On 23/07/13 19:13, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:
...
And we are all going to have to use less...
Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens' who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell
We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, it is not the greenest
option.
Course we can. If you would let us.


--
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.

"mcp" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.

I don't thinkl we will ever have access to the uranium at the Earth's core.
(Except as geothermal heat)

"harryagain" wrote:

I don't think

I agree.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"harryagain" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"harryagain" wrote:

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got,


We haven't done it in sixty years so it is true.

another lie.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 23/07/2013 00:27, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:47:06 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 22/07/2013 23:34, mcp wrote:
On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.

Its already non renewable.
there is no mechanism to renew it.

Our usage of geothermal energy is renewable, it is renewed by
radioactive decay. It's the same for other"renewables" e.g. solar.

So that would include gas, oil and nukes then as they are just as
renewable.


How much geothermal can you extract before you cause earthquakes or
other events due to the disturbance of heat flow in the crust?

Extraction of geothermal energy is intrinsically inneficient due to
the low thermal gradient. You could never extract enough to disturb
heat flow in the crust. You could cause small earthquakes similar to
fracking if you drill in the wrong place but that's true of any
process involving drilling.


That's not what happens in greenland where they extract heat.

Iceland

harryagain wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"harryagain" wrote:

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got,


We haven't done it in sixty years so it is true.

Only if you substitute "We've not been allowed to" for "haven't"

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 23/07/2013 09:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article om,
"dennis@home" wrote:

On 22/07/2013 23:34, mcp wrote:
On 22 Jul 2013 07:44:10 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

harry wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy

Look and see what primary energy is. Just look at the pie chart.

Under the 'Renewables' list 'Geothermal energy' is mentioned, and
links to another Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, that page says right up front that

"Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the
Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature
of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from
the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay
of minerals (80%)"

Since in the Primary Energy page 'natural uranium' is classed as
'non-renewable' and 'formation of the planet' won't happen again
(making it non-renewable also), do you get the impresson that there's
some wishful thinking going on here?

The radioactive decay of minerals will happen at the same rate whither
or not we use geothermal energy. If you burn uranium in a reactor you
will use it up making it non-renewable.

Its already non renewable.
there is no mechanism to renew it.

Set yourself up a supernova. But you don't want to be within 20 or so
lightyears from it when it goes off.


I doubt if we would survive one that close, maybe a hundred times as far?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_supernova

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens' who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, ...

You keep telling lies about this harry, is there any reason for that?


If we could do it, it would have been done.
So even if it is possible, it's not easy.
I go by results.
Not airy fairy theories.

People like you believe things you want to hear.
The real world is not like that.

Politicians buy votes by telling people what they want to hear. Even if it's
not true.

There have been quite a few failed attempts round the world. And some
ongoing attempts. But no successes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...United_Kingdom

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal
'greens' who can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest
option.

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, ...

You keep telling lies about this harry, is there any reason for that?

If we could do it, it would have been done.

It has been done harry - for 20 years or so. There is old waste that has
not been treated, leftover from the bomb programme. That waste will need
to be treated eventually, and it will probably be expensive. But that is
the case whether or not we build new reactors. Waste from reactors
however is routinely treated.

You know all this as you have been told it a number of times. So why do
you keep lying about it?

Because the worry about whether his solar panels will still work
tomorrow, and whether they will have charged his car up so he can go
shopping has addled his brain.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 23/07/13 20:22, harryagain burbled
People like you believe things you want to hear. The real world is not
like that. Politicians buy votes by telling people what they want to
hear. Even if it's not true. There have been quite a few failed
attempts round the world. And some ongoing attempts. But no successes.

Anyone would think he was talking about greentards and renewable energy.

--
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 23/07/13 21:32, John Williamson wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal
'greens' who can't understand that nuclear power is the
greenest option.

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, ...

You keep telling lies about this harry, is there any reason for that?

If we could do it, it would have been done.

