John Rumm wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the mistakes and cover-ups of the
industry in the past, however they are not necessarily failings of the
technology. Great swathes of the industry today around the world has
demonstrated that it can be done right, with far fewer casualties that
experienced in fossil fuel based power generation.


Mistakes and cover-ups are endemic in the British nuclear industry,
whether military or civil, because of the secrecy behind which the
nuclear industry routinely operates. Military secrecy has to some
extent given way to secrecy based on the Prevention of Terrorism Act,
because nuclear installations are prime terrorist targets.

Secrecy leads to complacency, because no-one ever gets exposed.
Complacency leads to incompetence, as anyone from outside the industry
who has worked at Sellafield will tell you. Incompetence leads to
mistakes, mistakes lead to accidents, and accidents lead to cover-ups,
because secrecy is all important.

Then secrecy leads to more complacency ... and so it goes on.

Andy Champ wrote:

If past governments had funded fusion properly we might
have had that now, and it's the long term solution.


But past governments *did* fund fusion properly. Perhaps our government
wasn't one of them, for some of the time. But tens of billions of
dollars and euros have been spent, all to no avail.

We are no nearer a commercial fusion power station than we were 20 years
ago, when the scientists told us it was 20 years away. It is still 20
years away. And 20 years from now, it will still be 20 years away.

But lots of highly paid scientists have been kept employed doing nothing
of any practical use for 20+ years, so that's fine.

dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that is
extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life?

By having something extremely dense?

How long have you been extremely radioactive?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html

At last some sense.

Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting...

Tidal lagoons are being looked into. If they come about then forget gas and
oil and all will be, hopefully cheap electricity.

How Lagoons Work

There are a number of them at various states of water levels. There will
always be power generated. Think of one large dam wall in a circle in a
shallow sea, split it into three sections. The centre section could be 30
foot below the outer two and the high tide level, and fill up via the other
two or the high tide.

It is a matter of having the lagoons filling and emptying at different times
to ensure full power production 24/7. A test lagoon is being suggested at
Swansea in South Wales.

This is different to tidal only at La Rance, France. La Rance is just one
power station. It only generates when the tide is running one-way. It is
quite old now - 1966. Pioneering it is.

Political Spite Makes Matters Worse

Hard nosed cost/benefit eliminated the British coal industry (or more
political spite by Thatcher hating miners). Middle Eastern oil was buttons
to buy and the North Sea was full of cheap gas. Mrs Thatcher was told to
reserve the gas for primarily domestic use and not use it to generate
electricity - use the masses of coal we have under the country to only
generate electricity. She never. The coal industry disappeared with amazing
stocks still under our feet. The North Sea is running out of oil and gas.

Fuel Poverty is a major Problem

Domestic gas prices went through the roof because of world market
conditions - the Uks gas is mainly imported. Fuel poverty is now a major
problem.

Long Term Political View is Important

We are now are semi-dependent on Russian gas as we used a lot of our own
reserves needlessly. Russia refused to supply gas to the Ukraine a few years
ago, so alarm bells rang. We need stable fuel supplies. We get oil and gas
from the politically unstable Middle East and Russia - which is a political
concern over cost/benefit. They have to look at the long term and stability,
not short term gains of utility companies. Then there is the important eco
angle too. Tidal lagoons are both the long-term practical answer and
politically acceptable.

25 Year Project

It will take 25 years. However benefits will come quicker than expected.

* The electricity will be introduced in phases,
* Knock-on effect fresh water reservoirs from rock excavations to combat
water shortages, bridges, etc, by rock excavations.
* Increased insulation levels in buildings at the same would reduce oil,
coal and gas dependency rather quicker than expected.
* Coal, gas and nuclear stations can be decommissioned and any planned costs
in introducing nuclear stations will off-set the lagoons building costs.
* Such a scheme would bring zero unemployment, saving on public social
benefits over 25 years.
* There is the comfort of not being under the reliance of foreign countries
for energy, and being over-friendly with countries you would rather not be.
* Savings on military as the world will be a more peaceful place - oil has
created wars.

The UK over 25 years can easily construct and afford such a scheme. Advances
in rock cutting & transporting machines and methods would ensue. The
technology and design and build can be exported elsewhere for others too.

Unprecedented Project

To meet 100% of Britain and Ireland's need for energy, this is clearly
possible and mostly involves hauling rock from mountains and valleys to the
sea on an unprecedented scale.

