windmill turning when it isn't windy?

Owain

Almost certainly not.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:15:01 +0000, zanthia wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:49:17 +0000, Derek Geldard
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:37:32 +0000, judith wrote:

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels.

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

Ooo-oooooooooooooh "British Scientists" call it "a revolution"

and there was I thinking it was a figment of the imagination of a
Bowldy-Headed hack in the Grauniad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy

That's good news then ...

Can I buy them online ? No

Can I buy them offline ? No

Can I buy them at all ? No

Can I see some samples No

Has anybody seen them working No

Does anybody know how long they'll last Not even Dynamo Hansen

Best have another look at that authoritative article then :

"Britain was unlikely to benefit from the technology for some years
because other countries paid better money for renewable electricity,
it added."

Looks like it's our fault, cheapskates that we are.

"Our first solar panels will be used in a solar power station in
Germany," said Erik Oldekop, Nanosolar's manager in Switzerland.

California, Germany, Switzerland, Far away places with strange
sounding names, no wonder our money is not good enough for them.

"We aim to produce the panels for 99 cents [50p] a watt, which is
comparable to the price of electricity generated from coal."

How do you work that out ?

"We cannot disclose our exact figures yet as we are a private company
but we can bring it down to that level. That is the vision we are
aiming at."

Fools and their money are soon parted.

DG

You must be well below the poverty line.

That's for me to know and you to wonder. ;-)

DG

In message , judith
writes
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000, "john"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
cynic wrote:
As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.

If we didn't need concentrated housing in the form of large towns and
cities we'd not need wind energy either - the existing hydro plant would
cope with the much reduced population. Who of course couldn't have paid
for the hydro installations...

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times
more memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

That doesn't make any sense. We are talking about wind turbines not
hydroelectric plants. A lot of power is used by businesses, factories and
shops. Probably far more than houses which is why they all have power
factor correction devices fitted and their own substations for industrial
applications.

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels.

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy

do keep up at the back ...

I posted that last week


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , judith
writes
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000, "john"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
cynic wrote:
As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.

If we didn't need concentrated housing in the form of large towns and
cities we'd not need wind energy either - the existing hydro plant
would
cope with the much reduced population. Who of course couldn't have paid
for the hydro installations...

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand
times
more memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

That doesn't make any sense. We are talking about wind turbines not
hydroelectric plants. A lot of power is used by businesses,
factories and
shops. Probably far more than houses which is why they all have power
factor correction devices fitted and their own substations for
industrial
applications.

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels.

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy


do keep up at the back ...

I posted that last week


And its as much crap today as it was then.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-07 11:10:06 +0000, Peter Parry said:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:37:32 +0000, judith wrote:

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

"Nanosolar is one of several companies .. racing to develop different
versions of "thin film" solar technology. It is owned by Internet
entrepreneur Martin Roscheisen...the company, which claims to lead the
"third wave" of solar electricity, is notoriously secretive and has
not answered questions about its panels' efficiency or their
durability."

Style over substance perhaps?

They sell them in the Bose shop....


QED. (which is perhaps your point!)

Andy

In message , Derek Geldard
writes
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:55:24 GMT, geoff wrote:


it's too ****e to copy any more

mary porpinns

Is she related to Mary Porpouts ?

ISTR she wasn't that well stacked


--
geoff

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:36:28 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Derek Geldard
writes
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:55:24 GMT, geoff wrote:


it's too ****e to copy any more

mary porpinns

Is she related to Mary Porpouts ?

ISTR she wasn't that well stacked

Thinking about it, she wouldn't be would she.

DG

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:49:35 +0000 someone who may be Owain
wrote this:-

Eigg.

Not exactly Tower Hamlets though, is it?

Why pick the latter?




--
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, 07 Jan 2008 12:38:19 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

I have never read such utter ******** in my life.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Today, the conditions are not worse, they are HUGELY better. Oil/gas is
so expensive that nuclear energy is actually profitable.

Then the nuclear lobby would be building their power stations. There
is nothing to stop them and has never been anything to stop them.
Instead they want the planning system fixed and a number of other
risks transferred elsewhere before they do anything.



--
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, 07 Jan 2008 13:48:09 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

Absolutely correct. While it's possible 'we' can stabilise or even
moderate put energy requirements there's simply no chance of a
'developing' country doing this - and why, indeed, should they be expected
to?

