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

We tend to use electricity as a transmission energy form, because its
very very cheap and easy to *transport*.

Its a bitch to store though.

The Aussies supposedly are going to try the following: lots of solar
stations each of which will have a number of individual heat collectors
generating 217Mwatts. Now of course one's first reaction is what about
at night. This is where it got a bit more interesting.

Seems the plan is to use molten salts (potassium and sodium nitrates) as
the working fluid, and this then boils water to drive the turbines. But,
there is also storage of molten salt. As well as driving the turbines,
there is heating of much more molten salt in storage tanks at up to
600C. Then during the night this stored salt can be used to continue to
drive the turbines, the salt cooling down to 290C where it's still molten.

Of course that might work for them where they get abundant reliable
sunshine, no shortage of useless land due to *overpopulation*, and
general population level is lower.


And I wish them luck. There's a lot of gabba that might as well be used.

"pete" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:00:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

I was looking at some decay chains and didn't spot any fission products
that
decayed by alpha.
It must be statistically possible but it could be so rare that it doesn't
happen.

No, you're simply flat wrong. If there was no alpha decay from natural
fission,
then alpha particles would not exist in nature. They do, ergo alpha decay
*does*
occur. An example is U238 fission, which occurs naturally in small
quantities.

Are you sure there is natural fission.
There is natural decay but that is not fission.
Fission is when a neutron enters a nucleus and causes instability and a
decay into fission products.
An alpha decay doesn't have involve neutron capture.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

[...]
OK so how much wind power and remember it does need backup unless you
have a unique storage idea?..
[....]

I don't have a unique idea, but....
There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric car
which can charge up all night and run round town all day. i don't know
enough about it to say for sure it will become a reality but if it does it
will have profound implications for this whole problem of delivering power
when you need it, not when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

Tim W



Jeezz Tim, thats a lorra wind you'll need far far more than even what
the house of commons could deliver in a 1000 years;!..

Right now the total wind power in the UK is capable of charging 1000
small cars at a 20KW rate apiece.


That's a really good value for money investment

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:16:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Matty F wrote:

Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.

Wind is near he theoretical max actually, and solar is not far off.

Solar PV is still hitting the mid teens in efficiency and has been for
quite a while now. At those levels on it's hardly near a theoretical
max, a practical max with current techniques maybe.

--

tony sayer wrote:
PS I note that as of ten minutes ago, the total power output of all the
UKs metered wind was just 20MW . Its up to a whoping 24 now.


'Come NP, your far far too practical for this world!, don't you ever
blow some suspicious substances out there;?..

I wouldn't even know where to get any these days, sadly.

Taking it locally, the prime energy sources in the Earth, are the big
fusion reactor in the sky, and the heat and energy still left in the
earth. *We have dug up or pumped most of the low hanging chemical fruit
- carbon fuels - already. All that is left is nuclear fuel, but there's
a lot of that still left..although the low hanging fruit of Uranium 235
may not be in such abundance.

Until I saw Brian Cox "Wonders of the solar system" I wasn't aware
that the expansion/contraction of a planet as it orbits a body could
produce so much energy. ISTR one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn
having a molten core, simply due to the effect of gravity.

Presumably the same mechanics apply to the Earth. So not only is there
residual energy in the core from the creation of the Earth, it's also
being topped up by the daily and annual motion of the Earth through
space.

In fact, I wonder if energy input due to this process exceeds output ?
In which case the Earth will heat up anyway ....

Matty F wrote:
On Mar 29, 7:16 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:

Here in NZ wind can be a good idea. We have vast hydroelectric power
capability, with not enough rainfall to keep them running all the
time.
Then you need some atomics :-)

No, we have coal burning power stations, and enough coal for at least
600 years. They can be used when the water in the hydro dams is low.
Also we have huge tide power potential. Iassume that hydro power is
still needed at change of tide.

Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.
Wind is near he theoretical max actually, and solar is not far off.

New technology solar panels are getting cheaper all the time.

Wind generators can be supplied and installed quickly and generating
power, while your large nuclear and other generators take years to
build, with no income until they are finished years later.
Don't you do forward planning down there?

The important point I am making is that a great deal of money has to
be borrowed to build nuclear and other large generators. Interest has
to be paid for maybe 10 years or more during construction, while there
is no income at all during that time.
Contrast that with small generators that come virtually of fthe shelf,
are made on an efficient production line, and can be installed in
months and generate income immediately.


