I had to share this one with you.

http://d3m26nztbnmh2a.cloudfront.net/turbinewashing.mp4

I believe the build up of bugs does nothing for the blade efficiency, so
what the heck, let's stop the thing and hire a helicopter at 20 gallons
of kerosene an hour and clean em! No expense spared in pursuit of subsidy.

Simples!

And to complete your enjoyment, watch a vulture break a wing and die in
Crete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RcTj...layer_embedded

And finally.. just to get a feel for the scale of what is being imposed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=doU20jzKdRk

As many people have been DIRECTLY killed in wind turbine accidents in 40
years as in Chernobyl..

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm

Figures for illness due to infrasound, are not even being investigated....

Remember, this is all about SAVING THE PLANET. Do shut up and don't be
a NIMBY.

Oh dear. Darwin strikes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rw98...eature=related

TTFN.

Can I have a nuke in my back yard (NIMBY)

Please.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
As many people have been DIRECTLY killed in wind turbine accidents in 40
years as in Chernobyl..

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm...

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths and the figures in your
reference seem to include a lot of people falling off the roof while
fitting domestic wind generators.

Nevertheless, if we look at the deaths per TWh generated (d/TWh), even
including the 4,000 projectde deaths from Chernobyl and a high death
rate from early methods of uranium extraction, nuclear still comes out
as by far the safest fuel.

These are whole life figures, from breaking the ground to decomissioning
and include related deaths, such as mining fuel (particularly coal),
transport, explosions (gas) and the collapse of hydro electric dams, as
at 2008:


Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal €“ world average 161
Coal €“ China 278
Coal €“ USA 15
Oil 36
Natural Gas 4
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44
Wind 0.15
Hydro - Europe 0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4
Nuclear 0.04
Nuclear, excluding Chernobyl 0.003

Colin Bignell

On Aug 5, 7:17 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Hydro - Europe 0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? I think that only dams
designed and made specifically for Hydro generation should be
considered .i.e. not reservoirs made from old trees and soil and to
which someone has decided to add a small generator.
And 3rd world countries with lax building standards should be excluded
from all categories, since they are not relevant to modern standards
in 1st world countries.

On Aug 5, 11:46*am, Matty F wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:17 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Hydro - Europe * * * * * * * * * * *0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao * * 1.4

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? I think that only dams
designed and *made specifically for Hydro generation should be
considered .i.e. not reservoirs made from old trees and soil and to
which someone has decided to add a small generator.
And 3rd world countries with lax building standards should be excluded
from all categories, since they are not relevant to modern standards
in 1st world countries.

Even if they built and operated nukes?

MBQ

On 08/05/2010 03:38 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I had to share this one with you.

http://d3m26nztbnmh2a.cloudfront.net/turbinewashing.mp4

I believe the build up of bugs does nothing for the blade efficiency, so
what the heck, let's stop the thing and hire a helicopter at 20 gallons
of kerosene an hour and clean em! No expense spared in pursuit of subsidy.

Simples!

And to complete your enjoyment, watch a vulture break a wing and die in
Crete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RcTj...layer_embedded

And finally.. just to get a feel for the scale of what is being imposed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=doU20jzKdRk

As many people have been DIRECTLY killed in wind turbine accidents in 40
years as in Chernobyl..

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm

Figures for illness due to infrasound, are not even being investigated....

Remember, this is all about SAVING THE PLANET. Do shut up and don't be a
NIMBY.

Oh dear. Darwin strikes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rw98...eature=related

TTFN.

Can I have a nuke in my back yard (NIMBY)

Please.

If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.

cpp4ever

cpp4ever wrote:


If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.


I don't want fossil fuel in my back yard. I want a nuke.

I've got a little cat, and I'm very fond of that,
but I'd rather have a Nukey-nuke!


cpp4ever

Matty F wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:17 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Hydro - Europe 0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? ...

These are whole-life figures, so include deaths of construction workers.

The Banqiao dam mentioned was built in China in the 1950s, with Soviet
help. It was designed for 300mm of rainfall in one day - a 1 in 1,000
year event. In 1975, 1060mm of rain fell in one day - a 1 in 2,000 year
event - and the dam collapsed whem the water overtopped it. The death
toll, including consequential deaths due to epidemic, is estimated at up
to 230,000 people.

