On 13 Sep 2013 21:49:47 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

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.

I was and remain in favour of us investing in carbon capture rather
than nuclear technologies, because strategically it makes more sense
for us, because we have significant reserves of carbon-based fuels,
particularly coal and gas, while we have no strategic reserves of
nuclear fuels. That was also the context of that discussion, and I
stand by what I said in it.

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.

As with so many of your posts, you're remembering it the way you want
it to be, not the way it actually was and is, as shown by the quotes I
included.
--
================================================== =======
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

Oops, it must be getting late ...

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:49:04 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

From those sources, I'd
gathered that there was a significant problem keeping variable

demand (obviously)

met from constant sources.

or supplies if you prefer.
--
================================================== =======
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 22:49:04 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

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.

It's not contradictory, the general trend was the load dropping off at 4GW per
hour or at a rate of around 50MW per minute, following a very similar load
profile to yesterday, possibly close to the same day last week, and not too far
away from the same date last year, with corrections for temperature, wind chill
etc. Within that general downward trend was a very temporary 221MW pickup,
lasting a maximum of 5 minutes.

To cope with the general downward trend conventional generation will have been
scheduled to reduce output accordingly, this could be achieved by say 8 x 500MW
coal fired units reducing output from 500MW to 0MW by various set times across
this one hour period.

This conventional generation that is reducing output is solely working to a set
target of MW output, not to control to a set frequency.

Other generation (coal, gas, nuke), that is paid to provide frequency response
will attempt to cover any move away from the range of 49.95 to 50.05 Hz by
increasing or decreasing output from the current level.

As the 1900-1930 programme ends the temporary load pickup is provided by pumped
storage, this is normally a dispatched response, i.e. X MW 'now' or Y MW in 1
minute.

From 1920 to 2030 at 5 minute intervals Pumped Storage output was as follows

1920 684
1925 582
1930 491
1935 817
1940 748
1945 413
1950 387
1955 304
2000 276
2005 276
2010 281
2015 283
2020 333
2025 285
2030 282


So a drop in pumped storage output from 1920 to 1930 of 193MW and then an
increase of 326MW by 1935

Against this background of increased pumped storage output there is still the
conventional generation ramping down at 50MW a minute to follow the general load
profile and to complicate matters still further during this one hour 10 minute
period there was a variation in wind turbine output of from a low of 1688 to a
max of 2076MW or 388MW.


--

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:04:42 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

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.

So if thats the case, let the French buld the new nuke at Hnkley. They get £95
per MWh but can't fuel it. So no generation and no payments. The only problem is
the loan guarantees that EdF want. £10 billion or so.

--

Java Jive wrote:

On 13 Sep 2013 21:49:47 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

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.

I was and remain in favour of us investing in carbon capture rather
than nuclear technologies, because strategically it makes more sense
for us, because we have significant reserves of carbon-based fuels,
particularly coal and gas, while we have no strategic reserves of
nuclear fuels. That was also the context of that discussion, and I
stand by what I said in it.

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.

As with so many of your posts, you're remembering it the way you want
it to be, not the way it actually was and is, as shown by the quotes I
included.

Using lithium hydroxide for power-generation CO2 capture is ludicrous,
and you were the one that mentioned it in that a thread of
that context.

Last word to you.

--
Terry Fields

Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

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.

That waste, IIRC, related to bomb and not electricity production.

Perhaps you should add that as a sig file, as some people seem not to
remember it from the last time you had to remind them of it.

--
Terry Fields

Java Jive wrote:

So, I repeat, where is our "electricity too cheap to meter"?

Perhaps the money has been squandered on the subsidy farms of
the useless renewables programme?

--
Terry Fields

On 13/09/2013 21:42, Java Jive wrote:

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.


The BBC is totally biased.
It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Any "science" where its considered important to hide the data and the
methods from the general public is obviously biased and is probably
untrue. If it is true there is no need to hide anything.

On 13/09/2013 23:56, Java Jive wrote:
On 13 Sep 2013 21:49:47 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

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.

I was and remain in favour of us investing in carbon capture rather
than nuclear technologies, because strategically it makes more sense
for us, because we have significant reserves of carbon-based fuels,
particularly coal and gas, while we have no strategic reserves of
nuclear fuels. That was also the context of that discussion, and I
stand by what I said in it.

Which carbon capture technologies exist that can guaranty long term
storage of the carbon dioxide?

You can't just pump it into mines and wells as geological instabilities
may release it and it may pollute ground water or cause minor tremors.

