On 05/06/13 08:00, harry wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:26 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:14:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:









On Jun 4, 9:46 am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:30:55 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:
"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new Greenpeace
More lies spread by the greens to force their ****ty agenda down the craws of
mankind. Greenpeace, FoE and FIT parasites are by far the biggest threat to
life on earth, far bigger than any terrorist threat.
I'd zap them all in an electric chair powered by nuclear power, the sooner the
better as with useless wind turbines polluting our country we might run out of
surplus for this essential task.
--
So you resort to abuse when shown evidence you don't like?
Retard.
It's Greenpeace you retard. They don't do real facts just made up ones.

--
They collect facts you don't want to hear about. Allcanbe checked.
No harry, they invent 'fact's that no one has heard about, with
references to other sites they also control, to give the illusion of
facts where none exist.


--
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 05/06/13 08:09, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:



There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.
Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

Golly, Id have put it at at least a tenner in old money.

The radioactive wreckage removed has still not been dealt with and is
in storage.
No-one knows what to do with it. Hundreds of tons.
Continuing costs for possibly hundreds of years.
Actually harry, people know exactly what to do with it. Storage is
currently exactly what to do with 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 Jun 5, 8:31*am, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:09, harry wrote:









On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:

There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. *Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

As compared to the $500 million the owners have invested in updating the
other reactor and associated plant.

Correcting the mistakes/design errors made earlier.
Well electricity user will pay one way or another.
Who said nuclear power was cheap?

On Jun 5, 12:00*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 08:09, harry wrote:









On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:

There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.
Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. *Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

Golly, Id have put it at at least a tenner in old money.

The radioactive wreckage removed has still not been dealt with and is
in storage.
No-one knows what to do with it. Hundreds of tons.
Continuing costs for possibly hundreds of years.

Actually harry, people know exactly what to do with it. Storage is
currently exactly what to do with it.

Yeah Right.
A continuing cost fro centuries to come.
Like Victorian coal mine owners. Leave the **** for someone else to
sort out and walk off with the profits.

On 05/06/13 18:04, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:31 am, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:09, harry wrote:









On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:
There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.
Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.
MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.
Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.
As compared to the $500 million the owners have invested in updating the
other reactor and associated plant.
Correcting the mistakes/design errors made earlier.
Well electricity user will pay one way or another.
Who said nuclear power was cheap?
Its a ****ing site cheaper than your SPIV panels

--
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 05/06/13 18:06, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:00 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 08:09, harry wrote:









On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:
There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.
Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.
MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.
Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.
Golly, Id have put it at at least a tenner in old money.

The radioactive wreckage removed has still not been dealt with and is
in storage.
No-one knows what to do with it. Hundreds of tons.
Continuing costs for possibly hundreds of years.
Actually harry, people know exactly what to do with it. Storage is
currently exactly what to do with it.
Yeah Right.
A continuing cost fro centuries to come.
Like Victorian coal mine owners. Leave the **** for someone else to
sort out and walk off with the profits.
Have you sorted out long term disposal for your solar panels yet, harry,
or is that cost going to be on your neighbours council taxes?


--
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 05/06/2013 18:04, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:31 am, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:09, harry wrote:

On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:

There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

As compared to the $500 million the owners have invested in updating the
other reactor and associated plant.

Correcting the mistakes/design errors made earlier.

Wrong, as usual, Harry. That is simply the cost of routine maintenance
for a power station.

Well electricity user will pay one way or another.
Who said nuclear power was cheap?

It is as cheap as coal, half the cost of onshore wind, one third the
cost of offshore wind and up to one fifth the cost of solar PV.

