"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
dennis@home wrote:

Twice a day it produces zero power for a few hours.
These periods change time on a rotating basis every 28 days.
Unless you can store the energy there isn't much you can use it for.
Its just like the problem with wind power but a little more predictable.
Maybe it could be used to produce hydrogen for cars?
Its not going to help the grid much AFAICS.

I looked this up some time ago. Morecambe Bay (another potential site) is
conveniently out of phase with the Bristol Channel. It might not help
much, but it would help.
Andy


But you'd drown even more Chinese cockle pickers

Sorry

Steve Terry

geoff wrote:
In message , Steve Terry
writes

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least
half that time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway)
between England and Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and
better access for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers
across the Bristol channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

It would get nicked in a week ...

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
I wonder how long it would take to repay the energy invested in
building it, how long it would take to silt up, and what, if any, the
solution to such a problem might be. These points would need to be
very carefully assessed.

Oh they'll do that all right. They're very clever men. We don't have
cock-ups in this country.

Bill

On 1 Oct, 16:19, "Bill Wright" wrote:
"Java Jive" wrote in message

...

I wonder how long it would take to repay the energy invested in
building it, how long it would take to silt up, and what, if any, the
solution to such a problem might be. *These points would need to be
very carefully assessed.

Oh they'll do that all right. They're very clever men. We don't have
cock-ups in this country.

Bill

Find out more he

Severn Tidal Power Conference

The Blakehay Centre, Wadham Street (next to Grove Park Car Park),
Weston-super-Mare BS23 1JZ

Saturday 24th October 2009, 9.45am – 12.45pm

Entrance Free

Talk to the Experts

Get the Facts on Tidal Energy from the Severn Estuary

Introduced by Marian Barber, Head of Economy & Regeneration, North
Somerset Council

With

Rupert Armstrong Evans, Evans Engineering : Tidal Reef

Professor Roger Falconer, Cardiff University : Tidal Barrage & Lagoon

Peter Kydd, Director of Planning & Environment, Parsons Brinckerhoff :
Overview on Tidal Options


Organised by TENONS - The Environmental Network of North Somerset

More details on www.tenons.org.uk

Java Jive wrote:

Last time I looked, nuclear, gas, and coal were only around 30%
efficient at turning steam into electricity.

That must have been a long time ago. Gas stations tend to run at about
65% efficiency AFAIK. Coal has been over 40% efficient (on the terms you
appear to use) since the 1960s. AGR nuclear is 41% efficient. PWR
stations like Sizewell B (and most other PWR stations in the world)are
around 28& efficient.

A lot depends on the steam temperature in coal and nuclear stations.
This can be over 560C in Coal and AGR stations.

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

In article ,
John Wright writes:
Java Jive wrote:

Last time I looked, nuclear, gas, and coal were only around 30%
efficient at turning steam into electricity.

That must have been a long time ago. Gas stations tend to run at about
65% efficiency AFAIK.

The best new ones nowadays can be 60%.
The "dash for gas" stations installed in the UK when we
had dirt cheap gas were cheap gas stations, low efficiency
by today's standards at mostly around 40%, and that's the
bulk of what we have today.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
John Wright writes:
Java Jive wrote:

Last time I looked, nuclear, gas, and coal were only around 30%
efficient at turning steam into electricity.

That must have been a long time ago. Gas stations tend to run at about
65% efficiency AFAIK.

The best new ones nowadays can be 60%.
The "dash for gas" stations installed in the UK when we
had dirt cheap gas were cheap gas stations, low efficiency
by today's standards at mostly around 40%, and that's the
bulk of what we have today.

How do they achieve that?

I thought there is a limit on steam conversion due to latent heat
issues. Somewhere around 44%. A few losses in the alternator as well.
Magneto thermo dynamics were being investigated 45 years ago but I never
heard of any success.

