http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...elock_wind_fu/

Former climate change alarmist Dr James Lovelock, famous for
popularising the "Gaia" metaphor, continues his journey back to
rationality.

Lovelock is objecting to a "medium sized" (240ft high) erection
planned for his neighbourhood in North Devon by infamous windfarm
operator Ecotricity. The UK currently has 3,000 onshore turbines and
6,000 are planned: this is the main reason why electricity bills are
soaring out of control in order to pay for the inefficient, highly
expensive windmills. Lovelock calls the runaway windmill building
"industrial vandalism".

In an objection to the planning application made to Tiverton council,
Lovelock points out that one nuclear power station provides as much
power as 3,200 industrial wind turbines, without the environmental
damage. In fact, he seems to be understating the case: we would
calculate* one nuclear powerplant as equivalent to 5,400 wind towers
of the sort discussed above.

He concludes:

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my
head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should
have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a
fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other
than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our
priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand
that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We
need to take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the
statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.
Lovelock is a long-time advocate of nuclear energy. But he also
supports switching to lower-emission fossil fuels too, arguing they
also do the job.

"Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything
to methane. We should be going mad on it [fracking]", Lovelock The
Grauniad last year.

The USA has cut CO2 emissions drastically over three years, thanks to
the switch from coal to gas. Gas therefore provides greenhouse gas
abatement at about one tenth of the cost of wind power. Scaling back
the renewable energy strategy would also inject a much-needed £120bn
into the economy.

You can find more here (pdf).

Lovelock's books include Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary
Medicine, The Ages of Gaia, Healing Gaia, The Vanishing Face of Gaia
and The Revenge of Gaia.

Can you spot the theme?®

Bootnote
*Ecotricity claims maximum output of 0.5 megawatt. Over time the
turbine will not do better than 25 per cent of this. By comparison,
Sizewell B produces 4.7 terawatt-hours every year. So Wolfram Alpha
tells us than Sizewell B produces as much juice as 5,400 such turbines
(and that's before you get into all the other windfarm issues of
intermittency etc).

Well I'd agree with that. After all, accidents may happen in nuclear, but
considering how many there are now, its a very small risk. However bits
dropping off windmills and the hazards they pose to birds and the
disfigurement of the land and obstacles in the sea seem not to have been
looked at properly.
Nvery mind the cost of keeping them going.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Phil" wrote in message
...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...elock_wind_fu/

Former climate change alarmist Dr James Lovelock, famous for
popularising the "Gaia" metaphor, continues his journey back to
rationality.

Lovelock is objecting to a "medium sized" (240ft high) erection
planned for his neighbourhood in North Devon by infamous windfarm
operator Ecotricity. The UK currently has 3,000 onshore turbines and
6,000 are planned: this is the main reason why electricity bills are
soaring out of control in order to pay for the inefficient, highly
expensive windmills. Lovelock calls the runaway windmill building
"industrial vandalism".

In an objection to the planning application made to Tiverton council,
Lovelock points out that one nuclear power station provides as much
power as 3,200 industrial wind turbines, without the environmental
damage. In fact, he seems to be understating the case: we would
calculate* one nuclear powerplant as equivalent to 5,400 wind towers
of the sort discussed above.

He concludes:

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my
head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should
have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a
fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other
than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our
priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand
that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We
need to take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the
statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.
Lovelock is a long-time advocate of nuclear energy. But he also
supports switching to lower-emission fossil fuels too, arguing they
also do the job.

"Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything
to methane. We should be going mad on it [fracking]", Lovelock The
Grauniad last year.

The USA has cut CO2 emissions drastically over three years, thanks to
the switch from coal to gas. Gas therefore provides greenhouse gas
abatement at about one tenth of the cost of wind power. Scaling back
the renewable energy strategy would also inject a much-needed £120bn
into the economy.

You can find more here (pdf).