Still the New Zealand govt is well known to be weird..over green issues

Yes unfortunately the major parties, National Labour and Greens, are
obsessed with trying to reduce CO2 when as we now know man-made global
warming is the greatest scientific fraud of the last century.


Well I am gradually coming around to that view, ...but here its more
that windpower is the massive fraud.

If you gave got good hydro, there is a good chance you can replace coal
with wind to an extent.

Solar is a waste of time, trust me.

dennis@home wrote:


"pete" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:00:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

I was looking at some decay chains and didn't spot any fission
products that
decayed by alpha.
It must be statistically possible but it could be so rare that it
doesn't
happen.

No, you're simply flat wrong. If there was no alpha decay from natural
fission,
then alpha particles would not exist in nature. They do, ergo alpha
decay *does*
occur. An example is U238 fission, which occurs naturally in small
quantities.

Are you sure there is natural fission.
There is natural decay but that is not fission.
Fission is when a neutron enters a nucleus and causes instability and a
decay into fission products.

No it isn't. Fission is when something splits apart.

You are talking about a chain reaction.

An alpha decay doesn't have involve neutron capture.

That is grammatical nonsense, so its hard to say whether it might make
sense at any other level.

The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:16:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Matty F wrote:

Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.
Wind is near he theoretical max actually, and solar is not far off.

Solar PV is still hitting the mid teens in efficiency and has been for
quite a while now. At those levels on it's hardly near a theoretical
max, a practical max with current techniques maybe.

I think you will find that its a theoretical maximum of that particular
technology.

In the same way a steam turbine at normal temperatures maxes out at
about 36%.

Jethro wrote:
Taking it locally, the prime energy sources in the Earth, are the big
fusion reactor in the sky, and the heat and energy still left in the
earth. We have dug up or pumped most of the low hanging chemical fruit
- carbon fuels - already. All that is left is nuclear fuel, but there's
a lot of that still left..although the low hanging fruit of Uranium 235
may not be in such abundance.

Until I saw Brian Cox "Wonders of the solar system" I wasn't aware
that the expansion/contraction of a planet as it orbits a body could
produce so much energy. ISTR one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn
having a molten core, simply due to the effect of gravity.

Presumably the same mechanics apply to the Earth. So not only is there
residual energy in the core from the creation of the Earth, it's also
being topped up by the daily and annual motion of the Earth through
space.

In fact, I wonder if energy input due to this process exceeds output ?
In which case the Earth will heat up anyway ....

No. The earth is cooling..but that, and a bit of nuclear reaction, keeps
it a bit warmer than it would otherwise be.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:42:40 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:01:32 +0100, Tim W wrote:

There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric
car which can charge up all night and run round town all day.

And what's with this facination with electricity. You could use
compressed air or liquid air. There is a "technology demonstrator"
for a small city type compressed air driven car somewhere and small
commercial scale liquid air power plants are being devleoped/built.

Another quite recent 'static' application of compressed air is for
maintaining low voltage DC backup supplies at UK transmission voltage
substations that have traditionally used compressed air as the
insulation / operation medium.

http://www.pnu-power.com/


--

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[snip]
Taking it locally, the prime energy sources in the Earth, are the big
fusion reactor in the sky, and the heat and energy still left in the
earth. We have dug up or pumped most of the low hanging chemical fruit -
carbon fuels - already. No, thats ******** the major part of carbon
fuel stocks remain in the
ground. Even if we had reached "peak oil" - and there's no evidence that we
have - the shape of the curve is skewed to the right so there would still
be more oil below than above. For coal, we haven't even scratched the
stocks remaining despite two centuries of use.

What about 'low hanging fruit' did you fail to understand?

I understood it, but you are, as ever, talking ********.

I never claimed there was none left, just that its getting increasingly
expensive and complicated to get it out

No you didn't you waffled about "low hanging fruit" and apparently you
don't consider open cast coal or existing oil wells to be "low hanging"
despite the fact that the investment has already been made and returned.


All that is left is nuclear fuel,
********.
No, not in terms of actual final cost of the power generated.

********.

Nuclear is THE cheap fuel today,. It would still be cheap a 100 times its
current price. That's a long way into exploration and finding new
reserves, or even reprocessing old coal heaps to get the uranium out..

