John Williamson wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 03/11/2011 16:20, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:44:17 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

On 03/11/2011 12:05, Tony Bryer wrote:
If there are ever enough domestic PV panels to avoid building
yet another extra power station then the excessively high FITs do
make some sort of sense.
But AIUI that can never happen in the UK since peak demand is on
winter
evenings.
I don't have an figures to hand but ISTR that total demand peaks
during
the day when most workers are hard at work rather than generating
tea-break spikes when their favourite TV programs end.

Seems to be about 1700...

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

Time for TNP to advertise this again:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

That at least loads instantly and has a bit more of the historic
record. Is the missing start to the annual stats because the site
hasn't been running that long or is there some deeper reason?

Also, what happened last Thursday? The daytime plateau is much lower
than on any other weekday on the graph.

SITE HASN'T BEEN RUNNING THAT LONG

not sure about last Thursday.

cant see anything wrong with it.

there is always a bit of a shift when the clocks change/

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:23:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:25:06 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would
be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.
Umm .. when did that happen last with serious consequences?..
Sizewell B and Longannet going off line in quick succesion with the
loss of 1,510,000 kW generation gave the grid summat to think about
in May 2008. Load was shed, ie people had power cuts and most of the
country noticed the dip in voltage and then further voltage
reductions.

That's no worse than the wind dying over the whole country. We are
having to cope with that sort of loss on a weekly basis now.

It's a lot worse, the incident mentioned above happened in a two
minute timescale. If the wind suddenly stopped across the UK in the
space of 2 minutes I'd get really worried.


very easy to have a have overspeedinmg turbinesand switch whole wind
farms - 7000MW + off just like that.

P.S. I despise wind power.

I despise all intermittent renewable energy on the UK

I can just about make an economic/carbon reduction case for windmills in
desolate places near to large hydroelectric dams.

Anything else is a green con.

The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:17:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The major contribution of *any* power station is reducing demand on the
grid to exactly zero, overall.

Maybe you possibly meant to say increasing generation until the system
is balanced


No. The grid is always balanced since it has no storage whatsoever.
What is being usued is exactly being generated.

generation = demand+losses

grid losses are very small.


In the distant past before privatisation that was correct but now not
all generators perform balancing, reduce the system frequency and the
system voltage and they will deliberately continue at their previous
power output until they drop off the bars on low system volts or low
system frequency.

exactly. Its always in balance.

tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
On Nov 3, 11:00 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus





On Nov 2, 7:12 pm, tony sayer wrote:
Heh Heh. We are all going to have to use a lot less energy in our
brave new world. I am now a negative energy user. If everyone was a
negative energy user there would be power for commerce and industry.
My negative energy utility will be good for 25 years, the insulation
for over a hundred. I think it will pay back the energy invested in
it's manufacture in a hundred years.
Why is this? Because it is a passive energy saver, it has no moving
parts and needs no maintenence.
Do you think it could power industry and run the trains etc then;?..
especially at night..
--
Tony Sayer
Of course not at night. But it helps lop the daily electricity peak.
Are you being obtuse or just stupid?
No realistic .. and thats based on good engineering overall not just a
silly scheme dreamt up by a misguided government to do something looking
Green;!...

Even the arabs are installing vast arrays.
Well how much land is there thats lit by large amounts of sun there?.
Now much electricity do they need anyway?. Ever been there?..
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Travelled extensively in the ME.

Then you'll know that if this PV tech might stand a change of doing
anything useful then thats where it will!...

if the sandstorms don't wreck it.


What N Africa needs is 50 nukes doing electricity , desalination and
pumping the fresh water inland.

Could be a garden of eden.

John Rumm wrote:
On 03/11/2011 10:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

harry wrote:

Unless you want to risk nuclear
Yes please. The hippies can go and live on Skye and get cold. I want
my electricity. I have no problems having a power station down the
road.

And it's less radioactive than your coal fired power station, which is
pushing radon into the atmosphere. Remember that.

Its a lot less radioactive than an X ray or especially a CAT scan.