Lovelock's books include Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary
Medicine, The Ages of Gaia, Healing Gaia, The Vanishing Face of Gaia
and The Revenge of Gaia.

Can you spot the theme?®

Bootnote
*Ecotricity claims maximum output of 0.5 megawatt. Over time the
turbine will not do better than 25 per cent of this. By comparison,
Sizewell B produces 4.7 terawatt-hours every year. So Wolfram Alpha
tells us than Sizewell B produces as much juice as 5,400 such turbines
(and that's before you get into all the other windfarm issues of
intermittency etc).

On Feb 1, 9:25*am, Phil wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...elock_wind_fu/

Former climate change alarmist Dr James Lovelock, famous for
popularising the "Gaia" metaphor, continues his journey back to
rationality.

Lovelock is objecting to a "medium sized" (240ft high) erection
planned for his neighbourhood in North Devon by infamous windfarm
operator Ecotricity. The UK currently has 3,000 onshore turbines and
6,000 are planned: this is the main reason why electricity bills are
soaring out of control in order to pay for the inefficient, highly
expensive windmills. Lovelock calls the runaway windmill building
"industrial vandalism".

In an objection to the planning application made to Tiverton council,
Lovelock points out that one nuclear power station provides as much
power as 3,200 industrial wind turbines, without the environmental
damage. In fact, he seems to be understating the case: we would
calculate* one nuclear powerplant as equivalent to 5,400 wind towers
of the sort discussed above.

He concludes:

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my
head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should
have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a
fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other
than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our
priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand
that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We
need to take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the
statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.
Lovelock is a long-time advocate of nuclear energy. But he also
supports switching to lower-emission fossil fuels too, arguing they
also do the job.

"Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything
to methane. We should be going mad on it [fracking]", Lovelock The
Grauniad last year.

The USA has cut CO2 emissions drastically over three years, thanks to
the switch from coal to gas. Gas therefore provides greenhouse gas
abatement at about one tenth of the cost of wind power. Scaling back
the renewable energy strategy would also inject a much-needed £120bn
into the economy.

You can find more here (pdf).

Lovelock's books include Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary
Medicine, The Ages of Gaia, Healing Gaia, The Vanishing Face of Gaia
and The Revenge of Gaia.

Can you spot the theme?®

Bootnote
*Ecotricity claims maximum output of 0.5 megawatt. Over time the
turbine will not do better than 25 per cent of this. By comparison,
Sizewell B produces 4.7 terawatt-hours every year. So Wolfram Alpha
tells us than Sizewell B produces as much juice as 5,400 such turbines
(and that's before you get into all the other windfarm issues of
intermittency etc).

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

On Feb 1, 9:25*am, Phil wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...elock_wind_fu/

Former climate change alarmist Dr James Lovelock, famous for
popularising the "Gaia" metaphor, continues his journey back to
rationality.

Lovelock is objecting to a "medium sized" (240ft high) erection
planned for his neighbourhood in North Devon by infamous windfarm
operator Ecotricity. The UK currently has 3,000 onshore turbines and
6,000 are planned: this is the main reason why electricity bills are
soaring out of control in order to pay for the inefficient, highly
expensive windmills. Lovelock calls the runaway windmill building
"industrial vandalism".

In an objection to the planning application made to Tiverton council,
Lovelock points out that one nuclear power station provides as much
power as 3,200 industrial wind turbines, without the environmental
damage. In fact, he seems to be understating the case: we would
calculate* one nuclear powerplant as equivalent to 5,400 wind towers
of the sort discussed above.

He concludes:

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my
head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should
have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a
fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other
than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our
priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand
that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We
need to take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the
statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.
Lovelock is a long-time advocate of nuclear energy. But he also
supports switching to lower-emission fossil fuels too, arguing they
also do the job.

"Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything
to methane. We should be going mad on it [fracking]", Lovelock The
Grauniad last year.

