In message , Java Jive
writes
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."
Exactly what I've been saying - new mines will be required. Just as they
said about oil in the 60s, new wells will be required - North Sea
Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, Gulf of Mexico, etc. etc.

All covered on WNA Information Library. Suggest you read less
selectively.
--
bert

In message , Java Jive
writes
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 22:52:45 +0100, bert ] wrote:

The BBC had the opportunity to ask for the evidence, but didn't.

Where is your evidence for this assertion?
FFS they were given the report and they were asked on their own channel
by their own presenter to comment on the report. Ample opportunity to
have their minions exam it and refute it or otherwise, but no merely
slagged it off because it was from what they branded a "Right Wing "
think tank, which was exactly the criticism in the report itself.
--
bert

On 20/09/13 18:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Terry Fields wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

Why would you deliberately choose to use data that you KNOW is bad?
Surely that would be even more misleading than what was actually done?

But you don't KNOW it's bad. It's only 'bad' because it doesn't fit
the current view - this is always a problem when 'the science is
settled'.

It is precisely this point that illustrates that Ace doesn't have a
****ing clue about what constitutes science. He doesn't understand that
if you have data that doesn't fit the "accepted" view, or "current" view
or "settled" view, you don't dismiss it, you verify that each time you
do that measurement, that is what you get, you have others locally check
that you're not overlooking something obvious, recalibrate your
instruments, and I expect do all sorts of other things and if the
anomalous measurements don't go away, you publish, warts and all,
including all your data and methodologies.

By doing so, you're inviting others to do *independent* measurements of
the same thing, using *other* instruments and methodologies. They may
confirm your measurements or not. Either way, you don't just dump "bad"
data.

After all, if Newton's gravity was "settled science", we'd be saying
that the anomaly in the precession of the axis of Mercury's orbit round
the sun, some 43 arc-seconds per century, is "bad data" and should be
ignored.

But as TNP says, eventually the truth will out. In the case of Mercury
Newton'd be saying that Mercury should be *here* in the sky rather than
*there*. Then it would be bleeding obvious. But by accepting the 43
arc-seconds per century as real, we have Einstein come along with a
better theory that *predicts* that value.

parphrasing: 'the world can remain irrational longer than you can afford
to live in it..'

--
Ineptocracy

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

So, here we go again, teaching our resident claimed 'senior academic'
simple logic ...

The exchange was as follows:

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:09:59 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 16/09/2013 22:07, Java Jive wrote:
Because despite all the subsidies, existing nuclear is not being made
to pay for clearing up its own waste. The country is still picking up
the tab for all the nuclear waste produced in the country to date.

... almost all of which is from the weapons programme. Making the civil
nuclear industry pay for that would make about as much sense as taxing
British Airways to pay for UXBs.

So by VC continuing my last sentence with ellipses, that becomes ...

"The country is still picking up the tab for all the nuclear waste
produced in the country to date, almost all of which is from the
weapons programme."

My reply showed with appropriate figures that his assertion that most
of the waste came from the weapons programme was incorrect.

I note that he has not questioned the logic of my reply, so I presume
he intended his remarks as I have interpreted them, and further that
he accepts my correction.

I note also that it was only you and only you who attempted to create
any confusion or ambiguity where there was none previously, and
further that when asked for a direct and clear explanation of your
point, you still failed to give it, so we must presume that as usual
you didn't actually have one. Just as with climate science, you
prefer to 'argue' (though that's rather belittling the word and
flattering you) by veiled insinuation rather than risking being
disproved by openly stating actual facts.

On 19 Sep 2013 21:31:46 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

VC made one statement, you replied to a different one.
--
================================================== =======
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, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:30 +0100, bert ] wrote:

In message , Java Jive
writes

No it doesn't. How many times must I tell you and others like you
that the trade body suggests that supplies could run out as early as
2025?

How many times must I explain to you the total difference between the
total resources available and the rate of their extraction - that is
the difference between total resources and supply?

No it doesn't. How many times must I tell you and others like you
that the trade body suggests that adequate supplies are available at an
economic rate up to 2080 and beyond.

You are wrong. The WNA suggests that there adequate resources to last
to 2080, but supplies can only be guaranteed until 2025. Elsewhere I
have linked to no less that 4 documents all saying the SAME sort of
thing.

Wonder why you haven't quoted this bit -

That shows how little attention you've been paying, I quoted part of
that section several days ago.

International fuel reserves

There have been three major initiatives to set up international reserves
of enriched fuel, two of them multilateral ones, with fuel to be
available under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) auspices
despite any political interruptions which might affect countries needing
them. The third is under US auspices, and also to meet needs arising
from supply disruptions.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Fa...-Requirements/

Current world demand is 78,438 t U3O8 = 66,512 t U, but by the time
demand exceeds supply in 2025-ish it will be over 100,000 t U, which
will yield about 10,000 t LEU. Although we do not yet have figures
for the IAEA store, the other two total just 350 t LEU. So if such
stores have to be used to meet an excess in world demand over world
supply, they're unlikely to last long enough to assure supplies.

Further, the Russian store of 120 t LEU is earmarked specifically for
"any IAEA member state in good standing which is unable to procure
fuel for political reasons", which definition may or may not include
the UK, but on the face of it seems rather unlikely to do so, as we
are unlikely to be isolated from the wider world supply through the
political actions of other nations.

Here in the UK, we cannot RELY on being able to obtain Uranium nuclear
fuel after about 2025.
--
================================================== =======
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

By and large, I accept that there may be individual exceptions, the
people in this ng who are anti-wind are also pro-nuclear. It is
immaterial in this argument what I think about the electricity supply
being paramount, what matters in this discussion is what these
particular people think about it.

For said people, one of the many reasons they complain about wind is
it's short term unreliability, which is perfectly valid. For said
people, an oft quoted phrase is along the lines of "Just wait until
the lights go out, then the ****'ll hit the fan!", from which it can
be safely concluded that, for these people, security of the
electricity supply is indeed paramount.