* The British Isles geography is the best in the world for such an
undertaking with its high tidal rises and falls.
* It involves moving about 2,500 million tons of rock to the Irish Sea
* Tidal lagoons created out of about 20% of the Irish Sea
* 100% of Britain and Ireland's electricity needs met.

The numbers are staggering but possible:

* A heavy train can move perhaps 500 plus tons of rock
* About 4 or 5 million train loads are needed
* The UKs waste can be dumped into the lagoon walls while under
construction, saving on landfill and re-cycling costs.
* It would take maybe 30 railways to haul rock from say 30 large quarries
over 25 years

There Are Many Knock-On Benefits

* The insides of hills and mountains can be cut out for the rock and lakes
constructed top and bottom to make provision for instant use peak time hydro
stations for half time energy peaks in major football games on TV.
* New valleys can be created
* New lakes
* Fresh water reservoirs
* Rail and road tunnels through mountains
* Rail and road bridges across the Irish Sea
* Deep water ship canals can be cut inland, reducing rail and road transport
of goods - good result for quarried rock.
* Some lagoons can be supertanker harbour/terminals, keeping these massive
pollution risk vessels away from the shore.
* The lagoon walls built can also be bridges
* The lagoons can also be anti tidal surge barriers. Empty the lagoons at
low tide when a surge is expected and allow the lagoons to fill taking
excess water - London will go under if nothing is done.
* Fish can be farmed inside the lagoons preventing foreign trawlers
overfishing and all fish goes to the UK.

Fuel Poverty & Pollution Eliminated

Fuel poverty and pollution will be a thing of the past.

Cheap Fast Transport

The EU has a transport dept that looks at transport for the EU 20, 30, 40
years hence. The aim is super fast intercity trains between all major
cities/centres. One idea is a tunnel between Liverpool and Dublin. As
Holyhead is the halfway point between the two cities that appears a dumb
suggestion and a loooooong expensive tunnel. But a tunnel from Ireland to
North Wales at the shortest point and then a fast link to Liverpool,
Manchester, Birmingham, London is feasible.

However, damming in the Irish Sea to make lagoons to produce all the power
for the UK and Ireland would create maybe two land links anyhow and maybe
one to the Isle of Man. This gives high speed transport bridges. Super fast
Maglev trains between major centres and to Ireland become feasible as
running cost are low.

All cars can be electric, and the auto industry is currently moving that
way.

Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and
clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

"Tony Juniper is a former director of Friends of the Earth. He is
the Green Party general election candidate for Cambridge."

Friends of the Earth are a front for large land owners in the UK, to enable
them to hold onto their lucrative acres. They are cranks.

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Bruce wrote:
extremely radioactive isotopes with very long half-lives.

Extremely radioactive isotopes are ones which decay fast, isotopes with
very long half-lives are ones which decay slowly. You can't have it both
ways.
wont stop him trying though.

Bruce wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the mistakes and cover-ups of the
industry in the past, however they are not necessarily failings of the
technology. Great swathes of the industry today around the world has
demonstrated that it can be done right, with far fewer casualties that
experienced in fossil fuel based power generation.


Mistakes and cover-ups are endemic in the British nuclear industry,
whether military or civil, because of the secrecy behind which the
nuclear industry routinely operates. Military secrecy has to some
extent given way to secrecy based on the Prevention of Terrorism Act,
because nuclear installations are prime terrorist targets.


Why?

They are very secure, very remote and very hard targets.

there is nothing in them a terrorist wants.

There is certainly nothing to make a bomb out of.



Secrecy leads to complacency, because no-one ever gets exposed.
Complacency leads to incompetence, as anyone from outside the industry
who has worked at Sellafield will tell you. Incompetence leads to
mistakes, mistakes lead to accidents, and accidents lead to cover-ups,
because secrecy is all important.

Then secrecy leads to more complacency ... and so it goes on.


Not at all. Most ofg the nucleasr induistry away from teh miltary is
very open.

It has to be. Its inspected regularly and has to keepop public accounts.

Of course the real reason for what disinclination to talk that there
is, is that any minor slip leads to a media witchunt inspired by people
like you.

Today 8 people died in a plane at Schipol. It rated a 5 minute slot. No
one suggested banning aviation.

Yet the release of not only sub lethal, but sub detectable at 100 yards,
of radiation shut Germany's pebble bed reactor down and caused the loss
of several billions of euros..

Bruce wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
If past governments had funded fusion properly we might
have had that now, and it's the long term solution.


But past governments *did* fund fusion properly. Perhaps our government
wasn't one of them, for some of the time. But tens of billions of
dollars and euros have been spent, all to no avail.