On 14/09/13 12:26, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/09/2013 23:56, Java Jive wrote:
On 13 Sep 2013 21:49:47 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

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.

I was and remain in favour of us investing in carbon capture rather
than nuclear technologies, because strategically it makes more sense
for us, because we have significant reserves of carbon-based fuels,
particularly coal and gas, while we have no strategic reserves of
nuclear fuels. That was also the context of that discussion, and I
stand by what I said in it.

Which carbon capture technologies exist that can guaranty long term
storage of the carbon dioxide?

You can't just pump it into mines and wells as geological
instabilities may release it and it may pollute ground water or cause
minor tremors.



Well exactly. They worry about long term storage of a few tonnes of
radioactive material - a few gigatonnes of CO2 is 'hand waved' away..

Obviously what is needful is to store it as a carbonate, but suitable
reagents to create carbonates come by ...er ...driving CO2 out of
exsiting carbonates.. e.g. reduction of calscium or lithium carbonate
to lithium.calcium (hydr)oxide, releases CO2, which is then converted
back to the original carbonate.

That's what happens with cement. The hydroxides formed revert slowly to
carbonates as the cement sets.

Or you could make hydrocarbons, like oil out of it, by using even more
energy than you get out of it when burning the oil/coal in the first place..

Frankly the best thing todo would be to bubble it through huge lakes of
algae, and let photosynthesis take place, and bury the resultant
biomass..or burn it, but that's just a giant inefficient solar energy
plant when all is said and done.

Not sure what pressure CO2 goes liquid at, but pumping it to the sea
floor might work..but what effect would THAT have?






--
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.

No need, I stand by what I said at the time and since ...

On 14 Sep 2013 08:56:45 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Last word to you.
--
================================================== =======
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 Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Few, if any, real scientists involved question it any more, so there
is no need for debate, and therefore debate can and must move on to
more worthwhile subjects.

Any "science" where its considered important to hide the data and the
methods from the general public is obviously biased and is probably
untrue. If it is true there is no need to hide anything.

You are arguing - I presume, because as usual you haven't supported
anything you say with credible evidence, leaving the rest of us to
guess at what you might mean - from the particular to the general by
claiming that one particular case of bad science is proof that the
whole edifice is rotten. It should be plain enough that such logic is
flawed, all cats being animals does not imply that all animals are
cats.
--
================================================== =======
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

An interesting and informative post, thanks.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:14:22 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

It's not contradictory, the general trend was the load dropping off at 4GW per
hour or at a rate of around 50MW per minute, following a very similar load
profile to yesterday, possibly close to the same day last week, and not too far
away from the same date last year, with corrections for temperature, wind chill
etc. Within that general downward trend was a very temporary 221MW pickup,
lasting a maximum of 5 minutes.

To cope with the general downward trend conventional generation will have been
scheduled to reduce output accordingly, this could be achieved by say 8 x 500MW
coal fired units reducing output from 500MW to 0MW by various set times across
this one hour period.

This conventional generation that is reducing output is solely working to a set
target of MW output, not to control to a set frequency.

Other generation (coal, gas, nuke), that is paid to provide frequency response
will attempt to cover any move away from the range of 49.95 to 50.05 Hz by
increasing or decreasing output from the current level.

As the 1900-1930 programme ends the temporary load pickup is provided by pumped
storage, this is normally a dispatched response, i.e. X MW 'now' or Y MW in 1
minute.

From 1920 to 2030 at 5 minute intervals Pumped Storage output was as follows

1920 684
1925 582
1930 491
1935 817
1940 748
1945 413
1950 387
1955 304
2000 276
2005 276
2010 281
2015 283
2020 333
2025 285
2030 282


So a drop in pumped storage output from 1920 to 1930 of 193MW and then an
increase of 326MW by 1935

Against this background of increased pumped storage output there is still the
conventional generation ramping down at 50MW a minute to follow the general load
profile and to complicate matters still further during this one hour 10 minute
period there was a variation in wind turbine output of from a low of 1688 to a
max of 2076MW or 388MW.
--
================================================== =======
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 Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:08:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

You can't just pump it into mines and wells as geological
instabilities may release it and it may pollute ground water or cause
minor tremors.

I wouldn't've thought that pumping it into suitably sealed reservoirs
in mines deep underground would be any more likely to cause geological
side effects than the original mining operations did. These did cause
some, but AIUI mostly subsidence caused by the original removal of
material - replacing it with something else is unlikely to be so
much of a problem.

