Up till recently I was of the opinion that thiugh i didn;t lIKE
windmills, like foregoing a 6 liter V8, or taking frequent holidays in
te south sea, it was probably part of the price one had to pay for the
Greater Good..until certain people started shoving windmills down our
throats and procalaimming them as the One True Solution to carbon free
energy.

So as you know, along with all the other greenwash, I decided to take a
look. The initial thrust was to simply see what energy policy was
feasible for a carbon neutral UK.

The answer was ultimately that as far as I could see, there was only one
practical option. Nuclear power and electric transport.

However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.

And for very sceptical report there are ten glowing 'windpower is the
answerer' articles on the net..so I looked deeper.


The more I looked the more deeply sceptical I became.

The negative issues surrounding wind power were simply not addressed by
its proponents.

This article contains a good summary

http://www.turbineaction.co.uk/wind-turbine-facts.htm

essentially blowing the gaff on the hidden costs associated with large
scale introduction of wind power.

Not to mention the rank subsidies

"According to Ofgem, the Labour government's wind subsidies
currently stand at £485 million a year."

"Wind farms get around three times as much in subsidy - a
mixture of selling ROCS [renewable obligation certificates] and a share
of fines paid by non-renewable plants - as they do from selling
electricity"

A rather more scholarly and dry critique is he-

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/comment_0605.pdf

and as far back as 20004

http://www.windaction.org/documents/225

A totally unexpected downside comes from he-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3300814.ece

You may THINK that its unlikely the Iranians or the Russians would come
in low across the North sea, or up the thames estuary.. but a hijacked
airliner? no problem.

It seems that pretty competent people are starting to cry out against
this monumental waste of taxpayers money

http://www.glassclash.info/pdfs/Telegraph050326.pdf

But leaving that aside, and leaving the fact that the power actually
generated by windmills is estimated to be (at the point of generation)
somewhere between 20% and 400% of the cost by any other means (including
carbon free nuclear) the real downsides only become apparent at high
levels of wind farm generation..typically more than 20% of total capacity.

This is because windfarms don't operate at full capacity. Indeed at
windspeeds below 9mph, they don't operate at all, nor can they be used
at over 55mph. They disintegrate if not shut down.

So although the AVERAGE load capacity - the AVERAGE output with respect
to the peak is somewhere around 35%, for a significant proportion of the
time any given windfarm is not producing anything at all. Possibly up to
15% of the time.

The windfarm proponents will counter this by saying that that is fine,
because when its flat calm in Feltham, its a gale in Galashiels..


And skip the most fundamental points: that a gale in Galashiels is all
very well, but the power needs to get down to Feltham. This means some
pretty hefty upgrades to the Grid..at somebody else's costs. Because the
grid is required to take their energy, whether they want it or not.

As wind power gets an even higher proportion of the total it gets even
worse. Even if on a calm cold winter's - or a blazingly hot summer's -
day some power IS being produced somewhere, and even if its coming down
a massive supergrid from Orkney..it still wont be enough..unless the
total generating capacity is so over specified that in order to cover
the shortfalls of calm weather, it has to be overspecified by a factor
of many times. Probably around 6:1. So instead of your windfarm load
factor being a nice 35%, in reality it has to be operated much lower
than that - say 16% or so, OR you have to back it up with conventional
gas turbines, run at disadvantageous cycling, and efficiencies.

So not only does the wind power suddenly double in actual costs, since
as it reaches a high proportion of grid capacity it has to be operated
at a lower factor, it also needs far more infrastructure to transport
the energy from where the wind blows (typically scotland) to where its
needed (typically the south east). OR it has to be backed up with a huge
amount of conventional and fast cycling capacity, which probably menas
that in the end the carbon gains are negligible: Certainly this seems to
be the Danish and German experiences.


I can only conclude that, like so much else in the climate change lobby,
the whole thing is driven by politics. Nuclear energy is never
considered 'renewable' and huge subsidies are given to 'renewable' to
meet self imposed targets..and the only 'renewable' source that is
remotely feasible is wind, so we have wind.

The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil
fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces
the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned..

We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity bills -
in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2 production
at all!

Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments of
Europe have come up with in fact.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Up till recently I was of the opinion that thiugh i didn;t lIKE
windmills, like foregoing a 6 liter V8, or taking frequent holidays in
te south sea, it was probably part of the price one had to pay for the
Greater Good..until certain people started shoving windmills down our
throats and procalaimming them as the One True Solution to carbon free
energy.