The trouble starts when these same people then go on to claim that the
answer to the unreliability of wind is to build new nuclear power
stations, because, as I have repeatedly shown, supplies of uranium to
use as fissionable fuel for them can't be guaranteed as being reliable
beyond about 10 years from now, yet the proposed plant has a 60 year
lifecycle.

Therefore, to complain about the unreliability of wind but then say we
must answer that by building nuclear power stations is inconsistent,
there's an inherent and hypocritical self-contradiction in such a
claim.

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult point to get
home, it seems such a perfectly straightforward argument to me that I
can only deem the truly extraordinary resistance to it as arising from
a very deep bias, so deep that it can only be called bigotry.

To a country without worthwhile indigenous supplies, the supply of
uranium in the long term is barely more certain than the supply of
wind is in the short term. As far as the UK is concerned, if it's
RELIABLE base-load you want, that's coal, or gas from shale or coal.

On 19 Sep 2013 21:45:05 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Therefore is it correct to say that the electricity supply
is paramount?
--
================================================== =======
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 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:04:40 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

So what can we rely on?

Coal is subject to disruption such as war, strikes, natural disasters...

Gas ditto

Oil ditto.

But all three:
+ have many more global sources of supply than uranium;
+ have more total global resources than uranium;
+ have indigenous supplies within the UK, especially coal and gas.

All these factors make all of them more reliable than uranium, and
particularly the last one for coal and gas.

We can't rely on solar as climate change may render it useless.

wind ditto.

Climate change is unlikely to render either useless. As a country we
are not well placed for solar energy, somewhat better for wind.

But that's beside the point. What I'm saying, and have been for a
long time, is that if you want reliable baseload, in the UK that means
coal, or gas from shale and/or coal.
--
================================================== =======
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

Sigh!

This is at least the third time I've posted a calculation along these
lines, but, as usual, the pro-nuclear lobby has 'forgotten' it again,
and, as usual, is too lazy to do it's own sums:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Fa...-Requirements/

Last year 78,438 t U3O8 = 66,512 t U made 357 GWyr of electricity.
That's 220 t U308 = 186 t U per GWyr. So for the 60 year lifetime of
a reactor that's 220 * 60 = 13,200 t U3O8 per GW. If, roughly, you
divide the entire current supply for ore until 2025, then that's
78,438 * 10 / 13,200 = approx 60 GW.

Hey! Enough to power the entire UK grid! Trouble is, it uses nearly
all the world supply for the next ten years. I think both the
supplier nations and their existing customers might have something to
say against that!

Even just on quantities alone, it's an unrealistic scenario, but it
get's worse. Ore and fuel are supplied under long-term contracts, and
existing suppliers are not going to break their existing contracts to
other nations. Secondly, all fuel purchased is accountable to the
IAEA, and we would have to account for why we are suddenly buying up
the entire world's supply. Thirdly, such behaviour will inevitably
bring forward the very crisis of supply that you are trying to avoid.

It's crazy. Just forget it.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:08:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/09/13 10:13, The Other Mike wrote:

So buy and stockpile the fuel / raw materials for the entire operating period of
all the reactors we may conceivably build in the next 50+ years. Let other
countries worry about the shortfall when or if it occurs.

+1
--
================================================== =======
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 just that you're too childish to expend more than a line or two
on ...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:16:53 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Glad to see you're not denying your name.
--
================================================== =======
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

For f**k's sake, you are either trolling, or being wilfully blind, or
something like that - like Nelson putting the telescope to his blind
eye, but to much less purpose and making a fool rather than a hero of
yourself.

Let's try again:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nu...anium-Markets/

In the graph at the bottom of the page entitled "Reference Case
Supply", where the red demand line crosses over the top of all
supplies beyond about 2025, according to the graph legend, what does
the blue area at the top of the stack of supplies represent? Then,
when you've hoisted that in, take a look at what the two areas that
lie underneath the blue area and are in different shades of yellow
represent.

THE WNA'S FIGURES INCLUDE ALL CURRENT, PLANNED, AND PROSPECTIVE
URANIUM MINE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN OF AT THIS TIME, YET NEVERTHELESS SHOW
AN EXCESS OF DEMAND OVER SUPPLY FROM AROUND 2025!!!

Do you understand the problem now?

Meanwhile, there is plenty of coal, oil, and gas ....

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:08:05 +0100, bert ] wrote:

Exactly what I've been saying - new mines will be required. Just as they
said about oil in the 60s, new wells will be required - North Sea
Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, Gulf of Mexico, etc. etc.

All covered on WNA Information Library. Suggest you read less
selectively.
--
================================================== =======
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

Not at all, I was just deliberately giving you a piece of your own
medicine in return - utterly useless veiled vagueness. So, now that
you know that I am aware of how you are trying to avoid saying
anything substantial, I will hand you back to Jeremy Paxman:

Terry Fields, who claims personal senior academic status, are you or
are you not claiming that:
* The whole of climate science is fraudulent?
* Some of climate science is fraudulent?
* None of climate science is fraudulent?

Note that when I say 'is' I mean now, post climategate.

*I* don't have to 'prove' anything. It up to the supporters of AGW to
'prove' their claims; and in my opinion, they haven't.

Then WHICH claims have note been proved, is it
* All of them?
* Some of them, if so which?
* None of them?

Oh, and BTW, you're wrong, they don't have to prove anything to you,
they merely have to convince the majority of the scientific community,
which they have done.

On 19 Sep 2013 21:39:02 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Your comprehension of written English is somewhat suspect. I wrote one
sentence and you answered with two, both of which have made the same
mistake.


--
================================================== =======
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 20 Sep 2013 10:49:00 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

You've not answered either of my two points above:

1) Nobody is disputing that so far the models have been less than
wonderfully useful. By continuing to criticise the models, are you or
are you not saying that the whole science of climate is therefore
worthless, corrupt, and/or fraudulent?

