"ASHCROFT POLL ON WHERE UKIP SUPPORTERS ARE COMING FROM (AGAINST THEIR
2010 GENERAL ELECTION VOTES)

CONSERVATIVE: 24.8%
LABOUR: 14.3%
LIBERAL: 8.8%
OTHER OR DID NOT VOTE: 52.1%


Ashcroft himself expresses the view that he was surprised at the result
and had assumed that the majority of UKIP supporters were ex-Tories. The
poll endorses what we, in UKIP, have long believed, namely that our
support comes from all other parties, and none. We knew that, of the
three other big parties, the majority of our votes came from the Tories,
but almost as many seem to be coming from Labour and Liberals combined.
It is encouraging that 14.3% of our votes are coming from Labour at a
time when that party is in the ascendant. The big surprise is the huge
preponderance of €œothers and did not vote€�. We must conclude that we are
giving hope to a very large number of disillusioned people."


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

"ASHCROFT POLL ON WHERE UKIP SUPPORTERS ARE COMING FROM (AGAINST THEIR
2010 GENERAL ELECTION VOTES)

CONSERVATIVE: 24.8%
LABOUR: 14.3%
LIBERAL: 8.8%
OTHER OR DID NOT VOTE: 52.1%


Ashcroft himself expresses the view that he was surprised at the result
and had assumed that the majority of UKIP supporters were ex-Tories. The
poll endorses what we, in UKIP, have long believed, namely that our
support comes from all other parties, and none. We knew that, of the three
other big parties, the majority of our votes came from the Tories, but
almost as many seem to be coming from Labour and Liberals combined. It is
encouraging that 14.3% of our votes are coming from Labour at a time when
that party is in the ascendant. The big surprise is the huge preponderance
of €œothers and did not vote€�. We must conclude that we are giving hope to
a very large number of disillusioned people."

Not hope so much as giving them something different to vote for.

On 26/08/2014 21:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

"ASHCROFT POLL ON WHERE UKIP SUPPORTERS ARE COMING FROM (AGAINST THEIR
2010 GENERAL ELECTION VOTES)

CONSERVATIVE: 24.8%
LABOUR: 14.3%
LIBERAL: 8.8%
OTHER OR DID NOT VOTE: 52.1%


Ashcroft himself expresses the view that he was surprised at the
result and had assumed that the majority of UKIP supporters were
ex-Tories. The poll endorses what we, in UKIP, have long believed,
namely that our support comes from all other parties, and none. We
knew that, of the three other big parties, the majority of our votes
came from the Tories, but almost as many seem to be coming from Labour
and Liberals combined. It is encouraging that 14.3% of our votes are
coming from Labour at a time when that party is in the ascendant. The
big surprise is the huge preponderance of €œothers and did not vote€�.
We must conclude that we are giving hope to a very large number of
disillusioned people."

Not hope so much as giving them something different to vote for.

I think UKIP appear to offer hope to some of the 30% to 90% of those
that don't vote. They throw in 'jobs' and 'housing' as part of their
pre-election ramblings, without any associated policies in support.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 18:44:18 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"ASHCROFT POLL ON WHERE UKIP SUPPORTERS ARE COMING FROM (AGAINST THEIR

2010 GENERAL ELECTION VOTES)



CONSERVATIVE: 24.8%

LABOUR: 14.3%

LIBERAL: 8.8%

OTHER OR DID NOT VOTE: 52.1%





Ashcroft himself expresses the view that he was surprised at the result
and had assumed that the majority of UKIP supporters were ex-Tories. The
poll endorses what we, in UKIP, have long believed, namely that our
support comes from all other parties, and none. We knew that, of the
three other big parties, the majority of our votes came from the Tories,
but almost as many seem to be coming from Labour and Liberals combined.
It is encouraging that 14.3% of our votes are coming from Labour at a
time when that party is in the ascendant. The big surprise is the huge
preponderance of "others and did not vote". We must conclude that we are
giving hope to a very large number of disillusioned people."

But will they really get up and go and vote that is the point and I don't think they will.

On 27/08/14 12:40, jake wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:11:05 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 26/08/2014 21:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

"ASHCROFT POLL ON WHERE UKIP SUPPORTERS ARE COMING FROM (AGAINST THEIR
2010 GENERAL ELECTION VOTES)

CONSERVATIVE: 24.8%
LABOUR: 14.3%
LIBERAL: 8.8%
OTHER OR DID NOT VOTE: 52.1%


Ashcroft himself expresses the view that he was surprised at the
result and had assumed that the majority of UKIP supporters were
ex-Tories. The poll endorses what we, in UKIP, have long believed,
namely that our support comes from all other parties, and none. We
knew that, of the three other big parties, the majority of our votes
came from the Tories, but almost as many seem to be coming from Labour
and Liberals combined. It is encouraging that 14.3% of our votes are
coming from Labour at a time when that party is in the ascendant. The
big surprise is the huge preponderance of €œothers and did not vote€�.
We must conclude that we are giving hope to a very large number of
disillusioned people."

Not hope so much as giving them something different to vote for.

I think UKIP appear to offer hope to some of the 30% to 90% of those
that don't vote. They throw in 'jobs' and 'housing' as part of their
pre-election ramblings, without any associated policies in support.

And of course the policies the other clown parties have are so well
worked out they have to lie about them. Policies = worthless tosh.


UKIP have not yet announced their policies at all.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 27/08/14 16:03, Bob Henson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/08/14 12:40, jake wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:11:05 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 26/08/2014 21:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

"ASHCROFT POLL ON WHERE UKIP SUPPORTERS ARE COMING FROM (AGAINST THEIR
2010 GENERAL ELECTION VOTES)

CONSERVATIVE: 24.8%
LABOUR: 14.3%
LIBERAL: 8.8%
OTHER OR DID NOT VOTE: 52.1%


Ashcroft himself expresses the view that he was surprised at the
result and had assumed that the majority of UKIP supporters were
ex-Tories. The poll endorses what we, in UKIP, have long believed,
namely that our support comes from all other parties, and none. We
knew that, of the three other big parties, the majority of our votes
came from the Tories, but almost as many seem to be coming from Labour
and Liberals combined. It is encouraging that 14.3% of our votes are
coming from Labour at a time when that party is in the ascendant. The
big surprise is the huge preponderance of €œothers and did not vote€�.
We must conclude that we are giving hope to a very large number of
disillusioned people."