The USA has cut CO2 emissions drastically over three years, thanks to
the switch from coal to gas. Gas therefore provides greenhouse gas
abatement at about one tenth of the cost of wind power. Scaling back
the renewable energy strategy would also inject a much-needed £120bn
into the economy.

You can find more here (pdf).

Lovelock's books include Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary
Medicine, The Ages of Gaia, Healing Gaia, The Vanishing Face of Gaia
and The Revenge of Gaia.

Can you spot the theme?®

Bootnote
*Ecotricity claims maximum output of 0.5 megawatt. Over time the
turbine will not do better than 25 per cent of this. By comparison,
Sizewell B produces 4.7 terawatt-hours every year. So Wolfram Alpha
tells us than Sizewell B produces as much juice as 5,400 such turbines
(and that's before you get into all the other windfarm issues of
intermittency etc).

He also wrote this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock#Climate
Obviously a nut case.

On 01.02.2013 17:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste. This needs to be
resolved first.

Harry is scientifically illiterate:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html
The waste produced from a nuclear plant is different from
coal-burning wastes in two very spectacular ways. The first is in the
quantities involved: the nuclear waste is 5 million times smaller by
weight and billions of times smaller by volume.
--
jo
"Some people will do anything to save the Earth,
except taking a science course" P.J. O'Rourke

harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

That's only a problem because a majority of the UK population are ****ing
morons like you.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

That's only a problem because a majority of the UK population are ****ing
morons like you.


WTF? At last I'm in a minority group!
Where do I go to claim my goodies?

On 01/02/13 16:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

I have no problem whatsoever with the nuclear waste.

Pay me and ill stuff it in the attic.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 01/02/2013 19:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/13 16:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

I have no problem whatsoever with the nuclear waste.

Pay me and ill stuff it in the attic.



I think Lovelock has said he'd take it for free; stick it at the end of
the garden, add a heat source pump, and you have cheap central heating.
Package it right and you could probably have a natural circulation
system (air or water). In fact with warm air and vents in the roof you
could keep the house dry and radon free.

On Feb 1, 5:39*pm, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.02.2013 17:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste. This needs to be
resolved first.

Harry is scientifically illiterate:http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html The waste produced from a nuclear plant is different from
coal-burning wastes in two very spectacular ways. The first is in the
quantities involved: the nuclear waste is 5 million times smaller by
weight and billions of times smaller by volume.


And how much more dangerous?

On Feb 1, 6:00*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

That's only a problem because a majority of the UK population are ****ing
morons like you.

--
•DarWin|
*_/ * *_/

Nothing can/should be done until this problem is permanently resolved.
If there is no resolution, nuclear should be abandoned.
BTW, you are the moron if you can't see this.

On Feb 1, 9:28*pm, newshound wrote:
On 01/02/2013 19:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 01/02/13 16:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

I have no problem whatsoever with the nuclear waste.

Pay me and ill stuff it in the attic.

I think Lovelock has said he'd take it for free; stick it at the end of
the garden, add a heat source pump, and you have cheap central heating.
Package it right and you could probably have a natural circulation
system (air or water). In fact with warm air and vents in the roof you
could keep the house dry and radon free.

There you are. Completely mad.

On Feb 1, 7:33*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 01/02/13 16:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

I have no problem whatsoever with the nuclear waste.

Pay me and ill stuff it in the attic.

I think your neighbours may object.
You must be locallly recognised as insane.

BTW don't you think it would be morally wrong to seek payment?

On Feb 1, 5:39*pm, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.02.2013 17:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste. This needs to be
resolved first.

Harry is scientifically illiterate:http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html The waste produced from a nuclear plant is different from
coal-burning wastes in two very spectacular ways. The first is in the
quantities involved: the nuclear waste is 5 million times smaller by
weight and billions of times smaller by volume.

--
* * * * * * * * * * *jo
* "Some people will do anything to save the Earth,
* *except taking a science course" P.J. O'Rourke

Oh! So that makes one in infallible? I expect the designers of the
Fukushima reactor went on a science course.