The Vajont Dam, north of Venice also caused civilian deaths in 1963,
while the Taum Sauk pumped storage plant dam in Missouri collapsed,
without loss of life, in 2005.

Colin Bignell

On 5 Aug, 11:46, Matty F wrote:

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths?

Russian ones woth poor maintenance records, hardly surprisingly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sa...hydro_accident

On Aug 5, 12:31*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
cpp4ever wrote:

If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.

I don't want fossil fuel in my back yard. I want a nuke.

I've got a little cat, and I'm very fond of that,
but I'd rather have a Nukey-nuke!

cpp4ever

Its been done. For anyone that desnt already know, google the nuclear
boy scout. And there's even a newsgroup for it, free.uk.diy.nuclear-
device


NT

Tabby wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:31 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
cpp4ever wrote:

If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.
I don't want fossil fuel in my back yard. I want a nuke.

I've got a little cat, and I'm very fond of that,
but I'd rather have a Nukey-nuke!

cpp4ever

Its been done. For anyone that desnt already know, google the nuclear
boy scout. And there's even a newsgroup for it, free.uk.diy.nuclear-
device


NT
Yeah, but I want one that does more than glow in the dark and breed
plutonium.

I wonder what the smallest practical reactor size is?

There are a few operating at 50MW or less. That's enough for a town like
Cambridge ...

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:17:48 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:
However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths and the figures in your
reference seem to include a lot of people falling off the roof while
fitting domestic wind generators.

Yes, to be fair you should really include the number of people falling
off their roof while fitting nuclear reactors ;-)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tabby wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:31 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
cpp4ever wrote:

If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the
next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.
I don't want fossil fuel in my back yard. I want a nuke.

I've got a little cat, and I'm very fond of that,
but I'd rather have a Nukey-nuke!

cpp4ever

Its been done. For anyone that desnt already know, google the nuclear
boy scout. And there's even a newsgroup for it, free.uk.diy.nuclear-
device


NT
Yeah, but I want one that does more than glow in the dark and breed
plutonium.

I wonder what the smallest practical reactor size is?

There are a few operating at 50MW or less. That's enough for a town like
Cambridge ...

These are the smallest I know of

https://energy.wesrch.com/User_image...1215930225.pdf

Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tabby wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:31 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
cpp4ever wrote:

If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the
next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.
I don't want fossil fuel in my back yard. I want a nuke.

I've got a little cat, and I'm very fond of that,
but I'd rather have a Nukey-nuke!

cpp4ever

Its been done. For anyone that desnt already know, google the nuclear
boy scout. And there's even a newsgroup for it, free.uk.diy.nuclear-
device


NT
Yeah, but I want one that does more than glow in the dark and breed
plutonium.

I wonder what the smallest practical reactor size is?

There are a few operating at 50MW or less. That's enough for a town
like Cambridge ...

These are the smallest I know of

https://energy.wesrch.com/User_image...1215930225.pdf

Colin Bignell

superb!
A floating nuclear power station.

We will need those when global warming floods everywhere.

On 05/08/2010 13:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:17 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Hydro - Europe 0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? ...

These are whole-life figures, so include deaths of construction workers.

The Banqiao dam mentioned was built in China in the 1950s, with Soviet
help. It was designed for 300mm of rainfall in one day - a 1 in 1,000
year event. In 1975, 1060mm of rain fell in one day - a 1 in 2,000 year
event - and the dam collapsed whem the water overtopped it. The death
toll, including consequential deaths due to epidemic, is estimated at up
to 230,000 people.

The Vajont Dam, north of Venice also caused civilian deaths in 1963,
while the Taum Sauk pumped storage plant dam in Missouri collapsed,
without loss of life, in 2005.

Colin Bignell
Wasn't there a dam collapse at Frejus in southern France that caused
deaths as well? 60s or 70s from memory

Peter Scott

These are the smallest I know of

https://energy.wesrch.com/User_image...1215930225.pdf

Colin Bignell

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.

Peter Scott

Peter Scott wrote:
On 05/08/2010 13:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:17 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Hydro - Europe 0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? ...

These are whole-life figures, so include deaths of construction workers.

The Banqiao dam mentioned was built in China in the 1950s, with Soviet
help. It was designed for 300mm of rainfall in one day - a 1 in 1,000
year event. In 1975, 1060mm of rain fell in one day - a 1 in 2,000 year
event - and the dam collapsed whem the water overtopped it. The death
toll, including consequential deaths due to epidemic, is estimated at up
to 230,000 people.