It has been done harry - for 20 years or so. There is old waste that
has not been treated, leftover from the bomb programme. That waste
will need to be treated eventually, and it will probably be
expensive. But that is the case whether or not we build new reactors.
Waste from reactors however is routinely treated.

You know all this as you have been told it a number of times. So why
do you keep lying about it?

Because the worry about whether his solar panels will still work
tomorrow, and whether they will have charged his car up so he can go
shopping has addled his brain.

What brain? he just reads it all off green**** and the Gordian.


--
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.

In message , harryagain
writes

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ill.co.uk...
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:19:54 +0100, harryagain wrote:

And further all primary energy sources are subsidised. Except renewables

I'm sorry, renewables not subsidised?

What is your 42p/unit solar PV payment if not a subsisidy?

What is the payment above the wholesale rate to windmills when they
generate but a subsidy?

What is the payment to wind mills not to generate if not a subsisidy?

Renewables can't be cut off by crazy ayatollas etc in the ME.

But are producing bugger all as I type, it's too dark and there is
**** all wind. In fact we are importing twice as much from France as
wind is producing. Most of our lecky (84%) is currently coming from
coal, followed by nuke then CCGT.

That is because we don't yet have the full range of renewables.
We are notably lacking tidal power.

There will always need to be some gas powered electricity too.
But not oil, coal or nuclear.

Oil and coal will be need for some chemical processes.


And if we bunged up every tidal estuary around the coast of the UK how
much of our energy could we then generate from it?
--
bert

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

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens'
who can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, ...

You keep telling lies about this harry, is there any reason for that?

If we could do it, it would have been done.

It has been done harry - for 20 years or so. There is old waste that has
not been treated, leftover from the bomb programme. That waste will need
to be treated eventually, and it will probably be expensive. But that is
the case whether or not we build new reactors. Waste from reactors however
is routinely treated.

You know all this as you have been told it a number of times. So why do
you keep lying about it?


"Treated" is not finally disposed of.
It is still in temporary storage because they don't know what to do with it.

Stop playing with words.
It doesn't alter the facts.
Get your head out of the sand.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal
'greens' who can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest
option.

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, ...

You keep telling lies about this harry, is there any reason for that?

If we could do it, it would have been done.

It has been done harry - for 20 years or so. There is old waste that has
not been treated, leftover from the bomb programme. That waste will need
to be treated eventually, and it will probably be expensive. But that is
the case whether or not we build new reactors. Waste from reactors
however is routinely treated.

You know all this as you have been told it a number of times. So why do
you keep lying about it?

I have been told it by people who clearly don't examine the facts.
Ones that believeany sort of crap propaganda put out by the nuclear
industry.

Because the worry about whether his solar panels will still work tomorrow,
and whether they will have charged his car up so he can go shopping has
addled his brain.

But at least I don't have to worry about the gas/electricity/petrol bill.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/07/13 21:32, John Williamson wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal
'greens' who can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest
option.

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, ...

You keep telling lies about this harry, is there any reason for that?

If we could do it, it would have been done.

It has been done harry - for 20 years or so. There is old waste that has
not been treated, leftover from the bomb programme. That waste will need
to be treated eventually, and it will probably be expensive. But that is
the case whether or not we build new reactors. Waste from reactors
however is routinely treated.

You know all this as you have been told it a number of times. So why do
you keep lying about it?

Because the worry about whether his solar panels will still work
tomorrow, and whether they will have charged his car up so he can go
shopping has addled his brain.

What brain? he just reads it all off green**** and the Gordian.

You are the dopiest of the lot.

On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens' who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, it is not the greenest
option.

There are many ways to dispose of it.
We could burn most of it in a coal powered station and it would make sod
all difference to the radiation coming from it.


Because there are too many people chasing too little fuel.
It's not a matterof vocla greens. It is supply and demand.
You won't be able to afford inefficient use of fuel.
None of us will.

