On 12/09/13 16:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:03:37 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Which is the very criticism I myself made of Mackay's ideas. That
is
why it would be better to suck it and see with trains, which have
already been electrified, and so will not place an extra burden on
the
grid.
Can you explain what you mean there as in some quarters suck it and see
will conjure up visions of Brunel and his atmospheric railway;!..
Some body has an idea that some form of atmospheric railway would be
cheaper and faster than HS2. Can't find a reference for it now.

yes..getting the wind resistance and rolling resistance out has some
merit as an idea, but the engineering is..interesting.
And in any case we are not short of energy. Plenty of nookie leer stuff
around.

What we are short of is OFF GRID energystorage - currently that's a
'tankful of kerosene' or nowt.


--
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 , Java Jive
writes
You just can't, or more likely just won't, hoist it on board, will
you?

According to the previously linked BBC Report in March 2013:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-21774652

"Today, electricity sells on the wholesale market for about £45 per
megawatt-hour (Mw). But anything under £90 a Mw would see Hinkley lose
money."

So currently wholesale is half of the MINIMUM of what new nuclear
would cost.

Today Gridwatch shows nuclear to be at 7.73GW.

So if that were to be generated by new nuclear build at the minimum
likely price of £95/Mw or 9.5p/unit (EDF have to make a profit, and it
makes the maths easier) that's £50/Mw or 5p/unit extra to the current
price, so that's:
7.73 * 1,000 * 24 * 50 = £9,276,000

So that's 13p/person or 40p/household that would have to be paid to
EDF over and above the current price of electricity, or about 2.5
times the extra cost of wind.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:02:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

or build new nukes that actually work...
Do you actually believe what you hear on the BBC - proven left wing
subversives - and have another pay-off my dear - 1 million? sure that's
enough?
--
bert

In message , Java Jive
writes
As previously shown, new nuclear is about the same price as onshore
wind.
Snip
And much more reliable and knocks out the need for wind at all.
--
bert

If we can build milk floats that were completely electric and cars
that are part electric, both with batteries in to power them, we can
do the same with train locomotives.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:03:37 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Can you explain what you mean there as in some quarters suck it and see
will conjure up visions of Brunel and his atmospheric railway;!..
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Sources of nuclear fuel can only be relied upon for the next 10 - 15
years or so.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:26:01 +0100, bert ] wrote:

And much more reliable and knocks out the need for wind at all.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I'd give up smoking weed if I were you, then you might have a better
chance of following the discussion and contributing something relevant
to it ...

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:20:23 +0100, bert ] wrote:

Do you actually believe what you hear on the BBC - proven left wing
subversives - and have another pay-off my dear - 1 million? sure that's
enough?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 12/09/13 17:20, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/09/13 16:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:03:37 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Which is the very criticism I myself made of Mackay's ideas. That
is
why it would be better to suck it and see with trains, which have
already been electrified, and so will not place an extra burden on
the
grid.
Can you explain what you mean there as in some quarters suck it
and see
will conjure up visions of Brunel and his atmospheric railway;!..
Some body has an idea that some form of atmospheric railway would be
cheaper and faster than HS2. Can't find a reference for it now.

yes..getting the wind resistance and rolling resistance out has some
merit as an idea, but the engineering is..interesting.
And in any case we are not short of energy. Plenty of nookie leer
stuff around.

What we are short of is OFF GRID energystorage - currently that's a
'tankful of kerosene' or nowt.

I take it there are not even any blue-sky or better ideas for storing
large amounts of energy in batteries? [1] I know that JJ says we
*must* do this that or the other, but just because we *must* doesn't
magically make it so.


Batteries, no. Other means, possibly. *
[1] By which I mean at least a week @ 1GW. I make that 168,000,000 kWhr.

Now calculate what that is in thousands of tonnes of TNT, and think what
happens if you short it..