The Vajont Dam, north of Venice also caused civilian deaths in 1963,
while the Taum Sauk pumped storage plant dam in Missouri collapsed,
without loss of life, in 2005.

Colin Bignell
Wasn't there a dam collapse at Frejus in southern France that caused
deaths as well? 60s or 70s from memory

Dams are like any other high energy storage. You don't want to be near
when they release it all suddenly in an uncontrolled fashion.


Peter Scott

Peter Scott wrote:


These are the smallest I know of

https://energy.wesrch.com/User_image...1215930225.pdf

Colin Bignell

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.


I think that is the sort of micro power I like.

60 years of electricity, the size of container, then onto a truck and
back for recycling...:-)



Peter Scott

Peter Scott wrote:
On 05/08/2010 13:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:17 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Hydro - Europe 0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? ...

These are whole-life figures, so include deaths of construction workers.

The Banqiao dam mentioned was built in China in the 1950s, with Soviet
help. It was designed for 300mm of rainfall in one day - a 1 in 1,000
year event. In 1975, 1060mm of rain fell in one day - a 1 in 2,000 year
event - and the dam collapsed whem the water overtopped it. The death
toll, including consequential deaths due to epidemic, is estimated at up
to 230,000 people.

The Vajont Dam, north of Venice also caused civilian deaths in 1963,
while the Taum Sauk pumped storage plant dam in Missouri collapsed,
without loss of life, in 2005.

Colin Bignell
Wasn't there a dam collapse at Frejus in southern France that caused
deaths as well? 60s or 70s from memory

Malpasset, 1959, but it was for water supply and irrigation and had no
generating capacity.

Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tabby wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:31 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
cpp4ever wrote:

If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the
next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.
I don't want fossil fuel in my back yard. I want a nuke.

I've got a little cat, and I'm very fond of that,
but I'd rather have a Nukey-nuke!

cpp4ever

Its been done. For anyone that desnt already know, google the nuclear
boy scout. And there's even a newsgroup for it, free.uk.diy.nuclear-
device


NT
Yeah, but I want one that does more than glow in the dark and breed
plutonium.

I wonder what the smallest practical reactor size is?

There are a few operating at 50MW or less. That's enough for a town
like Cambridge ...

These are the smallest I know of

https://energy.wesrch.com/User_image...1215930225.pdf

Colin Bignell

superb!
A floating nuclear power station.

We will need those when global warming floods everywhere.

The Russians are predicting global cooling though.

Colin Bignell

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tabby wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:31 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
cpp4ever wrote:

If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the
next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.
I don't want fossil fuel in my back yard. I want a nuke.

I've got a little cat, and I'm very fond of that,
but I'd rather have a Nukey-nuke!

cpp4ever

Its been done. For anyone that desnt already know, google the nuclear
boy scout. And there's even a newsgroup for it, free.uk.diy.nuclear-
device


NT
Yeah, but I want one that does more than glow in the dark and breed
plutonium.

I wonder what the smallest practical reactor size is?

There are a few operating at 50MW or less. That's enough for a town
like Cambridge ...
These are the smallest I know of
https://energy.wesrch.com/User_image...1215930225.pdf
Colin Bignell

superb!
A floating nuclear power station.

We will need those when global warming floods everywhere.

Now if only you had a small lake instead of a garden pond:-)

regards


--
Tim Lamb

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
cpp4ever wrote:


If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.


I don't want fossil fuel in my back yard. I want a nuke.

I don't. I prefer my nuke as it is already -- sky-mounted. :-)

#Paul

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tabby wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:31 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
cpp4ever wrote:

If BP doesn't go bust you could try inviting them to make a fuel
processing plant in your backyard. I'm sure it'll explode in the
next 20
years, just make sure you've got your barbecue gear ready.
I don't want fossil fuel in my back yard. I want a nuke.

I've got a little cat, and I'm very fond of that,
but I'd rather have a Nukey-nuke!

cpp4ever

Its been done. For anyone that desnt already know, google the nuclear
boy scout. And there's even a newsgroup for it, free.uk.diy.nuclear-
device


NT
Yeah, but I want one that does more than glow in the dark and breed
plutonium.

I wonder what the smallest practical reactor size is?

There are a few operating at 50MW or less. That's enough for a town
like Cambridge ...