By continuing to criticise the models, I am criticising the models,
their supporters and advocates, their alarmist messages, and the
policies that are built on their output. You might interpet that as
a cticism of climate science, but that's your problem, not mine.

Good, at last a definite statement of your beliefs. We seem to be
getting somewhere. I will merely point out again before moving on
that noone here is particularly defending the models, so one wonders
why you're still trying to argue about them.

Additionally, I refer you to my earlier comment on the science of
climate change, to rebut your false assumption.

You've been gassing on about it for days, which of all your vague and
worthless insinuations are you trying make me guess that you are
referring to this time?

Say precisely what you mean. Put up or shut up.

What I said was perfectly clear, to anyone of normal understanding,
and again I refer you to that.

Two can play at silly buggers - I refer you to one of my trillion
previous answers, all of which have answered all your points
completely, it's just that, like you, I'm just not going to tell you
to which particular one I'm referring.

We know it isn't, because the curve fit shows it isn't.

And how does that fit with the geologic record, whereby CO2 has been
at higher levels with lower temperatures, and lower with higher
temperatures. Another danger for you you is that correlation is not
causation.

We know that the Milankovitch ice age cycles are predominantly driven
by radiative forcing as the Earth moves into, and subsequently out of,
times of greatest irradiation. Thus, in the feedback loop of ...
Temp - CO2 - Temp - CO2 - etc
.... temperature tends to lead CO2 on both the up slope and the down
slope. Hence both situations you describe can occur.

However, we are doing something different. By pumping CO2 into the
atmosphere, we are kick-starting the feedback loop from the opposite
side than normally occurs in Milankovitch cycles, hence the good
correlation between CO2 and temperature in the BEST results. Hence
also the validity of assuming causation - the same understood
processes explain both the recent AGW and the ice-age cycles.

That's because it has disappered from their site and doesn't appear in
their archive.

We'll just have to pass on that then.

Some of them might account for the tree-ring problem.

Probably not, because whatever it is it's not affecting temperature. I
did wonder about a few possible explanations, but haven't got any data
to check my ideas against, so I'll pass on that for now.

Oh! That's no argument at all.

It wasn't meant to be, what is it about "I'll pass on that for now!"
don't you understand?

But you don't KNOW it's bad. It's only 'bad' because it doesn't fit
the current view - this is always a problem when 'the science is
settled'.

The tree-ring data was KNOWN to be bad because after 1960 it no longer
agreed with MEASURED temperature, and therefore could NOT be used as a
proxy for it. To include the series where it was known to be invalid
would have been far worse science than what they actually did, not
that I condone what they did. The question they faced was whether to
exclude the entire series, or include the part believed to be good and
exclude the part known to be bad. Personally, I think the former
would have been preferable, but they chose the latter, with the result
that we all know and deplore.

And don't forget that the IPCC report, AIUI, contained the full
explanation of the tree-ring data problem and discusses it.

Funnily enough, most if not all of this might never have come about
had the scince not been declared as settled.

Yet again, you are arguing from the particular to the general. AFAIAA,
the only part of the science that has been claimed to be settled is
the particular part of it that says that the recent rapid warming was
due to man's release of CO2, for which there is indeed very good
evidence, as epitomised in the fit between CO2 and temperature in the
BEST results. I am not aware that anyone here or elsewhere has tried
to claim the general entirety of climate science is settled on that
basis.

See above discussion. What really matters is the actual scientific
truth, and that is that at the time the temperature was indeed
actually rising, and very fast, though over recent years it has
slackened off.

That statement makes no sense.

It makes sense to me, and I suspect most or all other people reading
it. What is your problem with it? An exact and unambiguous reply
only 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

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:53:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/09/13 18:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Terry Fields wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

It is precisely this point that illustrates that Ace doesn't have a
****ing clue about what constitutes science.

Oh, I'm 'Ace' now am I? How flattering, though I'm not sure that
anything flattering from you ought not be understood as the gravest
insult from everyone else.

He doesn't understand that
if you have data that doesn't fit the "accepted" view, or "current" view
or "settled" view, you don't dismiss it, you verify that each time you
do that measurement, that is what you get, you have others locally check
that you're not overlooking something obvious, recalibrate your
instruments, and I expect do all sorts of other things and if the
anomalous measurements don't go away, you publish, warts and all,
including all your data and methodologies.

Have you bothered to actually read, let alone try and understand, any
of the above discussion at all? Don't bother to answer that, I can
tell that you haven't. Every point that you make doesn't fit the
situation in the thread above, and is therefore invalid. That's all
I'm going to bother to say to you. If you can't be arsed to read, I'm
not going to be arsed to reply.

parphrasing: 'the world can remain irrational longer than you can afford
to live in it..'

Speak for 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

So we can safely conclude that, as usual, you don't have a substantive
point, meanwhile, I'm still awaiting an answer to this
self-contradiction:

YOU have previously claimed in the past to have senior academic
status. YOU are blatantly anti-AGW. YOU gave the scenario reproduced
again below which claimed that anyone who is anti-AGW doesn't get an
academic job.

One or more of these statements must be a lie, which is it?
Personally, I favour both the first and the third.

On 16 Sep 2013 22:22:17 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

Can you link to any substantive proof of this assertion borne out of
paranoid conspiracy theory?

You're not familiar with how funding for scientific projects is
handled, are you?

Here's a Janet-and-John sketch for you, where a prof is interviewing
researchers for a CC project:

Prof: I've got £10m to reseach anthropogenic global warming.

Researcher: I don't believe it's happening.

Prof: F--- off and don't darken my doorway again. Next!

Different researcher: I fully believe in AGW and we must do all we can
to combat it.

Prof: You'll make a welcome addition to the team. Start on Monday?

In real life, the first researcher won't even bother to apply, so all
the prof sees is a line of enthusiastic candidates.
--
================================================== =======
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 20 Sep 2013 10:59:40 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

Swap the roles around, and it's a perfect description of yourself, so
what?