And how much do we spend on Social security? Hospitals? resuing crock
banks?

Fer chrissakes, they are spending 3/4 million to rehouse 30 gypsies here..


We are no nearer a commercial fusion power station than we were 20 years
ago, when the scientists told us it was 20 years away. It is still 20
years away. And 20 years from now, it will still be 20 years away.


WEell I simply dont know what to say, we have gone from -90% efficiency
to about 2% efficiency and increased burn times from millsieconds to
seconds.

So we have only imprioved by a factor of *100* or so.


But lots of highly paid scientists have been kept employed doing nothing
of any practical use for 20+ years, so that's fine.


Well lots MORE highly paid civil servants have been kept employed doing
nothing for a lot longer than that, so I guess you will be voting
conservative.

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Bruce wrote:
70 years since splitting the atom, and 50 years since the opening of the
world's first nuclear power station* nothing has changed.

I forgot the footnote.

*In 1956, Her Majesty The Queen opened Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station
at Windscale, in part of the site now called Sellafield. In her speech
she hailed it as "the world's first peaceful use of nuclear power".

It was nothing of the sort. The reactor was designed to produce weapons
grade plutonium for Britain's nuclear weapons programme.

It generated some power as a by-product. That power was used within the
Windscale site. However, as Windscale/Sellafield have always been
massive net importers of power from the National Grid, not one kWh of
Calder Hall's output was ever used outside Windscale/Sellafield.

In January 1987, in accordance with the traditional "30 year rule",
sensitive official government papers from 1956 were released to the
media. Apparently, when the untruth of the Queen's speech at Calder
Hall became clear, Her Majesty was not best pleased.

Which is why it was effing expensive, to build, run and decommission.


Yet you hold it out as an example of what new nuclear srations would be
like.

Cherry picking to prove a point, Not facing facts.


I use it not as an example of what new nuclear stations would be like,
but as an example of the lies the nuclear industry told, continues to
tell and will always tell.


So we can infer from that the the lies you have already told, make you a
born liar with no hope of redemption?

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:15:19 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

We have a huge waste
problem. It cannot be reprocessed in a reasonable time at reasonable
cost so it is being stored indefinitely, and quantities are building up
every day.

So build the reprocessing capability

Generalising about a complex subject, it has been built.

- this sounds like a problem of
political will rather than anything else.

No, it is a problem of engineering.

The worst of this crap is highly radioactive nitric acid. It is
stored in tanks, which need to be constantly cooled or they will
boil and/or explode, spreading contamination far and wide [1] [2].
The tanks are vulnerable to a number of forms of attack, which is
why the regulators are trying to get the volumes reduced (something
they have been trying to do for years with little if any progress).
They have been lucky in recent years due to the THORP leak, the crap
hasn't been produced.

The crap is supposed to be turned into glass blocks. They built two
lines, but they didn't work at anything like the designed capacity
(the intense radiation is not good for machinery). They added a
third line, but the three lines are still not working as they should
and production of glass blocks is slow.

I think the glass block idea is the way of dealing with the crap we
already have. It can't be disappeared at the snap of the fingers.
That is not saying that the problem is now solved and we can build
new generating stations based on this. It would also be madness to
do any more "reprocessing" until the crap lake is dealt with. The
party politicians would love this not to be the case.



[1] an explosion of a waste tank at what was then called Tomsk-7 is
not known about by the general public, but shows what would happen.
Fortunately Siberia is not highly populated.

[2] the tanks at Windscale are in relatively good condition compared
to those at Hanford, where a contractor is trying to decant the crap
out of the tanks which are leaking the most.


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

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:51:13 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

I *don't* want to give up my heating, lights and computer;

You have electric heating?

Fission is the best short term solution to a coming
energy gap;

It is no solution at all. Even if the discussion is limited to
electricity rather than energy, nuclear generation cannot be built
quickly enough to affect the gap. The alternatives and energy
conservation can be done in time though.



--
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

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and
clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.


"Clearly" eh? You make me laugh! ;-)

It's about as clear as Severn Estuary mud, unless of course you are daft
enough to swallow the PR material that gets churned out by protagonists
for the various schemes, construction companies, turbine makers etc..

In your case, you seem to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that is
extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life?

By having something extremely dense?

How long have you been extremely radioactive?