*flywheels. possible but stupendously dangerous in high energies.
Efficient enough though. No one has bnilt one near big enough though
*water up a hill. about 70% efficient, so quite good, but still not nice
if the dam gives way. Id rather be next to a nuke than a dam if there is
a seismic event. Also needs a lot of water and big hill..
*molten salt. bloody great tank of red hoot salt underground, insulated,
and you run a steam turbine off it, so usual steam turbine efficiencies
of maybe 30-40%. safe enough unless the water gets in, in which case a
mother of all steam explosions.Might get effs up to 60-70% using hot gas
instead of water as the working fluid, and running that in a CCGT.
*make fuel. electrolysis of water to hydrogen. Again burning the hydrgen
is subject to usual heat engine inefficiencies, 30-40% or 60-70% with
advanced and expensive designs. Fuel cells? same applies. either very
big and very expensive or not very efficient...
*lithium (air?) batteries. Possible, efficient but as with anything
where the energy can come out all of a sardine, bloody dangerous in big
piles. Possibly the only technology that will actually make a viable
electric car mind you, which is worth a bit BUT that wont solve
intermittentcy. say we have a BEV for every house. 20million of em, with
100KW hour batteries. That's probably 2-300 miles range.
That will run the country (30GW) for 40 minutes...of no wind.


All these are touted as 'the answer to storage' but none of them
realistically are.



--
Ineptocracy

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

On 12/09/13 17:26, bert wrote:
In message , Java Jive
writes
As previously shown, new nuclear is about the same price as onshore
wind.
Snip
And much more reliable and knocks out the need for wind at all.
and not even necessarily true. It depends on what you mean by 'costs the
same'. And what the cost of money is, and what rateyou depreciate the
asset at.




--
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.

All I've done is link to World Nuclear Association figures. So now
you're calling them liars'?

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:52:36 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Why do you keep posting these lies?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 12/09/13 17:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

Sources of nuclear fuel can only be relied upon for the next 10 - 15
years or so.

Why do you keep posting these lies?

Cos he is a green They all do it. Because the Idea Must be Right.

--
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.

It wasn't a handwaving exercise, but it WAS an openly admitted
blue-sky thinking exercise.

Electrical storage is a big problem, and the original idea for a
solution came from Prof Mackay, not from myself. I am merely
wondering if it could be adapted more usefully than Prof Mackay's
original plan, which has significant disadvantages as stated.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:50:50 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Post your results here. Otherwise it's just another JJ handwaving
exercise.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

So here we are at the inevitable denouement - religious bigotry and
name calling takes over, and all rational debate ends. You can both
be proud of this contribution to rational debate.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:09:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 12/09/13 17:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

Sources of nuclear fuel can only be relied upon for the next 10 - 15
years or so.

Why do you keep posting these lies?

Cos he is a green They all do it. Because the Idea Must be Right.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

My original blue-sky thinking exercise covered a number of different
technologies, any of which may, or may not, be useful approaches.
There was not one of them that would be a stand-alone solution on its
own, but there were several that might make some sort of contribution.
This particular one was an adaptation of an idea of Prof Mackay's. I
think it may have some merit, but would require further analytical
investigation.

As far as I am aware, noone has mooted part-powering trains by
batteries before, and, although there would certainly be problems, one
of which I mentioned to begin with, human technology advances by
solving problems.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:24:05 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

If there are no even blue-sky possible solutions to the desire to have
*huge* capacity batteries, what is the point of discussing them. To say
we'd like them is just a statement of the bleeding obvious. Do you think
people haven't been looking into this for *years*, with no significant
progress?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
If we can build milk floats that were completely electric and cars
that are part electric, both with batteries in to power them, we can
do the same with train locomotives.

and they can trundle along at about 10mph and need to be recharged every 20
miles. Fine

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
So here we are at the inevitable denouement - religious bigotry and
name calling takes over, and all rational debate ends. You can both
be proud of this contribution to rational debate.



ISTR that you posted a link to that site but I didn't remember seeing
any references to that. For the sake of clarity can you do it again and
direct us to the section that states that please...

