On 08/06/2013 18:03, harry wrote:
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.

Not if you want to do it on a commercial level, as would be required to
compete with nuclear power.

If fitted to roofs, zero space needed.

Although the fire brigade may refuse to enter the house in the case of a
fire and, again, not if you want to do it on a commercial level.

Zero possibility of fuel supply being cut off.

Except at night and during bad weather.

Zero possibility of fuel supply running out.

Except at night and during bad weather.

Zero possibilty of fuel price increases.

Not particularly significant for nuclear either.

No additions need to grid as power is used locally.

Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.

Zero running pollution.

Also true of nuclear.

Zero waste products to dispose of.

Untrue. The panels themselves will eventually become waste products.

Zero chance of disruption by terrorist attack.

Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.

Minimum disruption if one installation goes faulty.

Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.

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

Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.

Zero disruption/inconvenience during installation.

Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.

Owners are incited to economise on electricity use.

Why, if everything is as good as you say?

Zero export of currency to obtain fuel supply.

However, as I pointed out, huge amounts of raw material needed to make.

New nuclear (EDF) Finland is over budget and time by a factor of two
and rising.

Due to bad workmanship by sub-contractors and delays to allow the
lessons of Fukushima to be considered. Neither need be a factor in other
projects.

Colin Bignell

In article
..com, harry scribeth thus
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.

Zero output at night when it's overcast and when it's raining and
snowing...

Ideally NOT suited to UK use...


--
Tony Sayer

On 08/06/13 20:33, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
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.
every night it gets cutoff and most of te winter.

Zero possibility of fuel supply running out.
runs out every night. See above.

Zero possibilty of fuel price increases.

every possibility of interest rate rises
No additions need to grid as power is used locally.
******** it is. Only if the sum output is so pathetic it doesn't affect
anything.


Zero running pollution.
smae as nuclera then.
Zero waste products to dispose of.
********

Zero chance of disruption by terrorist attack.
********. I'll have a brick through yours in short order.

Minimum disruption if one installation goes faulty.

since it doesnt generate anything anyway...

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

so can an IED.
Zero disruption/inconvenience during installation.

Bollockjs
Owners are incited to economise on electricity use.

neighbors are incited to use it as an airgun target.

Zero export of currency to obtain fuel supply.

There's probably more too.
Zero output at night when it's overcast and when it's raining and
snowing...

Ideally NOT suited to UK use...



Basically 90% of harry's claims are out and out lies...


--
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 8, 6:32*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
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...wer_station#Eu...

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley...wer_station#Ec...

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.Ads not by this site

I haven't seen a single report of PV failure on this news group.
There are dozens in our village, no-one has reported failure.
The glass is self cleaning unless nearly horizontal.
They are about saving primary fuel which is going to be
expensive in the future.

The problem with new nuclear is that at the end of it we
may have a failure, either design of economic.
So we need to have several irons in the fire.

They build newer and bigger ships/buildings/bridges/tunnels all the
time and don't go over budget.
Why should they with nuclear, (unless or course there are
design problems they are keeping quiet about)?
For which, in the end, the taxpayer will pick up the bill for.

On Jun 8, 10:05*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 08/06/13 20:33, tony sayer wrote:









In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
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.

every night it gets cutoff and most of te winter.

Zero possibility of fuel supply running out.

runs out every night. See above.

Zero possibilty of fuel price increases.

every possibility of interest rate rises No additions need to grid as power is used locally.

******** it is. Only if the sum output is so pathetic it doesn't affect
anything.

Zero running pollution.

smae as nuclera then. Zero waste products to dispose of.

********

Zero chance of disruption by terrorist attack.

********. I'll have a brick through yours in short order.

Minimum disruption if one installation goes faulty.

since it doesnt generate anything anyway...

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

so can an IED.

Zero disruption/inconvenience during installation.

Bollockjs

Owners are incited to economise on electricity use.

neighbors are incited to use it as an airgun target.