It's as incisive as ever.

Garbage in, garbage out again.
--
================================================== =======
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, 20 Sep 2013 16:15:30 +0100, bert ] wrote:

In message , Java Jive
writes
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 22:52:45 +0100, bert ] wrote:

The BBC had the opportunity to ask for the evidence, but didn't.

FFS they were given the report

But where is your evidence that they were actually given the report in
advance?

and they were asked on their own channel
by their own presenter to comment on the report. Ample opportunity to
have their minions exam it and refute it or otherwise, but no merely
slagged it off because it was from what they branded a "Right Wing "
think tank, which was exactly the criticism in the report itself.

Well, unless you can point to some sort of actual evidence, this whole
situation seem rather too woolly to draw conclusions from. I
certainly wouldn't accept at face value any report from any
organisation with an axe to grind. I have only your word that they
were given the opportunity of seeing it in advance, and chose to slag
it instead.

Incidentally, FTR, who was the presenter who did the claimed slagging,
and who was the right winger?
--
================================================== =======
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:

So, here we go again, teaching our resident claimed 'senior academic'
simple logic ...

The exchange was as follows:

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:09:59 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 16/09/2013 22:07, Java Jive wrote:
Because despite all the subsidies, existing nuclear is not being made
to pay for clearing up its own waste. The country is still picking up
the tab for all the nuclear waste produced in the country to date.

... almost all of which is from the weapons programme. Making the civil
nuclear industry pay for that would make about as much sense as taxing
British Airways to pay for UXBs.

So by VC continuing my last sentence with ellipses, that becomes ...

"The country is still picking up the tab for all the nuclear waste
produced in the country to date, almost all of which is from the
weapons programme."

My reply showed with appropriate figures that his assertion that most
of the waste came from the weapons programme was incorrect.

No it didn't, unless all the waste from the military programme was U -
and in any case you never qualified the figures.

I note that he has not questioned the logic of my reply, so I presume
he intended his remarks as I have interpreted them, and further that
he accepts my correction.

I note also that it was only you and only you who attempted to create
any confusion or ambiguity where there was none previously, and
further that when asked for a direct and clear explanation of your
point, you still failed to give it, so we must presume that as usual
you didn't actually have one. Just as with climate science, you
prefer to 'argue' (though that's rather belittling the word and
flattering you) by veiled insinuation rather than risking being
disproved by openly stating actual facts.

On 19 Sep 2013 21:31:46 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

VC made one statement, you replied to a different one.

You must learn to write more clearly, and understand what is being
said in the items you quote. The sloppy IPCC style won't do here.
--
Terry Fields

Java Jive wrote:

I have never seen any substantive evidence for any significant levels
of AGW. If that is being 'anti-AGW', then it's only in your
BBC-limited view.

So we can safely conclude that, as usual, you don't have a substantive
point, meanwhile, I'm still awaiting an answer to this
self-contradiction:

YOU have previously claimed in the past to have senior academic
status. YOU are blatantly anti-AGW. YOU gave the scenario reproduced
again below which claimed that anyone who is anti-AGW doesn't get an
academic job.

Tut tut. Sloppy reading again. Re-read the intro to the sketch.

One or more of these statements must be a lie, which is it?
Personally, I favour both the first and the third.

On 16 Sep 2013 22:22:17 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

Can you link to any substantive proof of this assertion borne out of
paranoid conspiracy theory?

You're not familiar with how funding for scientific projects is
handled, are you?

Here's a Janet-and-John sketch for you, where a prof is interviewing
researchers for a CC project:

Prof: I've got £10m to reseach anthropogenic global warming.

Researcher: I don't believe it's happening.

Prof: F--- off and don't darken my doorway again. Next!

Different researcher: I fully believe in AGW and we must do all we can
to combat it.

Prof: You'll make a welcome addition to the team. Start on Monday?

In real life, the first researcher won't even bother to apply, so all
the prof sees is a line of enthusiastic candidates.

--
Terry Fields

Java Jive wrote:

I
certainly wouldn't accept at face value any report from any
organisation with an axe to grind.

Permit me to ROFL.

--
Terry Fields

Java Jive wrote:

The tree-ring data was KNOWN to be bad because after 1960 it no longer
agreed with MEASURED temperature, and therefore could NOT be used as a
proxy for it. To include the series where it was known to be invalid
would have been far worse science than what they actually did, not
that I condone what they did. The question they faced was whether to
exclude the entire series, or include the part believed to be good and
exclude the part known to be bad. Personally, I think the former
would have been preferable, but they chose the latter, with the result
that we all know and deplore.

....is the wrong answer. Tim Streater has explained why in this
mini-sub-thread.

There is no such thing as 'bad' data, unless there was in instrument
malfunction or some error in data-reduction, neither of which is being
claimed here.

--
Terry Fields

Java Jive wrote:

Not at all, I was just deliberately giving you a piece of your own
medicine in return - utterly useless veiled vagueness. So, now that
you know that I am aware of how you are trying to avoid saying
anything substantial, I will hand you back to Jeremy Paxman:

Terry Fields, who claims personal senior academic status, are you or
are you not claiming that:
* The whole of climate science is fraudulent?
* Some of climate science is fraudulent?
* None of climate science is fraudulent?

Note that when I say 'is' I mean now, post climategate.

*I* don't have to 'prove' anything. It up to the supporters of AGW to
'prove' their claims; and in my opinion, they haven't.

Then WHICH claims have note been proved, is it
* All of them?
* Some of them, if so which?
* None of them?

Oh, and BTW, you're wrong, they don't have to prove anything to you,
they merely have to convince the majority of the scientific community,
which they have done.

Sloppy writing. You might mean 'majority of the scientific community
working in the field', but even that may not be correct.

On 19 Sep 2013 21:39:02 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Your comprehension of written English is somewhat suspect. I wrote one
sentence and you answered with two, both of which have made the same
mistake.