--
Tony Sayer

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
If we can build milk floats that were completely electric and cars
that are part electric, both with batteries in to power them, we can
do the same with train locomotives.

Power trains with batteries?..

There have been a very few battery locos, very few indeed and totally
impractical for all but the shortest lightest journeys..

The average Electric multiple unit takes some 130 kW or more per
motored axle IIRC..

A Eurostar in full flight 8 Megawatts...


On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:03:37 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Can you explain what you mean there as in some quarters suck it and see
will conjure up visions of Brunel and his atmospheric railway;!..

--
Tony Sayer

On 12/09/13 18:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

It wasn't a handwaving exercise, but it WAS an openly admitted
blue-sky thinking exercise.

Electrical storage is a big problem, and the original idea for a
solution came from Prof Mackay, not from myself. I am merely
wondering if it could be adapted more usefully than Prof Mackay's
original plan, which has significant disadvantages as stated.

If there are no even blue-sky possible solutions to the desire to have
*huge* capacity batteries, what is the point of discussing them. To
say we'd like them is just a statement of the bleeding obvious. Do you
think people haven't been looking into this for *years*, with no
significant progress?

cripes if there was any project at all that looked like it could make
the grade I'd invest in it like a shot. I've looked at dozens. And
shaken my head and moved on.

One technology and one alone looks potentally possible but its way early
days, and tha's lithium air batteries. They could actually make electric
cars viable.

But as I said somewhere else, if all the households in the UK had a
100kWh battery* car all together they could run the UK grid for just 40
minutes.

(about 30 litres of diesel equivalent range wise, or a tad more)

--
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.

Think you've got your replies muddled, Tony (or else you're being very
sarky)!

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:24:38 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

ISTR that you posted a link to that site but I didn't remember seeing
any references to that. For the sake of clarity can you do it again and
direct us to the section that states that please...
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

But that wouldn't be the purpose of them. Their purpose would be to
smooth out domestic demand on the grid, for example to get rid of the
problem where we have turn on an extra power source just because East
Enders has ended (how I wish it would, end for good, that is).

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:52:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

But as I said somewhere else, if all the households in the UK had a
100kWh battery* car all together they could run the UK grid for just 40
minutes.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
Think you've got your replies muddled, Tony (or else you're being very
sarky)!


No..

If you could do as requested please....

Thnx..
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:24:38 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

ISTR that you posted a link to that site but I didn't remember seeing
any references to that. For the sake of clarity can you do it again and
direct us to the section that states that please...

--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:03:46 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But that wouldn't be the purpose of them. Their purpose would be to
smooth out domestic demand on the grid, for example to get rid of the
problem where we have turn on an extra power source just because East
Enders has ended (how I wish it would, end for good, that is).

The ad break / programme end pickup is not really an issue with lots of
different channels, audience being split across many of them, less tv viewing
etc. The era of 20+ million watching one programme and then all getting up to
make a cup of tea or go for a **** is long gone. The nearest you get now to a
significant load pickup is a Royal Wedding or Funeral.

Tonight, from 1920 to 2030 the load was just ramping down at a reasonably
constant rate despite three soaps (Emmerdale 1900-1930, Eastenders 1930-2000,
Emmerdale 2000-2030) finishing within that timeframe. No 1GW pickups, no load
pickups at all, nothing of any concern, frequency a high of 50.083Hz, a min of
49.97Hz

UK demand MW @ 5 minute intervals 1920 - 2030

40242
39952
39713
39934
39613
39290
39122
38850
38456
38349
37891
37381
37127
36648
36283


--

If I KNEW what link was being requested?

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:01:25 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

If you could do as requested please....
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

It wasn't a handwaving exercise, but it WAS an openly admitted
blue-sky thinking exercise.
Electrical storage is a big problem, and the original idea for a
solution came from Prof Mackay, not from myself. I am merely
wondering if it could be adapted more usefully than Prof Mackay's
original plan, which has significant disadvantages as stated.