About a half life.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:21:45 GMT someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-the-bnp-1631292.html

"Nuclear power is not the answer

"We write to express concern over the unqualified portrayal of
nuclear new build as a sustainable solution to climate change
("Nuclear power? Yes, please", 23 February). Significant issues
remain to be addressed, let alone resolved. These include
uncertainty about nuclear fuel supply and manufacture, vulnerability
to attack, security and proliferation, radioactive waste management,
radiation risk and health effects, reactor safety and
decommissioning

"Even if financing new nuclear build were competitive in these
cash-strapped times, it is not possible to build enough nuclear
power stations to make a significant impact on the amount of coal
that will be burnt world-wide. China, with the most ambitious
nuclear programme, would achieve at most 6 per cent of its
electricity from nuclear. If Britain embarked on a full-scale
nuclear rebuild programme, the Government's own figures conclude
that this would mitigate only 4 per cent of our CO2 emissions.
Nuclear power is an expensive, inflexible option, soaking up money
and slowing development of more sustainable solutions to climate
change.

"Offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively
offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources.
Electricity, hydrogen or fluid biofuels all offer radically
different secondary energy carriers for mobility, heat or mechanical
power. Each of these options can be harnessed in various forms and
permutations.

"The concerns that nuclear is expected to meet are real. But nuclear
power does not offer the best means to deal with them. If the UK
were to pursue new nuclear power now, it would load extra costs on
to the British people and continue to divert attention and resources
away from more effective measures. At this turning point in the
evolution of our energy systems, this is the dilemma in which we
find ourselves.

"Professor Andy Blowers, Open University

"Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University
Colleges

"Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick

"Professor David Elliott, Open University

"Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex

"Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich

"Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University

"On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group"




--
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

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and
clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.


"Clearly" eh? You make me laugh! ;-)

Cambridge uni must make you laugh then. Only idiots laugh at thing they
know little about.

In your case, you seem to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

As you know sweet FA about it how would you know?

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

"On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group"

A grandiose title for a self selected pressure group with its roots in CND.

--
Roger Chapman

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that
is extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life?

By having something extremely dense?

How long have you been extremely radioactive?

About a half life.

Its the latter half obviously.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:15:19 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

We have a huge waste
problem. It cannot be reprocessed in a reasonable time at reasonable
cost so it is being stored indefinitely, and quantities are building up
every day.
So build the reprocessing capability

Generalising about a complex subject, it has been built.

- this sounds like a problem of
political will rather than anything else.

No, it is a problem of engineering.


Which you know nothing about.

The worst of this crap is highly radioactive nitric acid.

so react it with a metal and make a salt.

There are plenty of solutions. Its a political problem in getting them
past bozos.

You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't
increase background radiation significantly..

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:51:13 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

I *don't* want to give up my heating, lights and computer;

You have electric heating?

Fission is the best short term solution to a coming
energy gap;

It is no solution at all. Even if the discussion is limited to
electricity rather than energy, nuclear generation cannot be built
quickly enough to affect the gap. The alternatives and energy
conservation can be done in time though.



No they cant.

Bruce wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and
clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.


"Clearly" eh? You make me laugh! ;-)

It's about as clear as Severn Estuary mud, unless of course you are daft
enough to swallow the PR material that gets churned out by protagonists
for the various schemes, construction companies, turbine makers etc..

In your case, you seem to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Hmm. Pots and kettles. Its you and dynamo dave that have swallowed the
ecobollox, and may you choke on it.


Drivel is merely insane.

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:21:45 GMT someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-the-bnp-1631292.html

"Nuclear power is not the answer

"We write to express concern over the unqualified portrayal of
nuclear new build as a sustainable solution to climate change
("Nuclear power? Yes, please", 23 February). Significant issues
remain to be addressed, let alone resolved. These include
uncertainty about nuclear fuel supply and manufacture, vulnerability
to attack, security and proliferation, radioactive waste management,
radiation risk and health effects, reactor safety and
decommissioning

"Even if financing new nuclear build were competitive in these
cash-strapped times, it is not possible to build enough nuclear
power stations to make a significant impact on the amount of coal
that will be burnt world-wide. China, with the most ambitious
nuclear programme, would achieve at most 6 per cent of its
electricity from nuclear. If Britain embarked on a full-scale
nuclear rebuild programme, the Government's own figures conclude
that this would mitigate only 4 per cent of our CO2 emissions.
Nuclear power is an expensive, inflexible option, soaking up money
and slowing development of more sustainable solutions to climate
change.

"Offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively
offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources.
Electricity, hydrogen or fluid biofuels all offer radically
different secondary energy carriers for mobility, heat or mechanical
power. Each of these options can be harnessed in various forms and
permutations.