Well exactly. They worry about long term storage of a few tonnes of
radioactive material - a few gigatonnes of CO2 is 'hand waved' away..

It's no more hand waved away than is storage of nuclear material, but,
unlike the latter, this is still very new technology, so there are
much greater uncertainties with it.

Not sure what pressure CO2 goes liquid at, but pumping it to the sea
floor might work..but what effect would THAT have?

I believe that has been mooted as one possible method. I've not heard
of your other suggestions, presumably because, as you suggest, they're
unlikely to work.
--
================================================== =======
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

Again, as so often, you resort to abuse, and argue from the particular
to the general.

I freely admit carbon capture is the one big unknown, but the rest of
it - the need to use carbon-based fuels rather than nuclear - is
based on practical facts and a consequence of this island's geography
and geology. It also reflects a global situation - every forecast
I've seen, some of which I've linked previously, have shown that
indefinitely into the future by far the biggest share of generating
electrical power will have to come from carbon-based fuels.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:48:48 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

All of JJ's "arguments" are nothing more than blue-sky, handwaving, and
some amount of bull**** when even the first two run out.
--
================================================== =======
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 Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:42:17 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

*If* that is the case, given that waste from power stations has been
treated for the last 20 years, then what is being paid for is surface
storage. That the waste has not been (say) hidden underground, is not
the fault of the nuclear power industry.

No, it's the 'fault' - your word not mine - of the nuclear power
industry, because they haven't made up their mind whether to reprocess
and recycle it, or to dispose of it finally. The problem is that
currently the former is the most expensive, but if they choose the
latter option, and then fuel starts to get expensive enough, it might
then become worthwhile to recycle it. So rather than make a final
decision, what they've done is just endlessly kick the can down the
road.

It's the fault of doomsayers
like you who routinely lie to the public about the "dangers", and
thereby affect public policy to prevent the final disposal of the waste.

It's no good spouting anti-green paranoia when the reasons are plain
and understandable economics as above - go and take your medication.

Ultimately, I'm not interested in what some foreigner had to say about
the matter. But let's note that "It is not too much to expect ..." is
not the same as "Our children *will* enjoy ...".

Not quite the same in print, I grant, but when a man in that position
in society as it was at that time says such a thing to such a
gathering, there isn't really much difference in implication.
--
================================================== =======
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 Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:15:12 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

So if thats the case, let the French buld the new nuke at Hnkley. They get £95
per MWh but can't fuel it. So no generation and no payments.

Ca sera assez inutile, n'est ce pas?

The only problem is
the loan guarantees that EdF want. £10 billion or so.

AIUI, that can't come from HMG. Do you know different, by any chance?
If so a link would be welcome!
--
================================================== =======
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 a company, I don't know how they'd 'book' it, because technically
at current prices it's not worth anything very much, if at all. You
could check in the Smith Institute link I gave somewhere up thread,
there were some quite detailed costings, etc, in that.

However, IIRC waste at Sellafield doesn't belong to a company, does
it? I though it was directly or indirectly the property of HMG?

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:28:12 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

If that is *actually* what is happening, what is the problem with that?
It ought to mean that spent fuel should be on the companies' books as an
asset.
--
================================================== =======
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 the World Nuclear Association is saying there will be around 2025.
What part of their data do you not understand?

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:29:12 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

That there *is* no global shortage. What part of that do you not
understand?
--
================================================== =======
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

If you reread the whole paragraph that you cherry-picked to part quote
below, you will realise that you haven't anwered the point that I
made.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:25:42 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

It's no more hand waved away than is storage of nuclear material,

Oh but it is. Spend fuel is already being stored in salt mines. No one
has done any storage of carbon dioxide.
--
================================================== =======
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 think science is actually settled on the point that you will never
have such a conversation with Einstein.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:23:59 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Ah, I must remember to remind Einstein when I next see him that there is
no need for him to look into relativity, as "the science is settled".
--
================================================== =======
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 Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

For a broadcaster with a remit to maintain balance, it is totally
biased on the topic having taken a policy decision to do so.

It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Few, if any, real scientists involved question it any more, so there
is no need for debate, and therefore debate can and must move on to
more worthwhile subjects.

'Wireless' was declared a settled art in 1903.

How would you reognise a 'real scientist'? By wearing the same
blinkers as you?

Any "science" where its considered important to hide the data and the
methods from the general public is obviously biased and is probably
untrue. If it is true there is no need to hide anything.