Colin Bignell

On Jun 5, 6:52*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 18:04, harry wrote:







On Jun 5, 8:31 am, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:09, harry wrote:

On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:
There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

On Jun 5, 6:53*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 18:06, harry wrote:







On Jun 5, 12:00 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 08:09, harry wrote:

On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:
There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

On Jun 5, 7:42*pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 18:04, harry wrote:









On Jun 5, 8:31 am, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:09, harry wrote:

On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:

There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

On 06/06/13 06:38, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 6:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 18:06, harry wrote:







On Jun 5, 12:00 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 08:09, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:
There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.
Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.
MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.
Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.
Golly, Id have put it at at least a tenner in old money.
The radioactive wreckage removed has still not been dealt with and is
in storage.
No-one knows what to do with it. Hundreds of tons.
Continuing costs for possibly hundreds of years.
Actually harry, people know exactly what to do with it. Storage is
currently exactly what to do with it.
Yeah Right.
A continuing cost fro centuries to come.
Like Victorian coal mine owners. Leave the **** for someone else to
sort out and walk off with the profits.
Have you sorted out long term disposal for your solar panels yet, harry,
or is that cost going to be on your neighbours council taxes?

Well in 30 years or so, they can go down the local tip. Though I
expect by then, everything will be recycled.
They won't have to be buried thousands of feet deep and monitored for
thousands of years.
of course they will. They don't decay naturally do they?


--
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 06/06/13 06:42, harry wrote:

Half wit as usual.
Fossil fuel based energy is cheap at the moment because we are in a
depression.
When the recession ends, demand and price will rocket.
Sunlight and wind will always be free.
And pollution free.


Ah, I found that picture of you Harry...

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20...Turbines_3.jpg

--
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 06/06/2013 06:42, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 7:42 pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 18:04, harry wrote:









On Jun 5, 8:31 am, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:09, harry wrote:

On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:

There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

As compared to the $500 million the owners have invested in updating the
other reactor and associated plant.

Correcting the mistakes/design errors made earlier.

Wrong, as usual, Harry. That is simply the cost of routine maintenance
for a power station.

Well electricity user will pay one way or another.
Who said nuclear power was cheap?

It is as cheap as coal, half the cost of onshore wind, one third the
cost of offshore wind and up to one fifth the cost of solar PV.

Colin Bignell

Half wit as usual.
Fossil fuel based energy is cheap at the moment because we are in a
depression.

I don't know why you keep fighting this losing battle. Power station
coal prices today EUR 50 per tonne; 2006 EUR 50 per tonne; 2003 EUR 35
per tonne. There was quite a lot of swing as a result of the prime debt
crisis, when coal prices rose to around EUR 90, before dropping to EUR
40, but they are fairly stable now.

When the recession ends, demand and price will rocket.

First, energy suppliers buy futures to smooth out any major swings in
fuel price. Second, fuel is not the only cost of energy.

In 2012, Drax spent £929.2 million on fuel (partly biomass) £339.7 on
other costs of sales, such as grid charges and £212.5 million on
operating and administrative costs. By the time that electricity gets to
the user, the supply companies will have added their costs and profits.
So, even if the price of coal doubled, which is very unlikely, the end
user might see a price increase in of up to 50%, probably much less with
the plans to convert much coal fired generation to biomass. Still
cheaper than onshore wind, let alone any other renewable energy, but a
good case for nuclear, which will stay at the same price.

Sunlight and wind will always be free.

However, as I point out above, fuel is only a part of the cost of
electricity supply.

And pollution free.

Only if you ignore the fact that they have to be made. Wind power needs
around 8 times as much concrete and 30 times as much steel as nuclear
power. Making concrete is a major source of CO2 and steel produces all
sorts of pollution. Solar panels produce polluted sludge that needs to
be disposed of hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away from the
manufacturing plant, with the attendant output from the transport
required. Add to that the fact that the variable supply from renewables
means that coal fired stations run less efficiently, thereby producing
more pollution, and it is clear that they are responsible for a lot of
pollution, just not quite so obviously as conventional power.

Colin Bignell

On Saturday, June 1, 2013 12:42:17 PM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine
pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks.

Interestingly they dished out Iodine pills in Romania. My wife (Romanian) remembers it.