These are the smallest I know of

https://energy.wesrch.com/User_image...1215930225.pdf

Colin Bignell

superb!
A floating nuclear power station.

We will need those when global warming floods everywhere.

The Russians are predicting global cooling though.

They told us all property was theft, too.

Colin Bignell

On Aug 6, 12:23 am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:17 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Hydro - Europe 0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? ...

These are whole-life figures, so include deaths of construction workers.

The Banqiao dam mentioned was built in China in the 1950s, with Soviet
help. It was designed for 300mm of rainfall in one day - a 1 in 1,000
year event. In 1975, 1060mm of rain fell in one day - a 1 in 2,000 year
event - and the dam collapsed whem the water overtopped it. The death
toll, including consequential deaths due to epidemic, is estimated at up
to 230,000 people.

The Vajont Dam, north of Venice also caused civilian deaths in 1963,
while the Taum Sauk pumped storage plant dam in Missouri collapsed,
without loss of life, in 2005.

Having now read about the Banqiao dam, the engineers and authorities
made a rather astounding number of errors which surely would not
happen in the West..
The Vajont Dam was more of an unfortunate natural accident.
Taum Sauk, that I have folllowed since the event, was another example
of sheer incompetence. I take back what I said about Banqiao!
I suppose the main requirement is to have nobody living immediately
downstream from a dam, or at least have adequate warning devices.

Owain wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:
You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.

Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.


Joke not.

China is probably well placed to make exactly that sort of thing.

However I was intrigued that this random thought led me to the nuclear
puff site..the one that's all pro nuclear energy etc etc, and they did
make some interesting points.

Small modular and possibly 'sealed for life' nuclear reactors are being
looked at very seriously, because they offer a lot of advantages,. Mass
production for one,. There are very few places that make containment
vessels big enough for gigawatt units, but megawatt units are not so hard.

Likewise its possible to leverage a site with planning permission, and
start with a small setup, get some cashflow off that, and install more
kit as the profits roll in.

Sealed for life units should be good for 'proliferation' as well. With
no onsite provision for refuelling, it would be a brave nation that
opened one up to tamper with it.

And, finally, they are much quicker to build: If you have a standard
reactor unit, where most of the safety issues are covered in its design,
you don' need to get individual site approval, : the unit is acceptable
as it stands. Also its far more predictable cost wise. Whilst not as
cost effective as a gigantic reactor design, these smaller units might
be able to be commissioned in as little as two years, which gives good
flexibility.

And it might be very politically acceptable in some parts of the West,
if reprocessing their fuel WAS being done in China, or India....


Owain

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
And it might be very politically acceptable in some parts of the West,
if reprocessing their fuel WAS being done in China, or India....

If we had a properly planned nuclear power programme, it would include
fast consumer reactors, to dispose of the radioactive waste from the
conventional stations.

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:44:11 -0700 (PDT), Matty F wrote:

On Aug 6, 12:23 am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:17 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Hydro - Europe 0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? ...

These are whole-life figures, so include deaths of construction workers.

The Banqiao dam mentioned was built in China in the 1950s, with Soviet
help. It was designed for 300mm of rainfall in one day - a 1 in 1,000
year event. In 1975, 1060mm of rain fell in one day - a 1 in 2,000 year
event - and the dam collapsed whem the water overtopped it. The death
toll, including consequential deaths due to epidemic, is estimated at up
to 230,000 people.

The Vajont Dam, north of Venice also caused civilian deaths in 1963,
while the Taum Sauk pumped storage plant dam in Missouri collapsed,
without loss of life, in 2005.

Having now read about the Banqiao dam, the engineers and authorities
made a rather astounding number of errors which surely would not
happen in the West..
The Vajont Dam was more of an unfortunate natural accident.
Taum Sauk, that I have folllowed since the event, was another example
of sheer incompetence. I take back what I said about Banqiao!
I suppose the main requirement is to have nobody living immediately
downstream from a dam, or at least have adequate warning devices.

Of course, Germany's had problems with dams in the past - been OK for last
65 years or so though.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Small modular and possibly 'sealed for life' nuclear reactors are
being looked at very seriously, because they offer a lot of
advantages,. Mass production for one,. There are very few places that
make containment vessels big enough for gigawatt units, but megawatt
units are not so hard.

Any idea how the power output is moderated? After all, you'd like it to
produce 0Mw while in transit, and then to produce power to match
requirements.