You are arguing - I presume, because as usual you haven't supported
anything you say with credible evidence, leaving the rest of us to
guess at what you might mean - from the particular to the general by
claiming that one particular case of bad science is proof that the
whole edifice is rotten. It should be plain enough that such logic is
flawed, all cats being animals does not imply that all animals are
cats.

The whole edifice is rotten because they tried to hide the data,
saying 'they'll use it against us'. A curious position to take, as if
the data actually supported their position, they would be only too
pleased to publish it and shut people up. This is not how science is
done, in case you were wondering.

--
Terry Fields

Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:45:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

and the same applies to uranium.

It does NOT. What is it about the term 'GLOBAL shortage' that you do
not understand?

That there *is* no global shortage. What part of that do you not
understand?

One of Java Jive's concerns is safety of supply, and he maintains that
the UK *must* have that for its energy needs, hence the use of coal.

Uranium is out because, apparently, we have no indigenous source of
it.

However, no-one is likely to take the sea away from the UK, and the
sea contains Uranium. This has been extracted from seawater for ~$240
per kgU. The cost of fuelling a reactor using this source is a drop in
the bucket compared to the cost of the generating plant required to
use it.

And, as Jave Jive says, technology is improving all the time, and
demonstrated methods show Uranium form seawater can be recovered for
about a 10th of this cost.

So, no supply problems there, then.

--
Terry Fields

Alzheimer's?

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:34:03 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Jeez! Here we go again! How many times must I refute this absurdity?
I first posted here a calculation concerning this as long ago as 2009,
and since have made at least 11 further posts refuting it, some
repeating the original calculation for different scenarios - all UK
energy, all UK electrical energy, etc - yet, like so many urban
myths, if refuses to die. If people were rational rather than
pseudo-religious in their mindset, this subject would NEVER have been
mentioned again after its first debunking, but this is what always
happens in these debates, the pro-nuclear quasi-religion has taken
over peoples' minds to the extent here that its adherents conveniently
'forget' those facts and calculations that don't support their
quasi-religious beliefs.

So, for the 13th time ...

Make that the 14th, and the second time in four days ...

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_165.shtml

"In the Japanese experiment, three cages full of adsorbent uranium
attracting material weighing 350 kg collected “more than 1 kg of
yellow cake in 240 days;” this figure corresponds to about 1.6 kg per
year. The cages had a cross-sectional area of 48 m2."

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

"Typically, yellowcake(s) ... contain(s) about 80% uranium oxide"

In a previous discussion this year, I established that nuclear fuel
conversion is based on the following rate:

260tU3O8/GWyr = 220tU/GWyr = 22tLEU/GWyr

So for yellow cake at 80% U3O8 we can now enlarge that as follows:

325tYC/GWyr = 260tU3O8/GWyr = 220tU/GWyr = 22tLEU/GWyr

For each GW we would therefore need 325,000 / 1.6 * 48 m2 of cages, or
9,750,000 m2.

We'll have to makes some reasonable assumptions about the cages,
because when describing the experimental setup Mackay doesn't give
their height. As presumably they have to be at least somewhere near
land for security against theft, damage, weather, and tide, there must
be a depth limit; indeed, there is likely to be a depth limit for
buoyancy reasons anyway. What should we assume is the depth/height of
the cages? 10m seems a reasonable starting guess.

So that gives us 975,000m or 975km of coastline per GW.

http://mapzone.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/...s/q_12_69.html

The length of the coastline of mainland Great Britain is 17,820 km.

So if we covered the entire coastline of the mainland with all this
ugly hardware, we could get at very best 18GW.

Further, in this same section, Mackay asks "What is the energy cost of
processing all the seawater?", but AFAICS he never actually answers
that question. We would have to be sure that the energy input into
making the materials for the structures and the structures themselves,
deploying them, 'harvesting' them, and extracting the fuel was not
going to be significant in terms of either CO2 production or the
electrical energy 'yield'.

Will this myth please now **** off and die???!!!

On 14 Sep 2013 16:48:43 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

However, no-one is likely to take the sea away from the UK, and the
sea contains Uranium. This has been extracted from seawater for ~$240
per kgU. The cost of fuelling a reactor using this source is a drop in
the bucket compared to the cost of the generating plant required to
use 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

On 14 Sep 2013 16:19:18 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

For a broadcaster with a remit to maintain balance, it is totally
biased on the topic having taken a policy decision to do so.

It has taken a policy decision based on the best scientific evidence
available, one which agrees with the general understanding and
agreement of the vast majority of scientists. I no more expect them
to give credence to denialists such as yourself any more than I expect
them to give latter day druids credence.