So as you know, along with all the other greenwash, I decided to take
a look. The initial thrust was to simply see what energy policy was
feasible for a carbon neutral UK.

The answer was ultimately that as far as I could see, there was only
one practical option. Nuclear power and electric transport.

However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.

And for very sceptical report there are ten glowing 'windpower is the
answerer' articles on the net..so I looked deeper.


The more I looked the more deeply sceptical I became.

The negative issues surrounding wind power were simply not addressed
by its proponents.

This article contains a good summary

http://www.turbineaction.co.uk/wind-turbine-facts.htm

essentially blowing the gaff on the hidden costs associated with large
scale introduction of wind power.

Not to mention the rank subsidies

"According to Ofgem, the Labour government's wind subsidies
currently stand at £485 million a year."

"Wind farms get around three times as much in subsidy - a
mixture of selling ROCS [renewable obligation certificates] and a
share of fines paid by non-renewable plants - as they do from selling
electricity"

A rather more scholarly and dry critique is he-

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/comment_0605.pdf

and as far back as 20004

http://www.windaction.org/documents/225

A totally unexpected downside comes from he-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3300814.ece

You may THINK that its unlikely the Iranians or the Russians would
come in low across the North sea, or up the thames estuary.. but a
hijacked airliner? no problem.

It seems that pretty competent people are starting to cry out against
this monumental waste of taxpayers money

http://www.glassclash.info/pdfs/Telegraph050326.pdf

But leaving that aside, and leaving the fact that the power actually
generated by windmills is estimated to be (at the point of generation)
somewhere between 20% and 400% of the cost by any other means
(including carbon free nuclear) the real downsides only become
apparent at high levels of wind farm generation..typically more than
20% of total capacity.
This is because windfarms don't operate at full capacity. Indeed at
windspeeds below 9mph, they don't operate at all, nor can they be used
at over 55mph. They disintegrate if not shut down.

So although the AVERAGE load capacity - the AVERAGE output with
respect to the peak is somewhere around 35%, for a significant
proportion of the time any given windfarm is not producing anything
at all. Possibly up to 15% of the time.

The windfarm proponents will counter this by saying that that is fine,
because when its flat calm in Feltham, its a gale in Galashiels..


And skip the most fundamental points: that a gale in Galashiels is all
very well, but the power needs to get down to Feltham. This means some
pretty hefty upgrades to the Grid..at somebody else's costs. Because
the grid is required to take their energy, whether they want it or
not.
As wind power gets an even higher proportion of the total it gets even
worse. Even if on a calm cold winter's - or a blazingly hot summer's -
day some power IS being produced somewhere, and even if its coming
down a massive supergrid from Orkney..it still wont be enough..unless the
total generating capacity is so over specified that in order to cover
the shortfalls of calm weather, it has to be overspecified by a factor
of many times. Probably around 6:1. So instead of your windfarm load
factor being a nice 35%, in reality it has to be operated much lower
than that - say 16% or so, OR you have to back it up with conventional
gas turbines, run at disadvantageous cycling, and efficiencies.

So not only does the wind power suddenly double in actual costs, since
as it reaches a high proportion of grid capacity it has to be operated
at a lower factor, it also needs far more infrastructure to transport
the energy from where the wind blows (typically scotland) to where its
needed (typically the south east). OR it has to be backed up with a
huge amount of conventional and fast cycling capacity, which probably
menas that in the end the carbon gains are negligible: Certainly this
seems to be the Danish and German experiences.


I can only conclude that, like so much else in the climate change
lobby, the whole thing is driven by politics. Nuclear energy is never
considered 'renewable' and huge subsidies are given to 'renewable' to
meet self imposed targets..and the only 'renewable' source that is
remotely feasible is wind, so we have wind.

The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil
fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces
the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned..

We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity
bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2
production at all!

Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments
of Europe have come up with in fact.

Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for
electricity.

*NOW* what have I said?

BRG

The message
from "BRG" contains these words:

Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for
electricity.

You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be
some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is
widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly.

*NOW* what have I said?

Your head is now on the block. Be on the lookout for marauding greenies
looking for someone to sacrifice at feet of Arch Druid Porritt before
the altar of the SD-Commission.

--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:57:22 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from "BRG" contains these words:

Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for
electricity.

You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be
some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is
widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly.