Robert

On 01/06/2013 12:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/13 07:04, harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:30 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 31/05/13 23:32, Farmer Giles wrote:







On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi...

ion_risk_3105131.html
And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she
floated when they dunked her.
One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've
solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.
Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem.
Of course if you start from bigotry, everything proves the case. No one
died after Chernobyl? Obviously its being covered up...

You are a lying toad TurNiP' Full of ****. Are you in the pay of
someone?
Thirty one people died shorty after the disaster and many more will
die.

78 people have died. Thatsit. over 100,000 were preduicted/.

http:

The same people who write global warmning ****e in wiki write anti
nuclear ****e.

Show me the hundred thousand corpses harry.

The final chernobyl death toll is 78 confirmed deaths from radiation.
Mostly firefighters.
The AVERAGE radiation level in Pripyat is similar to Dartmoor.
As usual the disaster was not reported it was covered up.

oh harry can i sell you a tinfoil hat?

Even the russians cant cover up 100,000 + deaths spread out across NW
Europe.


Evacuation did not start until 36 hours after the disaster.
(Ha Ha As if they thought they could deny it! But it was the
instinctive response of the nuclear industry. Denial),
It was detected in Sweden first, they thought they had a leak in
their own reactors

And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine
pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks.





J Cancer Epidemiol. 2013;2013:965212. doi: 10.1155/2013/965212. Epub
2013 May 7.

Worldwide increasing incidence of thyroid cancer: update on epidemiology
and risk factors.

Pellegriti G, Frasca F, Regalbuto C, Squatrito S, Vigneri R.

Endocrinology, Garibaldi-Nesima Hospital, Via Palermo, 636, 95122
Catania, Italy.

Abstract

Background. In the last decades, thyroid cancer incidence has
continuously and sharply increased all over the world. This review
analyzes the possible reasons of this increase. Summary. Many experts
believe that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer is apparent,
because of the increased detection of small cancers in the preclinical
stage. However, a true increase is also possible, as suggested by the
observation that large tumors have also increased and gender differences
and birth cohort effects are present. Moreover, thyroid cancer
mortality, in spite of earlier diagnosis and better treatment, has not
decreased but is rather increasing. Therefore, some environmental
carcinogens in the industrialized lifestyle may have specifically
affected the thyroid. Among potential carcinogens, the increased
exposure to medical radiations is the most likely risk factor. Other
factors specific for the thyroid like increased iodine intake and
increased prevalence of chronic autoimmune thyroiditis cannot be
excluded, while other factors like the increasing prevalence of obesity
are not specific for the thyroid.

Conclusions. The increased incidence of thyroid cancer is most likely
due to a combination of an apparent increase due to more sensitive
diagnostic procedures and of a true increase, a possible consequence of
increased population exposure to radiation and to other still
unrecognized carcinogens.

PMID: 23737785


So "they" still cannot ascribe increases to general radiation with any
certainty. And other sources of electricity might actually being more
dangerous.

--
Rod

harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 6:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
[snip]

Have you sorted out long term disposal for your solar panels yet, harry,
or is that cost going to be on your neighbours council taxes?


Well in 30 years or so, they can go down the local tip. Though I
expect by then, everything will be recycled.
They won't have to be buried thousands of feet deep and monitored for
thousands of years.

So the answer to TNP's question was that you expect someone else to pay.

You also apparently don't care about the CO2 that was emitted during the
construction of your PV array or the hideous pollution that manufacturing
them creates.

Out of sight, out of mind.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Jun 6, 11:33*am, RobertL wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 12:42:17 PM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine
pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks.

Interestingly they dished out Iodine pills in Romania. *My wife (Romanian) remembers it.

Robert

TurNiP never lets facts get in the way of fiction.

On Jun 6, 1:24*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 6:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

[snip]

Have you sorted out long term disposal for your solar panels yet, harry,
or is that cost going to be on your neighbours council taxes?

Well in 30 years or so, they can go down the local tip. Though I
expect by then, everything will be recycled.
They won't have to be buried thousands of feet deep *and monitored for
thousands of years.