Nukes are ~100% efficent if the greens shut up and allow the reprocessing.
We are currently burning the waste plutonium from the bombs.
We could burn other waste in the new reactors.


And it is very likely oil from the ME will be cut off when the islamonuts
take over there.

Then there will be no more wind turbines as there will be nothing to
make them with.

We live in times of turmoil and things are going to get worse.
Maybe even economic collapse. They are only papering over the cracks.

On 23/07/2013 19:47, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 22/07/2013 07:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 21/07/2013 21:24, harry wrote:


If what you say about fuel is true the *only* option is nukes.

Dennis, there is no chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy


Look and see what primary energy is.
Just look at the pie chart.



So how do you run a cement factory on solar energy or wind then?
They have start up times measured in days which is rather inconvenient
for
an intermittent source like wind or solar.

That is a chemical processes not power generation. Just as making iron is
a
chemical process.



Are you really that stupid?
Why do you think they use vast amounts of fuel every day?

It is just not going to be available except at very high cost. Wherever it
comes from.
The islamonuts will soon be cutting off our oil supplies too, you watch.
So we have to move away from energy intensive processes.
Why do you suppose we are moving away from brick/concrete block houses to
timber frame houses?

They require less skill to build.

Why do you suppose the government is promoting energy efficiency,

Because energy efficiency is usually a good idea.

renewables and electric cars?

They are stupid.

I have seen it coming for years as has a minority of others.

My house was energy efficient 30 years ago.
It saves money.

Which is why I have a zero energy house and electric car.

So we can cut off your mains supplies then.

On 23/07/2013 19:50, harryagain wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"harryagain" wrote:

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got,


We haven't done it in sixty years so it is true.



You don't need to do anything for 60 years, it is getting rid of itself
while you store it.

John Williamson wrote:

Because the worry about whether his solar panels will still work
tomorrow, and whether they will have charged his car up so he can go
shopping has addled his brain.

I dread to ask, but if harry's vision of the ME refusing to sell oil
comes about, then there's going to be restrictions or rationing or
some form of power cuts, in order to make scarce electricity
production match demand. When the latter happens, his solar panels
won't work and it's very likely his car won't get charged up. He
might live in a zero-energy house now, but ISTM that it isn't a house
that runs with zero-energy input.

So, he's actually worse off than the rest of us.

--
Terry Fields

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:03:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

So we can cut off your mains supplies then.

That would be good. Harry has a grid tie invertor so without mains
electricty that will shut down and he will be sat in the dark with no
electrical appliances or battery charging...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens' who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got,

Repeating that won't make it ant more true. As you have been told many
times, we have had the ability to do it for the past 50 years. The fact
that we choose not to is an entirely different matter.

it is not the greenest
option.

One of the founders of Greenpeace would disagree with you on that.

Because there are too many people chasing too little fuel.
It's not a matterof vocla greens. It is supply and demand.

Were it truly supply and demand, there would be no FIT. However, supply
and demand is probably the only force that might drive us to deal with
nuclear waste efficiently. We currently extract only about 5% of the
energy from nuclear fuel. With recycling, that could be 95%, but it
costs more than just storing it.

You won't be able to afford inefficient use of fuel...

We will with enough nuclear power. Not that there is any immediate risk
of running out of fossil fuels either. There is probably at least a
century of reserves of those accessible with current and near future
technology and we already have more than one technology to create oil
without needing chemical feedstuffs.

....
And it is very likely oil from the ME will be cut off when the islamonuts
take over there.

Probably less important than they would like us to think. Their claimed
reserves jumped enormously in 1985, when they adopted the quota scheme.

The thing you really ought to be worrying about is water. That is
becoming increasingly scarce, even in Britain. Copper is also a concern,
although there are signs that there may be large reserves in the Andes.

We live in times of turmoil and things are going to get worse.
Maybe even economic collapse. They are only papering over the cracks.

You really ought to be living in a gun-filled bunker in mid-west America.