They are doing rather more of it in places like India and China than
many realise.



--
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, 07 Jan 2008 13:10:36 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water for piping to
homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.

None at all. It is done in Russia.

However, in order to do this there is a need to place the power
stations close to where the heat is used. As I have said for a long
time, let's put say three nuclear power stations in London and one
in the other large cities in England.

Nuclear doesn't have to be big
either, Nuclear powered subs don't have Gigawatt power reactors.

Neither do some forms of spacecraft. However, to generate
electricity for general use large stations have always been favoured
for various reasons. So far nuclear power stations have been bigger
then their predecessors.

There may be disadvantages of Nuclear, but home heating at great efficiency
isn't one of them.

Then I imagine Mr Brown will soon be calling for nuclear power
stations to be placed in the English cities.


--
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, 07 Jan 2008 12:29:25 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

In operation. Provided one ignores the emissions involved in
converting the ore dug out of the ground into fuel rods.

Done electrically, from nuclear generated el;ectricity, they are very low.

It is interesting that when it suits them the nuclear lobby say that
there is no such thing as green electricity, as it all goes into one
grid.

Provided
the emissions involved in dealing with the spent fuel rods (which
are very high if one reprocesses the fuel but much less with storage
at the site). With these two provisions the emissions in operation
are low.

Emergy use does *not* equal emmissions. There is no reason to suppose
that reprocessing generates Co2.

The evaporator to concentrate highly active waste and the glass
block making plant are two examples of processes where there are
carbon dioxide emissions.

In building. Nuclear power stations involve a lot of concrete. They
also involve large amounts of rare materials. All of these have to
be produced.

So do bloody windmills,. So do solar panels. Concrete anyway.

Wind farms involve a fair amount of concrete, they also involve
things like copper in the cables. Solar panels don't involve much
concrete.

I refute that rare materials are needed for nuclear power stations.

No, you rebut it.

While much of a nuclear power station is no different to a coal
fired one, the reactor is a different matter. This is full of all
sorts of large scale precision assemblies made from various
materials.

would understand that we don't have an energy
problem. We have a resource and pollution problem. The planet is awash
with free energy, only limited by the cost of turning it into
electricity, and the pollution that may, or may not, result.

A point environmentalists have made for a considerable time.

No, they haven't. The are focussed totally on conserving energy,

The usual claim is that they don't mention conserving energy enough
in their enthusiasm for promoting renewable generation. It is mildly
amusing to see how the claims vary.

Their position is actually available for those seriously interested
in the subject to see, "Our energy needs could be met with safe and
efficient renewable energy technologies and serious investment in
energy efficiency. Investment in these sensible alternatives would
be undermined if UK ministers are allowed to foist a new nuclear
power programme on Scotland."

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campaigns/nuclear/




--
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 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:47:06 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:49:35 +0000 someone who may be Owain
wrote this:-

Eigg.

Not exactly Tower Hamlets though, is it?

Why pick the latter?

Tower Omletts, Geddit ?

DG

David Hansen wrote:

Solar panels don't involve much concrete.

Oh indeed, they're just horribly energy inefficient to make in the first
place.

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:38:19 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

I have never read such utter ******** in my life.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Today, the conditions are not worse, they are HUGELY better. Oil/gas is
so expensive that nuclear energy is actually profitable.

Then the nuclear lobby would be building their power stations. There
is nothing to stop them and has never been anything to stop them.
Instead they want the planning system fixed and a number of other
risks transferred elsewhere before they do anything.



The reason they are NOT is because they cannot get planning, and they
are faced with a totally open ended 'clean up charge' that a government
may or may not impose on them sometime in the future.

on economic grounds, without those two issueas, they make sense.

But faced with a bunch of ale swilling bearded bunny huggers putting up
CND camps in the middle of a building site, they tend to say 'not worth
the risk'

Look at Huntingdon Life Sciences for how a vicious minority can wreck a
company for no good reason other than religious hatred?

Then there is teh vexed 'decommissioning cost' issue. Its totally biased
against nuclear power. No one expects the fossil fuel plant to be
charged for the cost of removing a few billion tons of CO2 from the
environment..but a couple of billion levy for a few hundred tons of
uranium, Hey why not?

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:10:36 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water for piping to
homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.