....and you still haven't 'got' it.


--
Terry Fields

On 21/09/13 09:12, Terry Fields wrote:
There is no such thing as 'bad' data, unless there was in instrument
malfunction or some error in data-reduction, neither of which is being
claimed here.

Bad data is one that forces you to abandon the moral high ground*.

Examples might include such things as people with black skins being
shown to be actally mentally inferior, or homosexuals being shown
overall to be mnore selfish and anti-social than heterosexuals, or foxes
delighting in rushing around in their red coats and the bloodlust of
killing things smaller than themelves.

Not that I hold that any of the above are true, but they would be
examples of 'inconvenient truths' that needed to be airbrushed out -
like the fact that renewable energy doesnt actually reduce emissions,
and carbon dioxide almost certainly doesn't materially affect Earth's
climate - in fact the reverse is most likely true.

Bad data isn't *incorrect* data, It's data that conflicts with a *moral
position*.

*moral hgh ground is of course the best place to put windmills.

--
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.

Java Jive wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013 21:45:05 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Therefore is it correct to say that the electricity supply
is paramount?

By and large, I accept that there may be individual exceptions, the
people in this ng who are anti-wind are also pro-nuclear. It is
immaterial in this argument what I think about the electricity supply
being paramount, what matters in this discussion is what these
particular people think about it.

No, it isn't relevant.

You have made references to the desirablility of the supply of fuel
for generating stations being indigenous because that is a secure
supply. I am trying to determine the basis for this. So far you have
said that many people believe this to be so, which is a mere ad
populem argument, but haven't said that you yourself use it as that
basis.

So I ask you specifically, is your underlying reason for the
advancement of an indigenous fuel supply the secure delivery of
electric power?

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult point to get
home, it seems such a perfectly straightforward argument to me that I
can only deem the truly extraordinary resistance to it as arising from
a very deep bias, so deep that it can only be called bigotry.

To a country without worthwhile indigenous supplies, the supply of
uranium in the long term is barely more certain than the supply of
wind is in the short term. As far as the UK is concerned, if it's
RELIABLE base-load you want, that's coal, or gas from shale or coal.

I'm now confused, as the argument seems to have shifted form one of
fuel security to one of reliable base-load. The former might supply
the latter, but which of these is the fundamental base of your
argument?

--
Terry Fields

On 21 Sep 2013 08:16:39 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Sloppy writing. You might mean 'majority of the scientific community
working in the field', but even that may not be correct.

I meant exactly what I wrote.

On 19 Sep 2013 21:39:02 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Your comprehension of written English is somewhat suspect. I wrote one
sentence and you answered with two, both of which have made the same
mistake.

...and you still haven't 'got' it.

There is nothing to get.
--
================================================== =======
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 21 Sep 2013 08:12:56 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

The tree-ring data was KNOWN to be bad because after 1960 it no longer
agreed with MEASURED temperature, and therefore could NOT be used as a
proxy for it. To include the series where it was known to be invalid
would have been far worse science than what they actually did, not
that I condone what they did. The question they faced was whether to
exclude the entire series, or include the part believed to be good and
exclude the part known to be bad. Personally, I think the former
would have been preferable, but they chose the latter, with the result
that we all know and deplore.

...is the wrong answer. Tim Streater has explained why in this
mini-sub-thread.

Tim Streater made no substantive relevant point.

There is no such thing as 'bad' data, unless there was in instrument
malfunction or some error in data-reduction, neither of which is being
claimed here.

It was 'bad' if it was to be used a proxy for temperature, when it
clearly wasn't.
--
================================================== =======
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, 21 Sep 2013 10:42:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Not that I hold that any of the above are true, but they would be
examples of 'inconvenient truths' that needed to be airbrushed out -
like the fact that renewable energy doesnt actually reduce emissions,
and carbon dioxide almost certainly doesn't materially affect Earth's
climate - in fact the reverse is most likely true.

The 'inconvenient truth' for you is that your last statement above has
be shown to be wrong. The penultimate one is questionable too, but
I'm happy to pass on that for the moment.

Bad data isn't *incorrect* data, It's data that conflicts with a *moral
position*.

*moral hgh ground is of course the best place to put windmills.

If a data series is being considered for use as a proxy for
temperature, but then it turns actually not to track temperature, then
that is 'bad' data for the purposes of tracking temperature.
--
================================================== =======
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

Terry Fields wrote:
You have made references to the desirablility of the supply of fuel
for generating stations being indigenous because that is a secure
supply. I am trying to determine the basis for this. So far you have
said that many people believe this to be so, which is a mere ad
populem argument, but haven't said that you yourself use it as that
basis.

Coal *used* to be a secure, indigenous supply of fuel in the UK, until
the politicians closed the mines in such a way as to prevent them being
re-opened economically. The only sensible way to use it now is to gasify
or burn it in situ.

Now we have to import it.

The same could have been said of gas until we used almost all of ours to
replace the coal from the closed coal mines.

Now we have to import it.

We never had any significant reserves of nuclear fuel, so we've always
had to import that, and most of it comes from politically stable
countries who will probably be willing to sell it to us until it runs
out in the remote future. The quote of 30 years reserves omits "At
current cost and technology levels". In the same way, for the last half
century at least oil and gas reserves have been given as about 30 years use.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Sure, go ahead, be as hypocritical as you like, why change the habits
of a lifetime?

On 21 Sep 2013 08:04:42 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Permit me to ROFL.
--
================================================== =======
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've just searched this entire ng, and I have said no such thing, so
it seems that what you have ascribed to me below was intended as your
own.

It is obvious that you don't understand a great deal of the science
behind AGW, because others have to keep explaining it to you. It is
equally obvious that you are 'anti-AGW', it is revealed in almost
every post that you make. One doesn't need the BBC or any other
source to know that to not understand the science and yet take a
position opposing the conclusions of scientists who do understand it
is bigotry.