Colin Bignell

On 24/07/2013 13:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:

We live in times of turmoil and things are going to get worse.
Maybe even economic collapse. They are only papering over the cracks.

You really ought to be living in a gun-filled bunker in mid-west America.

If we all chip in, do you spose he would go?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:
On 24/07/2013 13:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:

We live in times of turmoil and things are going to get worse.
Maybe even economic collapse. They are only papering over the cracks.

You really ought to be living in a gun-filled bunker in mid-west America.

If we all chip in, do you spose he would go?


If we used the guns to herd him....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 24/07/2013 13:12, Nightjar wrote:
You really ought to be living in a gun-filled bunker in mid-west America.

Now that's an idea! Ban all non-solar powered weapons. The hot-heads in
hot countries can still shoot each other but, most of the year (and most
years), we can be safe.

--
Rod

On 24/07/2013 10:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:03:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

So we can cut off your mains supplies then.

That would be good. Harry has a grid tie invertor so without mains
electricty that will shut down and he will be sat in the dark with no
electrical appliances or battery charging...


If he has bought the correct type of inverter you can attach a battery
pack and go off grid.

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:

Because the worry about whether his solar panels will still work
tomorrow, and whether they will have charged his car up so he can go
shopping has addled his brain.

I dread to ask, but if harry's vision of the ME refusing to sell oil
comes about, then there's going to be restrictions or rationing or
some form of power cuts, in order to make scarce electricity
production match demand. When the latter happens, his solar panels
won't work and it's very likely his car won't get charged up. He
might live in a zero-energy house now, but ISTM that it isn't a house
that runs with zero-energy input.

So, he's actually worse off than the rest of us.

This stuff happened backin the 70's with the miner's strike.
But it was planned.

I have a woodburning stove with a hot plate.
And a four year store of wood.

If the electricity goes off for more than a few days, it will be the end of
civilisation as we know it.
We lived on a remote farm previously that was subject to power failures and
snowings in.
So we can cope. For a while. But most of my neighbours couldn't.
Many don't even have a chimney.

On 24/07/2013 17:24, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/07/2013 13:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:

We live in times of turmoil and things are going to get worse.
Maybe even economic collapse. They are only papering over the cracks.

You really ought to be living in a gun-filled bunker in mid-west America.

If we all chip in, do you spose he would go?


I'll only contribute if it will be so far from anywhere that he will
have to rely upon renewable energy and can't get an internet connection.

Colin Bignell

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

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

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal
'greens' who can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest
option.

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, ...

You keep telling lies about this harry, is there any reason for
that?

If we could do it, it would have been done.

It has been done harry - for 20 years or so. There is old waste that
has not been treated, leftover from the bomb programme. That waste will
need to be treated eventually, and it will probably be expensive. But
that is the case whether or not we build new reactors. Waste from
reactors however is routinely treated.

You know all this as you have been told it a number of times. So why do
you keep lying about it?

"Treated" is not finally disposed of.
It is still in temporary storage because they don't know what to do with
it.

They do know what to do with it: put it in an underground repository. They
are just prevented by twerps like you, who then go on to lie about how the
waste problem "has not been solved".


You are a pretty ignorant twerp if you think it's a simple matter to create
such a thing that will last 100,000 years.
There has been several expensive failures. Here's one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_M... on_of_project

Here's another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorlebe...torage_project

There are other failures too if you get your head out of your arse and
search.
Every thing's simple to the simple minded eh?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens' who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, it is not the
greenest
option.

There are many ways to dispose of it.
We could burn most of it in a coal powered station and it would make sod
all difference to the radiation coming from it.


Because there are too many people chasing too little fuel.
It's not a matterof vocla greens. It is supply and demand.
You won't be able to afford inefficient use of fuel.
None of us will.

Nukes are ~100% efficent if the greens shut up and allow the reprocessing.
We are currently burning the waste plutonium from the bombs.
We could burn other waste in the new reactors.