It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Because the real science has now moved beyond that.

Few, if any, real scientists involved question it any more, so there
is no need for debate, and therefore debate can and must move on to
more worthwhile subjects.

'Wireless' was declared a settled art in 1903.

And AFAIAA no-one has tried to deny its existence since.

How would you reognise a 'real scientist'? By wearing the same
blinkers as you?

I'd recognise a real scientist as one whose judgement is evidence
based rather than delivered from a position on unscientific
quasi-religious denialist bias such as yours.

The whole edifice is rotten because they tried to hide the data,
saying 'they'll use it against us'.

Again, you are arguing from the particular to the general, as you have
often, but always incorrectly in your case, accused me of doing. One
bad piece of science doesn't make the whole edifice rotten.

A curious position to take, as if
the data actually supported their position, they would be only too
pleased to publish it and shut people up. This is not how science is
done, in case you were wondering.

Neither is ignoring an overwhelming body of evidence, as you do.
--
================================================== =======
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

As I've mentioned before, I do have scientific training. Perhaps
that's why I'm consistently able to out argue you. But then, that's
not exactly difficult, is it? Your standard of argument below is
about that of a five year old child or worse. In your case, it would
be better by far to keep quiet and let everyone think you are fool,
than to keep making such posts and thereby remove all shadow of doubt.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:42:41 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

It's unlikely that he's wondering, as he's not a scientists and has no
pertinent training. I expect he thinks that "scientific method" relates
to how you hold a test tube.
--
================================================== =======
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 14/09/2013 14:01, Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Few, if any, real scientists involved question it any more, so there
is no need for debate, and therefore debate can and must move on to
more worthwhile subjects.

If there is total agreement then there is no need for them to ban the
discussion is there?
However if they need to ban it there must be opposition.


Any "science" where its considered important to hide the data and the
methods from the general public is obviously biased and is probably
untrue. If it is true there is no need to hide anything.

You are arguing - I presume, because as usual you haven't supported
anything you say with credible evidence, leaving the rest of us to
guess at what you might mean - from the particular to the general by
claiming that one particular case of bad science is proof that the
whole edifice is rotten. It should be plain enough that such logic is
flawed, all cats being animals does not imply that all animals are
cats.


It is a well known fact that a lot of the data and the methods used to
fudge it are a secret.
You can prove it not to be the case, just post where to get the Met
office data and methods.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:30:31 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If there is total agreement then there is no need for them to ban the
discussion is there?
However if they need to ban it there must be opposition.

There is opposition, but this opposition does not come from credible
scientific quarters. We can't fritter away the rest of scientific
history trying to persuade every last unscientific bigot in the world
to face an unpleasant truth. Sooner or later the world has to move
on, and I for one am thankful that the BBC is now doing so.

It is a well known fact that a lot of the data and the methods used to
fudge it are a secret.

I note that you give no link in support of this claim.

You can prove it not to be the case, just post where to get the Met
office data and methods.

First hit, and a few clicks later.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning...climate-change

Most of their older data is archived, including this at the bottom of
the page, but I see no reason why you should not contact them and ask
for copies of anything that is no longer online.

Generating high-resolution climate change scenarios handbook (2004)
(PDF, 3.3 MB)
--
================================================== =======
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 14/09/2013 19:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 14 Sep 2013 16:19:18 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

For a broadcaster with a remit to maintain balance, it is totally
biased on the topic having taken a policy decision to do so.

It has taken a policy decision based on the best scientific evidence
available, one which agrees with the general understanding and
agreement of the vast majority of scientists. I no more expect them
to give credence to denialists such as yourself any more than I expect
them to give latter day druids credence.

That's good as the BBC has over half a million hits on druids.


It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Because the real science has now moved beyond that.

The real science is still trying to make a model that works, and still
gives the answer they want rather than the answer they keep getting.


Few, if any, real scientists involved question it any more, so there
is no need for debate, and therefore debate can and must move on to
more worthwhile subjects.

'Wireless' was declared a settled art in 1903.

And AFAIAA no-one has tried to deny its existence since.

How would you reognise a 'real scientist'? By wearing the same
blinkers as you?

I'd recognise a real scientist as one whose judgement is evidence
based rather than delivered from a position on unscientific
quasi-religious denialist bias such as yours.

So you don't accept GW caused by man made CO2 then!?


The whole edifice is rotten because they tried to hide the data,
saying 'they'll use it against us'.