On 21 Sep 2013 08:03:32 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

I have never seen any substantive evidence for any significant levels
of AGW. If that is being 'anti-AGW', then it's only in your
BBC-limited view.
--
================================================== =======
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 21 Sep 2013 07:57:43 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

My reply showed with appropriate figures that his assertion that most
of the waste came from the weapons programme was incorrect.

No it didn't, unless all the waste from the military programme was U -

I note that you give no substantive figures in correction. Let's see
them now.

and in any case you never qualified the figures.

I did, I explained where each item originated from.

You must learn to write more clearly, and understand what is being
said in the items you quote. The sloppy IPCC style won't do here.

Typical ****ing-in-the-wind hypocrisy. This is the seventh post in
this sub-thread exchange and you have only NOW just explained your
point. Noone here writes more vaguely than you, it seems to be a
convenient way of trying to avoid being proved wrong.
--
================================================== =======
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 21 Sep 2013 10:15:05 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

No, it isn't relevant.

The hypocrisy is 100% relevant, it's a fundemental point that needs to
be addressed before sensible discussion can take place.

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult point to get
home, it seems such a perfectly straightforward argument to me that I
can only deem the truly extraordinary resistance to it as arising from
a very deep bias, so deep that it can only be called bigotry.

To a country without worthwhile indigenous supplies, the supply of
uranium in the long term is barely more certain than the supply of
wind is in the short term. As far as the UK is concerned, if it's
RELIABLE base-load you want, that's coal, or gas from shale or coal.

I'm now confused,

No change there then.

as the argument seems to have shifted form one of
fuel security to one of reliable base-load. The former might supply
the latter, but which of these is the fundamental base of your
argument?

Neither and both, it's all of what you quoted above and the entire bit
that you snipped, as summarised by:

"Therefore, to complain about the unreliability of wind but then say
we must answer that by building nuclear power stations is
inconsistent, there's an inherent and hypocritical self-contradiction
in such a claim."
--
================================================== =======
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, 21 Sep 2013 11:57:47 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Coal *used* to be a secure, indigenous supply of fuel in the UK, until
the politicians closed the mines in such a way as to prevent them being
re-opened economically. The only sensible way to use it now is to gasify
or burn it in situ.

Now we have to import it.

The same could have been said of gas until we used almost all of ours to
replace the coal from the closed coal mines.

Now we have to import it.

But the point is, as previously linked several times, that
nevertheless we do have significant reserves of carbon-based fuels to
fall back upon if the need arises. The fact that we can currently
import them more cheaply than exploiting our own is no bad thing, as
it means we are conserving our own resources against bad times.

We never had any significant reserves of nuclear fuel, so we've always
had to import that, and most of it comes from politically stable
countries who will probably be willing to sell it to us until it runs
out in the remote future.

I think you must be another one who has failed to hoist on board the
significance of the World Nuclear Association's own data:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nu...anium-Markets/

In the graph at the bottom, entitled "Reference Case Supply", the red
line denoting reference demand crosses above the stack of all
currently known supplies in 2025-ish. That's ALL currently known
supplies, including under those currently under development, planned,
and prospective.

The quote of 30 years reserves omits "At
current cost and technology levels". In the same way, for the last half
century at least oil and gas reserves have been given as about 30 years use.

But we had and still have the gas under our own control, whereas we
have never had and don't have the uranium. The point is that there
are people here who say that the electricity supply is paramount, and
therefore must be reliable, and mostly these are the same people who
support nuclear generation of it. However, as I've shown more times
than I care to count, the supply of fuel for nuclear generation cannot
be classed as reliable, because of the uncertainties associated with
relying on supplies from other nations when there is a projected
shortage of 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 Sat, 21 Sep 2013 12:54:02 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Only if the claim that non-indigenous supplies of nuclear fuel are in
short supply

The relevant trade association's own figures show that they will be in
short supply by about 2025.

are known to be going to be running out soon

Anything sooner than the proposed lifetime of a reactor, 60 years, is
'soon'. 10 years is 'real soon' by comparison.

and for
which there would be no work-arounds or alternatives.

There are only the various bits of waste that we could recycle, and
they are not enough.

None of the above is the case,

All of the above is the case.

and so your whole argument falls to the
ground.

It does not. As usual, you haven't produced a single substantive
piece of evidence to the contrary, mere more denial by assertion.

Nice try, Ace, but must do better.

I'm easily doing better than 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

One wonders how you know ... been lonely lately have you?

On 21 Sep 2013 11:57:13 GMT, Huge wrote:

Terry, never wrestle a pig. You get all dirty, and the pig likes 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

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
You have made references to the desirablility of the supply of fuel
for generating stations being indigenous because that is a secure
supply. I am trying to determine the basis for this. So far you have
said that many people believe this to be so, which is a mere ad
populem argument, but haven't said that you yourself use it as that
basis.
Coal *used* to be a secure, indigenous supply of fuel in the UK,
until the politicians closed the mines in such a way as to prevent
them being re-opened economically.

They were not economic *before* they were closed, that was the point. If
you're making an argument that they could have been closed in a way that
allowed them to be straightforwardly re-opened at a later date, what
would that have cost, and who should have been paying for it? If the
cost would have been quite high, then you could also argue that they may
as well not have been closed.

Yes, it costs almost as much to close them and maintain them as it does
to use them. As for them not being economical to run, that had more to
do with politics than anything else, as conditions were generally no
more difficult than in many other foreign deep mines which apparently
continue to operate profitably. Coal *was* cheaper to import from
foreign open cast mines than dig from our deep pits, just as it would
have been cheaper to use open cast mining techniques here if we'd had
any suitable deposits.

As for who would have had to pay for it, that would have been the
taxpayer, as always. The same taxpayer that paid the dole for all the
unemployed miners.

So perhaps it comes down to: continue using as before, or close them in
they way they were closed.

Otherwise known as politics.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Java Jive wrote:

On 21 Sep 2013 07:57:43 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

My reply showed with appropriate figures that his assertion that most
of the waste came from the weapons programme was incorrect.