My, you are in cloud cuckoo land.You need to get read up on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutoni...power_reactors

On 24/07/2013 20:46, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:

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

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal
'greens' who can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest
option.

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, ...

You keep telling lies about this harry, is there any reason for
that?

If we could do it, it would have been done.

It has been done harry - for 20 years or so. There is old waste that
has not been treated, leftover from the bomb programme. That waste will
need to be treated eventually, and it will probably be expensive. But
that is the case whether or not we build new reactors. Waste from
reactors however is routinely treated.

You know all this as you have been told it a number of times. So why do
you keep lying about it?

"Treated" is not finally disposed of.
It is still in temporary storage because they don't know what to do with
it.

They do know what to do with it: put it in an underground repository. They
are just prevented by twerps like you, who then go on to lie about how the
waste problem "has not been solved".


You are a pretty ignorant twerp if you think it's a simple matter to create
such a thing that will last 100,000 years.

Why would it need to last that long?
If the stuff has a long half life it isn't very radio active.
not that you care as this has been explained to you frequently.

There has been several expensive failures. Here's one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_M... on_of_project

Did you bother to read why its being run down in a few hundred years?
They want to keep the waste to use as fuel rather than continue to
vitrify it.

On 24/07/2013 20:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens' who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, it is not the
greenest
option.

There are many ways to dispose of it.
We could burn most of it in a coal powered station and it would make sod
all difference to the radiation coming from it.


Because there are too many people chasing too little fuel.
It's not a matterof vocla greens. It is supply and demand.
You won't be able to afford inefficient use of fuel.
None of us will.

Nukes are ~100% efficent if the greens shut up and allow the reprocessing.
We are currently burning the waste plutonium from the bombs.
We could burn other waste in the new reactors.


My, you are in cloud cuckoo land.You need to get read up on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutoni...power_reactors



You really should read the stuff you post..

quote

A small percentage of plutonium-239 can be deliberately added to fresh
nuclear fuel. Such fuel is called MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, as it contains
a mixture of uranium oxide (UO2) and plutonium oxide (PuO2). The
addition of plutonium-239 reduces or eliminates the need to enrich the
uranium in the fuel.

unquote.

On 24/07/13 20:34, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:

Because the worry about whether his solar panels will still work
tomorrow, and whether they will have charged his car up so he can go
shopping has addled his brain.
I dread to ask, but if harry's vision of the ME refusing to sell oil
comes about, then there's going to be restrictions or rationing or
some form of power cuts, in order to make scarce electricity
production match demand. When the latter happens, his solar panels
won't work and it's very likely his car won't get charged up. He
might live in a zero-energy house now, but ISTM that it isn't a house
that runs with zero-energy input.

So, he's actually worse off than the rest of us.
This stuff happened backin the 70's with the miner's strike.
But it was planned.

I have a woodburning stove with a hot plate.
And a four year store of wood.

If the electricity goes off for more than a few days, it will be the end of
civilisation as we know it.
We lived on a remote farm previously that was subject to power failures and
snowings in.
So we can cope. For a while. But most of my neighbours couldn't.
Many don't even have a chimney.


Oh, good.


--
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.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 24/07/2013 20:46, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:

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

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal
'greens' who can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest
option.

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, ...

You keep telling lies about this harry, is there any reason for
that?

If we could do it, it would have been done.

It has been done harry - for 20 years or so. There is old waste that
has not been treated, leftover from the bomb programme. That waste
will
need to be treated eventually, and it will probably be expensive. But
that is the case whether or not we build new reactors. Waste from
reactors however is routinely treated.

You know all this as you have been told it a number of times. So why
do
you keep lying about it?

"Treated" is not finally disposed of.
It is still in temporary storage because they don't know what to do
with
it.

They do know what to do with it: put it in an underground repository.
They
are just prevented by twerps like you, who then go on to lie about how
the
waste problem "has not been solved".


You are a pretty ignorant twerp if you think it's a simple matter to
create
such a thing that will last 100,000 years.