Zero export of currency to obtain fuel supply.

There's probably more too.
Zero output at night when it's overcast and when it's raining and
snowing...

Ideally NOT suited to UK use...

Basically 90% of harry's claims are out and out lies...

You are fullof ******** TurNiP.
For a non-owner you come up with a lot of **** on a topic you have
zero knowledge about.
But then that's true about nuclear power too.

On Jun 8, 10:31*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
Zero possibility of fuel supply being cut off.

Fuel supply is cut off every day - completely. Also when it rains, snow,
is overcast, or worse, is foggy. Further, the overnight cut-off period
increases during the period known as winter - just when you'd like it to
be available for the longest.


Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.
No-one claims they are convenient, simple or cheap.
But no electricity source will be cheap in the future.
Especially nuclear.
Supposing we actually get a working installation in ten years.
Or twenty years.

On Jun 8, 8:33*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus









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.

Zero output at night when it's overcast and when it's raining and
snowing...

Ideally NOT suited to UK use...

--
Tony Sayer

Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?
Output is reduced in overcast conditions not zero.

We need as many different renewable technologies as possible to
overlap.

On 09/06/2013 08:50, harry wrote:
Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?
Output is reduced in overcast conditions not zero.

We need as many different renewable technologies as possible to
overlap.

What happens to output during and after a sandstorm?

(For those who think we do not get them in the UK, look north, far
north, recently.)

Overlap of technologies is pretty much irrelevant if the source is the
same. Both PV and thermal solar stop working when there is no sun
despite being very different technologies.

--
Rod

On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

There might be any number of arguments about the impact of consuming
them. But the only fundamental reason to save them is to allow their
deferred use. And that would surely only be necessary if the renewables
you go on about do not work at the levels required.

(I realise that not exploiting tar sands, or whatever, might reduce some
damage done by their exploitation. But that is not an issue of "saving".)

--
Rod

On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed oil
from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it currently
costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions and the cost
could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an industrial scale.

Colin Bignell

On 09/06/13 08:50, harry wrote:
We need as many different renewable technologies as possible to overlap.
Harry's car has a battery, a diesel engine, sails, solar panels and a
clockwork motor and he is busy equipping it with compressed air, a
flywheel, and pedals.
Its too heavy to get more than 5mpg from the only reliable source of
energy it has - diesel.

But by ****, it ticks the diversity box!




--
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 09/06/13 08:57, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:50, harry wrote:
Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?
Output is reduced in overcast conditions not zero.

We need as many different renewable technologies as possible to
overlap.

What happens to output during and after a sandstorm?

Or when the builders next door are shovelling cement in large quantities
and it ends up setting as a nice thick film on the panels

As happened to my FILS solar panels...



(For those who think we do not get them in the UK, look north, far
north, recently.)

Overlap of technologies is pretty much irrelevant if the source is the
same. Both PV and thermal solar stop working when there is no sun
despite being very different technologies.

harry is talking usual hand wavy airy-fairy ********.

There is no benefit in diversity of technology whatsoever.
There is some benefit in diversity of location.

--
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 09/06/2013 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/13 08:50, harry wrote:
We need as many different renewable technologies as possible to overlap.
Harry's car has a battery, a diesel engine, sails, solar panels and a
clockwork motor and he is busy equipping it with compressed air, a
flywheel, and pedals.
Its too heavy to get more than 5mpg from the only reliable source of
energy it has - diesel.

But by ****, it ticks the diversity box!




What? No waterwheel!

Actually thought it might scrub and shampoo the roads as it goes along.
Then could tick the Diversey box as well.

--
Rod

On 09/06/13 09:01, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

Rather ask why they don't save fossil fuel anyway, if that is what they
are supposed to do.

Show me ONE study based on DATA rather than models, that shows ANY
reduction in fossil fuels associated with high deployment on
intermittent renewable energy.