Again, you are arguing from the particular to the general, as you have
often, but always incorrectly in your case, accused me of doing. One
bad piece of science doesn't make the whole edifice rotten.

A curious position to take, as if
the data actually supported their position, they would be only too
pleased to publish it and shut people up. This is not how science is
done, in case you were wondering.

Neither is ignoring an overwhelming body of evidence, as you do.


Using an unreliable mathematical model as proof is not using
overwhelming evidence, in fact its not evidence at all.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:54:37 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 14/09/2013 19:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 14 Sep 2013 16:19:18 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

For a broadcaster with a remit to maintain balance, it is totally
biased on the topic having taken a policy decision to do so.

It has taken a policy decision based on the best scientific evidence
available, one which agrees with the general understanding and
agreement of the vast majority of scientists. I no more expect them
to give credence to denialists such as yourself any more than I expect
them to give latter day druids credence.

That's good as the BBC has over half a million hits on druids.

It also has over 14,000 on climate change. Your point is?

It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Because the real science has now moved beyond that.

The real science is still trying to make a model that works

The imperfections of the various models do not of themselves imply
that climate change is not happening. It merely implies that we can
not yet model it accurately enough to be very useful.

and still
gives the answer they want rather than the answer they keep getting.

Again, I note that you give no link in support of this claim.

So you don't accept GW caused by man made CO2 then!?

I accept AGW completely.

Using an unreliable mathematical model as proof is not using
overwhelming evidence, in fact its not evidence at all.

Again, you are arguing from the particular to the general. However
much you'd like it to, the fact that the modelling in particular is
not yet very useful doesn't mean that all the other general evidence
of AGW somehow magically becomes invalid.
--
================================================== =======
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

See what I mean, rather easy ...

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 22:00:09 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Oh nice try. You should go far.
--
================================================== =======
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 Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:30:31 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If there is total agreement then there is no need for them to ban the
discussion is there?
However if they need to ban it there must be opposition.

There is opposition, but this opposition does not come from credible
scientific quarters.

And how are you to judge what is scientifically credible?

We can't fritter away the rest of scientific
history trying to persuade every last unscientific bigot in the world
to face an unpleasant truth. Sooner or later the world has to move
on, and I for one am thankful that the BBC is now doing so.

That sounds rather like Blair's oft-repeated plea to draw a line under
Iraq and move on, largely because he, and apparently you, don't like
to face unwelcome facts.

The BBC is not 'moving on', it is as biased over this topic as it ever
was.

It is a well known fact that a lot of the data and the methods used to
fudge it are a secret.

I note that you give no link in support of this claim.

It was extensively discussed at the time. Did you miss it then, and in
your later extensive research over the issue?

You can prove it not to be the case, just post where to get the Met
office data and methods.

First hit, and a few clicks later.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning...climate-change

Most of their older data is archived, including this at the bottom of
the page, but I see no reason why you should not contact them and ask
for copies of anything that is no longer online.

Generating high-resolution climate change scenarios handbook (2004)
(PDF, 3.3 MB)

This is the Met Office, who freely acknowledge in at least one of
their publications that of 12 forcing mechanisms, a mere 8 are known
only to a 'low' or 'very low' level of understanding? Although I do
concede that one of the 'very low' ones may have moved up to 'low'
in the last few years.
--
Terry Fields

Java Jive wrote:

On 14 Sep 2013 16:19:18 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

For a broadcaster with a remit to maintain balance, it is totally
biased on the topic having taken a policy decision to do so.

It has taken a policy decision based on the best scientific evidence
available, one which agrees with the general understanding and
agreement of the vast majority of scientists.

Laughable. There was no presentation of any opposing views because
none were invited to the secret conference.

I no more expect them
to give credence to denialists such as yourself any more than I expect
them to give latter day druids credence.

Then that is unscientific, but not unexpected.

You parade 'science' when it suits you, and hurl abuse where it
doesn't.

It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Because the real science has now moved beyond that.

And how would you know 'real science' (whatever that is) from any
other sort?

Few, if any, real scientists involved question it any more, so there
is no need for debate, and therefore debate can and must move on to
more worthwhile subjects.

'Wireless' was declared a settled art in 1903.

And AFAIAA no-one has tried to deny its existence since.

No-one uses the methods of 1903, either.

How would you reognise a 'real scientist'? By wearing the same
blinkers as you?

I'd recognise a real scientist as one whose judgement is evidence
based rather than delivered from a position on unscientific
quasi-religious denialist bias such as yours.