Most CAT scans are MRI these days, and not ionising at all.

but they tend to inject you with radioactive tracers..

harry wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:28 am, (Windmill)
wrote:
harry writes:
Of course not at night. But it helps lop the daily electricity peak.
Are you being obtuse or just stupid?
Even the arabs are installing vast arrays.
Because _for them_ it makes very good sense.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

When they have all that oil and an existing infra structure?
As it runs out, it will be us that are deperived before they are.
And it is running out.
The Saudis are building nuclear power stations too.

In which they show more sense than you.

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 04/11/2011 11:13, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:33:50 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

The output of a multitude of small PV arrays is predictable to a very
large degree and relatively consistent as well. It reduces domestic
demand at a time when total demand is high and requires no hot reserve.
That PV panels produce nothing during the hours of darkness is of little
consequence because of the consistency of the output. Windmills OTOH are
as likely as not to be generating at times of lowest demand and failing
to produce even as much as PV arrays when demand is at its strongest.

AFAIK peak demand for electrickery is in the evening when people come
home from work. And, of course, the end of corrie or eastenders
triggers 1000000s of kettles to be boiled.

Since I wrote that paragraph above it has been conclusively established
that peak demand is around 5pm. The cited soaps are not on my watchlist
but the recent schedules suggests that they finish at 8pm or later. By
8pm the demand is down to the level of the daytime plateau and falling
rapidly.

I see peaks at 17:30

everybody rushes home - more trains - switches on the heating and friers
up a kettle I guess.

tony sayer writes:

One can put a current surge limiter in series with each bulb,
basically a resistor whose resistance _falls_ as it warms up.

Very old technology first used to give a soft start when a string of
valve filaments ('heaters') were wired in series so that a radio could
run off 240v. without needing a power transformer. (One filament tended
to get an unbalanced, high voltage until everything warmed up, and this
approach prevented that).
Showing my age, I s'pose.

Well I do remember them and barretters;!..

Funny thing: I hadn't thought about barretters for decades, but the
word popped unbidden into mind while I was wondering if it was time to
get up, before I read your post.
The Internet has proved how often people have parallel thought processes.

(And there were also mains leads built with resistance wire, so that
you could run a 110 volt radio on 240v. They got a little warm, but no
one complained. A wartime feature I would guess.)

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Also, what happened last Thursday? The daytime plateau is much lower
than on any other weekday on the graph.

not sure about last Thursday.

cant see anything wrong with it.

there is always a bit of a shift when the clocks change/

When I looked at the graphs, the daytime demand from about 08:00 until
16:00 was lower than all the other weekdays before and after, and was
about the same as the weekend ones. The anomaly has fallen off the start
of the weekly demand curves now, but still shows up very clearly on the
monthly and annual ones in the middle of week 43. It's almost as if the
entire industrial load was either turned off or omitted from the data.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Also, what happened last Thursday? The daytime plateau is much lower
than on any other weekday on the graph.

not sure about last Thursday.

cant see anything wrong with it.

there is always a bit of a shift when the clocks change/

When I looked at the graphs, the daytime demand from about 08:00 until
16:00 was lower than all the other weekdays before and after, and was
about the same as the weekend ones. The anomaly has fallen off the start
of the weekly demand curves now, but still shows up very clearly on the
monthly and annual ones in the middle of week 43. It's almost as if the
entire industrial load was either turned off or omitted from the data.

Its not guaranteed perfect. From time to time bmreports fails to respond
and that means it just 'copies' the last value. Other times BM reports
responds with 'no data' which crashes the cron script :-)


I am working on a mark II version using an SQL database which should
allow access to any data since it started.

It's there more for statistical analysis: I want to do a 'what if we had
XYZ wind power, what would it cost and how much fuel; would it waste'
type calcs.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Also, what happened last Thursday? The daytime plateau is much lower
than on any other weekday on the graph.

not sure about last Thursday.

cant see anything wrong with it.

there is always a bit of a shift when the clocks change/

When I looked at the graphs, the daytime demand from about 08:00 until
16:00 was lower than all the other weekdays before and after, and was
about the same as the weekend ones. The anomaly has fallen off the
start of the weekly demand curves now, but still shows up very clearly
on the monthly and annual ones in the middle of week 43. It's almost
as if the entire industrial load was either turned off or omitted from
the data.