Not hope so much as giving them something different to vote for.

I think UKIP appear to offer hope to some of the 30% to 90% of those
that don't vote. They throw in 'jobs' and 'housing' as part of their
pre-election ramblings, without any associated policies in support.

And of course the policies the other clown parties have are so well
worked out they have to lie about them. Policies = worthless tosh.


UKIP have not yet announced their policies at all.

They have.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690


That's the BBC announcing what they think UKIPs policies are.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 27/08/14 14:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

UKIP have not yet announced their policies at all.



They published an energy policy that put every other party to shame.

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 16:12:44 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 27/08/14 14:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



UKIP have not yet announced their policies at all.







They published an energy policy that put every other party to shame.

If that's the one in the link then my policy is far better as it gives free gas and electicity to everyone and their dog or cat, but don't ask me how I will pay for it. That's not one of my polices :-)

On 27/08/2014 16:19, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 16:12:44 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

If that's the one in the link then my policy is far better as it gives free gas and electicity to everyone and their dog or cat, but don't ask me how I will pay for it. That's not one of my polices :-)

Easy. Pay for it with a tax on all the excess profits of the gas and
electricity companies.

Tim Watts wrote:

They published an energy policy that put every other party to shame.

Since their energy policy is based on the mistaken view
that man-made climate change is not occurring,
it would be bound to lead to disaster if followed.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On 27/08/14 16:35, Andrew May wrote:
On 27/08/2014 16:19, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 16:12:44 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

If that's the one in the link then my policy is far better as it gives
free gas and electicity to everyone and their dog or cat, but don't
ask me how I will pay for it. That's not one of my polices :-)

Easy. Pay for it with a tax on all the excess profits of the gas and
electricity companies.

I think that's the labour party policy he has there.

Freeze prices on electricity and watch the lights go out..



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 27/08/14 16:43, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

They published an energy policy that put every other party to shame.

Since their energy policy is based on the mistaken view
that man-made climate change is not occurring,
it would be bound to lead to disaster if followed.


Well actually no it isn't based on that.
Its based on the assumption that irrespective of whether carbon dioxide
affects the climate adversely or not, current energy policy is a totally
ineffective way of addressing it, and that nuclear power actually has a
far far greater impact for a lot less outlay.

And gas is second best.

It doesn't make any difference to whether you believe in climate change
or not, when the wind blows windmills suck, and when it stops they suck
even more.

And the same goes for solar panels and the sun.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since their energy policy is based on the mistaken view
that man-made climate change is not occurring,
it would be bound to lead to disaster if followed.

It doesn't make any difference to whether you believe in climate change
or not, when the wind blows windmills suck, and when it stops they suck
even more.

And the same goes for solar panels and the sun.

I have some doubts about solar panels in the UK
(though they seem to give a significant amount of energy in Germany,
where the amount of sunlight is much the same),
but I am quite sure they are very worthwhile in southern Europe,
in Italy (where I am at the moment) and even more so in Spain.
I believe Germany imports solar-generated electricity from Spain.

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,
and it is already feasible to save solar energy and will become more so.

I think nuclear energy is plausible, but the reserves of uranium are smaller
(in energy terms) than those of coal and oil.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On 27/08/2014 16:43, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

They published an energy policy that put every other party to shame.

Since their energy policy is based on the mistaken view
that man-made climate change is not occurring,
it would be bound to lead to disaster if followed.

It's not a mistaken view.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 27/08/14 18:01, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since their energy policy is based on the mistaken view
that man-made climate change is not occurring,
it would be bound to lead to disaster if followed.

It doesn't make any difference to whether you believe in climate change
or not, when the wind blows windmills suck, and when it stops they suck
even more.

And the same goes for solar panels and the sun.

I have some doubts about solar panels in the UK
(though they seem to give a significant amount of energy in Germany,
where the amount of sunlight is much the same),
but I am quite sure they are very worthwhile in southern Europe,
in Italy (where I am at the moment) and even more so in Spain.
I believe Germany imports solar-generated electricity from Spain.


only if you are running aircon.

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,
and it is already feasible to save solar energy and will become more so.

no it isnt.

I think nuclear energy is plausible, but the reserves of uranium are smaller
(in energy terms) than those of coal and oil.

hahahahah

You are surely having me on? estimated economically extractable fissile
material is enough for 5000 years at current energy rates.


Well your logic is fine, but your assumptions are sadly flawed.

GIGO...


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 27/08/2014 18:01, Timothy Murphy wrote:


I have some doubts about solar panels in the UK
(though they seem to give a significant amount of energy in Germany,
where the amount of sunlight is much the same),
but I am quite sure they are very worthwhile in southern Europe,
in Italy (where I am at the moment) and even more so in Spain.
I believe Germany imports solar-generated electricity from Spain.

That would be the solar energy generated at night in Spain!

On 27/08/14 19:00, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

You are surely having me on? estimated economically extractable
fissile material is enough for 5000 years at current energy rates.

Is that with all volts produced by nuclear, or with the current %-age
of nuclear power continued?

all volts nuclear and then some

The energy density of uranium is so large and the current reactor
designs are so wasteful of uranium that with proper breeder technology
there is a massive amount more energy to be had from each kg than we get
now.

But the actual cost contribution of the mined uranium is only about 0.1p
per unit - uranium at ten times the price would barely dent the final cost.

And at ten times the current price seawater extraction is viable - easily.