Why would it need to last that long?
If the stuff has a long half life it isn't very radio active.
not that you care as this has been explained to you frequently.

There has been several expensive failures. Here's one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_M... on_of_project

Did you bother to read why its being run down in a few hundred years?
They want to keep the waste to use as fuel rather than continue to vitrify
it.

Oh more technology we don't have because it's not viable?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 24/07/2013 20:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens'
who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, it is not the
greenest
option.

There are many ways to dispose of it.
We could burn most of it in a coal powered station and it would make sod
all difference to the radiation coming from it.


Because there are too many people chasing too little fuel.
It's not a matterof vocla greens. It is supply and demand.
You won't be able to afford inefficient use of fuel.
None of us will.

Nukes are ~100% efficent if the greens shut up and allow the
reprocessing.
We are currently burning the waste plutonium from the bombs.
We could burn other waste in the new reactors.


My, you are in cloud cuckoo land.You need to get read up on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutoni...power_reactors



You really should read the stuff you post..

quote

A small percentage of plutonium-239 can be deliberately added to fresh
nuclear fuel. Such fuel is called MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, as it contains a
mixture of uranium oxide (UO2) and plutonium oxide (PuO2). The addition of
plutonium-239 reduces or eliminates the need to enrich the uranium in the
fuel.


Which bit of "Small percentage" don't you understand?.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 24/07/2013 17:24, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/07/2013 13:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:

We live in times of turmoil and things are going to get worse.
Maybe even economic collapse. They are only papering over the cracks.

You really ought to be living in a gun-filled bunker in mid-west
America.

If we all chip in, do you spose he would go?


I'll only contribute if it will be so far from anywhere that he will have
to rely upon renewable energy and can't get an internet connection.



Lost the arguments so only abuse remains eh?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 24/07/2013 10:43, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:03:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

So we can cut off your mains supplies then.

That would be good. Harry has a grid tie invertor so without mains
electricty that will shut down and he will be sat in the dark with no
electrical appliances or battery charging...


If he has bought the correct type of inverter you can attach a battery
pack and go off grid.

After market devices are available to convert any grid tie inverter to stand
alone.

On 25/07/2013 06:31, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 24/07/2013 20:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens'
who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, it is not the
greenest
option.

There are many ways to dispose of it.
We could burn most of it in a coal powered station and it would make sod
all difference to the radiation coming from it.


Because there are too many people chasing too little fuel.
It's not a matterof vocla greens. It is supply and demand.
You won't be able to afford inefficient use of fuel.
None of us will.

Nukes are ~100% efficent if the greens shut up and allow the
reprocessing.
We are currently burning the waste plutonium from the bombs.
We could burn other waste in the new reactors.


My, you are in cloud cuckoo land.You need to get read up on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutoni...power_reactors



You really should read the stuff you post..

quote

A small percentage of plutonium-239 can be deliberately added to fresh
nuclear fuel. Such fuel is called MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, as it contains a
mixture of uranium oxide (UO2) and plutonium oxide (PuO2). The addition of
plutonium-239 reduces or eliminates the need to enrich the uranium in the
fuel.


Which bit of "Small percentage" don't you understand?.



Which bit of "they are burning plutonium" did you fail to understand?

It saves all that expensive separation of uranium that you claimed made
uranium in short supply.

On 25/07/2013 06:32, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 24/07/2013 17:24, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/07/2013 13:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:

We live in times of turmoil and things are going to get worse.
Maybe even economic collapse. They are only papering over the cracks.

You really ought to be living in a gun-filled bunker in mid-west
America.

If we all chip in, do you spose he would go?


I'll only contribute if it will be so far from anywhere that he will have
to rely upon renewable energy and can't get an internet connection.



Lost the arguments so only abuse remains eh?


What is abusive about wishing you the sort of lifestyle you seem to
want: isolated from the real world, prepared for the collapse of
civilisation and relying entirely upon the technology you think is the
answer to everything?

Colin Bignell