Using waste heat for space heating only works if you have generating
plant in the middle of towns and you don't have warm summers:-)

I know nothing about gas turbines.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
John Wright writes:
Java Jive wrote:

Last time I looked, nuclear, gas, and coal were only around 30%
efficient at turning steam into electricity.

That must have been a long time ago. Gas stations tend to run at about
65% efficiency AFAIK.

The best new ones nowadays can be 60%.
The "dash for gas" stations installed in the UK when we
had dirt cheap gas were cheap gas stations, low efficiency
by today's standards at mostly around 40%, and that's the
bulk of what we have today.

How do they achieve that?

I thought there is a limit on steam conversion due to latent heat
issues. Somewhere around 44%. A few losses in the alternator as well.
Magneto thermo dynamics were being investigated 45 years ago but I never
heard of any success.

Using waste heat for space heating only works if you have generating
plant in the middle of towns and you don't have warm summers:-)


the 'waste' heat at Portobello - Edinburgh 1930s - was used to warm the
outdoor swimming pool.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
John Wright writes:
Java Jive wrote:

Last time I looked, nuclear, gas, and coal were only around 30%
efficient at turning steam into electricity.

That must have been a long time ago. Gas stations tend to run at about
65% efficiency AFAIK.

The best new ones nowadays can be 60%.
The "dash for gas" stations installed in the UK when we
had dirt cheap gas were cheap gas stations, low efficiency
by today's standards at mostly around 40%, and that's the
bulk of what we have today.

How do they achieve that?


IIRC and I am not sure I do :-) Its by using a front end gas turbine -
jet engine - which can cope with thousand degree working
temperatures..then the exhaust from THAT feeds the boiler and off to a
condensing steam turbine..


I thought there is a limit on steam conversion due to latent heat
issues. Somewhere around 44%. A few losses in the alternator as well.
Magneto thermo dynamics were being investigated 45 years ago but I never
heard of any success.

Using waste heat for space heating only works if you have generating
plant in the middle of towns and you don't have warm summers:-)

I know nothing about gas turbines.

I know a LITTLE more, but not enough..



regards

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:52:16 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

The best new ones nowadays can be 60%.
The "dash for gas" stations installed in the UK when we
had dirt cheap gas were cheap gas stations, low efficiency
by today's standards at mostly around 40%, and that's the
bulk of what we have today.

How do they achieve that?

Presumably by not getting all the energy out of the steam by
successive use of the steam from one set of turbine blades to
another. Multi-stage turbines are expensive...

I thought there is a limit on steam conversion due to latent heat
issues.

Any one with any sense would condense the low pressure steam from the
last turbine using the latent heat thus released to preheat the water
going into the boilers. But again this cost money...

Gas was a cheap by product of north sea oil no point in building
highly effcient but expensive power stations when the fuel is a cheap
"waste" product.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


IIRC and I am not sure I do :-) Its by using a front end gas turbine -
jet engine - which can cope with thousand degree working
temperatures..then the exhaust from THAT feeds the boiler and off to a
condensing steam turbine..

IIRC There was a report in IEEE Spectrum a year or three ago about an error
the USA made as part of their process of re-establishing electric power
infrastructure to Iraq having buchered it during the 'war'.

The 'quickest solution' was to buy and install what were essentially jet
engines as turbine generators. Good method if you want a quick install and
a small physical package to put in place.

The snag was that these required very high grade fuel and careful operation
and maintainance. So kept failing in a post-war situation where the
logistics weren't in place to support this. Still, the contractors no doubt
made a lot of money out of it...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:

I know nothing about gas turbines.

I know a LITTLE more, but not enough..

That stirred a long disused neurone, which said 'CCGT'. That led to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle, and one of its references,
http://memagazine.asme.org/Web/Effic...by_Numbers.cfm . So, yes,
efficiencies can be achieved which appear at first glance to break the laws
of thermodynamics ...

André Coutanche

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


IIRC and I am not sure I do :-) Its by using a front end gas turbine -
jet engine - which can cope with thousand degree working
temperatures..then the exhaust from THAT feeds the boiler and off to a
condensing steam turbine..

IIRC There was a report in IEEE Spectrum a year or three ago about an error
the USA made as part of their process of re-establishing electric power
infrastructure to Iraq having buchered it during the 'war'.

The 'quickest solution' was to buy and install what were essentially jet
engines as turbine generators. Good method if you want a quick install and
a small physical package to put in place.

This sort of thing has been done for many years all over the world in a
non CCGT application. In the UK they were used for load lopping - to
counter the momentary increase in power demand seen when everyone turned
the kettle on in the ad breaks in Coronation St. etc. This effect is now
no longer so pronounced as it was thanks to the proliferation of TV
channels.

Virtually every power station in the UK built since the mid-60s has had
a group of 4 gas turbines for this purpose. I've also seen them in use
as main power stations in places that are awash with oil like Bahrain
and Saudi Arabia.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , dennis@home
wrote:


"J G Miller" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:31:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE have totally inadequate wind rain and places to generate hydro
pwer.
Then why did there used to be a power utility called The North of
Scotland Hydro-Electric Board which generated and distributed
electrical energy to Northern Scotland?

We have hydro plants on streams that can generate a couple kilowatts, it
doesn't mean we can supply the whole country with clean power. They are
just inadequate for the job.

The above organisation, in its current guise of Scottish & Southern
Energy,
has just commissioned a new 100MW hydro scheme at Glendoe and hopes to
turn
the existing Sloy scheme (at 153MW - the biggest in the country) into a
pumped storage one. so much for "streams generating a couple of
kilowatts"

well with a typical power station being somewhere upwards of a Gw, and
our total energy needs as a country running at an estimated 300GW, I
cant see those making a huge difference to anything.

If you are talking total energy that might be true, but electricity
alone I always thought was around 50-70GW. This seems to be the topic of
discussion.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

In message , André Coutanche
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:

I know nothing about gas turbines.

I know a LITTLE more, but not enough..

That stirred a long disused neurone, which said 'CCGT'. That led to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle, and one of its references,
http://memagazine.asme.org/Web/Effic...by_Numbers.cfm . So, yes,
efficiencies can be achieved which appear at first glance to break the laws
of thermodynamics ...

Ah. All is explained.

ISTR the idea of mag. thermo dynamics was to withdraw energy (DC) from
the ionised gas stream in a conventional boiler.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

well with a typical power station being somewhere upwards of a Gw, and
our total energy needs as a country running at an estimated 300GW, I
cant see those making a huge difference to anything.

I can, hydro electric are easy to control and respond quickly.
Run them at the bare minimum and you can turn them up to smooth supply
during peaks.
Pretty much like the pumped hydro stations but not as big.

ISTR that Dinorwig could run from zero to full power in about 2 minutes.
Any hydro scheme should be able to do that too.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:26:11 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

We have hydro plants on streams that can generate a couple kilowatts

Sounds like Scottish Power generate more than a *couple of kilowatts*
to me
from hydro electric schemes --

Lanark Hydro Electric Scheme 17 MW


About the same as a big diesel generator. Enough to run one electric
train line maybe..

Depends on the electric train. Eurostars IIRC use about 13Mw on 25KV AC
- much less in Belgium or on third rail. (Eurostars are *very* long)
Class 91 trains on the ECML use about 5Mw.

Pendolinos are heavy and "built like a tank" according to Richard
Branson :-) and use just under 6Mw. Class 92s about the same.

The highest power electric trains are the Eurotunnel shuttles, with two
Class 9/8s they will use around 15MW.

So more than one unless you want loads of Eurostars.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

John Wright

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:31:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
There is nothing centralised about the grid.

Power generation is centralised.

On a level UK playing field, we have plenty of wind and rain, some
sun, and no uranium ore.
WE have totally inadequate wind rain and places to generate hydro pwer.

The field is tilted way against nuclear and way pro wind, that's all.
Whereas historically it has been the other way about.
It has not.

It was tilted massively towards big centralised power generation in
the post-war years, with large government investments in places like
Windscale and Dounreay, and through the CEGB commissioning the first
rounds of nuclear power stations.


Windscale and Douunreay were weapons production facilities thinly
disguised as power stations.

Chapelcross rather than Dounreay I think. What you need for plutonium
production is a fast turn round natural uranium reactor. Hence Calder
Hall and Chapelcross. These two were always owned by UKAEA rather than
whatever organisation ended up with the other Magnox reactors.

AFAIK Dounreay was always a research establishment.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

On Wednesday, October 7th, 2009 08:52:16 +0100, Tim Lamb suggested:

Using waste heat for space heating only works if you have generating
plant in the middle of towns and you don't have warm summers:-)

Metz, Lorraine has warm (compared to England) summers and the CHP there,
one of the oldest in France has worked efficiently and successfully.

http://www.uem-metz.FR/site/_activites_chauffage.php

In 2005 UEM added a second network of 15 km and 88 sub-stations,
with 300 clients.

J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:33:02 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

In the standard model, protons don't decay.

Is Wikipedia correct in its assertion that

QUOTE
Proton decay has not been observed.
There is currently no evidence that proton decay occurs.
UNQUOTE

I would say that is true and correct whatever theory you happen to
believe in.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

John Wright

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Derek Geldard
writes:
[]
I'd also like CFL manufacturers to be required
to specify the illumination in lumens.


Hear hear - though make that for all light sources, i. e. filament bulbs
too.

The figures for standard wattage GLS lamps are readily available.
CFL's not (they are all different).

They may be readily available, but they should be on the box. In at
least as big a font as any other number.
[]
(Another option would be to make a combined bulb, which turned on a
filament initially, backing it off as the CF [what's the L for?] one
comes up, either via a light sensor, or just a timer.)

That makes as much sense as a combined refrigerator / lawn mower.

Eh? One of the main complaints about CFLs is that they take ages to come
up to full brightness.

Having observed this it depends a lot on temperature. If you switch on
the ones in my garage in January or February (i.e. when they are really
cold) they can take a minute or two to get to full brightness. Ones in
the hall take about 15 seconds at most. I have one in the living room
that takes about 5 seconds. (These are all Philips Genie branded ones)

I can see that some people would say that is ages, (instant
gratification and all that) but I also wonder how cold some people must
like it :-)

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:30:01 +0100, John Wright
wrote:

snip

ISTR that Dinorwig could run from zero to full power in about 2 minutes.
Any hydro scheme should be able to do that too.

The reality is rather more impressive:
http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm

"Synchronised and spinning-in-air emergency load pick-up rate from
standby: 0 to 1,320 MW in 12 seconds"

One of the design briefs for the station was that it was to be capable
of supplying power quicker than gas-turbine plant, and it was designed
accordingly. This will not generally be true of conventional hydro
schemes.

Brian

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


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

well with a typical power station being somewhere upwards of a Gw, and
our total energy needs as a country running at an estimated 300GW, I
cant see those making a huge difference to anything.

I can, hydro electric are easy to control and respond quickly.
Run them at the bare minimum and you can turn them up to smooth supply
during peaks.
Pretty much like the pumped hydro stations but not as big.

ISTR that Dinorwig could run from zero to full power in about 2 minutes.
Any hydro scheme should be able to do that too.

With the minor problem of how to refill the dam.

In article ,
John Wright john\@no spam here.com wrote:

[Snip]

I can see that some people would say that is ages, (instant
gratification and all that) but I also wonder how cold some people must
like it :-)

it may not be a matter of "like it". My late mother had a belief that God
sent the cold in winter to make you suffer and you shouldn't try to avoid
it. There was many a morning when I woke up to find the glass of water
beside the bed contained a lump of ice.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Brian wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:30:01 +0100, John Wright
wrote:

snip

ISTR that Dinorwig could run from zero to full power in about 2 minutes.
Any hydro scheme should be able to do that too.