None at all. It is done in Russia.

However, in order to do this there is a need to place the power
stations close to where the heat is used. As I have said for a long
time, let's put say three nuclear power stations in London and one
in the other large cities in England.


Very good idea.

Should have used battersea power station..

Nuclear doesn't have to be big
either, Nuclear powered subs don't have Gigawatt power reactors.

Neither do some forms of spacecraft. However, to generate
electricity for general use large stations have always been favoured
for various reasons. So far nuclear power stations have been bigger
then their predecessors.


Definite economies of scale. BTW submarinse DO have very powerful
motors. Myabe not in te GW class but several tens of MW..


There may be disadvantages of Nuclear, but home heating at great efficiency
isn't one of them.

Then I imagine Mr Brown will soon be calling for nuclear power
stations to be placed in the English cities.


I would support that. Or close by.

However fuel efficiency is not an issue with nuclear power. The fuel is
probably less than 1% of the cost of generation.

Much easier to build - say - a nice set of greenhouses around the
outflow, and produce out of season mangoes ;-)

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:31:11 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Then the nuclear lobby would be building their power stations. There
is nothing to stop them and has never been anything to stop them.
Instead they want the planning system fixed and a number of other
risks transferred elsewhere before they do anything.

The reason they are NOT is because they cannot get planning,

Given that nobody has tried, that assertion is obviously incorrect.

They may think that it would take a long time to get planning
permission, but that is different.

and they
are faced with a totally open ended 'clean up charge' that a government
may or may not impose on them sometime in the future.

There is an easy way to deal with this. The company can accept
responsibility for the clean up, of at least the site if not the
spent fuel. They could for example deposit a bond.




--
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:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:29:25 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

In operation. Provided one ignores the emissions involved in
converting the ore dug out of the ground into fuel rods.
Done electrically, from nuclear generated el;ectricity, they are very low.

It is interesting that when it suits them the nuclear lobby say that
there is no such thing as green electricity, as it all goes into one
grid.


Well if no one bought electricity from coal oil and gas stations, and
everyone bought it from nuclear hydro and windmills, they other power
stations would shut down wouldn't they?

I have never heard that statement BTW.



Provided
the emissions involved in dealing with the spent fuel rods (which
are very high if one reprocesses the fuel but much less with storage
at the site). With these two provisions the emissions in operation
are low.
Emergy use does *not* equal emmissions. There is no reason to suppose
that reprocessing generates Co2.

The evaporator to concentrate highly active waste and the glass
block making plant are two examples of processes where there are
carbon dioxide emissions.

In building. Nuclear power stations involve a lot of concrete. They
also involve large amounts of rare materials. All of these have to
be produced.
So do bloody windmills,. So do solar panels. Concrete anyway.

Wind farms involve a fair amount of concrete, they also involve
things like copper in the cables. Solar panels don't involve much
concrete.

I refute that rare materials are needed for nuclear power stations.

No, you rebut it.

While much of a nuclear power station is no different to a coal
fired one, the reactor is a different matter. This is full of all
sorts of large scale precision assemblies made from various
materials.

would understand that we don't have an energy
problem. We have a resource and pollution problem. The planet is awash
with free energy, only limited by the cost of turning it into
electricity, and the pollution that may, or may not, result.
A point environmentalists have made for a considerable time.
No, they haven't. The are focussed totally on conserving energy,

The usual claim is that they don't mention conserving energy enough
in their enthusiasm for promoting renewable generation. It is mildly
amusing to see how the claims vary.

Their position is actually available for those seriously interested
in the subject to see, "Our energy needs could be met with safe and
efficient renewable energy technologies and serious investment in
energy efficiency. Investment in these sensible alternatives would
be undermined if UK ministers are allowed to foist a new nuclear
power programme on Scotland."

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campaigns/nuclear/


Yup. So they are lying? whats new there.

I have showed you that no other non fossil altetanitce is remotely
scalable or economic, at the levels the country NEEDS, and you still
persist in believing these romantic bunny huggers?

The fact is that solar, wind and biofuels are simply too low energy per
unit area. You need MASSIVE areas of land to generate the amounts needed.

Uranium is the other way. Its MASSIVELY power dense. Far more so than
even the best fossil fuel. Your generators become small and very powerful.