********. I'm an advocate of nuclear, but hydro is cheaper and it's well
past time the Thames and Severn Barrages were built.

but there's a lot of that still left..although the low hanging fruit of
Uranium 235 may not be in such abundance.
There's about a century of nuclear fuel in the UK. The only barrier to
using it is the weakness of the knees of politicians.


Well that I agree with.

It must be wrong then.

In article 1850602750323093312.274743%steve%-
, says...
I understood it, but you are, as ever, talking ********.

Waving your arms around while talking ******** is calle Testiculating.

Just thought I'd add that 'cos I couldn't be arsed to follow what is
becoming an incresingly silly thread.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

[...]....., but hydro is cheaper and it's well
past time the Thames and Severn Barrages were built.

[...]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Tim w

Tim W wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
[...]....., but hydro is cheaper and it's well
past time the Thames and Severn Barrages were built.

[...]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Tim w


yeah why NOT wreck a bit more landscape at enormous cost and for ****
all national benefit.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus

There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric
car which can charge up all night and run round town all day. i don't
know enough about it to say for sure it will become a reality but if it
does it will have profound implications for this whole problem of
delivering power when you need it, not when the wind is blowing or the
sun is shining.



Jeezz Tim, thats a lorra wind you'll need far far more than even what
the house of commons could deliver in a 1000 years;!..

Right now the total wind power in the UK is capable of charging 1000 small
cars at a 20KW rate apiece.

By 'right now' I presume you mean this afternoon, and you are right it is a
problem. What I was suggesting was that battery and storage technology will
likely make it less of a problem.

Tim W

On Mar 29, 3:01*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*Jethro wrote:
Taking it locally, the prime energy sources in the Earth, are the big
fusion reactor in the sky, and the heat and energy still left in the
earth. *We have dug up or pumped most of the low hanging chemical fruit
- carbon fuels - already. All that is left is nuclear fuel, but there's
a lot of that still left..although the low hanging fruit of Uranium 235
may not be in such abundance.

Until I saw Brian Cox "Wonders of the solar system" I wasn't aware
that the expansion/contraction of a planet as it orbits a body could
produce so much energy. ISTR one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn
having a molten core, simply due to the effect of gravity.

Not so much expansion/contraction as distortion due to tidal effects.

well, either way, it was enough to give a moon beyond the orbit of
Jupiter a molten core. I remember being fascinated when I learned of
it, as it hints that it's possible life could develop independently of
solar energy ...

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:04:37 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"pete" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:00:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

I was looking at some decay chains and didn't spot any fission products
that
decayed by alpha.
It must be statistically possible but it could be so rare that it doesn't
happen.

No, you're simply flat wrong. If there was no alpha decay from natural
fission,
then alpha particles would not exist in nature. They do, ergo alpha decay
*does*
occur. An example is U238 fission, which occurs naturally in small
quantities.

Are you sure there is natural fission.
There is natural decay but that is not fission.
Fission is when a neutron enters a nucleus and causes instability and a
decay into fission products.
An alpha decay doesn't have involve neutron capture.

Fission is desbribed (Binary and Ternary) as the splitting of a nucleus
into 2 daughter nuclei - alpha decay fits this definition - the alpha
particle is identical to a helium nucleus so alpha decay is spontaneous
natural fission I'm less convinced about the argument that beta(+ or -)
decay is fission since only one new nucleus is formed the other partiles
being electrons (and anti-neutrinos) or positrons (and neutrinos)
Other types of decay e.g. gamma (just release energy) and processes like
k-capture do not form any extra nuclei
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:06:44 +0100, Ghostrecon wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:04:37 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"pete" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:00:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

I was looking at some decay chains and didn't spot any fission products
that
decayed by alpha.
It must be statistically possible but it could be so rare that it doesn't
happen.

No, you're simply flat wrong. If there was no alpha decay from natural
fission,
then alpha particles would not exist in nature. They do, ergo alpha decay
*does*
occur. An example is U238 fission, which occurs naturally in small
quantities.

Are you sure there is natural fission.
There is natural decay but that is not fission.
Fission is when a neutron enters a nucleus and causes instability and a
decay into fission products.
An alpha decay doesn't have involve neutron capture.