Its not guaranteed perfect. From time to time bmreports fails to respond
and that means it just 'copies' the last value. Other times BM reports
responds with 'no data' which crashes the cron script :-)

That would exlain it. It did look susiciously straight and level.

I am working on a mark II version using an SQL database which should
allow access to any data since it started.

That could be handy.

It's there more for statistical analysis: I want to do a 'what if we had
XYZ wind power, what would it cost and how much fuel; would it waste'
type calcs.

A nice job, apart from that one glitch. Thanks.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
....

Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs everything
sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute and protect ourselves
from this is going to be vital.

But with PV, everyone can participate.
Also if my PV packs in, it is not a national disaster as it would be
if a major primary substation/power station had problems.

Jason wrote:
On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
...
Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

-100

We don't need any of those renewables.
Any more than we need ox ploughs, horse and carts or paddle steamers.


Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs everything
sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute and protect ourselves
from this is going to be vital.


sadly intermittent renewables just make things worse.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Jason wrote:

On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
...
Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs
everything sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute
and protect ourselves from this is going to be vital.

What a set of fatheads.

1) geothermal. Sod all of that in this country

2) bio-fuel to replace petrol. Requires we plant an area the size of
Wales as a mono-culture.

and so on. Wave, tidal stream, wind - none can each provide more than a
few % of our needs. Each will require lots more power lines
criss-crossing the nation.

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


What N Africa needs is 50 nukes doing electricity , desalination and
pumping the fresh water inland.

Could be a garden of eden.

Except noone wants to let the north africans anywhere nuclear material!

--
Tim Watts

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

8

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

And its the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen to power vehicles.
You can superheat the water which lowers the energy needed to split it into
its elements.


Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
John Rumm wrote:
On 03/11/2011 10:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

harry wrote:

Unless you want to risk nuclear
Yes please. The hippies can go and live on Skye and get cold. I want
my electricity. I have no problems having a power station down the
road.

And it's less radioactive than your coal fired power station, which is
pushing radon into the atmosphere. Remember that.

Its a lot less radioactive than an X ray or especially a CAT scan.

Most CAT scans are MRI these days, and not ionising at all.

but they tend to inject you with radioactive tracers..

Very very low levels and not that long lived.. The ones I've had haven't
done me any noticeable harm..
--
Tony Sayer

Tim Watts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


What N Africa needs is 50 nukes doing electricity , desalination and
pumping the fresh water inland.

Could be a garden of eden.

Except noone wants to let the north africans anywhere nuclear material!

Cant do a lot with sealed unit enriched uranium.
Takes a LOT of technology to take a use rod and get plutonium out, and
even more to turn that into a bomb.

But you are right. **** em. Let em die in camel dung and may Allah rot
their souls. Etc. etc.

Then we can do it instead.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

8

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

And its the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen to power vehicles.

No one in their right minds wants to do that.

Could make synthetic diesel though.

You can superheat the water which lowers the energy needed to split it
into its elements.


Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
John Rumm wrote:
On 03/11/2011 10:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

harry wrote:

Unless you want to risk nuclear
Yes please. The hippies can go and live on Skye and get cold. I want
my electricity. I have no problems having a power station down the
road.
And it's less radioactive than your coal fired power station, which is
pushing radon into the atmosphere. Remember that.

Its a lot less radioactive than an X ray or especially a CAT scan.
Most CAT scans are MRI these days, and not ionising at all.

but they tend to inject you with radioactive tracers..

Very very low levels and not that long lived.. The ones I've had haven't
done me any noticeable harm..

COURSE they haven't.

I'll be glowing a bit in a couple of weeks..


So effin what?

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:45:40 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Jason wrote:

On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
...
Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs
everything sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute
and protect ourselves from this is going to be vital.

What a set of fatheads.

1) geothermal. Sod all of that in this country

2) bio-fuel to replace petrol. Requires we plant an area the size of
Wales as a mono-culture.

and so on. Wave, tidal stream, wind - none can each provide more than a
few % of our needs. Each will require lots more power lines
criss-crossing the nation.