It may not suit other climates, but it suits us perfectly. Its not the
question of it being a bad choice, its the ONLY choice, and the bunny
huggers know it. But like anyone else who runs on a faith based
ideology, they can't bear to admit they are wrong.

I'd be delighted if 20 windmills off S****horpe could supply the
countries entire energy needs at competitive costs. The fact is they
can't. And never will be able to either.
Ive done the calculations.

100 nuclear power stations or 100,000 VERY large windmills.

You don't HAVE to be a genius to work out that with only 265,000 sqaure
kilometers of land available, and offshore cabling costs of 1 million
quid a mile, how stupid it would be to use windmills.

Likewise see Peter Parrys post, he is getting 3W a square meter in
daylight on a solar panel in an dull winter. Never mind after dark..

we need at least 300GW (peak) to run this country in winter. Thats 100
Giga square meters of panels, (at a cost of around £100000G..thats a
hundred trillion quid..) and a total land area of 10k square
kilomters..thats a 60 x 60 mile patch of land.


Sure, Go one. Wreck my planet with your bull****.

On 8 Jan, 12:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:29:25 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

In operation. Provided one ignores the emissions involved in
converting the ore dug out of the ground into fuel rods.
Done electrically, from nuclear generated el;ectricity, they are very low.

It is interesting that when it suits them the nuclear lobby say that
there is no such thing as green electricity, as it all goes into one
grid.

Well if no one bought electricity from coal oil and gas stations, and
everyone bought it from nuclear hydro and windmills, they other power
stations would shut down wouldn't they?

I have never heard that statement BTW.



Provided
the emissions involved in dealing with the spent fuel rods (which
are very high if one reprocesses the fuel but much less with storage
at the site). With these two provisions the emissions in operation
are low.
Emergy use does *not* equal emmissions. There is no reason to suppose
that reprocessing generates Co2.

The evaporator to concentrate highly active waste and the glass
block making plant are two examples of processes where there are
carbon dioxide emissions.

In building. Nuclear power stations involve a lot of concrete. They
also involve large amounts of rare materials. All of these have to
be produced.
So do bloody windmills,. So do solar panels. Concrete anyway.

Wind farms involve a fair amount of concrete, they also involve
things like copper in the cables. Solar panels don't involve much
concrete.

I refute that rare materials are needed for nuclear power stations.

No, you rebut it.

While much of a nuclear power station is no different to a coal
fired one, the reactor is a different matter. This is full of all
sorts of large scale precision assemblies made from various
materials.

would understand that we don't have an energy
problem. We have a resource and pollution problem. The planet is awash
with free energy, only limited by the cost of turning it into
electricity, and the pollution that may, or may not, result.
A point environmentalists have made for a considerable time.
No, they haven't. The are focussed totally on conserving energy,

The usual claim is that they don't mention conserving energy enough
in their enthusiasm for promoting renewable generation. It is mildly
amusing to see how the claims vary.

Their position is actually available for those seriously interested
in the subject to see, "Our energy needs could be met with safe and
efficient renewable energy technologies and serious investment in
energy efficiency. Investment in these sensible alternatives would
be undermined if UK ministers are allowed to foist a new nuclear
power programme on Scotland."

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campaigns/nuclear/

Yup. So they are lying? whats new there.

I have showed you that no other non fossil altetanitce is remotely
scalable or economic, at the levels the country NEEDS, and you still
persist in believing these romantic bunny huggers?

The fact is that solar, wind and biofuels are simply too low energy per
unit area. You need MASSIVE areas of land to generate the amounts needed.

Uranium is the other way. Its MASSIVELY power dense. Far more so than
even the best fossil fuel. Your generators become small and very powerful..

It may not suit other climates, but it suits us perfectly. Its not the
question of it being a bad choice, its the ONLY choice, and the bunny
huggers know it. But like anyone else who runs on a faith based
ideology, they can't bear to admit they are wrong.

I'd be delighted if 20 windmills off S****horpe could supply the
countries entire energy needs at competitive costs. The fact is they
can't. And never will be able to either.
Ive done the calculations.

100 nuclear power stations or 100,000 VERY large windmills.

You don't HAVE to be a genius to work out that with only 265,000 sqaure
kilometers of land available, and offshore cabling costs of 1 million
quid a mile, how stupid it would be to use windmills.