Fission is desbribed (Binary and Ternary) as the splitting of a nucleus
into 2 daughter nuclei - alpha decay fits this definition - the alpha
particle is identical to a helium nucleus so alpha decay is spontaneous
natural fission I'm less convinced about the argument that beta(+ or -)
decay is fission since only one new nucleus is formed the other partiles
being electrons (and anti-neutrinos) or positrons (and neutrinos)
Other types of decay e.g. gamma (just release energy) and processes like
k-capture do not form any extra nuclei

oops should have said binary fission - 2 particles - ternary fission more
than 2 (much rarer)
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

"Tim W" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus

There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric
car which can charge up all night and run round town all day. i don't
know enough about it to say for sure it will become a reality but if it
does it will have profound implications for this whole problem of
delivering power when you need it, not when the wind is blowing or the
sun is shining.



Jeezz Tim, thats a lorra wind you'll need far far more than even what
the house of commons could deliver in a 1000 years;!..

Right now the total wind power in the UK is capable of charging 1000 small
cars at a 20KW rate apiece.

By 'right now' I presume you mean this afternoon, and you are right it is a
problem. What I was suggesting was that battery and storage technology will
likely make it less of a problem.

One presumes that you know (0) about batteries then.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim W wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
[...]....., but hydro is cheaper and it's well
past time the Thames and Severn Barrages were built.

[...]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Tim w yeah why NOT wreck a bit more landscape at enormous cost and
for **** all national benefit.

Yes, because mud is do attractive and cheap electricity is never needed.

"Tim W" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

[...]....., but hydro is cheaper and it's well
past time the Thames and Severn Barrages were built.

[...]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


I'm sure that if you try you can come up with a reason. Try not to make
emotive appeals about ****ehawks when you do.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Tim W" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus

There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an
electric
car which can charge up all night and run round town all day. i don't
know enough about it to say for sure it will become a reality but if
it
does it will have profound implications for this whole problem of
delivering power when you need it, not when the wind is blowing or the
sun is shining.



Jeezz Tim, thats a lorra wind you'll need far far more than even what
the house of commons could deliver in a 1000 years;!..

Right now the total wind power in the UK is capable of charging 1000
small
cars at a 20KW rate apiece.

By 'right now' I presume you mean this afternoon, and you are right it is
a
problem. What I was suggesting was that battery and storage technology
will
likely make it less of a problem.

One presumes that you know (0) about batteries then.

Since if you read above you would see I stated that I know little about the
technology we can make a few more presumptions about your character and
attitude - that you can't be bothered to read a whole thread but like zoom
in to call people ignorant for a laugh. I know your game though, sonny. You
won't wind me up.

Hang about - Steve Firth? I know that name. Are you the well know
usenet-obsessed big-mouth and know-all? Not _the_ Steve Firth? Welcome to
uk.diy. We are honoured.

Tim W

"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
...

Fission is desbribed (Binary and Ternary) as the splitting of a nucleus
into 2 daughter nuclei -

alpha decay fits this definition - the alpha
particle is identical to a helium nucleus so alpha decay is spontaneous
natural fission


I don't think you will find the majority of people will agree with that
description even though it is technically true that a helium nucleus is
produced.
I doubt if you will find helium described as a fission product.


I'm less convinced about the argument that beta(+ or -)
decay is fission since only one new nucleus is formed the other partiles
being electrons (and anti-neutrinos) or positrons (and neutrinos)
Other types of decay e.g. gamma (just release energy) and processes like
k-capture do not form any extra nuclei
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Tim W" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

[...]....., but hydro is cheaper and it's well
past time the Thames and Severn Barrages were built.

[...]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


I'm sure that if you try you can come up with a reason. Try not to make
emotive appeals about ****ehawks when you do.

Watchet harbour - once a natural indentation in the Bristol Channel
coastline with the tide washing in and out twice a day, a little river
running out through it and semi protected by 19th century moles. 10 yrs ago
it was decided to put a barrage across the mouth of the harbour to hold
enough water in the harbour for boats to stay afloat even at low tide when
the sea has gone out half a mile. So while previously the harbour water was
in constant motion and emptied completely every tide now the water is held
in on every tide and fresh silt precipitates out onto the harbour floor
where it sits as mud. Consequently within weeks of the marina opening it had
filled with mud and the boats in it were even more stranded than they had
been before. Nobody had predicted this, although it seems obvious in
retrospect.