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.

+1
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 11:13:45 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
On 03/11/2011 10:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

harry wrote:

Unless you want to risk nuclear
Yes please. The hippies can go and live on Skye and get cold. I want
my electricity. I have no problems having a power station down the
road.

And it's less radioactive than your coal fired power station, which is
pushing radon into the atmosphere. Remember that.

Its a lot less radioactive than an X ray or especially a CAT scan.

Most CAT scans are MRI these days, and not ionising at all.

but they tend to inject you with radioactive tracers..

e.g positron emmision tomography - IIRC isotope of oxygen t1/2=6 hours
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
...

e.g positron emmision tomography - IIRC isotope of oxygen t1/2=6 hours

Now that is highly radioactive unlike that low radioactive stuff, like
plutonium.

On 05/11/2011 20:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

8

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

I would go along with that as well.

And its the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen to power vehicles.

No one in their right minds wants to do that.

Seems to be catching on slowly though:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14979817

Could make synthetic diesel though.

You can superheat the water which lowers the energy needed to split it
into its elements.


Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.

CND has a lot to answer for.

--
Roger Chapman

dennis@home wrote:


"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
...

e.g positron emmision tomography - IIRC isotope of oxygen t1/2=6 hours

Now that is highly radioactive unlike that low radioactive stuff, like
plutonium.

but plutonium is very poisonous.

On 05/11/2011 21:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
...

e.g positron emmision tomography - IIRC isotope of oxygen t1/2=6 hours

Now that is highly radioactive unlike that low radioactive stuff, like
plutonium.

but plutonium is very poisonous.

I very nearly made the same comment but I thought I had better check
first. The Merkins apparently think you should have left the 'very' out.

"Health Effects of Plutonium
How can plutonium affect people's health?

External exposure to plutonium poses very little health risk, since
plutonium isotopes emit alpha radiation, and almost no beta or gamma
radiation. In contrast, internal exposure to plutonium is an extremely
serious health hazard. It generally stays in the body for decades,
exposing organs and tissues to radiation, and increasing the risk of
cancer. Plutonium is also a toxic metal, and may cause damage to the
kidneys."

--
Roger Chapman

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
...

e.g positron emmision tomography - IIRC isotope of oxygen t1/2=6 hours

Now that is highly radioactive unlike that low radioactive stuff, like
plutonium.

True but the answer is not to have too much of it.

I know, I had a radioisotope of iodine, then they used a gamma camera to
image my thyroid.
that was in the days when the imagers weren't as sensitive so the dose was
higher.

On 05/11/2011 20:33, Ghostrecon wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:45:40 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
...
Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs
everything sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute
and protect ourselves from this is going to be vital.

What a set of fatheads.

1) geothermal. Sod all of that in this country

2) bio-fuel to replace petrol. Requires we plant an area the size of
Wales as a mono-culture.

and so on. Wave, tidal stream, wind - none can each provide more than a
few % of our needs. Each will require lots more power lines
criss-crossing the nation.

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.

+1

And if they get their act together with some development of large scale
liquid salt thorium reactors, you get less waste disposal problems, and
fuel for the things is laying all over the place just waiting for
someone to find a use for it!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:59:08 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

On 05/11/2011 21:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Ghostrecon" wrote in message
...

e.g positron emmision tomography - IIRC isotope of oxygen t1/2=6 hours

Now that is highly radioactive unlike that low radioactive stuff, like
plutonium.

but plutonium is very poisonous.

I very nearly made the same comment but I thought I had better check
first. The Merkins apparently think you should have left the 'very' out.

"Health Effects of Plutonium
How can plutonium affect people's health?