WE really are at the start of reactor technology. There's at least 100
times more energy to be got out of the uranium than we currently get

But the uranium is so cheap its not worth spending the money on the more
complex reactors.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In message om,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 27/08/2014 18:01, Timothy Murphy wrote:


I have some doubts about solar panels in the UK
(though they seem to give a significant amount of energy in Germany,
where the amount of sunlight is much the same),
but I am quite sure they are very worthwhile in southern Europe,
in Italy (where I am at the moment) and even more so in Spain.
I believe Germany imports solar-generated electricity from Spain.

That would be the solar energy generated at night in Spain!


No, the nuclear power imported from France
--
bert

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 21:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

"ASHCROFT POLL ON WHERE UKIP SUPPORTERS ARE COMING FROM (AGAINST THEIR
2010 GENERAL ELECTION VOTES)

CONSERVATIVE: 24.8%
LABOUR: 14.3%
LIBERAL: 8.8%
OTHER OR DID NOT VOTE: 52.1%


Ashcroft himself expresses the view that he was surprised at the
result and had assumed that the majority of UKIP supporters were
ex-Tories. The poll endorses what we, in UKIP, have long believed,
namely that our support comes from all other parties, and none. We
knew that, of the three other big parties, the majority of our votes
came from the Tories, but almost as many seem to be coming from Labour
and Liberals combined. It is encouraging that 14.3% of our votes are
coming from Labour at a time when that party is in the ascendant. The
big surprise is the huge preponderance of €œothers and did not vote€�.
We must conclude that we are giving hope to a very large number of
disillusioned people."

Not hope so much as giving them something different to vote for.

I think UKIP appear to offer hope to some of the 30% to 90% of those that
don't vote.

I doubt many of those who dont vote actually believe
anything any polly claims, that's why they dont vote.

They throw in 'jobs' and 'housing' as part of their pre-election
ramblings, without any associated policies in support.

And so its only the most stupid that would get any hope from that.

Sure, there may be a few that stupid, but I doubt its very many of them.

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since their energy policy is based on the mistaken view
that man-made climate change is not occurring,
it would be bound to lead to disaster if followed.

It doesn't make any difference to whether you believe in climate change
or not, when the wind blows windmills suck, and when it stops they suck
even more.

And the same goes for solar panels and the sun.

I have some doubts about solar panels in the UK
(though they seem to give a significant amount of energy in Germany,
where the amount of sunlight is much the same),
but I am quite sure they are very worthwhile in southern Europe,
in Italy (where I am at the moment) and even more so in Spain.
I believe Germany imports solar-generated electricity from Spain.

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,

Not by much, we have been doing them for too long for that to happen.

The cost of them will certainly continue to drop
tho now that they mostly come from china.

and it is already feasible to save solar
energy and will become more so.

I think nuclear energy is plausible, but the reserves of uranium
are smaller (in energy terms) than those of coal and oil.

But breeders can make more of what gets used in nukes
and there is a lot more thorium than uranium too.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 18:44:18 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"ASHCROFT POLL ON WHERE UKIP SUPPORTERS ARE COMING FROM (AGAINST THEIR

2010 GENERAL ELECTION VOTES)



CONSERVATIVE: 24.8%

LABOUR: 14.3%

LIBERAL: 8.8%

OTHER OR DID NOT VOTE: 52.1%





Ashcroft himself expresses the view that he was surprised at the result
and had assumed that the majority of UKIP supporters were ex-Tories. The
poll endorses what we, in UKIP, have long believed, namely that our
support comes from all other parties, and none. We knew that, of the
three other big parties, the majority of our votes came from the Tories,
but almost as many seem to be coming from Labour and Liberals combined.
It is encouraging that 14.3% of our votes are coming from Labour at a
time when that party is in the ascendant. The big surprise is the huge
preponderance of "others and did not vote". We must conclude that we are
giving hope to a very large number of disillusioned people."

But will they really get up and go and vote
that is the point and I don't think they will.

Yeah, bet they wont.

Tim Streater wrote:

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,
and it is already feasible to save solar energy and will become more so.

Why is it "certain to increase"? AIUI, the max efficiency of cells
today is around 45% and you'll note also that you won't get above 86%.
So they may double but that's then it.

You've made my point, really.
The actual efficiency of most solar panels installed in the UK
is under 15%, so if you think it can be increased to 90% (twice 45%)
that would be a six-fold increase.

I think nuclear energy is plausible, but the reserves of uranium are
smaller (in energy terms) than those of coal and oil.

There's 4 billyun tons of uranium in seawater. You considered that?

I've never seen it suggested that sea-water is a feasible source of uranium.
Have you evidence of that?
Why is it not being used now?

If we want to make solar and wind actually *useful*, then the
electricity generated should be used where it's generated to convert
atmospheric CO2 to hydro-carbon fuels or perhaps to produce hydrogen
that to use as a fuel, although I'm not sure about the utility of
these.

I believe it will be quite feasible in 5 years time
to store solar-generated electricity in battery/accumulators.
There is a large amount of fruitful research on this in the US,
largely in connection with electric cars.

While the complicated ways of storing energy that you have suggested
are probably feasible, I am sure more straightforward methods
will be available shortly, if they are not already in place
on a small scale.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I believe Germany imports solar-generated electricity from Spain.

only if you are running aircon.

Are you saying that Germany does not import electricity from Spain?

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,
and it is already feasible to save solar energy and will become more so.

no it isnt.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-better-battery-1.14815
-------------------------
In 2012, the JCESR hub won US$120 million from the US Department of Energy
to take a leap beyond Li-ion technology. Its stated goal was to make cells
that, when scaled up to the sort of commercial battery packs used in
electric cars, would be five times more energy dense than the standard of
the day, and five times cheaper, in just five years.
-------------------------

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

What the f'ck has this to do with uk.d-i-y ?



