On 24/09/10 11:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Planning is the issue. Huge anti-nuke groups mobilising to delay things.

My view is that none of those people have any right to complain unless
they are prepared to take themselves off grid, run with a windmill
and/or PV panel set and free up a bit of capacity for the rest of us.

But I would wager they'll be the first to complain when the lights go out.

BTW - I'd be more than happy to have a nuke down the the road - I'd
probably try and get a job there - would cut down my commute at least...

--
Tim Watts

On 24 Sep, 12:27, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:35 am, harry wrote:
On 23 Sep, 20:35, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
I have run heat and power systems. * There are lots of operational
problems, the main one being heat is not required in Summer
Yes one would need to have conventional cooling arrangements for the
times when the "2nd use" sink didn't want as much heat as one was
producing.
and it's often low quality heat eg warm water & not very useful.
Doesn't seem to be a problem for air or ground source heat pumps. The
technology exists to utilise low grade heat.
ISTR hearing about a rather extensive greenhouse system that took the
waste heat and CO2 from a power plant to grow tomatoes, ah here we
a
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24...?brand=BIZOnli
ne&category=Business&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xD efault&itemid=NOED16
%20Jul%202010%2018%3A38%3A57%3A473
http://tinyurl.com/35hssa3
The waste heat doesn't have to be used for heating homes/factories...
--
Cheers
Dave.
But even they don't need heat in Summer. *You need some kind of
industrial process that runs 24/7/52. *Most of these need sources of
high grade heat.
Capital costs are immense. *99.99% of the time they can't be
justified.
It's possible to "turn heat into cold" for Summer cooling but the
process is very innefficient

Absolute efficiency is irrelevant.

The question is, is it equal to or more efficient than the alternative
way to make "cold" from the other available energy sources?

MBQ

One good way to sort all this out is to create heat banks - more or
less insulated underground masses that you can pump or store surplus
summer heat in, to be pumped out again in winter.

That's been done with some success.

One of the things you CAN store with relative ease is low grade heat..
the ground is eminently suitable for being used in that way.

I.e. you could use a flooded mine deep underground to pump heat into.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All been tried. The heat leaks away. It would need to be stored for
months to be useful.
What we actually need is some sort of technology to turn the heat into
something we can store.
I did see a project that stored heat as crystalisation energy. Also
called phase change technology.
But is went very quiet. I suspect it failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Change_Material

Tim Watts wrote:
On 24/09/10 11:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Planning is the issue. Huge anti-nuke groups mobilising to delay things.

My view is that none of those people have any right to complain unless
they are prepared to take themselves off grid, run with a windmill
and/or PV panel set and free up a bit of capacity for the rest of us.


Oh, I wouldn't say that, because the same argument could be held to
apply to windfarms.

No, people have a right to protest, BUT I WISH here was ANYONE in a
government ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that had an engineering qualification.

Apart from the president of Iran, who allegedly has..

Then we might get them explaining why we need nuclear power, and how
safe it really is.


But I would wager they'll be the first to complain when the lights go out.

BTW - I'd be more than happy to have a nuke down the the road - I'd
probably try and get a job there - would cut down my commute at least...


Me too. No problem apart from the massive grid connections. But reusing
the sites already so equipped means that at most, the pylons will just
get a bit bigger. No especial extra lines needed.

harry wrote:
On 24 Sep, 12:27, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:35 am, harry wrote:
On 23 Sep, 20:35, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
I have run heat and power systems. There are lots of operational
problems, the main one being heat is not required in Summer
Yes one would need to have conventional cooling arrangements for the
times when the "2nd use" sink didn't want as much heat as one was
producing.
and it's often low quality heat eg warm water & not very useful.
Doesn't seem to be a problem for air or ground source heat pumps. The
technology exists to utilise low grade heat.
ISTR hearing about a rather extensive greenhouse system that took the
waste heat and CO2 from a power plant to grow tomatoes, ah here we
a
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24...?brand=BIZOnli
ne&category=Business&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xD efault&itemid=NOED16
%20Jul%202010%2018%3A38%3A57%3A473
http://tinyurl.com/35hssa3
The waste heat doesn't have to be used for heating homes/factories...
--
Cheers
Dave.
But even they don't need heat in Summer. You need some kind of
industrial process that runs 24/7/52. Most of these need sources of
high grade heat.
Capital costs are immense. 99.99% of the time they can't be
justified.
It's possible to "turn heat into cold" for Summer cooling but the
process is very innefficient
Absolute efficiency is irrelevant.
The question is, is it equal to or more efficient than the alternative
way to make "cold" from the other available energy sources?
MBQ
One good way to sort all this out is to create heat banks - more or
less insulated underground masses that you can pump or store surplus
summer heat in, to be pumped out again in winter.

That's been done with some success.