External exposure to plutonium poses very little health risk, since
plutonium isotopes emit alpha radiation, and almost no beta or gamma
radiation. In contrast, internal exposure to plutonium is an extremely
serious health hazard. It generally stays in the body for decades,
exposing organs and tissues to radiation, and increasing the risk of
cancer. Plutonium is also a toxic metal, and may cause damage to the
kidneys."

all alpha emitters are bad news when inside the body - and have little
effect outside = from them radiation POV. OTOH most if not all 'heavy'
metals are toxic in the more conventional sense
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Ghostrecon wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 11:13:45 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
On 03/11/2011 10:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

harry wrote:

Unless you want to risk nuclear
Yes please. The hippies can go and live on Skye and get cold. I
want
my electricity. I have no problems having a power station down
the road.

And it's less radioactive than your coal fired power station,
which is
pushing radon into the atmosphere. Remember that.

Its a lot less radioactive than an X ray or especially a CAT scan.
Most CAT scans are MRI these days, and not ionising at all.
but they tend to inject you with radioactive tracers..

e.g positron emmision tomography - IIRC isotope of oxygen t1/2=6 hours

I think the isotope used may well depend on the organ they want to study
- they'll use one that gets taken up by the organ in question.


More to the point, the one that sticks to cancer cells usually.

Although that may be a function of them being voracious 'feeders' on
anything in the blood so an hour after the radioactive 'meal' they have
absorbed a lot more than normal cells..dunno.

John Rumm wrote:
On 05/11/2011 20:33, Ghostrecon wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:45:40 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 02/11/2011 09:28, harry wrote:
...
Solar PV can be only part of the plan. We need all these
renewables,
tidal, wave, geothermal etc.

+1

Our lives are going to change anyway as oil disappears and the costs
everything sky-rockets. Every little thing we can do to contribute
and protect ourselves from this is going to be vital.

What a set of fatheads.

1) geothermal. Sod all of that in this country

2) bio-fuel to replace petrol. Requires we plant an area the size of
Wales as a mono-culture.

and so on. Wave, tidal stream, wind - none can each provide more than a
few % of our needs. Each will require lots more power lines
criss-crossing the nation.

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.

+1

And if they get their act together with some development of large scale
liquid salt thorium reactors, you get less waste disposal problems, and
fuel for the things is laying all over the place just waiting for
someone to find a use for it!



Throium is no golden solution. It has its own waste products.

But we are about as far advanced with nuclear chemistry as cavemen were
when they first discovered wood burned..and how to light a fire. In
principle any element heavier than iron will fission and release energy
and any element lighter than iron will fusion and release energy.

Uranium juts happens to be something that does it spontaneously. So its
a good way to 'start' nuclear 'fires'. But particle accelerators and
lasers make good 'matches' as well. Huge potential there for burning up
all sorts of **** and transmuting it into something more stable, and
getting energy out.

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

Uranium juts happens to be something that does it spontaneously. So
its a good way to 'start' nuclear 'fires'. But particle accelerators
and lasers make good 'matches' as well. Huge potential there for
burning up all sorts of **** and transmuting it into something more
stable, and getting energy out.

Starting with harry and Gordon Brown.

I suspect both are too wet to burn..

On Nov 5, 8:27*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

8

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes..

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

And its the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen to power vehicles.

No one in their right minds wants to do that.

Could make synthetic diesel though.



You can superheat the water which lowers the energy needed to split it
into its elements.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But nobody knows what to do with the nuclear waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...ement_of_waste


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ste_dispos al

So until a solution is found, you have been spouting crap.

There is not even a solution ont he horizon for some stuff that has to
be stored for 30,000 to 1,000,000 years. How much does it cost to
"manage" waste for 1,000,000 years?

So the pro-nuclear lobby are halfwits. They only offer half a
solution, moronically sweeping the real problem under the carpet.
If the permanent solution is unknown, so then is it's cost, not to
mention the unknown hazards of many thousands of years of storage.

Worse then the bankers when you think. The bankers have only stolen
your children's money. Nuclear lobby wants to steal their lives and
money.

Then of course you canadd to all this the cost ofdecommissioning old
nuclear power stations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_...ecommissioning

I remember when Calder Hall was opened we were told that in future
electricity would be virtually free. They lied then and they lie now.

You might want to read this too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_... health_issues

So TurNiP is spouting drivel as usual. Apart from the dangers, it's
costing billions£/year to clear up one nuclear site,and will continue
to do so for many years to come.