Not sure. You can moderate them down I suppose.

Likewise its possible to leverage a site with planning permission, and
start with a small setup, get some cashflow off that, and install more
kit as the profits roll in.

Prices?


Not sure.

Big CANDU sets are around $3,000-$5,000 per KW installed and running.

They are the cheapest 'established' technology I am aware of, and even
then, if things go wrong, prices can escalate.

But a 50MW 24x7 reactor/generator for £250m with a 25 year life, would
be a fine thing.

Ignoring cost of finance, and exchange costs that's 5p a unit. And you
don't get to decommission it yourself, either..very much a thing a
smaller country - say in Africa - might want to run a town , or indeed
half a country, off.

Being as how that's a million 50W lightbulbs there, or fridges..or
computers.

If you take the UK case, where peak demand on electricity ONLY is 50GW,
that averages out to about 1Kw per head of population, so a 50 MW set is
'market town' sized. 50,000 people.

Any town on a river could have one, and in addition, loads of hot water
coming out the back..essentially free to anyone who cares to put in an
insulated pipe to take it.

Fantastic for fish farms, or greenhouse heating. Or municipal swimming
pools. Or combine the lot in a vast urban eden project..

Now THERE is a true Eco town!

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
And it might be very politically acceptable in some parts of the West,
if reprocessing their fuel WAS being done in China, or India....

If we had a properly planned nuclear power programme, it would include
fast consumer reactors, to dispose of the radioactive waste from the
conventional stations.


Well in fact most modern reactors seem to be designed to 'burn' a
proportion of reprocessed material down to something else anyway.

The tragedy is if half the amount that's been wasted on PV and windpower
had gone into reactor research, we would already have some decent
technologies.



Colin Bignell

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:05:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Small modular and possibly 'sealed for life' nuclear reactors are
being looked at very seriously, because they offer a lot of
advantages,. Mass production for one,. There are very few places that
make containment vessels big enough for gigawatt units, but megawatt
units are not so hard.

Any idea how the power output is moderated? After all, you'd like it to
produce 0Mw while in transit, and then to produce power to match
requirements.

Not sure. You can moderate them down I suppose.

Likewise its possible to leverage a site with planning permission, and
start with a small setup, get some cashflow off that, and install more
kit as the profits roll in.

Prices?


Not sure.

Big CANDU sets are around $3,000-$5,000 per KW installed and running.

They are the cheapest 'established' technology I am aware of, and even
then, if things go wrong, prices can escalate.

But a 50MW 24x7 reactor/generator for £250m with a 25 year life, would
be a fine thing.

Ignoring cost of finance, and exchange costs that's 5p a unit. And you
don't get to decommission it yourself, either..very much a thing a
smaller country - say in Africa - might want to run a town , or indeed
half a country, off.

Being as how that's a million 50W lightbulbs there, or fridges..or
computers.

If you take the UK case, where peak demand on electricity ONLY is 50GW,
that averages out to about 1Kw per head of population, so a 50 MW set is
'market town' sized. 50,000 people.

Any town on a river could have one, and in addition, loads of hot water
coming out the back..essentially free to anyone who cares to put in an
insulated pipe to take it.

Fantastic for fish farms, or greenhouse heating. Or municipal swimming
pools. Or combine the lot in a vast urban eden project..

Now THERE is a true Eco town!

Yes, all luvvly rational arguments. But when you factor in the Daily Wail
effect you'd never get one anywhere near this country. The thing that
would concern me is how well they'd stand up to someone parking a petrol
tanker next to one, opening the taps and tossing a match at it.


--
www.thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/page1.php

In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere writes:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

superb!
A floating nuclear power station.

We will need those when global warming floods everywhere.

The Russians are predicting global cooling though.

Ah, the man with his hand on the European gas cock...

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

pete wrote:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:05:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Small modular and possibly 'sealed for life' nuclear reactors are
being looked at very seriously, because they offer a lot of
advantages,. Mass production for one,. There are very few places that
make containment vessels big enough for gigawatt units, but megawatt
units are not so hard.
Any idea how the power output is moderated? After all, you'd like it to
produce 0Mw while in transit, and then to produce power to match
requirements.
Not sure. You can moderate them down I suppose.
Likewise its possible to leverage a site with planning permission, and
start with a small setup, get some cashflow off that, and install more
kit as the profits roll in.
Prices?