In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes

"ASHCROFT POLL ON WHERE UKIP SUPPORTERS ARE COMING FROM
(AGAINST THEIR
2010 GENERAL ELECTION VOTES)

CONSERVATIVE: 24.8%
LABOUR: 14.3%
LIBERAL: 8.8%
OTHER OR DID NOT VOTE: 52.1%


Ashcroft himself expresses the view that he was surprised at the result
and had assumed that the majority of UKIP supporters were ex-Tories. The
poll endorses what we, in UKIP, have long believed, namely that our
support comes from all other parties, and none. We knew that, of the
three other big parties, the majority of our votes came from the Tories,
but almost as many seem to be coming from Labour and Liberals combined.
It is encouraging that 14.3% of our votes are coming from Labour at a
time when that party is in the ascendant. The big surprise is the huge
preponderance of €œothers and did not vote€�. We must conclude that we are
giving hope to a very large number of disillusioned people."



--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

estimated economically extractable fissile
material is enough for 5000 years at current energy rates.

Please give a scientific citation for this.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On 27/08/14 23:31, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,
and it is already feasible to save solar energy and will become more so.

Why is it "certain to increase"? AIUI, the max efficiency of cells
today is around 45% and you'll note also that you won't get above 86%.
So they may double but that's then it.

You've made my point, really.
The actual efficiency of most solar panels installed in the UK
is under 15%, so if you think it can be increased to 90% (twice 45%)
that would be a six-fold increase.

I think nuclear energy is plausible, but the reserves of uranium are
smaller (in energy terms) than those of coal and oil.

There's 4 billyun tons of uranium in seawater. You considered that?

I've never seen it suggested that sea-water is a feasible source of uranium.
Have you evidence of that?

oh yes. Japs developed a filter and reckoned cost of extraction would be
$200/kg.

out the mine, its $50 right now.

Recycled fuel rods, $65


So even if you get 10% out of the sea that's 400 million tonnes. That's
a LOT of electricity.

Right now once through reactors use about 10% of the U235 which is
itse3lf ony 5% of the total uranium in the rod.

With a proper breeder cycle, you can burn up all the 235 and 238 give or
take.




Why is it not being used now?


Cost.

That why we dont use plutonium and ercyled rods. That and the harries of
this world. That's why Fukushima was stuffed to the gills with used fuel
rods. Reprocessing costs money and when everyone else is using new
uranium, why pay extra to have yours recycled? Especially when what's
left afterwards is 'high level waste' and unwashed hippies will freak if
it comes within 1000 miles of them


If we want to make solar and wind actually *useful*, then the
electricity generated should be used where it's generated to convert
atmospheric CO2 to hydro-carbon fuels or perhaps to produce hydrogen
that to use as a fuel, although I'm not sure about the utility of
these.



I believe it will be quite feasible in 5 years time
to store solar-generated electricity in battery/accumulators.
There is a large amount of fruitful research on this in the US,
largely in connection with electric cars.


Its feasible now, it just is totally completely cost ineffective.

If you want to pay 50p=100p a unit be my guest. Making batteries to
store electricity and making renewables to charge it is WAY more
expensive than nuclear power;


While the complicated ways of storing energy that you have suggested
are probably feasible, I am sure more straightforward methods
will be available shortly, if they are not already in place
on a small scale.

Well no they wont be, since we have been looking since forever for cheap
safe simple efficient ways to store electricity.


We have simple, we have safe, we have cheap, We have efficient, But not
all at the same time.

Nor can I see any prospect of it. 90% of companies promising the holy
grail are lying and they know it, the other 10% aren't actually
promising anything much better than what we have.

Let me give you an example of how real science and technology works.

Material strength is ultimatley about moloecular bonding energy. So its
possible to say that e.g 'iron and stee' will never be stronger than X -
and of course they are nothing like that good, because of flaws in the
structure, but you can do stuff like hot forging and make steel
stronger, but you cant make it stronger than the bonding energy. So you
might look at carbon, and work out it should be stronger, but it isn't.
So you develop ways to make fibers and yes, its really strong. But it
isn't stronger than the binding energy

Same with batteries. Lithium has a certain amount of possible energy
storage possible in its molecular structure. Its the best element there
is, and current lithium batteries are about 1/4 as good as they could
be. Theoretically. They cannot get better than the theoretical limit. So
there is a limit to development that the physics tells you. You can
developed to get close, but you cant exceed, So it doesn't matter that
you haven't spent trillions on battery development: you know it can't be
good enouugh.

These limit calculations are pretty simple. We can say with absolute
certainty that technology we already understand, like windmills, solar
panels, lithium batteries, flywheels, fuel cells, super capacitors - we
can say very quickly that these are never going to be better than 'X' -
this isn't arrogance and it isn't opinion, its facts and a simple
calculation.

And wanting it to be different and believing it can be different cuts
zero ice and butters no parsnips

Real advances do not come from refining well understood technology: It
comes from bleeding edge research and brand NEW technology.

It would have been possible to show 50 years ago that you could never
build a desktop computer with valves. It would have been fiendishly
expensive and fiendishly unreliable. The transistor changed all that.

So we need a completely new storage technology, not rehashes of ones we
know about. And there is no such beast. Its all known stiff that's being
proposed.

There is nothing new or not understood about all the so called 'coming
thing' 'renewables' and storage.

ALL the major advances recently have centered around nuclear and quantum
level phenomena - the laser, the transistor, the nuclear power station.
Maybe there is a way to store energy in quantum fields that doesn't
involve reversible atomic reactions, but I don't know of it and it ain't
on anyone's prospectus.

and I spent a lot of time looking.

The real point is far more mundane: ALL complete renewable solutions are
FAR more expensive than nuclear. They require massive market distortions
to be economically viable so we pay through the nose for our panic. We
are being fleeced because we don't insist on nuclear power.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 27/08/14 23:38, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I believe Germany imports solar-generated electricity from Spain.

only if you are running aircon.