I've looked everywhere for 4 years and not found a single one.

Plenty of people CLAIM that it does ..but when examined closely, its
just claims. No one has ever measured it.

Such evidence as exists shows that massive deployment of wind and solar
in Germany and Denmark has haf little measurable impact on fossil use.
But thet evidence is abundantly clear that nuclear power makes a massive
difference to fossil fuel burn at substantially lower cost per unit fuel
saved.


There might be any number of arguments about the impact of consuming
them. But the only fundamental reason to save them is to allow their
deferred use. And that would surely only be necessary if the
renewables you go on about do not work at the levels required.

(I realise that not exploiting tar sands, or whatever, might reduce
some damage done by their exploitation. But that is not an issue of
"saving".)



--
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 09/06/13 12:01, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed
oil from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it
currently costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions
and the cost could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an
industrial scale.


No. In the end synthesising hydrocarbon fuels requires energy, and that
energy costs.

You will never be able to make a kwh or electricity and make 3 kwh of
fuel from it.

If the syntheshis is algaeic, using sunlight, you are in the solar
panel/biofuel game, but at appallingly low efficiencies. Solar panels
are far better than algae, the only advantage of 'biofuels' is that they
produce an energy STORE, but you pay a high price. Conversion efficiency
is typically less than 1% compared with 10-40% for a solar panel. So
once again the need for massive solar collecting areas arises.

Better is to use nuclear heat or electricity to fashion hydrocarbons. At
around £5-£10 a litre.




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 09/06/2013 12:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/13 12:01, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed
oil from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it
currently costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions
and the cost could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an
industrial scale.


No. In the end synthesising hydrocarbon fuels requires energy, and that
energy costs.

You will never be able to make a kwh or electricity and make 3 kwh of
fuel from it.

If the syntheshis is algaeic, using sunlight, you are in the solar
panel/biofuel game, but at appallingly low efficiencies. Solar panels
are far better than algae, the only advantage of 'biofuels' is that they
produce an energy STORE, but you pay a high price. Conversion efficiency
is typically less than 1% compared with 10-40% for a solar panel. So
once again the need for massive solar collecting areas arises.

The expected actual yield for a simple non-concentrating sunlight system
is in the range of 40,000 - 50,000 litres, per hectare per annum,
assuming 50% oil content. The 40,000 would be at Kuala Lumpur, where the
yield for palm oil is around 5,950 l/ha/a.

Better is to use nuclear heat or electricity to fashion hydrocarbons. At
around £5-£10 a litre.

Or about $1200 - $2400 a barrel. OTOH, algal oil could probably be
brought down to near conventional oil prices, consumes waste products
and produces biomass that can be burned or converted into fertiliser.

Colin Bignell

On Jun 9, 12:01*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:

On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed oil
from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it currently
costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions and the cost
could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an industrial scale.

Colin Bignell

I think that would be substantially more than wind turbines or PV.

On Jun 9, 12:43*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 09/06/13 08:50, harry wrote: We need as many different renewable technologies as possible to overlap.

Harry's car has a battery, a diesel engine, sails, solar panels *and a
clockwork motor and he is busy equipping it with compressed air, a
flywheel, and pedals.
Its too heavy to get more than 5mpg from the only reliable source of
energy it has - diesel.


Well it has pedals and a battery.
Try to keep up!
1Kwh takes me around five miles.

On Jun 9, 9:01*am, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:

Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?


They are too valuable to burn.
And soon will be too expensive to burn.

Hands up who thinks their gas/electric bill will be falling in the
next year/five years/ten years?

But sunlight will still be free.
My house is a net energy exporter. As all houses should be.

On 09/06/2013 16:58, harry wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:

On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed oil
from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it currently
costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions and the cost
could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an industrial scale.

Colin Bignell

I think that would be substantially more than wind turbines or PV.