If there are no even blue-sky possible solutions to the desire to have
*huge* capacity batteries, what is the point of discussing them. To say
we'd like them is just a statement of the bleeding obvious. Do you
think people haven't been looking into this for *years*, with no
significant progress?

I've done a bit of blue sky thinking - or was it green fields- and I
would like to turn lead into gold to solve the current economic crisis.
(That's the one in this household not the global one) I think it,
therefore it is. I think it must have been green fields thinking
--
bert

In message , Java Jive
writes
I'd give up smoking weed if I were you, then you might have a better
chance of following the discussion and contributing something relevant
to it ...

Like the garbage you keep posting?
?

--
bert

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:41:25 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:03:46 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But that wouldn't be the purpose of them. Their purpose would be to
smooth out domestic demand on the grid, for example to get rid of the
problem where we have turn on an extra power source just because East
Enders has ended (how I wish it would, end for good, that is).

The ad break / programme end pickup is not really an issue with lots of
different channels, audience being split across many of them, less tv viewing
etc. The era of 20+ million watching one programme and then all getting up to
make a cup of tea or go for a **** is long gone.

All I can say is that I saw a BBC4 documentary comparatively recently,
within the last year or so, where the guys in the control centre
appeared to 'conducting' live, in the musical sense, the operation of
keeping the supply parameters within limits.

Tonight, from 1920 to 2030 the load was just ramping down at a reasonably
constant rate despite three soaps (Emmerdale 1900-1930, Eastenders 1930-2000,
Emmerdale 2000-2030) finishing within that timeframe. No 1GW pickups, no load
pickups at all, nothing of any concern, frequency a high of 50.083Hz, a min of
49.97Hz

--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

My original blue-sky thinking exercise covered a number of different
technologies, any of which may, or may not, be useful approaches.
There was not one of them that would be a stand-alone solution on its
own, but there were several that might make some sort of contribution.
This particular one was an adaptation of an idea of Prof Mackay's. I
think it may have some merit, but would require further analytical
investigation.

As far as I am aware, noone has mooted part-powering trains by
batteries before, and, although there would certainly be problems, one
of which I mentioned to begin with, human technology advances by
solving problems.

You were suggesting not that long ago that lithium hydroxide
could be used to capture carbon from power generation, on the grounds
that it had been used to absorb CO2 in the Apollo missions, without
doing the slightest amount of research as to why this particular
compound was used in that specific application.

Your blue-sky thinking appears to be little more than an excuse to
project your ego, and one suspects that this is the only
'contribution' it makes.

Oh, and stop quoting the BBC on the topic. Since they adapoted their
policy of only presenting the case for CC, and not allowing any
contrary view, they are not a reliable source, and haven't been for
some time.

--
Terry Fields

In message , The Other Mike
writes
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:03:46 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But that wouldn't be the purpose of them. Their purpose would be to
smooth out domestic demand on the grid, for example to get rid of the
problem where we have turn on an extra power source just because East
Enders has ended (how I wish it would, end for good, that is).

The ad break / programme end pickup is not really an issue with lots of
different channels, audience being split across many of them, less tv viewing
etc. The era of 20+ million watching one programme and then all getting up to
make a cup of tea or go for a **** is long gone. The nearest you get now to a
significant load pickup is a Royal Wedding or Funeral.

Perhaps, like me, they channel hop to watch something else during the
break:-)

--
Tim Lamb

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:07:49 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:41:25 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:03:46 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But that wouldn't be the purpose of them. Their purpose would be to
smooth out domestic demand on the grid, for example to get rid of the
problem where we have turn on an extra power source just because East
Enders has ended (how I wish it would, end for good, that is).

The ad break / programme end pickup is not really an issue with lots of
different channels, audience being split across many of them, less tv viewing
etc. The era of 20+ million watching one programme and then all getting up to
make a cup of tea or go for a **** is long gone.