The moral is that if you mess with the flow of the currents and the level of
the tide in the massive silty estuary which is the Bristol Channel the
results will be totally unpredictable, but most likely a lot of mud
accumulating, possibly total irreversible ruination of the seascape,
landscape and intertidal environment and conceivably desastrous effects on
the low lying land on both sides which is below sea level for part of each
day.

Anyone who tells you they know what the effect of a barrage will be is a
liar or a fool.

Tim W

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tim W" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Tim W" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

[...]....., but hydro is cheaper and it's well
past time the Thames and Severn Barrages were built.

[...]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I'm sure that if you try you can come up with a reason. Try not to make
emotive appeals about ****ehawks when you do.

Watchet harbour - once a natural indentation in the Bristol Channel
coastline with the tide washing in and out twice a day, a little river
running out through it and semi protected by 19th century moles. 10 yrs
ago it was decided to put a barrage across the mouth of the harbour to
hold enough water in the harbour for boats to stay afloat even at low
tide when the sea has gone out half a mile. So while previously the
harbour water was in constant motion and emptied completely every tide
now the water is held in on every tide and fresh silt precipitates out
onto the harbour floor where it sits as mud. Consequently within weeks of
the marina opening it had filled with mud and the boats in it were even
more stranded than they had been before. Nobody had predicted this,
although it seems obvious in retrospect.

The moral is that if you mess with the flow of the currents and the level
of the tide in the massive silty estuary which is the Bristol Channel the
results will be totally unpredictable, but most likely a lot of mud
accumulating, possibly total irreversible ruination of the seascape,
landscape and intertidal environment and conceivably desastrous effects
on the low lying land on both sides which is below sea level for part of
each day.

Anyone who tells you they know what the effect of a barrage will be is a
liar or a fool.

Agree with this. And, en plus, you've got to build the *whole* *thing*
before you get any payback.


Actually worse than that. You build the barrage right the way across, then
you realise that above the barrage it is filling with mud, so you are never
going to get any payback and you have to pay to demolish the thing as well.

Tim W

In article , says...
[...]....., but hydro is cheaper and it's well
past time the Thames and Severn Barrages were built.

[...]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Yeees!

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In article , The Other Mike
scribeth thus
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:16:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Matty F wrote:

Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.

Wind is near he theoretical max actually, and solar is not far off.

Solar PV is still hitting the mid teens in efficiency and has been for
quite a while now. At those levels on it's hardly near a theoretical
max, a practical max with current techniques maybe.


'Twas a cold freezing calm night.. Not a breath of wind stirred the dank
fog..

OK .. so under these conditions I presume the coal will suffice?..
--
Tony Sayer

Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim W
scribeth thus
There is a lot of pressure on the motor industry to develop an electric
car which can charge up all night and run round town all day. i don't
know enough about it to say for sure it will become a reality but if it
does it will have profound implications for this whole problem of
delivering power when you need it, not when the wind is blowing or the
sun is shining.


Jeezz Tim, thats a lorra wind you'll need far far more than even what
the house of commons could deliver in a 1000 years;!..
Right now the total wind power in the UK is capable of charging 1000 small
cars at a 20KW rate apiece.

By 'right now' I presume you mean this afternoon, and you are right it is a
problem. What I was suggesting was that battery and storage technology will
likely make it less of a problem.

It *would*, if it actually existed.

So let's see, we have all these eco friendly girls blouses in Scotland,
and where is this storage? Hmm,. Its here, in my car.

So all those gigawatts - well all 0,02 (actually its up to 01.GW now)
have to get all the way down through special expensive transmission
lines, to here.

And of course they have to be sized for the one day a year when the wind
IS blowing 'just right' when for most of the year they are wasted
capital expense, doing almost nothing. Apart from blighting the
countryside.



Tim W

dennis@home wrote:


"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
...

Fission is desbribed (Binary and Ternary) as the splitting of a nucleus
into 2 daughter nuclei -

alpha decay fits this definition - the alpha
particle is identical to a helium nucleus so alpha decay is spontaneous
natural fission


I don't think you will find the majority of people will agree with that
description even though it is technically true that a helium nucleus is
produced.
I doubt if you will find helium described as a fission product.


dear dennis.