No it didn't, unless all the waste from the military programme was U -

I note that you give no substantive figures in correction. Let's see
them now.

and in any case you never qualified the figures.

I did, I explained where each item originated from.

You must learn to write more clearly, and understand what is being
said in the items you quote. The sloppy IPCC style won't do here.

Typical ****ing-in-the-wind hypocrisy. This is the seventh post in
this sub-thread exchange and you have only NOW just explained your
point.

Bzzt! It's *your* point that's under scrutiny.

It seems like it's seven posts where you have avoided answering.

Noone here writes more vaguely than you, it seems to be a
convenient way of trying to avoid being proved wrong.

LOL.
--
Terry Fields

Java Jive wrote:
But the point is, as previously linked several times, that
nevertheless we do have significant reserves of carbon-based fuels to
fall back upon if the need arises. The fact that we can currently
import them more cheaply than exploiting our own is no bad thing, as
it means we are conserving our own resources against bad times.

Where are these carbon based supplies? The vast majority of our coal
reserves are now inaccessible by means other than in-situ burning or
gasification, due to the way the mines were closed. We are rapidly
reaching the end of North Sea gas, and fracking is only economical now
because of the high prices we have to pay for imported gas and oil.
That's assuming that it will at some point become politically feasible,
which it will, as gas and oil prices rise further and people start
getting squeezed more financially by the resulting bills.

We never had any significant reserves of nuclear fuel, so we've always
had to import that, and most of it comes from politically stable
countries who will probably be willing to sell it to us until it runs
out in the remote future.

I think you must be another one who has failed to hoist on board the
significance of the World Nuclear Association's own data:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nu...anium-Markets/

In the graph at the bottom, entitled "Reference Case Supply", the red
line denoting reference demand crosses above the stack of all
currently known supplies in 2025-ish. That's ALL currently known
supplies, including under those currently under development, planned,
and prospective.

And as prices rise, more supplies will come on line as they become
economic to use. This is what history has been showing us for the last
century at least, starting with coal and oil. At first, there was
"flammable water" used in the middle east to fuel lamps about 2
millennia before the troublesome Jew got nailed to a cross. In the 19th
century, lamp oil came from plants, and only became paraffin when that
was found to be a useful waste product of oil produced for other
purposes, so using it for lamp oil became cheaper than growing crops.
The South Africans were mining the gold mine waste dumps for Uranium
until the prices dropped in the 1990s. They could easily start again
when prices rise. There is no *actual* shortage of the elements used in
nuclear fuel, just artificial shortages generated by price fluctuations.
Uranium is actually quite a common element in the Earth's crust, being
500 times more common than gold, for instance.

This is the *only* part of the report that supports your apparent
position, by the way. Other reports, which are easily findable, give
"Peak production" of Uranium, while ignoring Thorium, at various dates
from the 1980s to a century or so away, depending on what assumptions
they make.

The quote of 30 years reserves omits "At
current cost and technology levels". In the same way, for the last half
century at least oil and gas reserves have been given as about 30 years use.

But we had and still have the gas under our own control, whereas we
have never had and don't have the uranium. The point is that there
are people here who say that the electricity supply is paramount, and
therefore must be reliable, and mostly these are the same people who
support nuclear generation of it. However, as I've shown more times
than I care to count, the supply of fuel for nuclear generation cannot
be classed as reliable, because of the uncertainties associated with
relying on supplies from other nations when there is a projected
shortage of it.

Whereas the government's own figures say that by 2030, we will have to
import 72% of our oil and gas, as we won't be able to produce it
ourselves. We currently have to import about a third of it. The ceramics
industry was recently 24 hours from having to close down due to
unreliable gas supplies.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...rojections.pdf

The figures for energy supply sustainability are in the table on the
last page.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:23:33 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Where are these carbon based supplies? The vast majority of our coal
reserves are now inaccessible by means other than in-situ burning or
gasification, due to the way the mines were closed. We are rapidly
reaching the end of North Sea gas, and fracking is only economical now
because of the high prices we have to pay for imported gas and oil.
That's assuming that it will at some point become politically feasible,
which it will, as gas and oil prices rise further and people start
getting squeezed more financially by the resulting bills.

As previously posted twice recently:

quote
UK Coal:

http://www.solidfuel.co.uk/main_pages/education.htm

"UK Coal Reserves
Economically recoverable coal reserves for existing deep mines and
opencast sites in Britain are estimated to be around 400 million
tonnes. However, the total potential British coal reserves are much
larger. The Coal Authority, the body responsible for directing the
British coal industry, has indicated that in 2005 coal resources at
existing deep mines and existing, planned and known potential
surface-mining sites were in the order of 900 million tonnes, with
approximately one-third in deep mines and two-thirds at surface-mining
sites. Additional recoverable tonnages considered to be potentially
available from new or expanded deep-mining operations amounted to
almost 1.4 billion tonnes!!"

UK Gas From Coal:

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/...ves-53420.html

"“The United Kingdom is well placed within Europe in having large
reserves of indigenous coal both onshore and offshore in the southern
North Sea,” points out the UK’s Coal Authority, now part of the
Department of Energy and Climate Change.

“These reserves have the potential to provide security of future
energy supplies long after oil and natural gas are exhausted.”

The key to commercialising the nation’s vast beds of fossil fuel is a
process called underground coal gasification (UCG) – a discrete,
environmentally friendly method of liberating the energy content of
the coal. What’s created is a synthesis gas, or Syngas.

The process uses directional drilling techniques that are commonplace
in the oil and gas sector to follow the coal seam. But crucially it
doesn’t involve deploying the fracking technology that has been
vilified despite transforming the US gas industry.

The UK resource suitable for deep seam UCG is estimated at 17 billion
tonnes, or 300 years' supply at current consumption, according to a
Department of Trade & Industry report."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22432130

""It's an unusual fact that despite the industrial revolution and
everything that's happened since, 75% of British coal is still
underground," he said.