Are you saying that Germany does not import electricity from Spain?

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,
and it is already feasible to save solar energy and will become more so.

no it isnt.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-better-battery-1.14815
-------------------------
In 2012, the JCESR hub won US$120 million from the US Department of Energy
to take a leap beyond Li-ion technology. Its stated goal was to make cells
that, when scaled up to the sort of commercial battery packs used in
electric cars, would be five times more energy dense than the standard of
the day, and five times cheaper, in just five years.
-------------------------

Well that's pushing the limits of lithium... wanna bet they don't
succeed?

Anyone can make a promise.

And it would still be about 1000 times to pathetic to store grid levels
of power.

If every household had a 100kwh car -all 20million of them - and that's
50 grand per household investment at todays prices, so we have a total
of 2000 GWh, that would power the country on average for about three weeks.

That might take you through a winter of little wind, but not a winter of
little sun.

And the cost would be around £1 trillion. Whereas ten Sizewell C class
nukes would do the same job at around £140bn. And not need the windmills
the solar panels and the power cables to do it;

The equation is simple. I'll use wind as an example, because I know the
numbers better than solar. To have a RELIABLE wind source, costs around
£4 million per AVERAGE megawatt, and lithium battery storage to make it
reliable (say three weeks storage) is going to be something like £28
million in addition.

That compares with about £4 million per megawatt for a nuke that doesn't
need storage, and lasts four to six times longer.

5 times better prices on that storage is still a crap heap of ****
renewable option.

Compared with a nuke

Better batteries might just make electric cars viable - thats within
reach - just, but not a renewable grid. You need a nuclear grid or a
coal or gas grid. Renewables are a carp half a solution only and the
other half pushes the cost up to utterly ridiculous proportions.

If everybody in the country was an engineer we would never have built a
single solar panel or wind turbine.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 27/08/14 23:42, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

estimated economically extractable fissile
material is enough for 5000 years at current energy rates.

Please give a scientific citation for this.

Oh google David Mackay - professor of physics at Cambridge, chief
scientific advisor to DECC and great fan of renewables - but even he
admits they wont work.,


e.g.

"According to figures calculated for the Guardian by the American writer
and fast reactor advocate Tom Blees, this alternative approach could €“
given a large enough number of reactors €“ produce enough low-carbon
electricity from Britain's waste stockpile to supply the UK at current
rates of demand for more than 500 years."

That's just the fissile/fertile material we have lying around at
sellafield. 500 flipping years.


http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ioactive-waste
-----------------------------------
"[If] 10% of the uranium [on earth] is extracted over a 1600 year
period, thats an extraction rate of 280,000 tons per year€¦ shared
between 6 billion people the extraction of ocean [and ground] uranium
could deliver 420kWh per day per person [which is] a sustainable figure
that beats current consumption" (MacKay 164).

This data shows that nuclear power can be considered a sustainable
resource, especially when considering that it would take 16,000 years to
use up all of the approximated available uranium on earth. This figure
does not even include any other nuclear fuels such as Thorium which
according to MacKay is €œabout three times as abundant in the earths
crust as Uranium€� (MacKay 166).
"

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles...aintable-world

just two random googles

in 16000 years we SHOULD be able to get a working fusions reactor going.

Now how much seawater is there for fuel?

Note that 20 million people and 420kwh each per day is a energy flow
rate of 350 GW - thats TEN TIMES our current electricity demand and
probably THREE TIMES our TOTAL energy use in the United kingdom. For
1600 years...

And that isn't even counting the uranium and thorium in seawater.

In complete contarst to windmills solar [panels and batteries, which are
technologies we KNOW are not good enough, nuclear power is technology we
know is ALREADY good enough. And compared with how good it could be, its
about 1% - i tcould get a hundred times BETTER with development.

The real picture is that renewable energy is old fashioned well
developed technology reaching its limits and so are batteries. Nuclear
technology is new, already far cheaper, and could get massively better
and there is no shortage of dirt cheap fuel.

What is holding it back is the same thing that supports renewable
energy. Stupidity and politics. The two cheeks of the Green party arse..



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 02:04:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/08/14 23:42, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

estimated economically extractable fissile
material is enough for 5000 years at current energy rates.

Please give a scientific citation for this.

Oh google David Mackay - professor of physics at Cambridge, chief
scientific advisor to DECC and great fan of renewables - but even he
admits they wont work.,


e.g.

"According to figures calculated for the Guardian by the American writer
and fast reactor advocate Tom Blees, this alternative approach could –
given a large enough number of reactors – produce enough low-carbon
electricity from Britain's waste stockpile to supply the UK at current
rates of demand for more than 500 years."

That's just the fissile/fertile material we have lying around at
sellafield. 500 flipping years.


http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ioactive-waste
-----------------------------------
"[If] 10% of the uranium [on earth] is extracted over a 1600 year
period, that’s an extraction rate of 280,000 tons per year… shared
between 6 billion people the extraction of ocean [and ground] uranium
could deliver 420kWh per day per person [which is] a sustainable figure
that beats current consumption" (MacKay 164).

This data shows that nuclear power can be considered a sustainable
resource, especially when considering that it would take 16,000 years to
use up all of the approximated available uranium on earth. This figure
does not even include any other nuclear fuels such as Thorium which
according to MacKay is “about three times as abundant in the earths
crust as Uranium” (MacKay 166).
"

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles...aintable-world

just two random googles

in 16000 years we SHOULD be able to get a working fusions reactor going.

Now how much seawater is there for fuel?

Note that 20 million people and 420kwh each per day is a energy flow
rate of 350 GW - thats TEN TIMES our current electricity demand and
probably THREE TIMES our TOTAL energy use in the United kingdom. For
1600 years...

And that isn't even counting the uranium and thorium in seawater.