Always appealing to the myth of 'what most people think' when he gets it
totally utterly and completely wrong'.

Bless!

Steve Firth wrote:


Yes, because mud is do attractive and cheap electricity is never needed.

Of course you are right, otherwise everyone would not be suggesting
building the most expensive, useless environmentally destructive,
intermittent form of electrical generation.

Tim W wrote:



Actually worse than that. You build the barrage right the way across, then
you realise that above the barrage it is filling with mud, so you are never
going to get any payback and you have to pay to demolish the thing as well.


Who is gong to pay to decommission all these wind turbines?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim W wrote:



Actually worse than that. You build the barrage right the way
across, then you realise that above the barrage it is filling with
mud, so you are never going to get any payback and you have to pay
to demolish the thing as well.
Who is gong to pay to decommission all these wind turbines?


Can you just not wait until the wind knocks them over?

--
Adam

Tim W wrote:

Anyone who tells you they know what the effect of a barrage will be is a
liar or a fool.

Didn't you just tell me what the effect of a barrage would be?

Tim W wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
[snip]

One presumes that you know (0) about batteries then.

Since if you read above you would see I stated that I know little about the
technology

So why do you blather about it? Batteries are about the most stupid
technology conceivable for the storage of electricity in Megawatt hours.
Not only are they grossly polluting to manufacture, but they have a
short lifetime and are associated with significant CO2 release. Since
they all lose charge their true efficiency can be pathetic.

we can make a few more presumptions about your character and
attitude - that you can't be bothered to read a whole thread

Can anyone? Your prose is hardly the stuff of which dreams are made.

but like zoom

The word like" used there and in that context causes me to imagine that
your baseball cap is on backwards, hence reducing your intelligence.

in to call people ignorant for a laugh. I know your game though, sonny. You
won't wind me up.

No, I call people ignorant when they are ignorant. I didn't actually
call you ignorant though.

Hang about - Steve Firth? I know that name. Are you the well know
usenet-obsessed big-mouth and know-all? Not _the_ Steve Firth? Welcome to
uk.diy. We are honoured.

Oh, my mistake, you clearly are ignorant.

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim W wrote:



Actually worse than that. You build the barrage right the way
across, then you realise that above the barrage it is filling with
mud, so you are never going to get any payback and you have to pay
to demolish the thing as well.
Who is gong to pay to decommission all these wind turbines?


Can you just not wait until the wind knocks them over?


Depends on the price of Ally .. if thats right then they'll self
decommission like power substations and railway signalling does;!..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Other Mike
scribeth thus
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:16:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Matty F wrote:

Also, we should give newer technology a chance to catch up. Wnd and
solar power are getting more efficient, and will become cheaper with
economies of scale.
Wind is near he theoretical max actually, and solar is not far off.
Solar PV is still hitting the mid teens in efficiency and has been for
quite a while now. At those levels on it's hardly near a theoretical
max, a practical max with current techniques maybe.


'Twas a cold freezing calm night.. Not a breath of wind stirred the dank
fog..

OK .. so under these conditions I presume the coal will suffice?..


It will have to until we have cleared the lichen and pigeon **** off the
solar panels again :-) Never mind. It's a neap tide as well, and it
hasn't rained for weeks either. And theres a solar eclipse tomorrow.

ARWadsworth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim W wrote:

Actually worse than that. You build the barrage right the way
across, then you realise that above the barrage it is filling with
mud, so you are never going to get any payback and you have to pay
to demolish the thing as well.
Who is gong to pay to decommission all these wind turbines?


Can you just not wait until the wind knocks them over?

that wont get the 1000 tonne foundations out of the ground.

Steve Firth wrote:
Tim W wrote:

Anyone who tells you they know what the effect of a barrage will be is a
liar or a fool.

Didn't you just tell me what the effect of a barrage would be?

No, Steve, he told you what the effect of one barrage WAS.

I know you have trouble with English, but do try and keep up.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim W wrote:

Actually worse than that. You build the barrage right the way
across, then you realise that above the barrage it is filling with
mud, so you are never going to get any payback and you have to pay
to demolish the thing as well.
Who is gong to pay to decommission all these wind turbines?


Can you just not wait until the wind knocks them over?

that wont get the 1000 tonne foundations out of the ground.


Do you need to get them out of the ground?

--
Adam