What I would like to know is why is there no push for nuclear fusion
reactors. Because I may be wrong, and I often am, but I believe that
fusion does not produce radioactive isotopes but fusion was put to one
side as a source of electricity back in the 1950s because the
technology for fission looked easier to achieve in the short term. And
so far as I can see it has never been taken up since

Because there are problems with fission - supplies of uranium are
limited and controlled by a small number of countries and there is the
problem of containing the waste products whereas hydrogen for fusion
is readily available

The other option which AFAICS has not been exploited much is water
power. OK it has been exploited a bit with hydroelectric but tidal /
wave power doesnt seem to be used much at all and I would have thought
that a good source of energy

Hm and being a devils advocate, there was lots of government money put
into nuclear when it was new tech so I think its only fair that lots
of government money should be put into wind power too

Anna
--

~ ~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England
|""""| ~ Lime plaster repair and conservation
/ ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc
|____| www.kettlenet.co.uk

On 06/03/2008 23:24, Anna Kettle wrote:

What I would like to know is why is there no push for nuclear fusion
reactors.

There *is*, it just hasn't got to the point where you get more out than
you need to put in to get/keep the reaction going, and can't be kept
going for a particularly long time.

Because I may be wrong, and I often am, but I believe that
fusion does not produce radioactive isotopes

Essentially you're not wrong, there is no radioactive product, but the
equipment itself does get irradiated so will need a lesser form of
de-commisioning.

Search for TOKAMAK and/or JET

Anna Kettle wrote:

What I would like to know is why is there no push for nuclear fusion
reactors. Because I may be wrong, and I often am, but I believe that
fusion does not produce radioactive isotopes but fusion was put to one
side as a source of electricity back in the 1950s because the
technology for fission looked easier to achieve in the short term. And
so far as I can see it has never been taken up since

It has not had much profile since, however work has been going on with
JET and other similar projects. There are now moves afoot to try and
build a big enough experimental reactor (ITER) for the first time to see
if it can be made to produce power on a commercial scale.

Some details he

http://www.iter.org/
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...244574,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

The other option which AFAICS has not been exploited much is water
power. OK it has been exploited a bit with hydroelectric but tidal /
wave power doesnt seem to be used much at all and I would have thought
that a good source of energy

Much depends on the environmental disruption you are prepared to
tolerate... but it does superficially seem preferable to wind power in
many cases.

Hm and being a devils advocate, there was lots of government money put
into nuclear when it was new tech so I think its only fair that lots
of government money should be put into wind power too

"Wind" and "government" seem to go hand in hand!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:57:22 GMT
Roger wrote:

The message
from "BRG" contains these words:

Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for
electricity.

You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be
some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is
widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly.

*NOW* what have I said?

Your head is now on the block. Be on the lookout for marauding greenies
looking for someone to sacrifice at feet of Arch Druid Porritt before
the altar of the SD-Commission.


I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it
might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel.
They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC.

R.

TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:57:22 GMT
Roger wrote:

The message
from "BRG" contains these words:

Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for
electricity.
You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be
some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is
widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly.

*NOW* what have I said?
Your head is now on the block. Be on the lookout for marauding greenies
looking for someone to sacrifice at feet of Arch Druid Porritt before
the altar of the SD-Commission.


I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it
might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel.
They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC.


There's plenty of radioactive material. And you can as you say make more.

Its really a question of cost, thats all.

You can pull uranium out of seawater, if you process enough of it.

Hardly economic at todays prices..

BUT its like desalination ..if te price is right, its viable.

Thats a thought..use off peak nuclear power and waste CO2 and heat to
desalinate and carbonate sea water, and then bottle it as..'Atomic Fizz'.

should sell like hotcakes.

On 7 Mar, 08:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:57:22 GMT
Roger wrote:

The message
from "BRG" contains these words:

Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for
electricity.
You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be
some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is
widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly.

*NOW* what have I said?
Your head is now on the block. Be on the lookout for marauding greenies
looking for someone to sacrifice at feet of Arch Druid Porritt before
the altar of the SD-Commission.

I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it
might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel.
They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC.

There's plenty of radioactive material. And you can as you say make more.

Its really a question of cost, thats all.

You can pull uranium out of seawater, if you process enough of it.

Hardly economic at todays prices..

BUT its like desalination ..if te price is right, its viable.

Surely your anti-green stance is predicated ENTIRELY on price, since
no-one in their right mind could argue, absent considerations of cost,
that nuclear power was preferable to renewable energy. In other
words, ignoring considerations of cost, tidal/wind/solar etc. would be
better in all possible respects than nuclear. Plus you can't make WMD
out of the by-products of tidal energy.

The message
from TheOldFellow contains these words:

I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it
might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel.
They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC.