Who knows how many people have had their lives shortened by nuclear
pollution of the Irish and North seas. And if it was known it would
be hidden from us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria...ve_Environment

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 31, 4:18 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15507750

Down to 21p/kWHr for installations completed after 12th Dec 2011.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Phew, got in just in time! I am become one of the elite.
I expect the price of panels will come down.
There won't half be a rush before Christmas.

Mind you, £0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the
bank these days.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Not when you have to write down the initial investment to zero, it doesn't

tim

harry wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:27 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:
8
No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.
exactly.
It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.
And its the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen to power vehicles.
No one in their right minds wants to do that.

Could make synthetic diesel though.



You can superheat the water which lowers the energy needed to split it
into its elements.
Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But nobody knows what to do with the nuclear waste.

Lots of people know exactly what to do with it. Its just a convenient
excuse to not have nuclear power, that's all. Because Nuclear power
absolutely threatens Big Oil, and peole who are making a firtune out of
windmills that dont work.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...ement_of_waste


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ste_dispos al

So until a solution is found, you have been spouting crap.
Wiki on nuclear is written by thee wind lobby/greenies mate. Its mostly
wrong. You only have to look at the crap they spout about wind power..



There is not even a solution ont he horizon for some stuff that has to
be stored for 30,000 to 1,000,000 years. How much does it cost to
"manage" waste for 1,000,000 years?

Nothing. Its been there a few billion already after all. Just bury it
back where it came from.

If its got a 100,000 year half life, its not exactly very radioactive is it?



So the pro-nuclear lobby are halfwits. They only offer half a
solution, moronically sweeping the real problem under the carpet.
If the permanent solution is unknown, so then is it's cost, not to
mention the unknown hazards of many thousands of years of storage.


No, you have that back to front: All those issues of nuclear power are
actually soluble with suitable technology and industrial practice.

NONE of the problems of renewables are soluble at all. Not even in theory.



Worse then the bankers when you think. The bankers have only stolen
your children's money. Nuclear lobby wants to steal their lives and
money.


Oh good grief. We have had nuclear power imn the country for 50 years.
It hasn't stolen anything from anybody.


Then of course you canadd to all this the cost ofdecommissioning old
nuclear power stations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_...ecommissioning

I warned you about wikipedia. Back then remember we didnt have a
decommissioning policy because no one thought it was such a big deal.
Now teh watermelons have decided that every last speck of radon has to
be removed, so its of course somewhat more expensive.

You should, as an excercise, work out what it would cost to decommission
Exmoor and Dartmoor to the level the watermelons want...

You might be surprised.


I remember when Calder Hall was opened we were told that in future
electricity would be virtually free. They lied then and they lie now.


Compared with reneables, that sounds remarkably prophetic :-)

Of course the wind lobby hasn't lied at all has it?



You might want to read this too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_... health_issues


I've read all the wiki articles on UK nuclear policy, and renewable
energy. I see nothing but bias and false information.


So TurNiP is spouting drivel as usual. Apart from the dangers, it's
costing billions£/year to clear up one nuclear site,and will continue
to do so for many years to come.


Well since they have generated trillions worth of electricity, that's a
fair enough prioce I'd say.

Who knows how many people have had their lives shortened by nuclear
pollution of the Irish and North seas. And if it was known it would
be hidden from us.

No one has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria...ve_Environment

yeah yeah yeah wiki written by CND watermelons.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Nov 5, 8:27 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

8

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of
nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

And its the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen to power vehicles.

No one in their right minds wants to do that.

Could make synthetic diesel though.



You can superheat the water which lowers the energy needed to split it
into its elements.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But nobody knows what to do with the nuclear waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...ement_of_waste


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ste_dispos al

So until a solution is found, you have been spouting crap.

There is not even a solution ont he horizon for some stuff that has to
be stored for 30,000 to 1,000,000 years. How much does it cost to
"manage" waste for 1,000,000 years?

If it is radioactive for 100,000 years then it isn't highly radioactive!
A million years is safer than living in Scotland.


So the pro-nuclear lobby are halfwits.