On 02.02.2013 10:19, harry wrote:
On Feb 1, 5:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.02.2013 17:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste. This needs to be
resolved first.

Harry is scientifically
illiterate:http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html The
waste produced from a nuclear plant is different from
coal-burning wastes in two very spectacular ways. The first is in
the quantities involved: the nuclear waste is 5 million times
smaller by weight and billions of times smaller by volume.

-- jo "Some people will do anything to save the Earth, except
taking a science course" P.J. O'Rourke

Oh! So that makes one in infallible? I expect the designers of the
Fukushima reactor went on a science course.

A science course is needed here.
Even James Lovelock can teach you something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock
"A television interviewer once asked me, 'But what about nuclear
waste? Will it not poison the whole biosphere and persist for
millions of years?' I knew this to be a nightmare fantasy wholly
without substance in the real world... One of the striking things
about places heavily contaminated by radioactive nuclides is the
richness of their wildlife. This is true of the land around
Chernobyl, the bomb test sites of the Pacific, and areas near the
United States' Savannah River nuclear weapons plant of the Second
World War. Wild plants and animals do not perceive radiation as
dangerous, and any slight reduction it may cause in their lifespans
is far less a hazard than is the presence of people and their pets...
I find it sad, but all too human, that there are vast bureaucracies
concerned about nuclear waste, huge organisations devoted to
decommissioning power stations, but nothing comparable to deal with
that truly malign waste, carbon dioxide.
--
jo
"When you are in a hole, stop digging"

harry wrote:

Nothing can/should be done until this problem is permanently resolved.
If there is no resolution, nuclear should be abandoned.
BTW, you are the moron if you can't see this.

Christ on a bike but you're thick. Like most morons happy to be poisoned by
oil and coal pollution, stupid enough to think that windmills and solar
panels will work 24/7 and too much of a sheep to understand how little long
term waste the nuclear industry creates.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 02/02/2013 09:05, harry wrote:
On Feb 1, 6:00 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

That's only a problem because a majority of the UK population are ****ing
morons like you.

--
•DarWin|
_/ _/

Nothing can/should be done until this problem is permanently resolved.

If you apply that metric to all our other forms of generation, they must
be abandoned first - since their waste generation is not only far more
hazardous, but they emit millions as many times as much of it.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 02/02/13 09:03, harry wrote:
On Feb 1, 5:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.02.2013 17:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste. This needs to be
resolved first.

Harry is scientifically illiterate:http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html The waste produced from a nuclear plant is different from
coal-burning wastes in two very spectacular ways. The first is in the
quantities involved: the nuclear waste is 5 million times smaller by
weight and billions of times smaller by volume.


And how much more dangerous?

almost no danger at all.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Feb 2, 1:46*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/02/13 09:03, harry wrote: On Feb 1, 5:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.02.2013 17:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste. This needs to be
resolved first.

Harry is scientifically illiterate:http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html The waste produced from a nuclear plant is different from
coal-burning wastes in two very spectacular ways. The first is in the
quantities involved: the nuclear waste is 5 million times smaller by
weight and billions of times smaller by volume.

And how much more dangerous?

almost no danger at all.


That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

On Feb 2, 1:45*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/02/2013 09:05, harry wrote:

On Feb 1, 6:00 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

That's only a problem because a majority of the UK population are ****ing
morons like you.

--
•DarWin|
* _/ * *_/

Nothing can/should be done until this problem is permanently resolved.

If you apply that metric to all our other forms of generation, they must
be abandoned first - since their waste generation is not only far more
hazardous, but they emit millions as many times as much of it.


So pass the problem on to future generations?
Bury your head in the sand?

On 02/02/13 15:31, harry wrote:
On Feb 2, 1:45 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/02/2013 09:05, harry wrote:

On Feb 1, 6:00 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

That's only a problem because a majority of the UK population are ****ing
morons like you.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Nothing can/should be done until this problem is permanently resolved.