So the answer to TNP's question was that you expect someone else to pay.

You also apparently don't care about the CO2 that was emitted during the
construction of your PV array or the hideous pollution that manufacturing
them creates.

Out of sight, out of mind.

What drivel.

I expect everything else I posses will meet the same fate.
But it wont need any unusual or special treatment.

On Jun 6, 9:00*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 06/06/13 06:38, harry wrote:







On Jun 5, 6:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 18:06, harry wrote:

On Jun 5, 12:00 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 08:09, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:
There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.
Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.
MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. *Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.
Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.
Golly, Id have put it at at least a tenner in old money.
The radioactive wreckage removed has still not been dealt with and is
in storage.
No-one knows what to do with it. Hundreds of tons.
Continuing costs for possibly hundreds of years.
Actually harry, people know exactly what to do with it. Storage is
currently exactly what to do with it.
Yeah Right.
A continuing cost fro centuries to come.
Like Victorian coal mine owners. Leave the **** for someone else to
sort out and walk off with the profits.
Have you sorted out long term disposal for your solar panels yet, harry,
or is that cost going to be on your neighbours council taxes?

Well in 30 years or so, they can go down the local tip. Though I
expect by then, everything will be recycled.
They won't have to be buried thousands of feet deep *and monitored for
thousands of years.

of course they will. They don't decay naturally do they?

I expect they'll go to the same place as recycles flat screen TVs. And
double glazing window units.
All the expensive elements/metals will be recovered.
Why would you do anything else?
Someone will make a living out of it.

Whereas nuclear waste will be costing the taxpayer for centuries.

Don't you come up with some crap?

harry wrote:


Whereas nuclear waste will be costing the taxpayer for centuries.

The only reason for that is that the governments won't let the
scientists dispose of it in the best manner.

And, as you claim for your solar PV panel recycling, someone is making a
living at it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 00:09:59 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Jun 5, 1:50*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:



There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. *Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 22:38:19 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Jun 5, 6:53*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Have you sorted out long term disposal for your solar panels yet, harry,
or is that cost going to be on your neighbours council taxes?


Well in 30 years or so, they can go down the local tip. Though I
expect by then, everything will be recycled.
They won't have to be buried thousands of feet deep and monitored for
thousands of years.

You would do the entire world a service if you buried them now and tore up your
FIT agreement.

--

On Jun 6, 11:39*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 00:09:59 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:









On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:

There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year..

Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--

And you think new nuclear will be any cheaper?
You need your head examining.

On Jun 6, 11:39*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 22:38:19 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Jun 5, 6:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Have you sorted out long term disposal for your solar panels yet, harry,
or is that cost going to be on your neighbours council taxes?

Well in 30 years or so, they can go down the local tip. Though I
expect by then, everything will be recycled.
They won't have to be buried thousands of feet deep *and monitored for
thousands of years.

You would do the entire world a service if you buried them now and tore up your
FIT agreement.

--

You would do the world a service if kept quiet about things you have
no clue about.

On 07/06/2013 06:47, harry wrote:
On Jun 6, 11:39 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 00:09:59 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:
....
Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--

And you think new nuclear will be any cheaper?...

You really don't read and understand the posts you reply to do you
Harry, or, indeed, proof read your own posts?

Colin Bignell

On 06/06/13 18:10, harry wrote:
On Jun 6, 11:33 am, RobertL wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 12:42:17 PM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine
pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks.
Interestingly they dished out Iodine pills in Romania. My wife (Romanian) remembers it.

Robert
TurNiP never lets facts get in the way of fiction.
Thr dished out no iodine pills in the area around the reactor. Romania
is nowhere hear 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 06/06/13 18:15, harry wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:24 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 6:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
[snip]

Have you sorted out long term disposal for your solar panels yet, harry,
or is that cost going to be on your neighbours council taxes?
Well in 30 years or so, they can go down the local tip. Though I
expect by then, everything will be recycled.
They won't have to be buried thousands of feet deep and monitored for
thousands of years.
So the answer to TNP's question was that you expect someone else to pay.