"The concerns that nuclear is expected to meet are real. But nuclear
power does not offer the best means to deal with them. If the UK
were to pursue new nuclear power now, it would load extra costs on
to the British people and continue to divert attention and resources
away from more effective measures. At this turning point in the
evolution of our energy systems, this is the dilemma in which we
find ourselves.

"Professor Andy Blowers, Open University

"Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University
Colleges

"Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick

"Professor David Elliott, Open University

"Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex

"Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich

"Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University

"On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group"



No doubt they are all professors of media studies, theoology, and knitting..

Roger wrote:
The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

"On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group"

A grandiose title for a self selected pressure group with its roots in CND.


I suppose if I were to declare myself the national nuclear authority' no
one could stop me.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:56:54 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

"Offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively
offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources.

"Potential" innocuous little word but rather important.

Electricity, hydrogen or fluid biofuels

Hydrogen? Where do you get that from? Split water? Er, where do you get
the energy required to do that?

--
Cheers
Dave.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and
clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.

"Clearly" eh? You make me laugh! ;-)

It's about as clear as Severn Estuary mud, unless of course you are daft
enough to swallow the PR material that gets churned out by protagonists
for the various schemes, construction companies, turbine makers etc..

In your case, you seem to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Hmm. Pots and kettles. Its you and dynamo dave that have swallowed the
ecobollox, and may you choke on it.

Drivel is merely insane.

This snotty uni pillock advocates nuclear all around. He is an agent of
Satan himself.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...


It is no solution at all. Even if the discussion is limited to
electricity rather than energy, nuclear generation cannot be built
quickly enough to affect the gap. The alternatives and energy
conservation can be done in time though.

The alternatives can't be done in time.
The payback time is decades for all the current alternatives.
All you are going to do is release the carbon now and then claim to have
reduced production later.
A typical *scam* of the government which allows them to meet the target but
is actually worse.
Building nuclear actually reduces the carbon emitted quicker and by more.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:56:54 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

"Offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively
offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources.

"Potential" innocuous little word but rather important.

Electricity, hydrogen or fluid biofuels

Hydrogen? Where do you get that from? Split water? Er, where do you get
the energy required to do that?

A green witch waves a green wand,and the sky is blue, children are
happy, bno sign of a windmill or electricity pylon in sight, and FOE
and Green **** can go to heaven.

Or build 100 nuclear power sttaions.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

"Professor Andy Blowers, Open University

"Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University
Colleges

"Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick

"Professor David Elliott, Open University

"Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex

"Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich

"Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University

"On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group"

No doubt they are all professors of media studies, theoology, and
knitting..

Of course, because not one id from a snotty uni. You are pathetic.

This could be done in Mersey and Severn estuaries and others around the
coast. Fresh water from up stream merging with salt water from the sea to
generate power. And it works.....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ers-mouth.html

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:51:13 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

I *don't* want to give up my heating, lights and computer;

You have electric heating?

Fission is the best short term solution to a coming energy gap;

It is no solution at all. Even if the discussion is limited to
electricity rather than energy, nuclear generation cannot be built
quickly enough to affect the gap. The alternatives and energy
conservation can be done in time though.

No they cant.

They can. Making the building regs to have superinsulation, air-tight and
passive solar is easy and all buildings built conform. How many buildings in
the next 20 years that will use next to no energy? Millions!! And that is
by just changing the building regs. Then there is better town planning to
avoid excessive transport use, etc, etc.

dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that is
extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life?

By having something extremely dense?

that just reduces the space it occupies...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't
increase background radiation significantly..


.... except in the food chain.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:38:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

David Hansen wrote:

"Professor Andy Blowers, Open University

Retired Professor of Social Sciences. Chairman of BANGG (Blackwater
against new nuclear group). Speaker for "Communities against nuclear
expansion" an organisation opposed to the building of new nuclear
power stations.

"Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University
Colleges

Professional environmentalist, formerly Executive Director of Friends
of the Earth

"Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick

Senior Research Fellow at the NHS Centre for Involvement, (Whatever
that may be). Co-author of the exciting paper "A conceptual model of
the role of complex science in local authority consultations about
air quality management."

Considered to be somewhat extreme even by Greenpeace and FoE.
Apparently he is particularly interested in "the role of sub-political
(bottom-up) involvement in environmental risk decision-making". He
advises, and is a member of, a number of environmental NGOs. Member
of Green Audit, an anti nuclear, anti GMO organisation and supporter
of the Low Level Radiation Campaign. Member of the Stop Hinkley
campaign.