In complete contarst to windmills solar [panels and batteries, which are
technologies we KNOW are not good enough, nuclear power is technology we
know is ALREADY good enough. And compared with how good it could be, its
about 1% - i tcould get a hundred times BETTER with development.

The real picture is that renewable energy is old fashioned well
developed technology reaching its limits and so are batteries. Nuclear
technology is new, already far cheaper, and could get massively better
and there is no shortage of dirt cheap fuel.

What is holding it back is the same thing that supports renewable
energy. Stupidity and politics. The two cheeks of the Green party arse..

Very well put! I'm in total agreement with all of the above. I've not
snipped anything in the interests of letting your statements be
duplicated within this thread (if a thing is worth saying, it's worth
repeating over and over till the message finally sinks into the
consciousness of even the most misled of the ill informed electorate
both here in the UK and in other "First World States".
--
J B Good

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,
and it is already feasible to save solar energy and will become more so.

Why is it "certain to increase"? AIUI, the max efficiency of cells
today is around 45% and you'll note also that you won't get above 86%.
So they may double but that's then it.

You've made my point, really.
The actual efficiency of most solar panels installed in the UK
is under 15%, so if you think it can be increased to 90% (twice 45%)
that would be a six-fold increase.

But there is no evidence that anything like that is feasible and
we have been doing solar cells for a hell of a long time now.

I think nuclear energy is plausible, but the reserves of uranium are
smaller (in energy terms) than those of coal and oil.

There's 4 billyun tons of uranium in seawater. You considered that?

I've never seen it suggested that sea-water is a feasible source of
uranium.
Have you evidence of that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium..._from_seawater

Why is it not being used now?

Its much cheaper to dig it up.

If we want to make solar and wind actually *useful*, then the
electricity generated should be used where it's generated to convert
atmospheric CO2 to hydro-carbon fuels or perhaps to produce hydrogen
that to use as a fuel, although I'm not sure about the utility of
these.

I believe it will be quite feasible in 5 years time to store
solar-generated electricity in battery/accumulators.

But you have no basis for that belief.

Pumped water does work fine, particularly on a
large scale, but not feasible in plenty of places.

There is a large amount of fruitful research on this
in the US, largely in connection with electric cars.

But no evidence that batterys will be viable for that in 5 years.

While the complicated ways of storing energy that
you have suggested are probably feasible, I am sure
more straightforward methods will be available shortly,

But again, you have no basis for that surety given that
we have been trying to do that for decades now.

if they are not already in place on a small scale.

They have been for more than half a century now, but
arent anything like economic except for pumped water.

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I believe Germany imports solar-generated electricity from Spain.

only if you are running aircon.

Are you saying that Germany does not import electricity from Spain?

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,
and it is already feasible to save solar energy and will become more so.

no it isnt.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-better-battery-1.14815
-------------------------
In 2012, the JCESR hub won US$120 million from the US Department of Energy
to take a leap beyond Li-ion technology. Its stated goal was to make cells
that,
when scaled up to the sort of commercial battery packs used in electric
cars,
would be five times more energy dense than the standard of
the day, and five times cheaper, in just five years.

Goals are nothing like reality.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

"According to figures calculated for the Guardian by the American writer
and fast reactor advocate Tom Blees, this alternative approach could €“
given a large enough number of reactors €“ produce enough low-carbon
electricity from Britain's waste stockpile to supply the UK at current
rates of demand for more than 500 years."

As I said earlier, I believe that nuclear power is a feasible solution.
But your picture is ludicrously over-simplified.

1) Nuclear power as of now is not cheaper than coal or oil,
if you take waste-disposal into account.

2) There have been many attempts to set up uranium based breeder reactors,
but none of them have been successful to date.
IIRC, the last fast breeder reactors in France and Germany
have closed down during the past year.

3) However, breeder reactors are the only long term nuclear solution,
because they are the only way of compressing nuclear waste
to feasible amounts of high-grade waste.
(What you think was the bad system at Fukushima of storing used rods
is what is done at every nuclear power station in the world.)


4) I do not share your belief that it is feasible to filter
10% of the world's oceans.

In complete contarst to windmills solar [panels and batteries, which are
technologies we KNOW are not good enough, nuclear power is technology we
know is ALREADY good enough. And compared with how good it could be, its
about 1% - i tcould get a hundred times BETTER with development.

I don't agree that solar panels are "known to be not good enough".
According to you they can convert 45% of the sun's energy to electricity,
which seems pretty good to me.
Do you know how much energy from the sun falls on 1 square metre in 1 day
in Spain or Sicily?

The real picture is that renewable energy is old fashioned well
developed technology reaching its limits and so are batteries.

This is simply not true of batteries.
There is a huge amount of research on electricity storage going on,
and large improvements are reported every year. See eg
http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-better-battery-1.14815.
Or http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html.

I'm pretty sure there is far more reasearch going into this at the moment
than there is into nuclear power.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On 27/08/2014 23:31, Timothy Murphy wrote:

I believe it will be quite feasible in 5 years time
to store solar-generated electricity in battery/accumulators.
There is a large amount of fruitful research on this in the US,
largely in connection with electric cars.

If they can sort out liquid cells you will be able to refill a battery
in the same way you fill a cars fuel tank.
You then recharge the liquid in the fuel station (probably using off
peak nukes).
The big problem ATM is the low energy density.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If every household had a 100kwh car -all 20million of them - and that's
50 grand per household investment at todays prices, so we have a total
of 2000 GWh, that would power the country on average for about three
weeks.
....
And the cost would be around £1 trillion.

10^12 / 20x10^6 = 50,000.

So you think the batteries in an electric car cost £50,000?
The new Mitsubishi-Nissan electric car is going to cost
$14,598.00 = £8,805.87 in Japan.
http://transportevolved.com/2014/08/05/mitsubishi-nissan-confirm-low-cost-electric-car-partnership/
And that's the whole car.