"Under the North Sea there are vast deposits. We're talking about two
billion tonnes of coal off the coast here. Now, to give you some
measure of that, two billion tonnes has more energy in it than we've
ever extracted from the totality of North Sea gas since we began.""

UK Oil:

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

"UK sources give a range of estimates of reserves, but even using the
most optimistic "maximum" estimate of ultimate recovery, 76% had been
recovered at end 2010."

So we could probably assume that at least about 15% of the total yield
to date still remains.

"... the highest annual production was seen in 1999, with offshore oil
production in that year of 407×106 m³ (398 million barrels) and had
declined to 231×106 m³ (220 million barrels) in 2007.[20] This was the
largest decrease of any other oil exporting nation in the world, and
has led to Britain becoming a net importer of crude for the first time
in decades, as recognized by the energy policy of the United Kingdom.
The production is expected to fall to one-third of its peak by 2020."

So UK oil production is falling, and we are importing, but we do still
have worthwhile reserves.
/quote

And as prices rise, more supplies will come on line as they become
economic to use.

In a planned economy, 'the world', whatever that phrase may mean,
would simply legislate that it should be done, and it would be. But
we live in a market economy, and it doesn't work like that.

In a market economy, it can take significant time for the mechanisms
that you describe to kick in, and the potential problem is only 10
years away. Further, remember again that demand is expected to
outstrip all known current, planned, and prospective developments in
production. For example, although the Australians and others are
developing new production, it has apparently already been included in
the WNA's predictions, yet demand is still expected to outstrip
supply.

Further, the spot price of U3O8 is currently 25% less than it was 9
months ago, so there's no incentive to do much production development,
so that probably writes off some of those 10 years, and once the spot
price does rise, it'll take time for that to work through to making a
decision in favour of developing new production.

Once such a decision has been made, it will take time to develop new
production, whether it be opening up a new mine, which would likely
require the local equivalents of planning enquiries, building access
infrastructure, etc, or troubleshooting an entirely new technology.

That's probably more than your ten years gone already.

There are no guarantees at all that market forces alone will prevent
the shortfall predicted by the WNA.

This is what history has been showing us for the last
century at least, starting with coal and oil. At first, there was
"flammable water" used in the middle east to fuel lamps about 2
millennia before the troublesome Jew got nailed to a cross. In the 19th
century, lamp oil came from plants, and only became paraffin when that
was found to be a useful waste product of oil produced for other
purposes, so using it for lamp oil became cheaper than growing crops.
The South Africans were mining the gold mine waste dumps for Uranium
until the prices dropped in the 1990s. They could easily start again
when prices rise. There is no *actual* shortage of the elements used in
nuclear fuel, just artificial shortages generated by price fluctuations.
Uranium is actually quite a common element in the Earth's crust, being
500 times more common than gold, for instance.

Indeed, but you are forgetting that the WNA know all this too, yet are
still projecting a shortfall. To meet expected demand, production
will have to rise by about 50-60% over the next ten years. That is
not going to be easy.

This is the *only* part of the report that supports your apparent
position, by the way.

Elsewhere I have linked to four reports, 2 from the WNA and 2 others,
which all say the same sort of thing.

Other reports, which are easily findable

Yet you don't link to them.

give
"Peak production" of Uranium, while ignoring Thorium, at various dates
from the 1980s to a century or so away, depending on what assumptions
they make.

The report that I have linked is from the industry's trade body, so I
think its reports can be taken as definitive, but at very least we can
not afford to ignore the possibilities outlined in it.

Suppose you are the minister for power. Are you going to gamble away
a huge tranche of public money in 'guarantees' or 'Feed In Tariffs'
(effectively 'subsidies') for nuclear power while there is a report
sitting on your desk saying that nuclear fuel supplies become
uncertain in as little as ten years from now? I don't think you are.

Thorium and breeder technologies are irrelevant because current UK
policy does not intend to deploy them. For better or worse, current
UK policy is firmly based on uranium fission, so that's what we are
discussing here.

Whereas the government's own figures say that by 2030, we will have to
import 72% of our oil and gas, as we won't be able to produce it
ourselves. We currently have to import about a third of it. The ceramics
industry was recently 24 hours from having to close down due to
unreliable gas supplies.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...rojections.pdf

The figures for energy supply sustainability are in the table on the
last page.

Yes, I've seen it before. However, AIUI, it doesn't include gas from
shale or coal, while producing 28% and importing 72% is still better
odds for security than having to import 100% of something that is
already predicted to be in short supply.
--
================================================== =======
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 21 Sep 2013 13:01:47 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Bzzt! It's *your* point that's under scrutiny.

Bzzt! Then why don't you obtain some figures to contradict it then?

It seems like it's seven posts where you have avoided answering.

It's seven posts where you wasted everyone's time trying to look
clever, but merely looked an idiot.

Noone here writes more vaguely than you, it seems to be a
convenient way of trying to avoid being proved wrong.

And your last post is yet another example.

If you have a point, support it with facts and figures.

Put up or shut up.
--
================================================== =======
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 21/09/2013 01:32, Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:04:40 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

So what can we rely on?

Coal is subject to disruption such as war, strikes, natural disasters...

Gas ditto

Oil ditto.

But all three:
+ have many more global sources of supply than uranium;

link

+ have more total global resources than uranium;

link

+ have indigenous supplies within the UK, especially coal and gas.

link


All these factors make all of them more reliable than uranium, and
particularly the last one for coal and gas.

We can't rely on solar as climate change may render it useless.

wind ditto.

Climate change is unlikely to render either useless.

proof?
how do you know what climate change will do to our weather?


As a country we
are not well placed for solar energy, somewhat better for wind.

But that's beside the point. What I'm saying, and have been for a
long time, is that if you want reliable baseload, in the UK that means
coal, or gas from shale and/or coal.


or nukes.