People that don't understand the link between the half life and the amount
of radioactivity are pretty dumb too.

They only offer half a
solution, moronically sweeping the real problem under the carpet.
If the permanent solution is unknown, so then is it's cost, not to
mention the unknown hazards of many thousands of years of storage.

Worse then the bankers when you think. The bankers have only stolen
your children's money. Nuclear lobby wants to steal their lives and
money.

Then of course you canadd to all this the cost ofdecommissioning old
nuclear power stations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_...ecommissioning

I remember when Calder Hall was opened we were told that in future
electricity would be virtually free. They lied then and they lie now.

They did lie, Calder hall was there to make bombs, not to generate power.
There was a rush to make bombs with little regard to cost.


You might want to read this too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_... health_issues

So TurNiP is spouting drivel as usual. Apart from the dangers, it's
costing billions£/year to clear up one nuclear site,and will continue
to do so for many years to come.

Who knows how many people have had their lives shortened by nuclear
pollution of the Irish and North seas. And if it was known it would
be hidden from us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria...ve_Environment

Thats it, resort to the usual scare stories cr@p that the NOTW used.

In message
,
harry writes
On Nov 5, 8:27*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

8

No, what we need is to replace and add to the existing fleet of nukes.

exactly.

It fits every single real requirement.
- low carbon
- cheap
- dispatchable (up to a surprising degree)
- fuel is easily stockpiled and comes from 'friendly' places.
- needs no massive grid upgrades
- compact and very low environmental impact.
- ultra low pollution.

And its the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen to power vehicles.

No one in their right minds wants to do that.

Could make synthetic diesel though.



You can superheat the water which lowers the energy needed to split it
into its elements.

Only the utter panic in peoples minds is the barrier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But nobody knows what to do with the nuclear waste.


That's what Wales is for


--
geoff

On 06/11/2011 10:07, tim.... wrote:

I am beginning to find posters whose software doesn't properly
distinguish between their remarks and those that have gone before more
than a little confusing. Tim at least has added a divider.

Phew, got in just in time! I am become one of the elite.
I expect the price of panels will come down.
There won't half be a rush before Christmas.

Harry got in with plenty of time to spare. Those who get in 'just in
time' are those who are still in limbo but will get in by 12th December.

Mind you, £0.21/Kwh would still give a better return than money in the
bank these days.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Not when you have to write down the initial investment to zero, it doesn't

The installation is a wasting asset so, as an investment, the capital
has to be recovered before any profit is made.

The argument against the 43.3 FIT seems to be that a 10% return is far
to high but it is a risky venture and deserves a substantial premium
over and above what can be gained from guaranteed investments. The real
profit is far in the future and there is plenty to go wrong over the 25
uncertain years the scheme will be in operation.

With a system costing £15000 and the FIT at 43.3p the expected income is
approximately equivalent to interest at 10% so for the first year there
is little prospect of any recovery of capital invested.

With a FIT of just 21p and notional interest of 4% there is at least a
£100 surplus to set against capital but the low return means that just
about any major expense will turn a poor return into a dead cert loss
maker. You can get 4% now on a number of 3 year fixed rate ISAs with
banks (including Northern Rock) where the Government has guaranteed that
your savings are safe. Who in their right mind is going to invest in
risky PV panels when there is a gold plated alternative available? Yes
I know the scheme will still seem attractive to the committed Greeny but
such folk are so thin on the ground that that those with sufficient
funds to indulge their prejudices could probably be counted on the
fingers of one hand.

--
Roger Chapman

geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes


But nobody knows what to do with the nuclear waste.


That's what Wales is for


Ouch!


Mind you the coal was there since Cambrian times, so its been fairly
stable that long.

On 05/11/2011 12:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's there more for statistical analysis: I want to do a 'what if we had
XYZ wind power, what would it cost and how much fuel; would it waste'
type calcs.

There was at least one period earlier in the year (but probably more)
where the windmills were producing next to nothing. Have you any figures
from this (these) period(s) as to duration (of say minimum plus 100%)
and the actual minimum reached?

--
Roger Chapman