You also apparently don't care about the CO2 that was emitted during the
construction of your PV array or the hideous pollution that manufacturing
them creates.

Out of sight, out of mind.
What drivel.

I expect everything else I posses will meet the same fate.
But it wont need any unusual or special treatment.
Nor does low level waste or indeed intermediate level waste.
certainly far less than mercury.


--
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 07/06/13 06:47, harry wrote:
On Jun 6, 11:39 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--
And you think new nuclear will be any cheaper?
You need your head examining.
No, I dont think, I KNOW.


--
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 07/06/13 06:48, harry wrote:
You would do the world a service if kept quiet about things you have
no clue about.

ROFLMAO!

a priceless gem from harry the spiv.



--
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 Jun 7, 5:17*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 06/06/13 18:15, harry wrote:







On Jun 6, 1:24 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 6:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
[snip]

Have you sorted out long term disposal for your solar panels yet, harry,
or is that cost going to be on your neighbours council taxes?
Well in 30 years or so, they can go down the local tip. Though I
expect by then, everything will be recycled.
They won't have to be buried thousands of feet deep *and monitored for
thousands of years.
So the answer to TNP's question was that you expect someone else to pay.

You also apparently don't care about the CO2 that was emitted during the
construction of your PV array or the hideous pollution that manufacturing
them creates.

Out of sight, out of mind.
What drivel.

I expect everything else I posses will meet the same fate.
But it wont need any unusual or special treatment.

Nor does low level waste or indeed intermediate level waste.
certainly far less than mercury.

How would a janitor know this?

On Jun 7, 5:18*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 07/06/13 06:47, harry wrote: On Jun 6, 11:39 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--
And you think new nuclear will be *any cheaper?
You need your head examining.

No, I dont think, I KNOW.


You know nothing of the sort.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...nightmare.html

On 07/06/2013 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/06/13 18:10, harry wrote:
On Jun 6, 11:33 am, RobertL wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 12:42:17 PM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine
pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks.
Interestingly they dished out Iodine pills in Romania. My wife
(Romanian) remembers it.

Robert
TurNiP never lets facts get in the way of fiction.
Thr dished out no iodine pills in the area around the reactor. Romania
is nowhere hear it.


Is that a form of anti-matter? Wipes out any iodine that is around...

--
Rod

On 07/06/2013 18:16, harry wrote:
On Jun 7, 5:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 07/06/13 06:47, harry wrote: On Jun 6, 11:39 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--
And you think new nuclear will be any cheaper?
You need your head examining.

No, I dont think, I KNOW.


You know nothing of the sort.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...nightmare.html


Quite misleading, but that is true of many of the sources you quote.

That article calculates the future need for nuclear plants on the basis
of the current output of 440 operational reactors, completely ignoring
the fact that only about 150 of those have outputs in excess of 1,000
MW, while a single modern station could have an output of nearly 6,000 MW.

Colin Bignell

On 07/06/2013 20:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
polygonum wrote:

On 07/06/2013 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/06/13 18:10, harry wrote:
On Jun 6, 11:33 am, RobertL wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 12:42:17 PM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine
pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks.
Interestingly they dished out Iodine pills in Romania. My wife
(Romanian) remembers it.

Robert
TurNiP never lets facts get in the way of fiction.
Thr dished out no iodine pills in the area around the reactor. Romania
is nowhere hear it.


Is that a form of anti-matter? Wipes out any iodine that is around...

Do you have a problem with the fact that taking iodine pills will help
stave off thyroid cancer should you be in danger of getting a dose of
I-131?

None at all. Why would you think I do?

Simple amusement at the concept of "no iodine" pills. In the long line
of things like nothing acting faster than anadin.