All I can say is that I saw a BBC4 documentary comparatively recently,
within the last year or so, where the guys in the control centre
appeared to 'conducting' live, in the musical sense, the operation of
keeping the supply parameters within limits.

Yes they do, and its a highly skilled operation. The figures don't lie, but the
interpretation of them in a rush can as there was actually a 221MW pickup
between 1930 and 1935 - so 74000 3kW kettles, or 0.3% of the households in the
UK got up and switched their kettles on at the end of the 1900-1930 episode of
Emmerdale.

Against a background of the load dropping at a rate of just under 4GW per hour
or 50MW per minute it's neither here nor there and certainly not worth
considering investing billions in some half assed storage technology in every
household in the country for.


--

On 13/09/13 09:55, The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:07:49 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:41:25 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:03:46 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But that wouldn't be the purpose of them. Their purpose would be to
smooth out domestic demand on the grid, for example to get rid of the
problem where we have turn on an extra power source just because East
Enders has ended (how I wish it would, end for good, that is).
The ad break / programme end pickup is not really an issue with lots of
different channels, audience being split across many of them, less tv viewing
etc. The era of 20+ million watching one programme and then all getting up to
make a cup of tea or go for a **** is long gone.
All I can say is that I saw a BBC4 documentary comparatively recently,
within the last year or so, where the guys in the control centre
appeared to 'conducting' live, in the musical sense, the operation of
keeping the supply parameters within limits.
Yes they do, and its a highly skilled operation. The figures don't lie, but the
interpretation of them in a rush can as there was actually a 221MW pickup
between 1930 and 1935 - so 74000 3kW kettles, or 0.3% of the households in the
UK got up and switched their kettles on at the end of the 1900-1930 episode of
Emmerdale.

Against a background of the load dropping at a rate of just under 4GW per hour
or 50MW per minute it's neither here nor there and certainly not worth
considering investing billions in some half assed storage technology in every
household in the country for.

It is what we have Dinorwig for.
and of course all the CCGT plant and coal plant will have some kind off
automatic throttling on it so they are in 'cruise control' mode and will
just press that fast pedal a bit.

domestic storage only makes sense if you can store enough cheap rate t
take you through peak rate and still end up saving money.

And in that particular context, storage heating done proper would be
cost effective and valuable.

The calculations on an insulated concrete tank of hot water under the
house show its perfectly capable of running central heating by day
although off peak demand would be pretty massive - this house needs
around 12KW to stay warm on the -5C days, and that means that to run it
in pulse mode with 8 hours charge 16 hours discharge would put peak
demand at something like 36KW. which is near the limit of a domestic
installation.

Its very easy to store heat. What is almost impossible is getting it
back into electricity at any reasonable efficiency.







--
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 Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:52:52 PM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip
But as I said somewhere else, if all the households in the UK had a
100kWh battery* car all together they could run the UK grid for just 40
minutes.

That doesn't seem to add up to me - just over 26 million households with 100kWh gives a total of 2600GWh. Current demand about 40GW so around 66 hours (assuming 100% efficiency in conversion, of course)
But of course it's never going to happen with current battery technology...

On 13/09/13
I was asking Java Jive where that was quoted from, least give him the
chance to reply and state "where" he got his facts and figures from;!...

OH he linked to the article weeks ago and it simply didn't say what he
claimed. He is just lying. Its a 'green' thing apparently.



--
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.

How many more times do I have to link this?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nu...anium-Markets/

Bottom graph entitled: "Reference Case Supply"

The red line denoting 'Reference Demand' crosses above the top of the
stack of all supplies a little before 2026, which is 10-15 years from
now. The green Upper Demand line crosses next year, but I don't think
that is actually going to happen. Hence I've been generally quoting
either 2025-ish or 10-15 years from now.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:08:35 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Where in the WNA journal it says or suggests that the fuel is going to
run out in as little as 10 years...
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:30:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

OH he linked to the article weeks ago and it simply didn't say what he
claimed.