IIRC they produce plutonium which is only available for use after
reprocessing and then it could be more attractive as a bomb component
than as reactor fuel.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
The message
from TheOldFellow contains these words:

I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it
might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel.
They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC.

IIRC they produce plutonium which is only available for use after
reprocessing and then it could be more attractive as a bomb component
than as reactor fuel.

Depends whether your priorities are to warm peoples homes or melt them
really :-)

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:51:56 GMT someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it
might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel.
They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC.

IIRC they produce plutonium which is only available for use after
reprocessing and then it could be more attractive as a bomb component
than as reactor fuel.

Another bit of that dream has gone belly up, despite decades of vast
taxpayer subsidies
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/minister-admits-total-failure-of-sellafield-mox-plant-793489.html

It is a pity officials and party politicians were too arrogant to
listen to the voice of sanity before wasting vast amounts of my
money on this white elephant.

"Minister admits total failure of Sellafield 'MOX' plant
"By Geoffrey Lean
"Sunday, 9 March 2008

"It was a deeply embarrassing moment for the Government, though it
passed almost without notice.

"Late last month, the Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks, had to admit
to one of the most comprehensive and catastrophic failures in
British industrial history – and one that has led directly to the
plans to ship weapons-ready plutonium to France.

"Answering a question from Dai Davies, the independent MP for
Blaenau Gwent, Mr Wicks confessed that a new plant at Sellafield,
built amid great controversy at a cost of £473m, had comprehensively
failed to work. Originally designed to produce 120 tons a year of
"mixed oxide" (MOX) nuclear fuel – made of plutonium and uranium
separated from nuclear waste by reprocessing – it had in fact
managed only 5.3 tons in five years of operation.

"The admission constituted a wholescale vindication for critics,
including The Independent on Sunday, who have long denounced the
plant as a waste of money based on unproven technology, which could
also pose a terrorist risk.

"After the assault on the World Trade Center in September 2001,
which came just before the plant was given approval to start
operations, the then environment minister, Michael Meacher, asked
for information on the opportunities it afforded terrorists after
reading an article in The Independent on Sunday. But only a cursory
review was carried out by the Office for Civilian Nuclear Security,
which denied any threat in terms identical to those used by British
Nuclear Fuels."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/dirty-bomb-threat-as-uk-ships-plutonium-to-france-793488.html
outlines the consequences of this failure.



--
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

"BRG" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
fact.

snip


Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for
electricity.

*NOW* what have I said?

BRG


sigh
Nothing new, but i took you 7Kb to say it...


--
¦zulu¦

if theres enough coal for 5 years
but we only use it when the winds not blowing
then it will last longer...

and how do you budget
for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years,
or just leave it to pollute future generations
and hope they invent something to deal with it
contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes?

and wheres my flying car?

--

[george]

~ [g] ~
~ ~
~ 07970 378 572 ~
~ www.dicegeorge.com ~
~ (c)2008 ~
~ ~

George (dicegeorge) wrote:

if theres enough coal for 5 years
but we only use it when the winds not blowing
then it will last longer...

and how do you budget
for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years,
or just leave it to pollute future generations
and hope they invent something to deal with it
contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes?

and wheres my flying car?

It was in the papers sometime within about ten or twelve days ago. Did
you not read about it? I've just checked the papers that have not gone
for re cycle and I can't see it to quote.

About 80 mph on the road and about 200 in the air, made in America and
costs, if I remember rightly, between £150,00 to about £200,000.

Dave

Dave wrote:
George (dicegeorge) wrote:

if theres enough coal for 5 years
but we only use it when the winds not blowing
then it will last longer...

and how do you budget
for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years,
or just leave it to pollute future generations
and hope they invent something to deal with it
contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes?

and wheres my flying car?

It was in the papers sometime within about ten or twelve days ago. Did
you not read about it? I've just checked the papers that have not
gone for re cycle and I can't see it to quote.

About 80 mph on the road and about 200 in the air, made in America and
costs, if I remember rightly, between £150,00 to about £200,000.

Dave

Chitty, Chitty Bang Bang - it's alive and going well and reached Australia a
few day ago.

Not the original one - but a reconstruction using a model car as a pattern
of all things and it cost far less to build than the Yankee one!

BRG

George (dicegeorge) wrote:
if theres enough coal for 5 years
but we only use it when the winds not blowing
then it will last longer...

and how do you budget
for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years,

Dunno. This whole planet is made out of nuclear waste anyway.

Always has been. It seems to have coped. Shove the waste back down where
it came from I guess.


or just leave it to pollute future generations
and hope they invent something to deal with it
contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes?