Wow! An own-goal in just one sentence.

When evidence is hidden, because 'they will use it against us', how
can you judge it?

The whole edifice is rotten because they tried to hide the data,
saying 'they'll use it against us'.

Again, you are arguing from the particular to the general, as you have
often, but always incorrectly in your case, accused me of doing. One
bad piece of science doesn't make the whole edifice rotten.

It does, if the whole ****ing edifice is based on it.

A curious position to take, as if
the data actually supported their position, they would be only too
pleased to publish it and shut people up. This is not how science is
done, in case you were wondering.

Neither is ignoring an overwhelming body of evidence, as you do.

Do you mean the evidence that was witheld, because 'they might use it
against us', or some other evidence?

--
Terry Fields

Java Jive wrote:

Again, you are arguing from the particular to the general. However
much you'd like it to, the fact that the modelling in particular is
not yet very useful doesn't mean that all the other general evidence
of AGW somehow magically becomes invalid.

What 'general evidence'?

This is the stuff that was fed into the so-called models, that can't
even predict the past.

--
Terry Fields

On 14/09/13 22:00, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

As I've mentioned before, I do have scientific training. Perhaps
that's why I'm consistently able to out argue you.

Oh nice try. You should go far.

as a rent boy for a bent professor of biology?


--
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 14/09/2013 19:45, Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:30:31 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If there is total agreement then there is no need for them to ban the
discussion is there?
However if they need to ban it there must be opposition.

There is opposition, but this opposition does not come from credible
scientific quarters. We can't fritter away the rest of scientific
history trying to persuade every last unscientific bigot in the world
to face an unpleasant truth. Sooner or later the world has to move
on, and I for one am thankful that the BBC is now doing so.

It is a well known fact that a lot of the data and the methods used to
fudge it are a secret.

I note that you give no link in support of this claim.

You can prove it not to be the case, just post where to get the Met
office data and methods.

First hit, and a few clicks later.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning...climate-change

Most of their older data is archived, including this at the bottom of
the page, but I see no reason why you should not contact them and ask
for copies of anything that is no longer online.

Generating high-resolution climate change scenarios handbook (2004)
(PDF, 3.3 MB)


So where is the data and the details of how they fudge it.
Its not anywhere you have linked to.

On 14/09/2013 20:05, Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:54:37 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 14/09/2013 19:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 14 Sep 2013 16:19:18 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

For a broadcaster with a remit to maintain balance, it is totally
biased on the topic having taken a policy decision to do so.

It has taken a policy decision based on the best scientific evidence
available, one which agrees with the general understanding and
agreement of the vast majority of scientists. I no more expect them
to give credence to denialists such as yourself any more than I expect
them to give latter day druids credence.

That's good as the BBC has over half a million hits on druids.

It also has over 14,000 on climate change.

How many present arguments against GW caused by man?

Your point is?

To show that you didn't have a point.


It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Because the real science has now moved beyond that.

The real science is still trying to make a model that works

The imperfections of the various models do not of themselves imply
that climate change is not happening. It merely implies that we can
not yet model it accurately enough to be very useful.

But we can create global policy without any facts and then impose that
view on everyone and stifle the opposition by any means possible.


and still
gives the answer they want rather than the answer they keep getting.

Again, I note that you give no link in support of this claim.

as they don't make their methods and data public why should anyone not
think that?


So you don't accept GW caused by man made CO2 then!?

I accept AGW completely.

But you keep saying the models its based on are rubbish. What sort of
person looks at cr@p models and data and decides the results are facts?


Using an unreliable mathematical model as proof is not using
overwhelming evidence, in fact its not evidence at all.

Again, you are arguing from the particular to the general. However
much you'd like it to, the fact that the modelling in particular is
not yet very useful doesn't mean that all the other general evidence
of AGW somehow magically becomes invalid.


What general evidence?
The only thing that links GW with man is the models you think are cr@p.
What else do you think links it?

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:05:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

... this house needs around 12KW to stay warm on the -5C days, ...

This one needs over 38 kW on a windy day and those sort of exterior
temps. That's just from oil it doesn't include the E7 or portable gas
fire to even out the pxy storage heaters...

... 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.

Over it. 100 A @ 230 V = 23 kW. That's assuming you have a 100 A
supply. I *think* that's the norm now but 40, 60 o 80 A are common.
But's not so much the individual supply as the upstream substation.
Diversity and short term loads rule, if every one started pulling
even half their supply rating for 8 hours the substation wouldn't be
able to cope.