As replied above to Tony, I have explained that the figures came from
one of WNA's own graphs showing likely supply and demand.

He is just lying. Its a 'green' thing apparently.

No, it's a UKIP or pro-nuclear thing apparently, probably both.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:19:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

No, they do not, anywhere. ever. say that.

As replied to Tony, they do.

this is a more realistic assessment

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EN...-1209137s.html

Is your foot hurting, by any chance? If not it should be, because
you've just shot yourself in it! Again!

The report you have linked bears out COMPLETELY what I have been
saying. This is unsurprising, since it's a WNA report, and I have
been linking to their data:

"[...] the WNA expects demand for uranium to increase considerably up
to 2030, resulting in a substantial need for additional supplies of
nuclear fuel. [...] about 97,000 tU in the reference scenario.
Provided that all uranium mines currently under development enter
service as planned, the report finds that the uranium market should be
adequately supplied to 2025; beyond this time, new mines will be
required."

depending on the technology. there's shedloads of U-238, which could be
bred into plutonium.

Yet again, despite many previous complaints - you do this so often
that it has to be a deliberate attempt to cause confusion - you fail
to clarify that breeding fuel requires a DIFFERENT technology than
that currently planned for the UK by HMG.

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

Breeder technology has been shown to work, but there are only one or
two plants in operation worldwide, while the majority have been
bedeviled by problems, are way over-budget, and long overdue. In the
few cases where figures are given, load-factors have been
disappointing.

The UK's only attempt at this technology was Dounreay, which was
hardly a reassuring beacon to light the way forward - an almost
criminally negligent history in terms of the safety of its containment
of waste has resulted in heavy radio-active particles being washed
along the coast. One can say for certain that breeder technology is
further away in development terms than the current planned new nuclear
build based on straight fission technology, and we seem to be having
difficulties enough with that. It is true that breeder technology, if
time proves it to be sufficiently safe, reliable, and cheap, has a
better long term outlook than fission technology, but in the UK's
position of having relatively secure supplies of carbon-based fuels,
the enormous expense of participating in its development makes little
sense.

http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-c...march-2012.pdf
(p25 pdf) "While Fast Reactors hold out the promise of a considerably
more effective use of uranium, their actual deployment to date has
been relatively limited, with prototype reactors being built in the
US, France, UK, Russia, Japan, Germany, India, Kazakhstan and China.
However, although some 20 reactors have been operated, the technology,
with its fuel cycle, has not progressed past the prototype stage, and
has not benefitted from the 50 years of learning curves and economies
of scale that LWRs have experienced while becoming the dominant world
technology. [para] The economics of fast reactors are therefore not
well understood, but are generally held to be inferior to
‘once-through LWR’ as long as there are reasonably assured uranium
supplies at credible prices. Since the proportion of the cost of LWR
power which derives from uranium is small (3% is commonly quoted),
rising uranium prices are only a weak incentive to change technology.
Reduced security of uranium supply is a more credible trigger for
change, particularly for a country such as the UK with no indigenous
uranium resources, and no strategic involvement in ensuring the
security of uranium supply."

Where in the WNA journal it says or suggests that the fuel is going to
run out in as little as 10 years...

nowhere.

Actually, it says so not only on the page I previously linked but also
in the very report you linked above!
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 13 Sep 2013 08:01:51 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

You were suggesting not that long ago that lithium hydroxide
could be used to capture carbon from power generation, on the grounds
that it had been used to absorb CO2 in the Apollo missions, without
doing the slightest amount of research as to why this particular
compound was used in that specific application.

No, I did not. This is the exchange to which you refer:

On Fri, 04 May 2012 03:27:58 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2012 21:23:19 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

But does it work? Has anyone done it?

How do you think they scrubbed the CO2 out of the air in the Apollo
missions?

So someone asked me "Does it work?" and I gave an obvious example.
There was no implication that the same technology would necessarily be
appropriate in another situation, merely a statement that it could be
done. Later, I went on to quote from my stepfather's biography
concerning his own work on the subject which was developed by others
into a now widely used, I believe, industrial process.