Likewise see Peter Parrys post, he is getting 3W a square meter in
daylight on a solar panel in an dull winter. Never mind after dark..

we need at least 300GW (peak) to run this country in winter. Thats 100
Giga square meters of panels, (at a cost of around £100000G..thats a
hundred trillion quid..) and a total land area of 10k square
kilomters..thats a 60 x 60 mile patch of land.

Sure, Go one. Wreck my planet with your bull****.



I think I spot a flaw in your plan to cover vast tracks of the
countryside with solar (PV) panels. You say we need 300GW. Well, if we
collected all the solar panels ever made, we would still be
approximately 287.6GW short.

T

In article ,
David Hansen wrote:
However, in order to do this there is a need to place the power
stations close to where the heat is used. As I have said for a long
time, let's put say three nuclear power stations in London and one
in the other large cities in England.

If you'd be happy paying higher electricity prices because the power
stations are build on expensive land.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-01-08 09:00:05 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:10:36 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water for piping to
homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.

None at all. It is done in Russia.



Great idea.

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking around
the streets by the side of the road. The system is turned on on the
1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature inside the
buildings is regulated by opening the windows.

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:31:11 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Then the nuclear lobby would be building their power stations. There
is nothing to stop them and has never been anything to stop them.
Instead they want the planning system fixed and a number of other
risks transferred elsewhere before they do anything.

The reason they are NOT is because they cannot get planning,

Given that nobody has tried, that assertion is obviously incorrect.

They may think that it would take a long time to get planning
permission, but that is different.

and they
are faced with a totally open ended 'clean up charge' that a government
may or may not impose on them sometime in the future.

There is an easy way to deal with this. The company can accept
responsibility for the clean up, of at least the site if not the
spent fuel. They could for example deposit a bond.




They do already. But the problem is, to what standards must they clean up?

Right now its an open ended risk that no one will take.

If some bunny hugging government comes in and insists of making it less
radioactive than distilled water, they may be faced with total ruin.

The point is that the rules applied to nuclear energy are a million
times more stringent than those applied to conventional power. And they
are not cast in concrete either: at any future date the companies MAY be
required to change their standards massively.

Or be nationalised like some third world country.

You cannot enter a commercial arena with completely unqualified risks at
the whim of a government, in competition with other players who are
doing massive proven damage to the environment, and who pay *nothing*
for the effects they make.

wrote:
On 8 Jan, 12:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:29:25 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-
In operation. Provided one ignores the emissions involved in
converting the ore dug out of the ground into fuel rods.
Done electrically, from nuclear generated el;ectricity, they are very low.
It is interesting that when it suits them the nuclear lobby say that
there is no such thing as green electricity, as it all goes into one
grid.
Well if no one bought electricity from coal oil and gas stations, and
everyone bought it from nuclear hydro and windmills, they other power
stations would shut down wouldn't they?

I have never heard that statement BTW.



Provided
the emissions involved in dealing with the spent fuel rods (which
are very high if one reprocesses the fuel but much less with storage
at the site). With these two provisions the emissions in operation
are low.
Emergy use does *not* equal emmissions. There is no reason to suppose
that reprocessing generates Co2.
The evaporator to concentrate highly active waste and the glass
block making plant are two examples of processes where there are
carbon dioxide emissions.
In building. Nuclear power stations involve a lot of concrete. They
also involve large amounts of rare materials. All of these have to
be produced.
So do bloody windmills,. So do solar panels. Concrete anyway.
Wind farms involve a fair amount of concrete, they also involve
things like copper in the cables. Solar panels don't involve much
concrete.
I refute that rare materials are needed for nuclear power stations.
No, you rebut it.
While much of a nuclear power station is no different to a coal
fired one, the reactor is a different matter. This is full of all
sorts of large scale precision assemblies made from various
materials.
would understand that we don't have an energy
problem. We have a resource and pollution problem. The planet is awash
with free energy, only limited by the cost of turning it into
electricity, and the pollution that may, or may not, result.
A point environmentalists have made for a considerable time.
No, they haven't. The are focussed totally on conserving energy,
The usual claim is that they don't mention conserving energy enough
in their enthusiasm for promoting renewable generation. It is mildly
amusing to see how the claims vary.
Their position is actually available for those seriously interested
in the subject to see, "Our energy needs could be met with safe and
efficient renewable energy technologies and serious investment in
energy efficiency. Investment in these sensible alternatives would
be undermined if UK ministers are allowed to foist a new nuclear
power programme on Scotland."
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campaigns/nuclear/
Yup. So they are lying? whats new there.