There is good reason to think it could be made competitive with tar
sands or shale oil and oil is a much better source of power for road
transport than electricity.

Colin Bignell

On Jun 9, 4:25*pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 12:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:









On 09/06/13 12:01, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed
oil from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it
currently costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions
and the cost could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an
industrial scale.

No. In the end synthesising hydrocarbon fuels requires energy, and that
energy costs.

You will never be able to make a kwh or electricity and make 3 kwh of
fuel from it.

If the syntheshis is algaeic, using sunlight, you are in the solar
panel/biofuel game, but at appallingly low efficiencies. Solar panels
are far better than algae, the only advantage of 'biofuels' is that they
produce an energy STORE, but you pay a high price. Conversion efficiency
is typically less than 1% compared with 10-40% for a solar panel. So
once again the need for massive solar collecting areas arises.

The expected actual yield for a simple non-concentrating sunlight system
is in the range of 40,000 - 50,000 litres, per hectare per annum,
assuming 50% oil content. The 40,000 would be at Kuala Lumpur, where the
yield for palm oil is around 5,950 l/ha/a.

Better is to use nuclear heat or electricity to fashion hydrocarbons. At
around £5-£10 a litre.

Or about $1200 - $2400 a barrel. OTOH, algal oil could probably be
brought down to near conventional oil prices, consumes waste products
and produces biomass that can be burned or converted into fertiliser.

Colin Bignell

Well there is a government subsidy if you want to do that too.
A bit like a FIT.
http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/index.p...tion-plan.html
We have one locally.

But TurNiP thinks you can only make it when the sun shines.
And you can only get ground source heat when the sun shines.
I wonder where he was educated?

On 09/06/2013 17:16, harry wrote:
On Jun 9, 4:25 pm, Nightjar wrote:
....
Or about $1200 - $2400 a barrel. OTOH, algal oil could probably be
brought down to near conventional oil prices, consumes waste products
and produces biomass that can be burned or converted into fertiliser.

Colin Bignell

Well there is a government subsidy if you want to do that too.
A bit like a FIT.
http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/index.p...tion-plan.html
We have one locally.

That is food waste, not human waste, and it yields methane, not oil.

Colin Bignell

On 09/06/2013 17:06, harry wrote:
On Jun 9, 9:01 am, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:

Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?


They are too valuable to burn.
And soon will be too expensive to burn.

Hands up who thinks their gas/electric bill will be falling in the
next year/five years/ten years?

But sunlight will still be free.
My house is a net energy exporter. As all houses should be.

If every house in the world were a net exporter of electricity, and
every non-house building did as much generation as it could, what value
that electricity? What value the fossil fuel? Sure it has its place in
transport at present.

(Not that I think the above is likely or even possible.)

--
Rod

In article
..com, harry scribeth thus
On Jun 8, 8:33*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus









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.

Zero output at night when it's overcast and when it's raining and
snowing...

Ideally NOT suited to UK use...

--
Tony Sayer

Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?

No I don't, but two people who I do know have them, and both have said
if they had to pay the full price for them they've never have bothered
with what they'd get back..


Output is reduced in overcast conditions not zero.

Yes quite thus far this year;!...


We need as many different renewable technologies as possible to
overlap.

--
Tony Sayer

On 09/06/13 17:16, harry wrote:
But TurNiP thinks you can only make it when the sun shines.

I dont think. I know. Plants dont grow in the dark/.

And you can only get ground source heat when the sun shines.
I never said that.
You are lying twice in one sentence! A record?
I wonder where he was educated?
You now where I was educated harry.
A rare place you have never experienced where you are taught to tell the
truth and think for yourself.




--
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 09/06/13 17:06, harry wrote:
But sunlight will still be free. My house is a net energy exporter. As
all houses should be.

More lies from, harry. Unless he is starving himself to death and never
goes to the supermarket.

Domestic electricity is less than 10% of the NET energy a person consumes.