If you apply that metric to all our other forms of generation, they must
be abandoned first - since their waste generation is not only far more
hazardous, but they emit millions as many times as much of it.


So pass the problem on to future generations?
Bury your head in the sand?

Well of course if we rely on solar panels there wont *be* any future
generations.

I suppose you think that a superior solution.

The world has this habit of changing whether or not we do anything about it.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/02/2013 09:03, harry wrote:
On Feb 1, 5:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.02.2013 17:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste. This needs to be
resolved first.

Harry is scientifically illiterate:http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html The waste produced from a nuclear plant is different from
coal-burning wastes in two very spectacular ways. The first is in the
quantities involved: the nuclear waste is 5 million times smaller by
weight and billions of times smaller by volume.


And how much more dangerous?


There is no difference between natural radiation and the stuff produced
by reactor waste. If you are exposed to enough bad things happen.

The main difference is how likely you are to be exposed.
You are far less likely to be exposed to reactor waste than to natural
radiation.

On 02/02/2013 15:31, harry wrote:
On Feb 2, 1:45 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/02/2013 09:05, harry wrote:

On Feb 1, 6:00 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

That's only a problem because a majority of the UK population are ****ing
morons like you.

--
•DarWin|
_/ _/

Nothing can/should be done until this problem is permanently resolved.

If you apply that metric to all our other forms of generation, they must
be abandoned first - since their waste generation is not only far more
hazardous, but they emit millions as many times as much of it.


So pass the problem on to future generations?
Bury your head in the sand?

Huh?

Wind and solar kill more people per TWh than nuclear, but even those are
massively less dangerous than technologies which can actually generate
useful amounts of electricity like coal.

So this year world electricity generation will be something like 20,000
TWh. 50% of that will come from coal. So 10,000 TWh. If we take the
estimated world average death rate for electricity generation from coal
at 60/TWh, that is 600,000 people this year. More that 1,600 today.

So by not fully exploiting nuclear now, you are burying your head in the
sand. More people will die today from coal power generation than have in
the entire history of nuclear generation.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 02/02/2013 09:13, harry wrote:
On Feb 1, 9:28 pm, newshound wrote:
On 01/02/2013 19:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 01/02/13 16:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

I have no problem whatsoever with the nuclear waste.

Pay me and ill stuff it in the attic.

I think Lovelock has said he'd take it for free; stick it at the end of
the garden, add a heat source pump, and you have cheap central heating.
Package it right and you could probably have a natural circulation
system (air or water). In fact with warm air and vents in the roof you
could keep the house dry and radon free.

There you are. Completely mad.

Why?

The point about radioactivity is that it is a decay process. In other
words, it gets less "toxic" as time goes on (in contrast to, say, lead,
cadmium, mercury, or arsenic). So the only challenge is the
technological one of ensuring that your containment has a corrosion life
of a sufficient number of half-lives for the isotopes you are using.

On 02/02/2013 09:16, harry wrote:
On Feb 1, 7:33 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 01/02/13 16:56, harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

I have no problem whatsoever with the nuclear waste.

Pay me and ill stuff it in the attic.

I think your neighbours may object.
You must be locallly recognised as insane.

BTW don't you think it would be morally wrong to seek payment?


Why? I get paid for providing services which people want. Do you have a
job? If so, what is it? Or are you supported by the taxes which TNP and
I pay?

On Feb 2, 3:43*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/02/13 15:31, harry wrote:







On Feb 2, 1:45 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/02/2013 09:05, harry wrote:

On Feb 1, 6:00 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

That's only a problem because a majority of the UK population are ****ing
morons like you.

--
•DarWin|
* *_/ * *_/

Nothing can/should be done until this problem is permanently resolved..