I have showed you that no other non fossil altetanitce is remotely
scalable or economic, at the levels the country NEEDS, and you still
persist in believing these romantic bunny huggers?

The fact is that solar, wind and biofuels are simply too low energy per
unit area. You need MASSIVE areas of land to generate the amounts needed.

Uranium is the other way. Its MASSIVELY power dense. Far more so than
even the best fossil fuel. Your generators become small and very powerful.

It may not suit other climates, but it suits us perfectly. Its not the
question of it being a bad choice, its the ONLY choice, and the bunny
huggers know it. But like anyone else who runs on a faith based
ideology, they can't bear to admit they are wrong.

I'd be delighted if 20 windmills off S****horpe could supply the
countries entire energy needs at competitive costs. The fact is they
can't. And never will be able to either.
Ive done the calculations.

100 nuclear power stations or 100,000 VERY large windmills.

You don't HAVE to be a genius to work out that with only 265,000 sqaure
kilometers of land available, and offshore cabling costs of 1 million
quid a mile, how stupid it would be to use windmills.

Likewise see Peter Parrys post, he is getting 3W a square meter in
daylight on a solar panel in an dull winter. Never mind after dark..

we need at least 300GW (peak) to run this country in winter. Thats 100
Giga square meters of panels, (at a cost of around �100000G..thats a
hundred trillion quid..) and a total land area of 10k square
kilomters..thats a 60 x 60 mile patch of land.

Sure, Go one. Wreck my planet with your bull****.



I think I spot a flaw in your plan to cover vast tracks of the
countryside with solar (PV) panels. You say we need 300GW. Well, if we
collected all the solar panels ever made, we would still be
approximately 287.6GW short.


Hardly a flaw, merely another nail in the coffin of so called 'solar power'.

I do not BTW discount the possibility that cheap and better solar panels
may in time be produced in bulk and be quite useful in certain locations.

Which sidesteps your point.

MY point is that no matter how good the panels are, the areas required
are VAST. and the construction costs equally so.

And they all stop working at night, so loads of storage needed.


T

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Hansen wrote:
However, in order to do this there is a need to place the power
stations close to where the heat is used. As I have said for a long
time, let's put say three nuclear power stations in London and one
in the other large cities in England.

If you'd be happy paying higher electricity prices because the power
stations are build on expensive land.

Well you could build residential and office blocks on them with free
lighting and heating. That should cover the land cost.


And a train station next door with a sunstation to feed the power lines..

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-08 09:00:05 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:10:36 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water for
piping to
homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.

None at all. It is done in Russia.



Great idea.

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking around
the streets by the side of the road. The system is turned on on the
1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature inside the
buildings is regulated by opening the windows.



Sounds like some council flats I stayed in in Denmark. Had some kind of
waste burning boiler..

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:00:05 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water
for piping to homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.

None at all. It is done in Russia.

It was done in London: waste heat from the Battersea power station
was piped under the river to heat the Pimlico estate

http://www.cwh.org.uk/main.asp?page=494

However, in order to do this there is a need to place the power
stations close to where the heat is used. As I have said for a
long time, let's put say three nuclear power stations in London
and one in the other large cities in England.

Not a vote winner, I suspect. But it could make sense to put acres
of polytunnels next to a power station and grow tomatoes etc all
year round with free heat - better than flying the stuff thousands
of miles.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:31:36 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking around
the streets by the side of the road. The system is turned on on the
1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature inside the
buildings is regulated by opening the windows.

District heating is done better in a number of places. Iceland is
perhaps the best known.


--
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 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:12:45 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer
wrote this:-

It was done in London: waste heat from the Battersea power station
was piped under the river to heat the Pimlico estate

There are a number of schemes. http://www.chpa.co.uk/ lists some of
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

wrote:
On 8 Jan,
Tony Bryer wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:00:05 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water
for piping to homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.
None at all. It is done in Russia.
It was done in London: waste heat from the Battersea power station
was piped under the river to heat the Pimlico estate

http://www.cwh.org.uk/main.asp?page=494

However, in order to do this there is a need to place the power
stations close to where the heat is used. As I have said for a
long time, let's put say three nuclear power stations in London
and one in the other large cities in England.
Not a vote winner, I suspect. But it could make sense to put acres
of polytunnels next to a power station and grow tomatoes etc all
year round with free heat - better than flying the stuff thousands
of miles.