--
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 9, 5:35*pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 17:16, harry wrote:

On Jun 9, 4:25 pm, Nightjar wrote:
...
Or about $1200 - $2400 a barrel. OTOH, algal oil could probably be
brought down to near conventional oil prices, consumes waste products
and produces biomass that can be burned or converted into fertiliser.

Colin Bignell

Well there is a government subsidy if you want to do that too.
A bit like a FIT.
http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/index.p...tion-plan.html
We have one locally.

That is food waste, not human waste, and it yields methane, not oil.

Colin Bignell

It's ALL bio waste. Also biocrops can be added to enhance the quality
of the gas.

On Jun 9, 9:21*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus









On Jun 8, 8:33*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus

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.

Zero output at night when it's overcast and when it's raining and
snowing...

Ideally NOT suited to UK use...

--
Tony Sayer

Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?

No I don't, but two people who I do know have them, and both have said
if they had to pay the full price for them they've never have bothered
with what they'd get back..

That statement doesn't make any sense.
Care to rephrase?

On Jun 9, 10:25*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*tony sayer wrote:

In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?

No I don't, but two people who I do know have them, and both have said
if they had to pay the full price for them they've never have bothered
with what they'd get back.

But Society, one way and another, *is* paying full price for them; it
always does. Subsidies always mask inefficiencies and should always be
avoided.

We can conclude that the panels are just snake oil. Of course, wide boys
like harry just love them. A legal way of stealing from people.


Subsidies are what the government pays to get people to pursue a
policy they have embarked on.
Schools libraries, farming nuclear power etc are all subsidised.
The subsidy on PV is being reduced. In five years the cost of
electricity from other sources will be the same or more.

Are you too thick to understand this?
Or is it the envy because you were too stupid to get your own back
then?

On Jun 9, 11:21*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 09/06/13 17:16, harry wrote:

But TurNiP thinks you can only make it when the sun shines.

I dont think. I know. Plants dont grow in the dark/.

And you can only get ground source heat when the sun shines.

I never said that.
You are lying twice in one sentence! A record? I wonder where he was educated?

You now where I was educated harry.
A rare place you have never experienced where you are taught to tell the
truth and think for yourself.

Know that would be. (I bet you were cursing when you saw that.)

Well you claim to have been educated at Cambridge I seem to remember.
The source of liars, crooks, politicians and many others who live in
Lala Land.

You have avoided revealing what you studied. Greek I suppose.
Or media studies. Or workplace hygiene

On Jun 9, 6:04*pm, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 17:06, harry wrote:







On Jun 9, 9:01 am, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:

Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

They are too valuable to burn.
And soon will be too expensive to burn.

Hands up who thinks their gas/electric bill will be falling in the
next year/five years/ten years?

But sunlight will still be free.
My house is a net energy exporter. As all houses should be.

If every house in the world were a net exporter of electricity, and
every non-house building did as much generation as it could, what value
that electricity? What value the fossil fuel? Sure it has its place in
transport at present.

(Not that I think the above is likely or even possible.)

--
Rod

Define "value".

We need fossil fuels for plastics, fertilizer, chemical industry,
commercial transport, ships, lubricants, metal refining to name a few
not easliy done with electricity

On Jun 9, 9:21*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus









On Jun 8, 8:33*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus

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.

Zero output at night when it's overcast and when it's raining and
snowing...

Ideally NOT suited to UK use...

--
Tony Sayer

Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?

No I don't, but two people who I do know have them, and both have said
if they had to pay the full price for them they've never have bothered
with what they'd get back..

Output is reduced in overcast conditions not zero.

Yes quite thus far this year;!...


Actually up on last year. The next three months are the critical ones.

On Jun 9, 5:12*pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 16:58, harry wrote:









On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:

On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed oil
from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it currently
costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions and the cost
could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an industrial scale..

Colin Bignell

I think that would be substantially more than wind turbines or PV.