--
Rod

On Jun 7, 7:37*pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 07/06/2013 18:16, harry wrote:









On Jun 7, 5:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 07/06/13 06:47, harry wrote: On Jun 6, 11:39 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--
And you think new nuclear will be *any cheaper?
You need your head examining.

No, I dont think, I KNOW.

You know nothing of the sort.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...renewable_revo...

Quite misleading, but that is true of many of the sources you quote.

That article calculates the future need for nuclear plants on the basis
of the current output of 440 operational reactors, completely ignoring
the fact that only about 150 of those have outputs in excess of 1,000
MW, while a single modern station could have an output of nearly 6,000 MW..

Colin Bignell

Still a lot of reactors.
Largely untried technology too.

On 08/06/2013 07:09, harry wrote:
On Jun 7, 7:37 pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 07/06/2013 18:16, harry wrote:









On Jun 7, 5:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 07/06/13 06:47, harry wrote: On Jun 6, 11:39 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--
And you think new nuclear will be any cheaper?
You need your head examining.

No, I dont think, I KNOW.

You know nothing of the sort.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...renewable_revo...

Quite misleading, but that is true of many of the sources you quote.

That article calculates the future need for nuclear plants on the basis
of the current output of 440 operational reactors, completely ignoring
the fact that only about 150 of those have outputs in excess of 1,000
MW, while a single modern station could have an output of nearly 6,000 MW.

Colin Bignell

Still a lot of reactors.

Nowhere near as many as they try to suggest and needing a lot less or
either land area (1) or raw materials (2) than renewables.

(1) Per 1000 MWe:

Solar PV: 20-50 km^2
Wind: 50-150 km^2
Nuclear: 1-4 km^2


(2) Per MWe of *installed* capacity. The figures in parenthesis are the
multipliers that must be applied to get the materials requirements for
an actual output, allowing for typical capacity factors:

Solar PV: 40 t steel, 19 t aluminium, 76 t concrete, 85 t glass, 13 t
silicon. (7 Spain to 15 Glasgow)

Wind: 118 t steel, 298 t concrete. (3 to 4)

Nuclear: 36-40 t steel, 75-90 m3 concrete. (1.25)


Largely untried technology too.

Completely proven technology that is the safest method of power
generation, by far.

Colin Bignell

On 08/06/13 12:10, Nightjar wrote:
On 08/06/2013 07:09, harry wrote:
On Jun 7, 7:37 pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 07/06/2013 18:16, harry wrote:









On Jun 7, 5:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 07/06/13 06:47, harry wrote: On Jun 6, 11:39 pm, The Other
Mike
wrote:

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in
poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to
print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--
And you think new nuclear will be any cheaper?
You need your head examining.

No, I dont think, I KNOW.

You know nothing of the sort.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...renewable_revo...


Quite misleading, but that is true of many of the sources you quote.

That article calculates the future need for nuclear plants on the basis
of the current output of 440 operational reactors, completely ignoring
the fact that only about 150 of those have outputs in excess of 1,000
MW, while a single modern station could have an output of nearly
6,000 MW.

Colin Bignell

Still a lot of reactors.

Nowhere near as many as they try to suggest and needing a lot less or
either land area (1) or raw materials (2) than renewables.

(1) Per 1000 MWe:

Solar PV: 20-50 km^2
that is about right. 20-50W/sq meter

Wind: 50-150 km^2

That is wrong: its more like 500-1000sq km. (1-2W/sq m)

Nuclear: 1-4 km^2

That's a bit high. Sizewll including the old magnox reactors is 750mx
500 m, and 1.2GWe so that comes down to 0.35 sk km so you are out by a
factor of up to ten.

Power desnity is density is 3,400 W/sqm



(2) Per MWe of *installed* capacity. The figures in parenthesis are
the multipliers that must be applied to get the materials requirements
for an actual output, allowing for typical capacity factors:

Solar PV: 40 t steel, 19 t aluminium, 76 t concrete, 85 t glass, 13 t
silicon. (7 Spain to 15 Glasgow)

Wind: 118 t steel, 298 t concrete. (3 to 4)

Nuclear: 36-40 t steel, 75-90 m3 concrete. (1.25)


And remember because on average a nuclear power station produces 3
times as much electricity on average as a wind turbine of equivalent
*capacity* and ten times as much as solar farm over a period of three
times as long as wind power. Or solar.