The scandinavans manage to pump hot water for great distances without
excessive loss.

The (specific)? heat of water is pretty good, and so is modern insulation.

Capital cost is pretty high, but it should be cost effective over medium
distances I would think.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:03:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

Ooo-oooooooooooooh "British Scientists" call it "a revolution"

and there was I thinking it was a figment of the imagination of a
Bowldy-Headed hack in the Grauniad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy

Snip my stuff.


"Our first solar panels will be used in a solar power station in
Germany," said Erik Oldekop, Nanosolar's manager in Switzerland.

California, Germany, Switzerland, Far away places with strange
sounding names, no wonder our money is not good enough for them.

"We aim to produce the panels for 99 cents [50p] a watt, which is
comparable to the price of electricity generated from coal."

How do you work that out ?


Precsiely. I suspect what he is saying is that in bright california
sunshine the PANEL COST is about $1 per watt generated.


No, no, you got it wrong It's not a dollar. (Hell, that would be
*three digits*, IE $1.00) it's 99 cents. Precisely, in Calfornia.

Have they made any? Yes, last week.

Do they work? Hard to say.

Have they measured how they perform ? Erm pass on that it's not summer
in Calfornia ...

God help them in Switzerland it's always been ****ing down when I've
been there.

More snips

At 100% efficiency, - probably ten times what is realistically
achievable by ANY technology - that means AT LEAST 300 square kilometers
of solar panes. Realistically at 10% efficiency thats 3000 square
kilometers, and thats daytime only power. So an area the size of the
lake district covered in solar panels. Right. And a hell of a lot of
overnight storage heaters or batteries.

Its greenmyth nonsense.


Greenmythology only works in "magic numbers". IE CFL's last 25 years.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:15:01 +0000, zanthia wrote:


Fools and their money are soon parted.

DG

You must be well below the poverty line.

Then you put your money where your mouth is.

If you have any.

DG

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:18:57 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I think I spot a flaw in your plan to cover vast tracks of the
countryside with solar (PV) panels. You say we need 300GW. Well, if we
collected all the solar panels ever made, we would still be
approximately 287.6GW short.


CFL's are the answer (not) . They last 25 years (not).

Unlike wind turbines, they only last 19.

Whereas the CEGB Magnox stations seemed to last about 40.

DG

In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
CFL's are the answer (not) . They last 25 years (not).

The life of any lamp is stated in hours used.

A CFL (depending on type) should have 5-10 times the life of a GLS lamp.
If you used it an hour a day a 25 year life is possible.

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-01-08 17:43:10 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:31:36 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking around
the streets by the side of the road. The system is turned on on the
1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature inside the
buildings is regulated by opening the windows.

District heating is done better in a number of places. Iceland is
perhaps the best known.

They have big open air baths there but only because the heat comes
straight out of the ground

On 2008-01-08 15:24:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-08 09:00:05 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:10:36 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water for piping to
homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.

None at all. It is done in Russia.



Great idea.

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking around
the streets by the side of the road. The system is turned on on the
1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature inside the
buildings is regulated by opening the windows.



Sounds like some council flats I stayed in in Denmark. Had some kind of
waste burning boiler..

And you have to have a gob stopper in your mouth in order to speak the
language.....

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-08 15:24:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-08 09:00:05 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:10:36 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water for
piping to
homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.

None at all. It is done in Russia.



Great idea.

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking
around the streets by the side of the road. The system is turned
on on the 1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature
inside the buildings is regulated by opening the windows.



Sounds like some council flats I stayed in in Denmark. Had some kind
of waste burning boiler..

And you have to have a gob stopper in your mouth in order to speak the
language.....



I never bothered. Denmark is all right, but not for the whole afternoon..

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:29:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
CFL's are the answer (not) . They last 25 years (not).

The life of any lamp is stated in hours used.

Start - ups?


A CFL (depending on type) should have 5-10 times the life of a GLS lamp.
If you used it an hour a day a 25 year life is possible.

That would be about 9,130 start up cycles.

DG