One of the things you CAN store with relative ease is low grade heat..
the ground is eminently suitable for being used in that way.

I.e. you could use a flooded mine deep underground to pump heat into.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All been tried. The heat leaks away. It would need to be stored for
months to be useful.

Er no, actually the heat doesn't leak away that fast, its been tried and
it has been very successful.


Soe old mines in Poland are being pumped for heat, and wont cool down
for 20 years..

Any more than te Earth itself, which has stayed nice and hot inside for
the last few million.



What we actually need is some sort of technology to turn the heat into
something we can store.

No, we don't. We need to build heat storage systems cos they are
practical and cheap.

Just because you cocked up a heat pump installation in wales, doesn't
mean all heat pumps are bad, or using teh earth as a thermal store does
not work.

Seeing as its you, the reverse is more likely.


I did see a project that stored heat as crystalisation energy. Also
called phase change technology.
But is went very quiet. I suspect it failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Change_Material


More likely it worked, but at totally impractical efficiencies and costs.

Like most 'new great Green Ideas' in fact.

Richard Tobin wrote:

Felicity S. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim wrote:
Albert Ross wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

natural radon is the greatest source of radioactive related deaths
in the country, by IIRC a factor of several thousand over the nuclear
industry.

Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal

You can pile coal waste up in a heap and build a local park on it. You
can't do that with nuclear waste.

But legally ash isn't classed as radioactive waste (though it is) and
anything out of a nuclear power station is (though most of it is barely
radioactive at all) Only high level waste needs special treatment, and
thats reporocessed to make more fuel.

And as for Tim's ideas about the alleged safety of piling coal waste up
in a heap, tell that to the childless people of Aberfan.

Any industrial process can be dangerous if it's carried out incompetently.

This is true, but Tim didn't apply that distinction.


Fliss

--
He said: Is this episode going on the air live?
She said: No, very few cartoons are broadcast live. It's
a terrible strain on the animator's wrist.

On 24 Sep, 16:12, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On 24 Sep, 12:27, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:35 am, harry wrote:
On 23 Sep, 20:35, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
I have run heat and power systems. * There are lots of operational
problems, the main one being heat is not required in Summer
Yes one would need to have conventional cooling arrangements for the
times when the "2nd use" sink didn't want as much heat as one was
producing.
and it's often low quality heat eg warm water & not very useful.
Doesn't seem to be a problem for air or ground source heat pumps. The
technology exists to utilise low grade heat.
ISTR hearing about a rather extensive greenhouse system that took the
waste heat and CO2 from a power plant to grow tomatoes, ah here we
a
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24...?brand=BIZOnli
ne&category=Business&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xD efault&itemid=NOED16
%20Jul%202010%2018%3A38%3A57%3A473
http://tinyurl.com/35hssa3
The waste heat doesn't have to be used for heating homes/factories....
--
Cheers
Dave.
But even they don't need heat in Summer. *You need some kind of
industrial process that runs 24/7/52. *Most of these need sources of
high grade heat.
Capital costs are immense. *99.99% of the time they can't be
justified.
It's possible to "turn heat into cold" for Summer cooling but the
process is very innefficient
Absolute efficiency is irrelevant.
The question is, is it equal to or more efficient than the alternative
way to make "cold" from the other available energy sources?
MBQ
One good way to sort all this out is to create heat banks - more or
less insulated underground masses that you can pump or store surplus
summer heat in, to be pumped out again in winter.

That's been done with some success.

One of the things you CAN store with relative ease is low grade heat..
the ground is eminently suitable for being used in that way.

I.e. you could use a flooded mine deep underground to pump heat into.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All been tried. * The heat leaks away. *It would need to be stored for
months to be useful.

Er no, actually the heat doesn't leak away that fast, its been tried and
it has been very successful.

Soe old mines in Poland are being pumped for heat, and wont cool down
for 20 years..

Any more than te Earth itself, which has stayed nice and hot inside for
the last few million.

What we actually need is some sort of technology to turn the heat into
something we can store.

No, we don't. We need to build heat storage systems cos they are
practical and cheap.

Just because you cocked up a heat pump installation in wales, doesn't
mean all heat pumps are bad, or using teh earth as a thermal store does
not work.

Seeing as its you, the reverse is more likely.

I did see a project that stored heat as crystalisation energy. Also
called phase change technology.
*But is went very quiet. *I suspect it failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Change_Material

More likely it worked, but at totally impractical efficiencies and costs.

Like most 'new great Green Ideas' in fact.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As usual you are a bloody half wit. Heat from mines comes from
geothermal sources, nothing to do with heat stores. The Earth is not a
heat store, it would have cooled off billions of years ago. There is
a nuclear reaction/process of radioactive decay in the centre of the
Earth that keeps it hot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Heat
Janitors don't know much.

harry wrote:

As usual you are a bloody half wit. Heat from mines comes from
geothermal sources, nothing to do with heat stores.

well yes and no. The poles reckon they will have pumped the mines to
cold in twenty years, and then they will be useless for the next 100
until the heat returns slowly from the surrounding earth,..