What about atmospheric CO2 halflives. Somewhat longer...

and wheres my flying car?

IN your flying dreams..

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:58:50 -0000
"George \(dicegeorge\)" wrote:


and how do you budget
for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years,
or just leave it to pollute future generations
and hope they invent something to deal with it
contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes?

You should use subduction zones to get it back into the Earth's core
where it belongs. There's a good one in California where the stupid
Americans build cities on it.

On 6 Mar, 22:58, "George \(dicegeorge\)"
wrote:
if theres enough coal for 5 years
but we only use it when the winds not blowing
then it will last longer...

and how do you budget
for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years,
or just leave it to pollute future generations
and hope they invent something to deal with it
contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes?

and wheres my flying car?

--

* * * * * * * * * *[george]

~ * * * * * * * * * * *[g] * * * * * * * * * * * * ~
~ * * * * * *~
~*****************************07970*378*572******* ************~
~ * * * *www.dicegeorge.com* * * *~
~ * * * * * * * * * * (c)2008 * * * * * * * * *~
~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~

Some thirty years ago the Selby coalfield was opened amidst claims of
one hundred years of coal supplies. The same seams continue out
towards the North Sea at varying depths and accessibilities. The Selby
field has been closed down as the faces became uneconomically distant
but what happened to the residual seventy odd years of coal supplies?

cynic wrote:
On 6 Mar, 22:58, "George \(dicegeorge\)"
wrote:
if theres enough coal for 5 years
but we only use it when the winds not blowing
then it will last longer...

and how do you budget
for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years,
or just leave it to pollute future generations
and hope they invent something to deal with it
contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes?

and wheres my flying car?

--

[george]

~ [g] ~
~ ~
~ 07970 378 572 ~
~ www.dicegeorge.com ~
~ (c)2008 ~
~ ~

Some thirty years ago the Selby coalfield was opened amidst claims of
one hundred years of coal supplies. The same seams continue out
towards the North Sea at varying depths and accessibilities. The Selby
field has been closed down as the faces became uneconomically distant
but what happened to the residual seventy odd years of coal supplies?
Still there.

But its cheaper to import coal.

Same goes for Cornish Tin. ALMOST worth opening the mines again.

In message , at 22:58:50 on Thu, 6 Mar
2008, "George (dicegeorge)" remarked:
and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of
years,

If we are reduced to a stone-age existence by a combination of energy
poverty and global warming, this is not an issue. You just pile it all
in a big heap somewhere like the Isle of Man and tell everyone to keep
away.
--
Roland Perry

zulu wrote:
"BRG" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
fact.

snip


Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option
for electricity.

*NOW* what have I said?

BRG


sigh
Nothing new, but i took you 7Kb to say it...

What a damnable waste of energy - the government will have to build another
three nuclear power stations to cover it!! :-)

Ah well - the tree huggers are still alive alive and kicking... I left all
the post in as it takes me the same amount of energy to press the send
button whether a post be 7Kb or 0.00007Kb or 7 Gigabytes.

BRG

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.


The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the
wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we
manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power
station. What planet are these people on?

Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY
year, added to increasing longevity.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.


The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens
when the
wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we
manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power
station. What planet are these people on?



Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more,
EVERY
year, added to increasing longevity.

So Logan's Run is correct?

Adam

In message , ARWadworth
writes

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.


The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What
happens when the
wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we
manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power
station. What planet are these people on?



Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million
more, EVERY
year, added to increasing longevity.

So Logan's Run is correct?

Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ...

--
geoff

geoff wrote:
snip

So Logan's Run is correct?

Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ...

But she is naked, puts a dress on, bends over and shows knickers. Where
did they come from? Rubbish continuity.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"Rod" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
snip

So Logan's Run is correct?

Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ...

But she is naked, puts a dress on, bends over and shows knickers. Where
did they come from? Rubbish continuity.


The knickers came from the Railway Children.

Adam

"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , ARWadworth
writes

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.


The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens
when the
wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and
we
manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional
power
station. What planet are these people on?



Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more,
EVERY
year, added to increasing longevity.

So Logan's Run is correct?

Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ...


They looked so much better in An American Werewolf in London.

Adam

ARWadworth wrote:
snip

So Logan's Run is correct?

Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ...


They looked so much better in An American Werewolf in London.

Adam
Walkabout...

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In message , ARWadworth
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message ,
ARWadworth writes

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.


The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What
happens when the
wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail
and we
manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare
conmventional power
station. What planet are these people on?



Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million
more, EVERY
year, added to increasing longevity.

So Logan's Run is correct?

Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ...


They looked so much better in An American Werewolf in London.

Walkabout - has to be the best

--
geoff

ARWadworth wrote:

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.


The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens
when the
wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we
manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional
power
station. What planet are these people on?



Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million
more, EVERY
year, added to increasing longevity.

So Logan's Run is correct?


Essentially.


Adam

Andy Cap wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.


The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What
happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power
stations fail and we manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional
power station. What planet are these people on?

Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million
more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity.

*That's* why Bush and Blair went to war - kill off a few million and save
the cost of building a few power stations - I often wondered what the true
reason was - apart from oil!

BRG

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 00:00:59 -0000, "BRG" wrote:

Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million
more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity.

*That's* why Bush and Blair went to war - kill off a few million and save
the cost of building a few power stations - I often wondered what the true
reason was - apart from oil!

The population in developed countries naturally falls. What you don't then do,
is import 10 million from elsewhere, else you simply exacerbate the problem.
Other countries survive quite well on just a few million. Why do we need 70 - 80
million when only a couple of decades ago, it was 20. It's a quality of life
issue. It's just that those making the decisions don't experience the
consequnces.

Andy

On Mar 7, 6:32*am, Andy Cap wrote:
Why do we need 70 - 80
million when only a couple of decades ago, it was 20.

In the 1980s? And the rest!

MBQ

On 2008-03-07, Andy Cap wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 00:00:59 -0000, "BRG" wrote:

Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million
more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity.

*That's* why Bush and Blair went to war - kill off a few million and save
the cost of building a few power stations - I often wondered what the true
reason was - apart from oil!

The population in developed countries naturally falls. What you don't then do,
is import 10 million from elsewhere, else you simply exacerbate the problem.
Other countries survive quite well on just a few million. Why do we need 70 - 80
million when only a couple of decades ago, it was 20.
snip

Which anti-immigration propaganda did you get that from? The ONS
reports[*] a rise from 55.9 m to 60.6 m over the period 1971-2006.
That's less than 5 million more over 35 years.

* http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.

BRG wrote:
Andy Cap wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that
windpower could in fact do the job.


The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What
happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power
stations fail and we manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional
power station. What planet are these people on?

Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million
more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity.

*That's* why Bush and Blair went to war - kill off a few million and
save the cost of building a few power stations - I often wondered
what the true reason was - apart from oil!

Because his Dad didn't go all the way to Baghdad in 1991 and he wanted to be
able to say "look Dad I did it!" (and the oil) Tragic isn't the word.

Paul

--
Add an underscore after the p to reply

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:21:09 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the
wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we
manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power
station. What planet are these people on?

Maybe it will become our public duty when the wind falls to go to the
nearest wind turbine and breathe heavily on the blades?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil
fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces
the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned..

We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity
bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2
production at all!

Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments
of Europe have come up with in fact.

Pretty much the conclusion I came up with a while ago. Even the BWEA admit
that you tend to get nowhere near the rated capacity out of wind turbines.
Then you need huge energy storage facilities to make use of the erratic
output.

OTOH I'm still unsure about climate change in general. It seems to be a
good way to beat everyone around the head for extra cash. Certainly the
money could be better spent on feeding the hungry...

x"Doki" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil
fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces
the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned..

We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity
bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2
production at all!

Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments
of Europe have come up with in fact.

Pretty much the conclusion I came up with a while ago. Even the BWEA admit
that you tend to get nowhere near the rated capacity out of wind turbines.
Then you need huge energy storage facilities to make use of the erratic
output.

Haven't the Germans some experience of this problem? ISTR the last time
this was discussed here a link was posted leading to a long paper about how
the fluctuating output plays havoc with the rest of the grid. But
presumably in the interim solutions to this have been found.

Paul

PaulB wrote:
x"Doki" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil
fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces
the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned..

We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity
bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2
production at all!

Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments
of Europe have come up with in fact.
Pretty much the conclusion I came up with a while ago. Even the BWEA admit
that you tend to get nowhere near the rated capacity out of wind turbines.
Then you need huge energy storage facilities to make use of the erratic
output.

Haven't the Germans some experience of this problem? ISTR the last time
this was discussed here a link was posted leading to a long paper about how
the fluctuating output plays havoc with the rest of the grid. But
presumably in the interim solutions to this have been found.

But if the solutions lead to more cost or more CO2 than the windmills
save, its actually a useless solution isn't it?

Paul