You seem to pick your figures out of a hat.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Rod Speed wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

AIUI, the max efficiency of cells
today is around 45% and you'll note also that you won't get above 86%.
So they may double but that's then it.

You've made my point, really.
The actual efficiency of most solar panels installed in the UK
is under 15%, so if you think it can be increased to 90% (twice 45%)
that would be a six-fold increase.

But there is no evidence that anything like that is feasible and
we have been doing solar cells for a hell of a long time now.

If you look more carefully, you will see that I was taking
your fellow fantasist's figures.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency
the highest efficiency today is 45%,
that is, almost half the energy from the sun falling on the panel.
That seems pretty good to me.

Incidentally, there is a big difference from the efficiency of a nuclear
(or oil/coal) power plant, where the loss of energy
is actually damaging, in used fuel rods or damaging emissions.
It doesn't hurt anyone if half the sun's energy is reflected by the panel,
or goes through it.

While the complicated ways of storing energy that
you have suggested are probably feasible, I am sure
more straightforward methods will be available shortly,

But again, you have no basis for that surety given that
we have been trying to do that for decades now.

I've already cited sources at MIT and the US government.
That seems quite a good "basis" to me.
People have been trying to deal with nuclear waste even longer,
and haven't come up with any solution.

They have been for more than half a century now, but
arent anything like economic except for pumped water.

That sentence does not seem to make sense to me.
However, I already said that the alternatives to electricity storage
that were mentioned seemed plausible,
but I think simpler methods will become available.
It doesn't alter my argument much if they don't.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Rod Speed wrote:

http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-better-battery-1.14815
-------------------------
In 2012, the JCESR hub won US$120 million from the US Department of
Energy to take a leap beyond Li-ion technology. Its stated goal was to
make cells that,
when scaled up to the sort of commercial battery packs used in electric
cars,
would be five times more energy dense than the standard of
the day, and five times cheaper, in just five years.

Goals are nothing like reality.

Like the reality of dealing with nuclear waste?
Ie, hoping something will come along, like Micawber.

I doubt if the US government would fund this research
unless they thought there was a reasonable chance of it succeeding.
They probably know better than you or me.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Timothy Murphy wrote:

According tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency
the highest efficiency today is 45%,
that is, almost half the energy from the sun falling on the panel.
That seems pretty good to me.

Unfortunately that's not the real world. In the real engineering world
where you measure the output in actual use, TNP is correct.

Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tim Streater wrote

AIUI, the max efficiency of cells today is around 45%
and you'll note also that you won't get above 86%.
So they may double but that's then it.

You've made my point, really.
The actual efficiency of most solar panels installed in
the UK is under 15%, so if you think it can be increased
to 90% (twice 45%) that would be a six-fold increase.

But there is no evidence that anything like that is feasible and
we have been doing solar cells for a hell of a long time now.

If you look more carefully, you will see that
I was taking your fellow fantasist's figures.

I'm not a fantasist.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency
the highest efficiency today is 45%, that is, almost half the energy
from the sun falling on the panel. That seems pretty good to me.

Sure, but my comment was about the 90%

Incidentally, there is a big difference from the efficiency of
a nuclear (or oil/coal) power plant, where the loss of energy
is actually damaging, in used fuel rods or damaging emissions.
It doesn't hurt anyone if half the sun's energy is reflected by
the panel, or goes through it.

That is overstated too, particularly with nukes where
all that happens is that the elements involved change.

While the complicated ways of storing energy that
you have suggested are probably feasible, I am sure
more straightforward methods will be available shortly,

But again, you have no basis for that surety given that
we have been trying to do that for decades now.

I've already cited sources at MIT and the US government.

That was just an AIM, not an achievement.

That seems quite a good "basis" to me.

It isnt, particularly when its done to get govt finance.

People have been trying to deal with nuclear waste
even longer, and haven't come up with any solution.

That is just plain wrong. There are quite a few solutions,
including breeders.

They have been for more than half a century now, but
arent anything like economic except for pumped water.

That sentence does not seem to make sense to me.

Corse it does. Maybe you don't understand what pumped
water means. Its using hydro systems with the water pumped
back up at times of surplus power and available at night
when the pumped water generates power later.

However, I already said that the alternatives to electricity
storage that were mentioned seemed plausible,
but I think simpler methods will become available.

Can't get any simpler than pumped water.

It doesn't alter my argument much if they don't.

It does actually, because without a viable way of storing
energy, you have a problem that solar is only there for
part of the day.

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

"According to figures calculated for the Guardian by the American writer
and fast reactor advocate Tom Blees, this alternative approach could €“
given a large enough number of reactors €“ produce enough low-carbon
electricity from Britain's waste stockpile to supply the UK at current
rates of demand for more than 500 years."

As I said earlier, I believe that nuclear power is a feasible solution.
But your picture is ludicrously over-simplified.

1) Nuclear power as of now is not cheaper than coal or oil,
if you take waste-disposal into account.

There is no point in disposing of used fuel rods
when they can be reprocessed into new fuel.

2) There have been many attempts to set up uranium based
breeder reactors, but none of them have been successful to date.

Depends on how you define successful.

IIRC, the last fast breeder reactors in France and
Germany have closed down during the past year.

Because its cheaper to dig up more uranium
and reprocess used fuel rods.

3) However, breeder reactors are the only long term nuclear
solution, because they are the only way of compressing
nuclear waste to feasible amounts of high-grade waste.
(What you think was the bad system at Fukushima of storing used
rods is what is done at every nuclear power station in the world.)

They dont all store them above the nuke.

4) I do not share your belief that it is feasible
to filter 10% of the world's oceans.

It isnt necessary to do that.

In complete contarst to windmills solar [panels and batteries, which are
technologies we KNOW are not good enough, nuclear power is technology
we know is ALREADY good enough. And compared with how good it could
be, its about 1% - i tcould get a hundred times BETTER with development.