Your blue-sky thinking appears to be little more than an excuse to
project your ego, and one suspects that this is the only
'contribution' it makes.

Nya, nya, nya (yawn) ...

Oh, and stop quoting the BBC on the topic. Since they adapoted their
policy of only presenting the case for CC, and not allowing any
contrary view, they are not a reliable source, and haven't been for
some time.

Firstly, nuclear power has nothing to do per se with CC. Secondly, I
don't suppose the BBC will ever managed to be completely unbiased to
everyone's satisfaction, but I am certain that it is less biased than,
at least, several others here, particularly yourself.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

It's in the nature of blue-sky thinking that the sums come later ...

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:09:11 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

More evidence that JJ can't do sums.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

How unexpectedly kind of you to admit that I'm ace at anything, but
yet again you resort to the last resort of the loser ... abuse.

I'd rather be the better than average mathematician, though still very
imperfect compared with the best, that I am, than someone like
yourself who is too dull to make any worthwhile or useful contribution
to a thread such as this.

Go and play spaceman with a plastic bag or something ... You might as
well, for all the good you're doing here.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:08:48 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

That about sums it up: for all that he may have a maths degree, JJ can't
do sums. He's just an ace bull****ter.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:55:07 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

Yes they do, and its a highly skilled operation. The figures don't lie, but the
interpretation of them in a rush can as there was actually a 221MW pickup
between 1930 and 1935 - so 74000 3kW kettles, or 0.3% of the households in the
UK got up and switched their kettles on at the end of the 1900-1930 episode of
Emmerdale.

Which is the impression I remember.

Against a background of the load dropping at a rate of just under 4GW per hour
or 50MW per minute it's neither here nor there and certainly not worth
considering investing billions in some half assed storage technology in every
household in the country for.

This seems rather contradictory to the paragraph above. However, I
have no particular knowledge of the NG other than the general, from
programmes like the one I've mentioned and what one or two more
knowledgeable people here have posted. From those sources, I'd
gathered that there was a significant problem keeping variable supply
met from constant sources. Someone more knowledgeable than myself may
be prepared to argue the point with you, but unless and until that
happens, I am happy to concede it.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

On 13 Sep 2013 08:01:51 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

You were suggesting not that long ago that lithium hydroxide
could be used to capture carbon from power generation, on the grounds
that it had been used to absorb CO2 in the Apollo missions, without
doing the slightest amount of research as to why this particular
compound was used in that specific application.

No, I did not. This is the exchange to which you refer:

On Fri, 04 May 2012 03:27:58 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2012 21:23:19 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

But does it work? Has anyone done it?

How do you think they scrubbed the CO2 out of the air in the Apollo
missions?

So someone asked me "Does it work?" and I gave an obvious example.
There was no implication that the same technology would necessarily be
appropriate in another situation, merely a statement that it could be
done. Later, I went on to quote from my stepfather's biography
concerning his own work on the subject which was developed by others
into a now widely used, I believe, industrial process.

IIRC, and I suspect you might have glossed over the point, that the
issue arose during what I seem to recall as being a 'CO2 from power
generation must be captured at all costs' phase. While the precise
exchange might not have linked the two directly, the context was
there in the contemporaneous threads that you were discussing.

The only reason I recall this much is that the idea was laughable, and
showed that you had done nothing apart from having the (ludicrous)
thought in the first place.

--
Terry Fields

It would be interesting to add the cost of all its UK subsidies to the
UK nuclear units produced, I might try and do that sometime.

However, one thing is certain, as I've posted recently, nuclear
fission has gobbled up half the world's subsidies to power generation
to recent date, yet WE, the taxpayers, are STILL paying to look after
its waste, even after the plant that produced it has ceased
generating.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:40:13 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

There's no need for one as nuclear has produced all the electricity it
promised.

No it hasn't: Where is the "electricity too cheap to meter"?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html