So per unit electricity generated a nuclear power station is likley to
generate 10 times as much electricity over its lifetime as te same
capacity wind farm so the ratio of materials for wind to nuclear is
something like 32 times more steel and (assuming you meant cubic meters
not tonnes of concrete), 4 and a bit times more concrete.

You will also be likely to use around ten times as much copper per unit
electricity generated.

Largely untried technology too.

Completely proven technology that is the safest method of power
generation, by far.


Exactly.

Colin Bignell



--
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 08/06/2013 14:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/06/13 12:10, Nightjar wrote:
On 08/06/2013 07:09, harry wrote:
On Jun 7, 7:37 pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 07/06/2013 18:16, harry wrote:
....
Still a lot of reactors.

Nowhere near as many as they try to suggest and needing a lot less or
either land area (1) or raw materials (2) than renewables.

(1) Per 1000 MWe:

Solar PV: 20-50 km^2
that is about right. 20-50W/sq meter

Wind: 50-150 km^2

That is wrong: its more like 500-1000sq km. (1-2W/sq m)

The figures come from a site promoting the advantages of nuclear power,
so I assume they would not intentionally underestimate it. The top end
of their range is about right for the 6.5 W/sq m achieved in the
Shetlands. It also ties in with the 100 times the area of a nuclear
plant that other sources claim.

Nuclear: 1-4 km^2

That's a bit high. Sizewll including the old magnox reactors is 750mx
500 m, and 1.2GWe so that comes down to 0.35 sk km so you are out by a
factor of up to ten.

The site is American, so they probably have more room to spread out
their plants than we do.


Power desnity is density is 3,400 W/sqm



(2) Per MWe of *installed* capacity. The figures in parenthesis are
the multipliers that must be applied to get the materials requirements
for an actual output, allowing for typical capacity factors:

Solar PV: 40 t steel, 19 t aluminium, 76 t concrete, 85 t glass, 13 t
silicon. (7 Spain to 15 Glasgow)

Wind: 118 t steel, 298 t concrete. (3 to 4)

Nuclear: 36-40 t steel, 75-90 m3 concrete. (1.25)


And remember because on average a nuclear power station produces 3
times as much electricity on average as a wind turbine of equivalent
*capacity* and ten times as much as solar farm over a period of three
times as long as wind power. Or solar.

Hence the multipliers.

So per unit electricity generated a nuclear power station is likley to
generate 10 times as much electricity over its lifetime as te same
capacity wind farm so the ratio of materials for wind to nuclear is
something like 32 times more steel and (assuming you meant cubic meters
not tonnes of concrete),...

Being American, it will be short tons, rather than tonnes. I doubt they
would know a cubic metre if it bit them.

Colin Bignell

On Jun 8, 12:10*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 08/06/2013 07:09, harry wrote:









On Jun 7, 7:37 pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 07/06/2013 18:16, harry wrote:

On Jun 7, 5:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 07/06/13 06:47, harry wrote: On Jun 6, 11:39 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--
And you think new nuclear will be *any cheaper?
You need your head examining.

No, I dont think, I KNOW.

You know nothing of the sort.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...renewable_revo....

Quite misleading, but that is true of many of the sources you quote.

That article calculates the future need for nuclear plants on the basis
of the current output of 440 operational reactors, completely ignoring
the fact that only about 150 of those have outputs in excess of 1,000
MW, while a single modern station could have an output of nearly 6,000 MW.

Colin Bignell

Still a lot of reactors.

Nowhere near as many as they try to suggest and needing a lot less or
either land area (1) or raw materials (2) than renewables.