I don't agree that solar panels are "known to be not good enough".
According to you they can convert 45% of the sun's energy to electricity,
which seems pretty good to me.

The problem is that that only happens for a small part of the total time.

Do you know how much energy from the sun falls
on 1 square metre in 1 day in Spain or Sicily?

Again, only for part of the day.

The real picture is that renewable energy is old fashioned well
developed technology reaching its limits and so are batteries.

This is simply not true of batteries.
There is a huge amount of research on electricity storage going on,
and large improvements are reported every year. See eg
http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-better-battery-1.14815.
Or http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html.

I'm pretty sure there is far more reasearch going into
this at the moment than there is into nuclear power.

On 28/08/14 13:25, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

"According to figures calculated for the Guardian by the American writer
and fast reactor advocate Tom Blees, this alternative approach could €“
given a large enough number of reactors €“ produce enough low-carbon
electricity from Britain's waste stockpile to supply the UK at current
rates of demand for more than 500 years."

As I said earlier, I believe that nuclear power is a feasible solution.
But your picture is ludicrously over-simplified.

1) Nuclear power as of now is not cheaper than coal or oil,
if you take waste-disposal into account.
#
But it is cheaper than renewable energy. And is in fact way cheaper than
oil.

Its not cheaper than gas or coal largely because of the incredible
hurdle of regulations surrounding its construction and use, most of
which do nothing to guarantee its safety and are relatively pointless.


There is nothing particularly more intrinsically expensive about a
nuclear power plant than a coal power plant. And nuclear FUEL - even
processed rods - is way cheaper than coal.

The cost is all in the regulations surrounding its construction, not in
the construction itself. This is alll well documented. You COULD in
theory build a nuclear power plant - a safe one well up to any
reasonable safety standard for the same price as a coal plant, and in
fact in some countries that are not so anal, its been done.

It is not fair to push a catch 22 at nuclear power and say 'we dont
accept this or that, so spend money till it is accepatable, oh look its
now too expensive'

Thatds a harry trick.



2) There have been many attempts to set up uranium based breeder reactors,
but none of them have been successful to date.

All of them have been technically successful but none of them have been
commercially successful for the simple reason that uranium is dirt cheap.

Your argument is pure sophistry. Like saying back in 1975 'fracking will
never bee successful';' because in 1975 you just drilled a hole and the
gas and oil whooshed out. Now it doesn't and fracking is economically
viable.

I bet you are the sort of hypocrite that says 'in time solar power will
be cost competitive with gas' too..



IIRC, the last fast breeder reactors in France and Germany
have closed down during the past year.

3) However, breeder reactors are the only long term nuclear solution,
because they are the only way of compressing nuclear waste
to feasible amounts of high-grade waste.

You know not whereof you speak.

There are many ways of 'dealing with nuclear waste' of which in a sane
world that understood the risk, sticking it in concrete encased drumns
and dumping it in a ocean trench is perhaps the cheapest.

Storing it until natural uranium is more expensive than reprocessing it
is another, and pushing it into breeders of one sort or another is a
third. All really depending on how much people are willing to spend to
get rid of a problem that doesn't really exist.


(What you think was the bad system at Fukushima of storing used rods
is what is done at every nuclear power station in the world.)


Well exactly, because people think that moving relly old rods to
reprocessing plansts is 'dangerous'


4) I do not share your belief that it is feasible to filter
10% of the world's oceans.


I didnt say that. Once again you are twisting things to score a point,
not looking at the reality.

Te worlds oceans have surprisingly, a pretty constant salt level no
mater where you are in them. Pulling salt out of them over a period of
decades wont result in one ocean being less saltyy than another. They
mix you see.

So you just extract away, and fresh seawater with more uranium replaces
the stuff you've pulled the uranium out of. Its not 10% of the worlds
oveans, its ten percent of the uranium salts IN the worlds oceans. A
very different thing.




In complete contarst to windmills solar [panels and batteries, which are
technologies we KNOW are not good enough, nuclear power is technology we
know is ALREADY good enough. And compared with how good it could be, its
about 1% - i tcould get a hundred times BETTER with development.

I don't agree that solar panels are "known to be not good enough".

Your chouce.

According to you they can convert 45% of the sun's energy to electricity,
which seems pretty good to me.

It would be if the suns energy wasn't spread so thinly, and was there
all there time.

Unfortunately is down at the 100W per square meter level, which means
you need country sized arrays of panels to drive a continent, or more,
and it gets dark at night...


Do you know how much energy from the sun falls on 1 square metre in 1 day
in Spain or Sicily?

Yes.

The real picture is that renewable energy is old fashioned well
developed technology reaching its limits and so are batteries.

This is simply not true of batteries.
There is a huge amount of research on electricity storage going on,
and large improvements are reported every year. See eg
http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-better-battery-1.14815.
Or http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html.

I'm pretty sure there is far more reasearch going into this at the moment
than there is into nuclear power.


Large increments of 20% are **** all use when you need three orders of
magnitude improvements in cost and energy density.

You are deluding yourself. Even with today's ridiculous restrictions a
nuke power plant outperforms any renewable battery type setup by at
least 3:1 on cost and at least 100:1 on amount of space it takes up.

Given that we only NEED fission until we can get fusion to work thats at
worst only a couple of hundred years (assuming the world still has
people who can Do Sums in 200 years time and the greens don't succeed
along with the Islamists in bouncing us back to the stone age). And
there's plenty of fissile/fertile material for that.
A100 years nuclear fissions stopgap is all we probably need. We have had
about 100 year petroleum stopgaps thats got us to here. OK it didn't
last but we have to use it to bootstrap a nuclear fission platform, and
then a fusion platform that, if we continue to live more or less as we
do now, is good for the life of the planet. Or, if we develop a taste
for uber high energy things like exploring other planets and so on,
enables us to bootstrap our way there as well.

WE ain't gonna get to the stars with solar panels, batteries and
windmills. No way.






--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll