Well just one more demonstration of the old theme, no such thing as a free
lunch. There are never end to end costs thought about properly.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Or not.

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410


--
Carl Waring

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:29:54 +0100, Ericp
wrote:

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. )

I should do some archiving, I just found a new thread attached to one
from years back which prompted me to look through the rest of the
group seeing what else I missed, this was a false positive.

Still available on Giganews, they have about seven years of usenet
archived now and about two years of binaries

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Or not.

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410


They do *emit* more radioactivity.
You have far more chance of getting irradiated from coal waste than nuclear
waste.
Coal waste is just dumped, radioactive waste is controlled.

BTW the radioactivity in coal waste is far less dangerous than the other
stuff emitted when you burn coal, that stuff kills a lot of people.

Francis Burton wrote:

Albert Ross wrote:

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

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

I'm amused by the chattering classes in London and the south-east who
say that if we must have nuclear power stations, these should at least
be situated up in the north. They don't think how close France is.


Fliss

--
She said: You're going stay here with your
ex-wife because her sheep's dying?
He said: No, because *our* sheep's dying...

On 22/09/2010 09:07, Carl Waring wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Or not.

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410



Which part of that article supports your statement?

It looks to me as if the critical part is

Using several research studies as evidence, the story does make a
convincing case that, as it says, €œthe fly ash emitted by a power plant
.. . . carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation
than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.€�

Which agrees completely with

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

Andy

"Felicity S." Fliss@orpheusnet wrote in message
news:fIxm7.2485$lk6.888888@orpheusnews...
Francis Burton wrote:

Albert Ross wrote:

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

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

I'm amused by the chattering classes in London and the south-east who
say that if we must have nuclear power stations, these should at least
be situated up in the north. They don't think how close France is.

Good.
Let's have them up here and provide much needed employment.
--
Col

Why is there only *one* Monopolies Commission?
Who arbitrates when ACAS go on strike?

Col wrote:
"Felicity S." Fliss@orpheusnet wrote in message
news:fIxm7.2485$lk6.888888@orpheusnews...
Francis Burton wrote:

Albert Ross wrote:
Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal
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
I'm amused by the chattering classes in London and the south-east who
say that if we must have nuclear power stations, these should at least
be situated up in the north. They don't think how close France is.

Good.
Let's have them up here and provide much needed employment.

Well we have the biggest one right down here.

Sizewell B.
Often go swimming within a mile of it.

Very nice little power station.

Best place for a Nuke Darn Sarth would be Battersea.

Bearing in mind the amount of cooling water, here are not that many
places to put em.

Coastal sites or major rivers needed.

That means Severn or Thames typically.

Radiation from a nuke *station* is almost zero. Its unmeasurable really.
Certainly none of the operational stations show any local radiation
increase. Friends with Geigers have in fact checked this out. Far more
radiation from fly ash or from Radon in e.g. Dartmoor.


Not so with reprocessing plant however.

Note that the Three Mile Island accident - worst in the western world,
apart from maybe Windscale - lead to no substantive radiation release
whatsoever due to the construction and safety methodology employed:
secondary containment did exactly what it was supposed to do.


"The Kemeny Commission Report concluded that "there will either be no
case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will
never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the
other possible health effects."[2] Several epidemiological studies in
the years since the accident have supported the conclusion that
radiation releases from the accident had no perceptible effect on cancer
incidence in residents near the plant, though these findings have been
contested by one team of researchers."

(as they always are).


Even Windscale fire in 1957, the most clueless accident in a reactor
built with no containment whatsoever, and essentially 'open to the
skies' ONLY was estimated to result in 33+ excess cancer deaths

"The official National Radiological Protection Board estimated in a 1987
study that at least 33 people are likely to die prematurely from cancers
as a result of the accident."

Compare and contrast with BP's oil spill and explosion..and the many
deaths associated with windmills. Nuclear power holds the record for the
lowest number of deaths per unit generated of any power industry ever.
Even hydroelectric.

Compare windpowerhttp://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html)

"In the mid-1990s, 14 men had been killed on wind turbines or working
with wind energy. Since then six more have died, including the first
member of the public, a parachutist who literally flew into a turbine in
Germany.

Total cumulative generation reached nearly 130 TWh from 1975 through the
year 2000. The number of deaths per TWh of cumulative generation
steadily dropped through the 1990s.

I reported in Wind Energy comes of Age a mortality rate of 0.27 deaths
per TWh. However, the mortality rate was higher than I reported then. I
had missed several accidents that I learned of later.

In the mid-1990s the mortally rate was actually 0.4 per TWh. The
worldwide mortality rate dropped more than half to 0.15 deaths per TWh
by the end of 2000.

One half of the deaths have occurred on or around turbines of the size
typically installed during the great California wind boom of the
mid-1980s. Still, 7 have been killed working with larger turbines.

Tragically, at least 3 people have been killed working with small
turbines. These deaths dramatically skew the mortality rate because
small turbines account for a minuscule amount of worldwide wind generation.

The preponderance of those killed worldwide were Americans; 12 U.S.
citizens, and one Canadian. Germany, despite the phenomenal growth of it
wind industry since 1990, has one of the lowest mortality rates of the
four nations where deaths have occurred, 0.07 deaths per TWh.

The German rate includes the parachutist who, in her first unassisted
jump, hit a wind turbine on the island of Fehmarn. In doing so she
became the first women killed by wind energy and the first member of the
public killed. However, it's important to note that though she was a
member of the public, she was not a passerby, such as a person who walks
or drives by a wind turbine. Her death is more akin to that of a suicide
from a jump off a bridge or tall building. (This is a critical
distinction. In the two decades I've tracked this data, no passerby has
been injured by wind energy.)

The mortality rate in the USA, where all 13 deaths in North America
occurred, is twice that of the international average. As is the
mortality rate in the Netherlands.

Data from the USA distorts the mortality rates relative to deaths in
construction and deaths in operation & maintenance. The great majority
of deaths in the USA can be attributed to construction activities, when
installing, moving, or removing wind turbines. Six were killed during
operation and maintenance.

At least two of those killed in the USA, all in California, were killed
during operations connected with moving wind turbines from one site to
another. One of the deaths in Denmark was also related to removing a 55
kW wind turbine in Jutland that was to be replaced with a 500 kW machine.

The high number of deaths in the USA may be connected to the typically
frantic nature of year-end, tax-subsidy driven installation booms.

Though no passerby or neighbor has been injured by a wind turbine, there
is some, albeit minor, risk. For example, there are anecdotal reports of
wind turbines throwing their blades. On Samsø a 55 kW Nordtank threw a
blade through a window into an indoor swimming pool, according to one
knowledgeable source. Fortunately nobody was home.

As turbines become larger, the consequences of such catastrophic
failures as throwing a blade raises the stakes for the public at large.
At the European Wind Energy Conference in Nice in 1999, the halls were a
buzz with the news that several megawatt turbines had "lost" a blade in
Germany. The manufacturers of the turbines were understandably
uncomfortable even acknowledging that the events actually happened.

Probably no country, because of its high population density, has more
interest in the potential of such accidents than the Netherlands.

ECN, the Dutch research center in North Holland, is developing a
Handbook for Determining Risk Zones for Wind Turbines (Handboek
Risicozonering Windturbines) according to ECN's Luc Rademakers. The
handbook, says Rademakers, will contain a method to assess the risks
associated with wind turbines and aid in planning for wind turbines in
densely populated locales.

How does wind's mortality rate compare with that from other energy
sources? Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. Part of the problem
is that statistics on mortality rates for the full fuel cycle of coal,
for example, are not readily available. And where available they use
different units. Yet, it appears that the current mortality rate of wind
energy of 0.15 deaths per TWh is roughly equivalent to that of mining,
processing, and burning of coal to generate electricity according to
some researchers. (This data doesn't include increases in mortality from
the air pollution that results from burning coal.) Data from other
researchers indicates that wind's mortality rate is about half that for
the occupational mortality rate for coal."

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Well we have the biggest one right down here.

Sizewell B.
Often go swimming within a mile of it.

Very nice little power station.

Best place for a Nuke Darn Sarth would be Battersea.

Bearing in mind the amount of cooling water, here are not that many
places to put em.

Coastal sites or major rivers needed.

That means Severn or Thames typically.

There's plenty of other places dahn sarf for one. You could put one on
the Kent or Essex coast, for a start, and use the North Sea or English
Channel for cooling water. Mebbe, oooh, I dunno - Bradwell in Essex or
Dungeness in Kent?

Adrian wrote:
The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Well we have the biggest one right down here.

Sizewell B.
Often go swimming within a mile of it.

Very nice little power station.

Best place for a Nuke Darn Sarth would be Battersea.

Bearing in mind the amount of cooling water, here are not that many
places to put em.

Coastal sites or major rivers needed.

That means Severn or Thames typically.

There's plenty of other places dahn sarf for one. You could put one on
the Kent or Essex coast, for a start, and use the North Sea or English
Channel for cooling water. Mebbe, oooh, I dunno - Bradwell in Essex or
Dungeness in Kent?

I meant those were the only *river* sites.

There is a new set going in at Sizewell, in Suffolk. I think there is
one somewhere on the Thames estuary being proposed. Anglesea is on the
cards..presumably to serve Liverpool/Manchester.

Then there is one on the Severn proposed, for the S
Wales/Bristol/Midlands area. IIRC Hinckley B is still operational there.
Though at redued capacity pending final decisions on whether to close it
or refurbish it.


Arguable Tyneside needs one as well, to keep the lights on in all those
government offices..well, there's Hartlepool.

And something around the S Scottish are, which is probably served by
Cumbrian nukes at the moment.

here's a good map. Note the reactors 'just across the channel'

http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/united_kingdom.php

Most of the new reactors proposed are unsurprsingly adjacent to old
reactors marked here. The reasons are eminently sound
- they already have grid feeds
- they already have access routes
- they already have secure sites
- they already have planning permission of a sort
- old decommissioned but still 'hot' reactors can be managed by the
newer reactor staff.
- skilled staff already exist in the area.

If all 16 sites got 3GW sets, we would entirely meet the current grid
needs for certainly base load, and a considerable amount more, at far
less cost and grid disruption and reliability than 'sustainable' energy.

On 23/09/2010 07:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Col wrote:
"Felicity S." Fliss@orpheusnet wrote in message
news:fIxm7.2485$lk6.888888@orpheusnews...
Francis Burton wrote:

Albert Ross wrote:
Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal
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
I'm amused by the chattering classes in London and the south-east who
say that if we must have nuclear power stations, these should at least
be situated up in the north. They don't think how close France is.

Good.
Let's have them up here and provide much needed employment.

Well we have the biggest one right down here.

Sizewell B.
Often go swimming within a mile of it.

Very nice little power station.

snip

Used to go boating in the Bradwell area 40 years ago and am still here.
Only place I have ever seen luminous fish.

Now would you trust us to get Sizewell right or EDF to get the row of
French nuclear power stations along the channel right?

Often go swimming within a mile of it.

Very nice little power station.

Best place for a Nuke Darn Sarth would be Battersea.

Bearing in mind the amount of cooling water, here are not that many
places to put em.

Cannot that cooling water "heat" be usefully recovered?..

--
Tony Sayer

"Albert Ross" wrote in message
...
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

I think that the big difference is what they capable of emitting, not what
the actually emit.

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


tim

On 23 Sep, 12:57, "tim...." wrote:
"Albert Ross" wrote in message

...

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

I think that the big difference is what they capable of emitting, not what
the actually emit.

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

tim

One more post for 1000!

In article , tim.... wrote:

You can pile coal waste up in a heap and build a local park on it.

Though you do have to be a bit careful about that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash..._contamination

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:32:11 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Cannot that cooling water "heat" be usefully recovered?..

It could by piping it to the local community for space/water heating.
Large scale combined heat and power, used quite a bit in other
countries and should also be done in this country but you do need a
sizeable community, or a business that can use the heat, close to the
power station.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 23 Sep, 16:46, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:32:11 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Cannot that cooling water "heat" be usefully recovered?..

It could by piping it to the local community for space/water heating.
Large scale combined heat and power, used quite a bit in other
countries and should also be done in this country but you do need a
sizeable community, or a business that can use the heat, close to the
power station.

--
Cheers
Dave.

I have run heat and power systems. There are lots of operational
problems, the main one being heat is not required in Summer and it's
often low quality heat eg warm water & not very useful. I have yet to
see a successful system.
The main city wide sytems in use were in E Europe launched in the
sixties. as far as I know, they have all been shut down as inefficient
and uneconomical.
If you start from the premise that it is heat you want, there is a
chance. However as electricity generators, doomed to failure.

Albert Ross wrote:

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

Indeed, but it is large volumes of extremely low level radiation,
rather than tiny volumes of high level radiation. That's the problem;
the latter needs special handling and storage.

SteveT

Invisible Man wrote:
On 23/09/2010 07:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Col wrote:
"Felicity S." Fliss@orpheusnet wrote in message
news:fIxm7.2485$lk6.888888@orpheusnews...
Francis Burton wrote:

Albert Ross wrote:
Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal
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
I'm amused by the chattering classes in London and the south-east who
say that if we must have nuclear power stations, these should at least
be situated up in the north. They don't think how close France is.

Good.
Let's have them up here and provide much needed employment.

Well we have the biggest one right down here.

Sizewell B.
Often go swimming within a mile of it.

Very nice little power station.

snip

Used to go boating in the Bradwell area 40 years ago and am still here.
Only place I have ever seen luminous fish.

Now would you trust us to get Sizewell right or EDF to get the row of
French nuclear power stations along the channel right?

More than I trusts Chris Huhne to get windfarm energy policy right at
least..

WHAT a complete tosser. Or he has shares in them.

tony sayer wrote:
Often go swimming within a mile of it.

Very nice little power station.

Best place for a Nuke Darn Sarth would be Battersea.

Bearing in mind the amount of cooling water, here are not that many
places to put em.

Cannot that cooling water "heat" be usefully recovered?..


Not as far as electrical energy is concerned, no. Comes out about 40C IIRC.

You can heat a lot of houses with it though. Or greenhouses., Or
tropical fish aquaria. Or swimming pools.

tim.... wrote:
"Albert Ross" wrote in message
...
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

I think that the big difference is what they capable of emitting, not what
the actually emit.

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


You could, easily.

And it would be no worse than the ash.

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.



tim

harry wrote:
On 23 Sep, 16:46, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:32:11 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Cannot that cooling water "heat" be usefully recovered?..
It could by piping it to the local community for space/water heating.
Large scale combined heat and power, used quite a bit in other
countries and should also be done in this country but you do need a
sizeable community, or a business that can use the heat, close to the
power station.

--
Cheers
Dave.

I have run heat and power systems. There are lots of operational
problems, the main one being heat is not required in Summer and it's
often low quality heat eg warm water & not very useful. I have yet to
see a successful system.

I have seen very successful systems in Denmark, where they burn waste
generate electricity and heat council flats.

About the only thing in Denmark worth having.



The main city wide sytems in use were in E Europe launched in the
sixties. as far as I know, they have all been shut down as inefficient
and uneconomical.
If you start from the premise that it is heat you want, there is a
chance. However as electricity generators, doomed to failure.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote: You could, easily.

And it would be no worse than the ash.

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.


Can the ash be safely used as an aggregate to be used for building
infrastructure such as roads and bridges etc:?
If it is mixed with cement and stone as if it was sand would it become inert
and would the end concrete be as strong as concrete made with sand?
I am genuinely curious about this.
Truebrit

Truebrit wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote: You could, easily.

And it would be no worse than the ash.

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.


Can the ash be safely used as an aggregate to be used for building
infrastructure such as roads and bridges etc:?
If it is mixed with cement and stone as if it was sand would it become inert
and would the end concrete be as strong as concrete made with sand?
I am genuinely curious about this.
Truebrit


It will still be somewhat radioactive, but then so are smoke alarms.

Here seems to be a balanced study.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:29:00 -0400, Truebrit wrote:

Can the ash be safely used as an aggregate to be used for building
infrastructure such as roads and bridges etc:?

Yes, some of the lightweight building blocks are mainly fly ash.
Google "aircrete".

--
Cheers
Dave.

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.

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

Drax grows some nice tomatoes. Been around their geenhouses.

JGH

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.


Fliss

--
She said: Get up! Get up! Get up! God damn it! Get up, get
up, get up, get up, get up!! What is that noise?
He said: It's the chick! She's- going through some changes.

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

On 23 Sep, 16:46, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:32:11 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Cannot that cooling water "heat" be usefully recovered?..

It could by piping it to the local community for space/water heating.
Large scale combined heat and power, used quite a bit in other
countries and should also be done in this country but you do need a
sizeable community, or a business that can use the heat, close to the
power station.

--
Cheers
Dave.

http://news.aol.co.uk/main-news/story/queen-sought-heating-bills-grant/1292343?icid=main|uk-ws-bb|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.co.uk%2Fmain-news%2Fstory%2Fqueen-sought-heating-bills-grant%2F1292343

On 23 Sep, 19:16, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On 23 Sep, 16:46, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:32:11 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Cannot that cooling water "heat" be usefully recovered?..
It could by piping it to the local community for space/water heating.
Large scale combined heat and power, used quite a bit in other
countries and should also be done in this country but you do need a
sizeable community, or a business that can use the heat, close to the
power station.

--
Cheers
Dave.

I have run heat and power systems. * There are lots of operational
problems, the main one being heat is not required in Summer and it's
often low quality heat eg warm water & not very useful. *I have yet to
see a successful system.

I have seen very successful systems in Denmark, where they burn waste
generate electricity and heat council flats.

About the only thing in Denmark worth having.



The main city wide sytems in use were in E Europe launched in the
sixties. as far as I know, they have all been shut down as inefficient
and uneconomical.
If you start from the premise that it is heat you want, there is a
chance. However as electricity generators, doomed to failure.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only reason it's half succesfull there is that the "fuel" is free.
However burning waste brings its own problems. I've done that too.

harry wrote:
On 23 Sep, 19:16, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On 23 Sep, 16:46, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:32:11 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Cannot that cooling water "heat" be usefully recovered?..
It could by piping it to the local community for space/water heating.
Large scale combined heat and power, used quite a bit in other
countries and should also be done in this country but you do need a
sizeable community, or a business that can use the heat, close to the
power station.
--
Cheers
Dave.
I have run heat and power systems. There are lots of operational
problems, the main one being heat is not required in Summer and it's
often low quality heat eg warm water & not very useful. I have yet to
see a successful system.
I have seen very successful systems in Denmark, where they burn waste
generate electricity and heat council flats.

About the only thing in Denmark worth having.



The main city wide sytems in use were in E Europe launched in the
sixties. as far as I know, they have all been shut down as inefficient
and uneconomical.
If you start from the premise that it is heat you want, there is a
chance. However as electricity generators, doomed to failure.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only reason it's half succesfull there is that the "fuel" is free.
However burning waste brings its own problems. I've done that too.

Oh, no denying that either, and it isn't free, mindless droids on
excessively high public sector salaries that mustn't be less than that
of the top official, or its unfair, have to sort the rubbish.

But it does go to show that if you live in a neo communist state, you
can do a lot with waste heat.

In article fIxm7.2485$lk6.888890@orpheusnews,
Felicity S. Fliss@orpheusnet wrote:

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.

-- Richard

Most of the new reactors proposed are unsurprsingly adjacent to old
reactors marked here. The reasons are eminently sound
- they already have grid feeds
- they already have access routes
- they already have secure sites
- they already have planning permission of a sort
- old decommissioned but still 'hot' reactors can be managed by the
newer reactor staff.
- skilled staff already exist in the area.

If all 16 sites got 3GW sets, we would entirely meet the current grid
needs for certainly base load, and a considerable amount more, at far
less cost and grid disruption and reliability than 'sustainable' energy.


I agree completely. No new sites are needed, just new hardware.

I wonder what is the cost and lead time for (say) a French "flat pack"
3GW Nuke?

Vortex7 wrote:


Most of the new reactors proposed are unsurprsingly adjacent to old
reactors marked here. The reasons are eminently sound
- they already have grid feeds
- they already have access routes
- they already have secure sites
- they already have planning permission of a sort
- old decommissioned but still 'hot' reactors can be managed by the
newer reactor staff.
- skilled staff already exist in the area.

If all 16 sites got 3GW sets, we would entirely meet the current grid
needs for certainly base load, and a considerable amount more, at far
less cost and grid disruption and reliability than 'sustainable' energy.


I agree completely. No new sites are needed, just new hardware.

I wonder what is the cost and lead time for (say) a French "flat pack"
3GW Nuke?

Fastest nuke build from application to switch on is about 5 years IIRC,
but 7 is more reasonable. UK 10-12

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

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

On 24/09/2010 11:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Vortex7 wrote:


Most of the new reactors proposed are unsurprsingly adjacent to old
reactors marked here. The reasons are eminently sound
- they already have grid feeds
- they already have access routes
- they already have secure sites
- they already have planning permission of a sort
- old decommissioned but still 'hot' reactors can be managed by the
newer reactor staff.
- skilled staff already exist in the area.

If all 16 sites got 3GW sets, we would entirely meet the current grid
needs for certainly base load, and a considerable amount more, at far
less cost and grid disruption and reliability than 'sustainable' energy.


I agree completely. No new sites are needed, just new hardware.

I wonder what is the cost and lead time for (say) a French "flat pack"
3GW Nuke?

Fastest nuke build from application to switch on is about 5 years IIRC,
but 7 is more reasonable. UK 10-12

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

I'd love to see the Government grow some balls and get on with it.

Unfortunately the sandal wearing Libdem element would make life very
awkward.

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.

Vortex7 wrote:
On 24/09/2010 11:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Vortex7 wrote:


Most of the new reactors proposed are unsurprsingly adjacent to old
reactors marked here. The reasons are eminently sound
- they already have grid feeds
- they already have access routes
- they already have secure sites
- they already have planning permission of a sort
- old decommissioned but still 'hot' reactors can be managed by the
newer reactor staff.
- skilled staff already exist in the area.

If all 16 sites got 3GW sets, we would entirely meet the current grid
needs for certainly base load, and a considerable amount more, at far
less cost and grid disruption and reliability than 'sustainable'
energy.


I agree completely. No new sites are needed, just new hardware.

I wonder what is the cost and lead time for (say) a French "flat pack"
3GW Nuke?

Fastest nuke build from application to switch on is about 5 years IIRC,
but 7 is more reasonable. UK 10-12

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

I'd love to see the Government grow some balls and get on with it.

Unfortunately the sandal wearing Libdem element would make life very
awkward.

Yeah, the jokers in the pack are all in evidence this week. Windmill
Huhne, and Vince Cableknitted brain.

I suspect they are being be given enough rope to hang themselves ..

On 24 Sep, 11:21, "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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. We ripped the whole lot out and replaced it with conventional
plant and halved the energy bill. It was at a big hospital in Wales.