Very coy about his qualifications presenting himself as an expert on
being an expert so I assume he was originally a Sociologist.

"Professor David Elliott, Open University

Professor of Technology Policy. Main research interests relate to the
development of sustainable energy technologies, and in particular
renewable energy based systems

"Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex

Masters in Archaeology and Social Anthropology, Disarmament activist
and ex anti-nuclear co-ordinator of energy campaigns for Greenpeace
International.

"Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich

Professor of energy policy at Greenwich University, author of a number
of anti-nuclear reports for Greenpeace.

"Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University

Professor in the Department of Geography. Supervisor on a PhD project
involving "empirical studies of popular leisure pursuits (gardening,
walking), and of instances in which people switch to lower carbon
routines (for example cycling)."

"On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group"

A group set up by, and whose web name is owned by, Dorfman.

No doubt they are all professors of media studies, theoology, and knitting..

Not quite, but not too far off :-).

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't
increase background radiation significantly..


... except in the food chain.

WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:38:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

David Hansen wrote:

"Professor Andy Blowers, Open University

Retired Professor of Social Sciences. Chairman of BANGG (Blackwater
against new nuclear group). Speaker for "Communities against nuclear
expansion" an organisation opposed to the building of new nuclear
power stations.

"Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University
Colleges

Professional environmentalist, formerly Executive Director of Friends
of the Earth

"Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick

Senior Research Fellow at the NHS Centre for Involvement, (Whatever
that may be). Co-author of the exciting paper "A conceptual model of
the role of complex science in local authority consultations about
air quality management."

Considered to be somewhat extreme even by Greenpeace and FoE.
Apparently he is particularly interested in "the role of sub-political
(bottom-up) involvement in environmental risk decision-making". He
advises, and is a member of, a number of environmental NGOs. Member
of Green Audit, an anti nuclear, anti GMO organisation and supporter
of the Low Level Radiation Campaign. Member of the Stop Hinkley
campaign.

Very coy about his qualifications presenting himself as an expert on
being an expert so I assume he was originally a Sociologist.

"Professor David Elliott, Open University

Professor of Technology Policy. Main research interests relate to the
development of sustainable energy technologies, and in particular
renewable energy based systems

"Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex

Masters in Archaeology and Social Anthropology, Disarmament activist
and ex anti-nuclear co-ordinator of energy campaigns for Greenpeace
International.

"Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich

Professor of energy policy at Greenwich University, author of a number
of anti-nuclear reports for Greenpeace.

"Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University

Professor in the Department of Geography. Supervisor on a PhD project
involving "empirical studies of popular leisure pursuits (gardening,
walking), and of instances in which people switch to lower carbon
routines (for example cycling)."

"On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group"

A group set up by, and whose web name is owned by, Dorfman.

No doubt they are all professors of media studies, theoology, and
knitting..

Not quite, but not too far off :-).

Nice job Peter, well done that man.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't
increase background radiation significantly..


... except in the food chain.

WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish.

Was that a deliberate pun or a typo?

SteveW

Steve Walker wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't
increase background radiation significantly..


... except in the food chain.

WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish.

Was that a deliberate pun or a typo?


Are "puns" and "typos" species of fish too?

I note that the Unnatural Philosopher has casually ignored the toxicity
of
the waste, quite apart from its radioactivity.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that is
extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life?

By having something extremely dense?

that just reduces the space it occupies...

So the same sized piece will have more nuclei to decay.

Steve Walker wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't
increase background radiation significantly..

... except in the food chain.

WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish.

Was that a deliberate pun or a typo?


Blimey. I didn't spot it for some time staring at it.

Complete typo steve.


SteveW

Bruce wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't
increase background radiation significantly..

... except in the food chain.

WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish.
Was that a deliberate pun or a typo?


Are "puns" and "typos" species of fish too?

I note that the Unnatural Philosopher has casually ignored the toxicity
of
the waste, quite apart from its radioactivity.

Not really. It came from the ground. Lots of things that come from the
ground are toxic, like mercury, lead, sulphur.

We live in a world made of toxic things. By and large we are adapted to
it. Its only when we concentrate them too much in our living spaces that
we get ill effects.

So dliutwe them.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not really. It came from the ground. Lots of things that come from the
ground are toxic, like mercury, lead, sulphur.


So it's OK to dump them in the sea, too?

Why not throw in a few dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated
biphenyls too? They can't do much harm - they are all made from things
that came out of the ground, after all.