If you apply that metric to all our other forms of generation, they must
be abandoned first - since their waste generation is not only far more
hazardous, but they emit millions as many times as much of it.

So pass the problem on to future generations?
Bury your head in the sand?

Well of course if we rely on solar panels there wont *be* any future
generations.

I suppose you think that a superior solution.

The world has this habit of changing whether or not we do anything about it.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

If the problem was as simple as some seem to think why has it not been
resolved?

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

On 03/02/13 07:25, harry wrote:
On Feb 2, 3:43 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/02/13 15:31, harry wrote:







On Feb 2, 1:45 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/02/2013 09:05, harry wrote:

On Feb 1, 6:00 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

That's only a problem because a majority of the UK population are ****ing
morons like you.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Nothing can/should be done until this problem is permanently resolved.

If you apply that metric to all our other forms of generation, they must
be abandoned first - since their waste generation is not only far more
hazardous, but they emit millions as many times as much of it.

So pass the problem on to future generations?
Bury your head in the sand?

Well of course if we rely on solar panels there wont *be* any future
generations.

I suppose you think that a superior solution.

The world has this habit of changing whether or not we do anything about it.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

If the problem was as simple as some seem to think why has it not been
resolved?

because people are people and you cant solve the problem of bogeymen in
their heads. You can tell them all you like there are no bogeyen, but
the keep coming back with 'prove it'.


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


Exactly. 'absolute safety' is a myth. So no matter what you do, how good
any solution is, they will always insist on 'absolute safety' and rule
it out.


You could die in a road accident today. So lets ban roads.

Then 100,000 people will die because they cant get food. Never mind. We
have banned roads and that's what its important.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:

[snip]

If the problem was as simple as some seem to think why has it not been
resolved?

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

Thanks for the proof that you are a drooling idiot Harold. It's a myth to
state that anyone has claimed "absolute safety" for nuclear power. No
competent engineer or scientist would make any claim about "absolute"
safety, only about relative risk.

Even the highly biased piece that you point to is forced to admit that
nuclear is the safest form of power generation. They have to resort to
scare tactics such as claims about Hurricane Katrina, while failing to
mention that there were no nuclear incidents associated with Katrina.

Much is made of Fukushima, with no mention of the flaws in design that were
unique to Fukushima. This of course has nothing to do with storage,
transport and handling of nuclear waste. As ever, you're blowing out of
your arse and ignoring this:

"the safety record of nuclear power, in terms of lives lost per unit of
electricity delivered, is better than every other major source of power in
the world."

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Feb 3, 1:25*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article om,









*newshound wrote:
On 02/02/2013 09:13, harry wrote:
On Feb 1, 9:28 pm, newshound wrote:
On 01/02/2013 19:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 01/02/13 16:56,
harry wrote:

The problem is, no-one wants the nuclear waste.
This needs to be resolved first.

I have no problem whatsoever with the nuclear waste.

Pay me and ill stuff it in the attic.

I think Lovelock has said he'd take it for free; stick it at the end of
the garden, add a heat source pump, and you have cheap central heating.
Package it right and you could probably have a natural circulation
system (air or water). In fact with warm air and vents in the roof you
could keep the house dry and radon free.

There you are. Completely mad.

Why?

The point about radioactivity is that it is a decay process. In other
words, it gets less "toxic" as time goes on (in contrast to, say, lead,
cadmium, mercury, or arsenic). So the only challenge is the
technological one of ensuring that your containment has a corrosion life
of a sufficient number of half-lives for the isotopes you are using.

harry is dim. He doesn't understand what "half-life" means.


Sounds more like you don't.

On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:



That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:



That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Neptunium is apparently *also* useful for making bombs.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 03/02/13 16:53, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:



That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy
indeed. actually the most troublesome is technetium
But that's amenable to transmutation.. which solves that particular issue.

In fact if you actually look through every single decay product, the
quantities and the techniques established to deal with it, there really
isn't any problem at all.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 03/02/13 17:20, John Williamson wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:



That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Neptunium is apparently *also* useful for making bombs.