The Earth is not a
heat store, it would have cooled off billions of years ago.


No, you are compeletely wrong.

There is
a nuclear reaction/process of radioactive decay in the centre of the
Earth that keeps it hot.

No, that only HELPS keep it hot. A LOT of the heat is simply that it
hasn't cooled yet. The article says 20%. That is disputed by other sources.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Heat
Janitors don't know much.

Is that what you are?

educate yourself further

http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichte...athistory.html

On 25 Sep, 11:27, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
As usual you are a bloody half wit. *Heat from mines comes from
geothermal sources, nothing to do with heat stores.

well yes and no. The poles reckon they will have pumped the mines to
cold in twenty years, and then they will be useless for the next 100
until the heat returns slowly from the surrounding earth,..

The Earth is not a

heat store, it would have cooled off billions of years ago.

No, you are compeletely wrong.

* There is

a nuclear reaction/process of radioactive decay in the centre of the
Earth that keeps it hot.

No, that only HELPS keep it hot. A LOT of the heat is simply that it
hasn't cooled yet. The article says 20%. *That is disputed by other sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Heat
Janitors don't know much.

Is that what you are?

educate yourself further

http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichte...athistory.html

So who wrote this article? Reads like a schoolboy's homework.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Tim Watts saying
something like:

Planning is the issue. Huge anti-nuke groups mobilising to delay things.

My view is that none of those people have any right to complain unless
they are prepared to take themselves off grid, run with a windmill
and/or PV panel set and free up a bit of capacity for the rest of us.

Ding.

But I would wager they'll be the first to complain when the lights go out.

Dingly-ding.
****ing nimby *******s are a right pita.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

No, people have a right to protest, BUT I WISH here was ANYONE in a
government ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that had an engineering qualification.

Apart from the president of Iran, who allegedly has..

Yebbut, he's obviously spent too long sniffing the cutting fluid.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

About the only thing in Denmark worth having.

And the women.
Mostly.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Felicity S." Fliss@orpheusnet
saying something like:

And as for Tim's ideas about the alleged safety of piling coal waste up
in a heap, tell that to the childless people of Aberfan.

Aberfan Talent Contest.
Bring a shovel.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

About the only thing in Denmark worth having.

And the women.
Mostly.
No.

Most selfish self centred bunch of idiots you will find east of Chelmsford.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

About the only thing in Denmark worth having.

And the women.
Mostly.
No.

Most selfish self centred bunch of idiots you will find east of Chelmsford.

I've mostly found them quite easy to get on with.
One or two exceptions, of course.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

About the only thing in Denmark worth having.
And the women.
Mostly.
No.

Most selfish self centred bunch of idiots you will find east of Chelmsford.

I've mostly found them quite easy to get on with.
One or two exceptions, of course.
anyway...meanwhile..returning to energy and leaving the Danes to their
bacon..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...-billions.html

On 26 Sep, 10:00, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

About the only thing in Denmark worth having.
And the women.
Mostly.
No.

Most selfish self centred bunch of idiots you will find east of Chelmsford.

I've mostly found them quite easy to get on with.
One or two exceptions, of course.

anyway...meanwhile..returning to energy and leaving the Danes to their
bacon..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...erbooker/80251...

Now all that is exactly correct.

harry wrote:
On 26 Sep, 10:00, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:
About the only thing in Denmark worth having.
And the women.
Mostly.
No.
Most selfish self centred bunch of idiots you will find east of Chelmsford.
I've mostly found them quite easy to get on with.
One or two exceptions, of course.
anyway...meanwhile..returning to energy and leaving the Danes to their
bacon..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...erbooker/80251...

Now all that is exactly correct.

The remarkable coincidence is that I sent a very large essay on this
exact subject to Mr Booker last weekend.

To his credit, his article is slanted somewhat differently, and is more
focussed on the cost....mine was focussed on the fact that no real
authoritative study has ever been done - or has been needed to be done -
to establish whether or not large scale windpower in the context of
inadequate energy storage, actually results in any significant CO2
reductions *overall*, whatsoever.

My conclusions are that it would be a miracle if it did: certainly pound
for pound of public money spent, it has to be the least effective way of
doing it.

I.e. the government policy makes it actually irrelevant whether
windpower saves fossil fuel or not. You get paid for producing the
electricity no matter if its effects are totally negated by the carbon
cost of building and maintaining it, and its associated extra
infrastructure, and the carbon cost of running the rest of your
generating system in "whores' drawers mode" to balance out its fluctuations.