The reality is rather more impressive:
http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm

"Synchronised and spinning-in-air emergency load pick-up rate from
standby: 0 to 1,320 MW in 12 seconds"

One of the design briefs for the station was that it was to be capable
of supplying power quicker than gas-turbine plant, and it was designed
accordingly. This will not generally be true of conventional hydro
schemes.

Though there is no reason why it need not be.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

charles wrote:
In article ,
John Wright john\@no spam here.com wrote:

[Snip]

I can see that some people would say that is ages, (instant
gratification and all that) but I also wonder how cold some people must
like it :-)

it may not be a matter of "like it". My late mother had a belief that God
sent the cold in winter to make you suffer and you shouldn't try to avoid
it. There was many a morning when I woke up to find the glass of water
beside the bed contained a lump of ice.

Too true. Its very much the way that a lot of old and/or poor people live.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:02:01 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:03:15 +0100, Derek Geldard wrote:

Not true, in fact. All radioactive isotopes decay according to their
half lives. When they're gone, they're gone.
"Half life", the period of time it takes for half of the orginal
substance to have decayed. After that time it's another equal period
for the next half to decay, still leaving you with 1/4 of the orginal
amount.

However it doesn't take many half lives for activity to decay to a
level lower than the natural background, whence it will become
undetectable - and it will still keep on decaying.

In the medical isotope industry it is reckoned that all radiactivity
may be taken to have ceased after 6 half lives. If the half life is 6
hours (TC99m) then effectively it's all gone after 36 hours and a big
dose can safely be injected into a patient for a radionuclide scan.
After 10 half lives the activity is down to about 0.5 per million of
what you started with.

If it's 12,000 years it will be rather longer, but decay it will.

An isotope also has a bilogical half life which is the rate that it
would be eliminated from the body by normal bodily functions.

Of course it depends on the substance how long the half life is, they
vary from seconds to thousands of years but most are fairly short and
the level of radiation decreases over time as well. The nature of the
radiation is important as well, alpha particles are easyly stopped
for example.

Common misconception, along with "If an isotope has a long half life
it's not very radioactive", -erm no 1 millicurie is 1 millicurie .

Very true, but pound for pound there is less radiation from something
with a long half life than from a short one. Hence natural uranium is
normal, but plutonium is warm to the touch. 1 millicurie of each would
be very different in physical weight or even mass.

NB. if high energy Alpha emitting isotopes are absorbed into the body
they do tremendous damage at the cellular level because alpha
particles are electrically charged and lose all their energy over a
very short distance (hence the low penetrating capability). The most
damage is caused when a speck of alpha emitting material lodges in the
body and goes on year in year out irradiating the same tiny volume of
body tissue, cell damage leading to cancer is very likely.

Most alpha emitters also emit beta and/or gamma radiation as well. As
you say they have to be absorbed into the body to create a real danger.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

In message , J G Miller
writes
On Wednesday, October 7th, 2009 08:52:16 +0100, Tim Lamb suggested:

Using waste heat for space heating only works if you have generating
plant in the middle of towns and you don't have warm summers:-)

Metz, Lorraine has warm (compared to England) summers and the CHP there,
one of the oldest in France has worked efficiently and successfully.

http://www.uem-metz.FR/site/_activites_chauffage.php

In 2005 UEM added a second network of 15 km and 88 sub-stations,
with 300 clients.

My schoolboy French was stretched until I found the translate button:-)

They don't mention overall efficiency either Winter or Summer but I note
hot water is available for bathing etc.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:27:10 +0100, Brian wrote:

"Synchronised and spinning-in-air emergency load pick-up rate from
standby: 0 to 1,320 MW in 12 seconds"

That isn't particulary impressive, the switch from full pumping to
full output is the impressive figure, as you have to completely
reverse the direction of rotation of the turbines. Can I find that
fugure now... but it's well less than a minute.

One of the design briefs for the station was that it was to be capable
of supplying power quicker than gas-turbine plant, and it was designed
accordingly. This will not generally be true of conventional hydro
schemes.

They can still go from zero to online full output in pretty short
order, ie. a couple of minutes.

No sure how fast you can bring up a gas turbine set. All the gas
turbines I've come across have to warmed up for several minutes
before you can wind up the output and that's little ones like you
find in helicopters.

--
Cheers
Dave.

John Wright wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:30:01 +0100, John Wright
wrote:

snip

ISTR that Dinorwig could run from zero to full power in about 2
minutes. Any hydro scheme should be able to do that too.

The reality is rather more impressive:
http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm

"Synchronised and spinning-in-air emergency load pick-up rate from
standby: 0 to 1,320 MW in 12 seconds"

One of the design briefs for the station was that it was to be capable
of supplying power quicker than gas-turbine plant, and it was designed
accordingly. This will not generally be true of conventional hydro
schemes.

Though there is no reason why it need not be.

the key to fast load pickup is to have a genny spinning and synched to
the mains frequency and phase locked, being driven BY the mains, or at
least idling more or less in neutral. Then feed in steam or water or
whatever to make it contribute.

Its an alarming thought, but what keeps the mains steady through all the
short term fluctuations is nothing more nor les than the rotational
inertia of a hundred turbine shafts..

something you wont have with windmills, which are not phase locked
mechanically.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:27:10 +0100, Brian wrote:

"Synchronised and spinning-in-air emergency load pick-up rate from
standby: 0 to 1,320 MW in 12 seconds"

That isn't particulary impressive, the switch from full pumping to
full output is the impressive figure, as you have to completely
reverse the direction of rotation of the turbines. Can I find that
fugure now... but it's well less than a minute.

One of the design briefs for the station was that it was to be capable
of supplying power quicker than gas-turbine plant, and it was designed
accordingly. This will not generally be true of conventional hydro
schemes.

They can still go from zero to online full output in pretty short
order, ie. a couple of minutes.

No sure how fast you can bring up a gas turbine set. All the gas
turbines I've come across have to warmed up for several minutes
before you can wind up the output and that's little ones like you
find in helicopters.

thats why they sit on hot standby, wasting fuel spinning so that the
lights don't go out in Denmark when the wind drops.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 16:19:49 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Java Jive" wrote in message
.. .
I wonder how long it would take to repay the energy invested in
building it, how long it would take to silt up, and what, if any, the
solution to such a problem might be. These points would need to be
very carefully assessed.

Oh they'll do that all right. They're very clever men. We don't have
cock-ups in this country.

Bill


All coils will be wound with ****z wire.

Derek

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

it may not be a matter of "like it". My late mother had a belief that God
sent the cold in winter to make you suffer and you shouldn't try to avoid
it. There was many a morning when I woke up to find the glass of water
beside the bed contained a lump of ice.

Now that's what I call Room Service.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:59 +0100, 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

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Happy birthday, I have now put my glasses on and realised this thread
was from a year ago

Albert Ross wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:59 +0100, 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

This is apparently so.

Albert Ross wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Happy birthday, I have now put my glasses on and realised this thread
was from a year ago

Still thoroughly relevant today, with the data emerging about how
ghastly and useless wind and solar power really are, and the government
in a flat spin over carbon floor pricing.

In article ,
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

This is apparently so.

Coal fired power stations also kill (estimated of course) and
harm the health of more people than nuclear power stations ever
have.

Source: Bernard Cohen - http://russp.org/BLC-4.html

Francis

Timely though given the green lobby is desperately trying to protect the
feed-in tariffs which mean most of us will be subsidising a minority
with large, south-facing rooves.

And your source for this apparently biased statement is?

Well you might start with
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010...-green-rip-off and the
links there
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:39:22 +0100, Albert Ross
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Happy birthday, I have now put my glasses on and realised this thread
was from a year ago

TFFT!

I have been trolling up and down the past months looking for it and
was about to complain to the provider about missing threads. )