(1) Per 1000 MWe:

Solar PV: 20-50 km^2
Wind: 50-150 km^2
Nuclear: 1-4 km^2

(2) Per MWe of *installed* capacity. The figures in parenthesis are the
multipliers that must be applied to get the materials requirements for
an actual output, allowing for typical capacity factors:

Solar PV: 40 t steel, 19 t aluminium, 76 t concrete, 85 t glass, 13 t
silicon. (7 Spain to 15 Glasgow)

Wind: 118 t steel, 298 t concrete. (3 to 4)

Nuclear: 36-40 t steel, 75-90 m3 concrete. (1.25)

Largely untried technology too.

Completely proven technology that is the safest method of power
generation, by far.

Colin Bignell

Solar panels,
Zero maintenance, zero fuel costs, zero costs for operators/plant
attendants.
If fitted to roofs, zero space needed.
Zero possibility of fuel supply being cut off.
Zero possibility of fuel supply running out.
Zero possibilty of fuel price increases.
No additions need to grid as power is used locally.
Zero running pollution.
Zero waste products to dispose of.
Zero chance of disruption by terrorist attack.
Minimum disruption if one installation goes faulty.
Can be installed by semi-skilled labour on piecemeal basis.
Zero disruption/inconvenience during installation.
Owners are incited to economise on electricity use.
Zero export of currency to obtain fuel supply.

There's probably more too.

New nuclear (EDF) Finland is over budget and time by a factor of two
and rising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley...urised_Reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley...tion#Economics

harry wrote:
Solar panels,
Zero maintenance, zero fuel costs, zero costs for operators/plant
attendants.

Regular cleaning needed in polluted areas, and routine checks on safety
and installation are needed, Ancillary equipment has been shown to be
not particularly reliable, according to posts on this newsgroup.

That's for domestic PV installations. Larger installations using
tracking mirrors to concentrate sunlight on a boiler are unreliable,
very expensive, need lots of maintenance, and aren't yet proved to be
economic even *with* a massive subsidy. They also stop working at night
and have a much reduced output in cloudy weather.

No additions need to grid as power is used locally.

While being subsidised by all users via the feed in tariff. And what
about the farmers who are beginning to harvest the subsidy offered to
cover their fields with solar panels?

Zero waste products to dispose of.

Until the end of life, or while they're being produced. There is much
pollution produced and energy expended while making them. Some
calculations show that the same energy could be obtained with less
overall pollution by just burning coal or, better, natural gas. Or, with
much less pollution, by using nuclear power.

And that ignores the fact that for every kilowatt of solar PV, there
needs to be a kilowatt of surplus conventional power, ready to turn on
at the passing of a cloud.

Can be installed by semi-skilled labour on piecemeal basis.

Most work on any power station can be and is carried out by semi-skilled
labour. Mixing concrete and moving earth around isn't rocket science. To
make solar panels requires a large investment in both skilled labour and
precision manufacturing ability. The only solar panels that are made by
unskilled labour are leaves.

Zero disruption/inconvenience during installation.

You speak from personal experience, of course? Minimal, maybe, zero, no.

Owners are incited to economise on electricity use.

Yeah, they have to turn everything off at sunset.

Zero export of currency to obtain fuel supply.

Other than paying cheap Chinese labour to produce them in a vast number
of cases.

There's probably more too.

New nuclear (EDF) Finland is over budget and time by a factor of two
and rising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley...urised_Reactor

Name a large project using a new design that *hasn't* gone over time and
budget lately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley...tion#Economics

That page seems to be vastly understating the cost quoted in Wikipedia
for Solar photovolatic power of USD 156.9 per megawatt hour as against
nuclear at USD 112.7 per megawatt hour, both at estimated 2017 values.
Either one or the other page is wrong, and I'm betting on the one Harry
quotes.

Mainly, the paragraph's complaining about the desire of EDF to gouge the
paying public for excessive profits. Does that sound familiar, Harry?


--
Tciao for Now!

John.