Not sure.

Big CANDU sets are around $3,000-$5,000 per KW installed and running.

They are the cheapest 'established' technology I am aware of, and even
then, if things go wrong, prices can escalate.

But a 50MW 24x7 reactor/generator for £250m with a 25 year life, would
be a fine thing.

Ignoring cost of finance, and exchange costs that's 5p a unit. And you
don't get to decommission it yourself, either..very much a thing a
smaller country - say in Africa - might want to run a town , or indeed
half a country, off.

Being as how that's a million 50W lightbulbs there, or fridges..or
computers.

If you take the UK case, where peak demand on electricity ONLY is 50GW,
that averages out to about 1Kw per head of population, so a 50 MW set is
'market town' sized. 50,000 people.

Any town on a river could have one, and in addition, loads of hot water
coming out the back..essentially free to anyone who cares to put in an
insulated pipe to take it.

Fantastic for fish farms, or greenhouse heating. Or municipal swimming
pools. Or combine the lot in a vast urban eden project..

Now THERE is a true Eco town!

Yes, all luvvly rational arguments. But when you factor in the Daily Wail
effect you'd never get one anywhere near this country. The thing that
would concern me is how well they'd stand up to someone parking a petrol
tanker next to one, opening the taps and tossing a match at it.


they are designed to take a lot more than that.


Only in the movies to petrol tankers normally go up like napalm. If you
are lucky, and the fuel air mixture is critical, you can get a fuel air
explosion of some usable level. But a match tossed into a puddle of
petrol will usually go out.

And there wouldn't be that much fissile material in them anyway.

AND I would expect the Daily Mail readers oddly, to be more pro nuclear
than say the Guardian reading chattering classes.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere writes:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
superb!
A floating nuclear power station.

We will need those when global warming floods everywhere.
The Russians are predicting global cooling though.

Ah, the man with his hand on the European gas cock...

What a terrifyingly homoerotic image...

It must be all that Ballet..

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:35:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
pete wrote:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:05:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Small modular and possibly 'sealed for life' nuclear reactors are
being looked at very seriously, because they offer a lot of
advantages,. Mass production for one,. There are very few places that
make containment vessels big enough for gigawatt units, but megawatt
units are not so hard.
Any idea how the power output is moderated? After all, you'd like it to
produce 0Mw while in transit, and then to produce power to match
requirements.
Not sure. You can moderate them down I suppose.
Likewise its possible to leverage a site with planning permission, and
start with a small setup, get some cashflow off that, and install more
kit as the profits roll in.
Prices?

Not sure.

Big CANDU sets are around $3,000-$5,000 per KW installed and running.

They are the cheapest 'established' technology I am aware of, and even
then, if things go wrong, prices can escalate.

But a 50MW 24x7 reactor/generator for £250m with a 25 year life, would
be a fine thing.

Ignoring cost of finance, and exchange costs that's 5p a unit. And you
don't get to decommission it yourself, either..very much a thing a
smaller country - say in Africa - might want to run a town , or indeed
half a country, off.

Being as how that's a million 50W lightbulbs there, or fridges..or
computers.

If you take the UK case, where peak demand on electricity ONLY is 50GW,
that averages out to about 1Kw per head of population, so a 50 MW set is
'market town' sized. 50,000 people.

Any town on a river could have one, and in addition, loads of hot water
coming out the back..essentially free to anyone who cares to put in an
insulated pipe to take it.

Fantastic for fish farms, or greenhouse heating. Or municipal swimming
pools. Or combine the lot in a vast urban eden project..

Now THERE is a true Eco town!

Yes, all luvvly rational arguments. But when you factor in the Daily Wail
effect you'd never get one anywhere near this country. The thing that
would concern me is how well they'd stand up to someone parking a petrol
tanker next to one, opening the taps and tossing a match at it.


they are designed to take a lot more than that.


Only in the movies to petrol tankers normally go up like napalm. If you
are lucky, and the fuel air mixture is critical, you can get a fuel air
explosion of some usable level. But a match tossed into a puddle of
petrol will usually go out.

I was thinking more of long term exposure to high temperatures, than
any sort of explosive effects.

And there wouldn't be that much fissile material in them anyway.

AND I would expect the Daily Mail readers oddly, to be more pro nuclear
than say the Guardian reading chattering classes.