It's not unknown when there is a prolonged gas supply failure and
they issue each household with a fan heater for the local substation
to trip, or worse catch fire, after a few hours. Not just from the
issued electric heaters but all the ones people have in the back of a
cupboard...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Java Jive wrote:

Alzheimer's?

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:34:03 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Jeez! Here we go again! How many times must I refute this absurdity?

That's up to you, but I suspect you won't be posting it much more.

I first posted here a calculation concerning this as long ago as 2009,
and since have made at least 11 further posts refuting it, some
repeating the original calculation for different scenarios - all UK
energy, all UK electrical energy, etc - yet, like so many urban
myths, if refuses to die.

Perhaps that's because your argument isn't good enough

If people were rational rather than
pseudo-religious in their mindset, this subject would NEVER have been
mentioned again after its first debunking, but this is what always
happens in these debates, the pro-nuclear quasi-religion has taken
over peoples' minds to the extent here that its adherents conveniently
'forget' those facts and calculations that don't support their
quasi-religious beliefs.

So, for the 13th time ...

Make that the 14th, and the second time in four days ...

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_165.shtml

"In the Japanese experiment, three cages full of adsorbent uranium
attracting material weighing 350 kg collected “more than 1 kg of
yellow cake in 240 days;” this figure corresponds to about 1.6 kg per
year. The cages had a cross-sectional area of 48 m2."

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

"Typically, yellowcake(s) ... contain(s) about 80% uranium oxide"

OK, so you've got some numbers. Let's see how you bring your
scientific expertise to bear on them.

In a previous discussion this year, I established that nuclear fuel
conversion is based on the following rate:

260tU3O8/GWyr = 220tU/GWyr = 22tLEU/GWyr

So for yellow cake at 80% U3O8 we can now enlarge that as follows:

325tYC/GWyr = 260tU3O8/GWyr = 220tU/GWyr = 22tLEU/GWyr

For each GW we would therefore need 325,000 / 1.6 * 48 m2 of cages, or
9,750,000 m2.

We'll have to makes some reasonable assumptions about the cages,
because when describing the experimental setup Mackay doesn't give
their height. As presumably they have to be at least somewhere near
land for security against theft, damage, weather, and tide

Just like offshore oil, gas, wind.

there must be a depth limit; indeed, there is likely to be a depth limit for
buoyancy reasons anyway. What should we assume is the depth/height of
the cages? 10m seems a reasonable starting guess.

So, let me see if I have this right.

Your Great Debunking Argument is BASED ON A GUESS.

The rest has been snipped as irrelevant.

Will this myth please now **** off and die???!!!

Not on the basis of wishing it away, sunshine.

However, no-one is likely to take the sea away from the UK, and the
sea contains Uranium. This has been extracted from seawater for ~$240
per kgU. The cost of fuelling a reactor using this source is a drop in
the bucket compared to the cost of the generating plant required to
use it.

So, I'm not wrong, then.

And the Great Debunking Argument was brought to you by someone who
claims this:

"As I've mentioned before, I do have scientific training. Perhaps
that's why I'm consistently able to out argue you. But then, that's
not exactly difficult, is it? Your standard of argument below is
about that of a five year old child or worse. In your case, it would
be better by far to keep quiet and let everyone think you are fool,
than to keep making such posts and thereby remove all shadow of doubt"

Permit me to laugh my socks off.

Perhaps Java Jive should heed his own words, only substituting 'anti'
for 'pro':

"If people were rational rather than pseudo-religious in their
mindset, this subject would NEVER have been mentioned again after
its first debunking, but this is what always happens in these debates,
the anti-nuclear quasi-religion has taken over peoples' minds to the
extent here that its adherents conveniently 'forget' those facts and
calculations that don't support their quasi-religious beliefs".

QED

--
Terry Fields

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 14/09/2013 14:01, Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Few, if any, real scientists involved question it any more, so there
is no need for debate, and therefore debate can and must move on to
more worthwhile subjects.

If there is total agreement then there is no need for them to ban the
discussion is there?
However if they need to ban it there must be opposition.


Believe it or not, there is still a "Flat Earth society".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
I expect you are a memeber.
Arguing that global warming doesn't exist puts you in the same catgory as
these clowns.
Rational people peaple don't argue that the earth is flat or not warming.
Or that warming is man made, caused by CO2.
The discussion has moved on to what is to be done about it. (Among non-half
wits that is.)

Except maybe the ones selling fossil fuel.