But biologically pretty inert..


"Neptunium has no biological role. It is not absorbed by the digestive
tract. When injected into the body, it accumulates in bones, which it is
slowly released from."

Could be a useful fuel.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 03/02/13 23:22, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/02/13 16:53, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:



That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy
indeed. actually the most troublesome is technetium
But that's amenable to transmutation.. which solves that particular
issue.

In fact if you actually look through every single decay product, the
quantities and the techniques established to deal with it, there
really isn't any problem at all.

Well, there's a *political* problem, caused by ******* like harry
telling lies.

What do Harry, renewable energy companies and politicians have in common?

They all say they really care about the planet, the country, the people,
the workers, but actually all they care about is making money at someone
else's expense, lording it over everyone else and telling us how ****ing
moral they are.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

On 03/02/13 23:22, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/02/13 16:53, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:



That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy
indeed. actually the most troublesome is technetium
But that's amenable to transmutation.. which solves that particular
issue.

In fact if you actually look through every single decay product, the
quantities and the techniques established to deal with it, there
really isn't any problem at all.

Well, there's a *political* problem, caused by ******* like harry
telling lies.

What do Harry, renewable energy companies and politicians have in common?

They all say they really care about the planet, the country, the people,
the workers, but actually all they care about is making money at someone
else's expense, lording it over everyone else and telling us how ****ing
moral they are.


Applause!!!

On Feb 3, 4:53*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:



That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. *It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy

I see your reading/comprehension skills are poor.
It does not say it is spent fuel.

On Feb 3, 11:22*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*The Natural Philosopher wrote:









On 03/02/13 16:53, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:

That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. *It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy
indeed. actually the most troublesome is technetium
But that's amenable to transmutation.. which solves that particular issue.

In fact if you actually look through every single decay product, the
quantities and the techniques established to deal with it, there really
isn't any problem at all.

Well, there's a *political* problem, caused by ******* like harry
telling lies.


What lies?

On Feb 4, 2:30*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 03/02/13 23:22, Tim Streater wrote:







In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/02/13 16:53, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:

That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. *It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy
indeed. actually the most troublesome is technetium
But that's amenable to transmutation.. which solves that particular
issue.

In fact if you actually look through every single decay product, the
quantities and the techniques established to deal with it, there
really isn't any problem at all.

Well, there's a *political* problem, caused by ******* like harry
telling lies.

What do Harry, renewable energy companies and politicians have in common?

They all say they really care about the planet, the country, the people,
the workers, but actually all they care about is making money at someone
else's expense, lording it over everyone else and telling us how ****ing
moral they are.


Down to the abuse again when you're shown to be wrong eh TurNiP?
You really are **** for brains.

On Feb 4, 2:30*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 03/02/13 23:22, Tim Streater wrote:







In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/02/13 16:53, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:

That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. *It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy
indeed. actually the most troublesome is technetium
But that's amenable to transmutation.. which solves that particular
issue.

In fact if you actually look through every single decay product, the
quantities and the techniques established to deal with it, there
really isn't any problem at all.

Well, there's a *political* problem, caused by ******* like harry
telling lies.

What do Harry, renewable energy companies and politicians have in common?

They all say they really care about the planet, the country, the people,
the workers, but actually all they care about is making money at someone
else's expense, lording it over everyone else and telling us how ****ing
moral they are.


I am just doing what the government wants me and everyone else to do.
If you're too inept, poor or stupid to see the advantages then tough
****.
Everything's simple to the simple minded. That certainly covers you. A
bitter twisted old man.

On 04/02/13 08:42, harry wrote:

I am just doing what the government wants me and everyone else to do.
If you're too inept, poor or stupid to see the advantages then tough
****.

Signed, Adolf Eichmann.

Everything's simple to the simple minded.

Indeed. See above.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.