Good point, but DW readers are just so easily wound up. All it would take
would be a fact-free, rabble-rousing headline and you'd get them all out
in the streets tutting loudly.
(Esp. if the reactors had any french components or smelled vaguely of garlic :-)


--
www.thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/page1.php

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I had to share this one with you.

http://d3m26nztbnmh2a.cloudfront.net/turbinewashing.mp4

I believe the build up of bugs does nothing for the blade efficiency, so
what the heck, let's stop the thing and hire a helicopter at 20 gallons of
kerosene an hour and clean em! No expense spared in pursuit of subsidy.

Simples!

And to complete your enjoyment, watch a vulture break a wing and die in
Crete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RcTj...layer_embedded

And finally.. just to get a feel for the scale of what is being imposed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=doU20jzKdRk

As many people have been DIRECTLY killed in wind turbine accidents in 40
years as in Chernobyl..

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm

Figures for illness due to infrasound, are not even being
investigated....

Remember, this is all about SAVING THE PLANET. Do shut up and don't be a
NIMBY.

Oh dear. Darwin strikes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rw98...eature=related

TTFN.

Can I have a nuke in my back yard (NIMBY)

Please.

The vid that shows the vulture getting his, is particularly sad. It's funny
how before the collision, it almost seems to be 'playing' around the blades.
Jonathan Livingstone Seagull comes to mind ...

What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird species
to get ****ted by the things. That would start an almighty **** storm going
between the bird protectionists, and the eco-bollox merchants who think that
the torch-battery output from these things on a good day, is a useful
contribution to anything ...

Arfa

Owain wrote:

On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry,

Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

What, they turn out to be a 40' container full of AA batteries wired to
an inverter?

Matty F wrote:

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths?

Ones like this

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/09/the_sayanoshushenskaya_dam_acc.html

In message , PeterC
writes
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:44:11 -0700 (PDT), Matty F wrote:

On Aug 6, 12:23 am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:17 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Hydro - Europe 0.10
Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? ...

These are whole-life figures, so include deaths of construction workers.

The Banqiao dam mentioned was built in China in the 1950s, with Soviet
help. It was designed for 300mm of rainfall in one day - a 1 in 1,000
year event. In 1975, 1060mm of rain fell in one day - a 1 in 2,000 year
event - and the dam collapsed whem the water overtopped it. The death
toll, including consequential deaths due to epidemic, is estimated at up
to 230,000 people.

The Vajont Dam, north of Venice also caused civilian deaths in 1963,
while the Taum Sauk pumped storage plant dam in Missouri collapsed,
without loss of life, in 2005.

Having now read about the Banqiao dam, the engineers and authorities
made a rather astounding number of errors which surely would not
happen in the West..
The Vajont Dam was more of an unfortunate natural accident.
Taum Sauk, that I have folllowed since the event, was another example
of sheer incompetence. I take back what I said about Banqiao!
I suppose the main requirement is to have nobody living immediately
downstream from a dam, or at least have adequate warning devices.

Of course, Germany's had problems with dams in the past - been OK for last
65 years or so though.

Lies, all lies

Here's the truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWZVDiVvKsg


--
geoff

On 06/08/2010 20:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Owain wrote:

On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry,

Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

What, they turn out to be a 40' container full of AA batteries wired to
an inverter?

Or illegal immigrants pedalling dynamos

Peter Scott wrote:
On 06/08/2010 20:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Owain wrote:

On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry,

Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

What, they turn out to be a 40' container full of AA batteries wired to
an inverter?

Or illegal immigrants pedalling dynamos


I am all for that.

Better still we can take all the overweight cows and chavs on the sosh,
and demand that they pedal away at 50W for 8 hours a day or they dont
get their SS payments.

Now THERE is a plan!
Lets get something back for the £100 billion a year we spend on keeping
people idle!

There's an estimated 10 million people on some kind of benefit..lets see
at 50W each that's 500MW of electricity!

More than all the windfarms in the UK produce when there's an
anticylclone overhead.

On Aug 6, 4:24 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

These are the smallest I know of

https://energy.wesrch.com/User_image...1215930225.pdf

Colin Bignell

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.

I think that is the sort of micro power I like.

60 years of electricity, the size of container, then onto a truck and
back for recycling...:-)

With a special remote control so that all the ones in the Western
world melt down simultaneously on instruction from the commie
manufacturers