There is good reason to think it could be made competitive with tar
sands or shale oil and oil is a much better source of power for road
transport than electricity.

Colin Bignell

You ARE full of ****.
This is what you want?
http://www.businessinsider.com/photo...s-2012-10?op=1

On 10/06/2013 08:18, harry wrote:
On Jun 9, 5:12 pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 16:58, harry wrote:

On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:

On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed oil
from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it currently
costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions and the cost
could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an industrial scale.

Colin Bignell

I think that would be substantially more than wind turbines or PV.

There is good reason to think it could be made competitive with tar
sands or shale oil and oil is a much better source of power for road
transport than electricity.

Colin Bignell

You ARE full of ****.
This is what you want?
http://www.businessinsider.com/photo...s-2012-10?op=1


Try

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-tou...dian-economy-1

for a view of the future of oils sands extraction.

In any case, that has nothing to do with algal oil production, which
is effectively making oil the way nature did, without the multi-million
year wait.

Colin Bignell

In article
, harry
wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:21 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/13 17:16, harry wrote:

But TurNiP thinks you can only make it when the sun shines.

I dont think. I know. Plants dont grow in the dark/.

And you can only get ground source heat when the sun shines.

I never said that. You are lying twice in one sentence! A record? I
wonder where he was educated?

You now where I was educated harry. A rare place you have never
experienced where you are taught to tell the truth and think for
yourself.

Know that would be. (I bet you were cursing when you saw that.)

Well you claim to have been educated at Cambridge I seem to remember. The
source of liars, crooks, politicians and many others who live in Lala
Land.

basically, a typical cross-section of society.

Charles MA(Cantab)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:58:49 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Subsidies are what the government pays

The CUSTOMER pays.

--

On 08/06/2013 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
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)

Since the typical 250w panel only weighs about 16 kg where does all the
glass go?

40t of steel is a lot of nuts and bolts which is about the only place
its used.


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

A large amount of oil is needed to make the plastics used in wind
turbines isn't it? There is a fair amount of glass in the resin too.

I wonder if the bases will be reusable or will they have to be dug up
and recycled or landfilled?


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.

A bit like hydro was proven technology until they discovered just how
damaging it is to nature.
I expect they knew how bad it is but decided to hide the facts.


Colin Bignell

Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?

No I don't, but two people who I do know have them, and both have said
if they had to pay the full price for them they've never have bothered
with what they'd get back..

That statement doesn't make any sense.
Care to rephrase?



Two people who have solar panels, PV ones that is, fitted to their
houses say that if they had to buy them from scratch at the prices they
are installed, would be rather poor if they depended on the power they
saved by the amount of power they actually generated..

FWIW a close neighbour has some panels, quite a few, and Two of them are
in shade when the sun shines from most any direction so I suppose
they're not generating enough to cover their costs either.

Do they affect all the others especially if they are series connected..
--
Tony Sayer

No I don't, but two people who I do know have them, and both have said
if they had to pay the full price for them they've never have bothered
with what they'd get back..

Output is reduced in overcast conditions not zero.

Yes quite thus far this year;!...


Actually up on last year. The next three months are the critical ones.


Are you saying we have had more hours of sunshine this year compared
with last year?..
--
Tony Sayer

On Jun 10, 9:28*am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 08:18, harry wrote:









On Jun 9, 5:12 pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 16:58, harry wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:

On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed oil
from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it currently
costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions and the cost
could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an industrial scale.

Colin Bignell

I think that would be substantially more than wind turbines or PV.

There is good reason to think it could be made competitive with tar
sands or shale oil and oil is a much better source of power for road
transport than electricity.

Colin Bignell

You ARE full of ****.
This is what you want?
http://www.businessinsider.com/photo...a-oil-sands-20...

Try

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-tou...s-in-situ-chri...


I think maybe you should look at the last picture in that sequence.
And the comment accompanying it.