http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

I was just thinking that, as in the long run it is more efficient and should
enable wildlife changes to be catered for more cost effectively.

Still, you cannot tell some people....
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

On 23/09/2014 17:23, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.


IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

--
Colin Bignell

harryagain wrote


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.


There's plenty of ****witted complaining about the lagoon. The nobs in
Mumbles are upset that their view of Port Talbot will be ruined by the
height of walls of the lagoon. FFS Port Talbot needs to be hidden away
behind a wall.

Brian Gaff wrote


I was just thinking that, as in the long run it is more efficient and should
enable wildlife changes to be catered for more cost effectively.

Still, you cannot tell some people....
Brian


Swansea trawlermen reckon the lagoon will affect the fish stock in the
area. That would be the fish which haven't been poisoned by the heavy
metal in the bay.

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...
--
Graeme, yeah, I know, IOW not IoW :-)

On 24/09/2014 10:31, News wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...

I blame the Vectis Nationalists.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:31:33 +0100, News wrote:

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...

Everyone also blames the methane output from Cowes.



--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:04:25 +0100, Paul Herber
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:31:33 +0100, News wrote:

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...

Everyone also blames the methane output from Cowes.

How much more can we Ryde this.

G.Harman

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

--
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 24/09/14 12:56, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:04:25 +0100, Paul Herber
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:31:33 +0100, News wrote:

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...

Everyone also blames the methane output from Cowes.

How much more can we Ryde this.

What we need is an inVentnor to come along and have An Idea


G.Harman



--
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 Wednesday, 24 September 2014 15:11:58 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/09/14 12:56, wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:04:25 +0100, Paul Herber

wrote:



On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:31:33 +0100, News wrote:



In message , "Nightjar

\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes



IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.



First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...



Everyone also blames the methane output from Cowes.



How much more can we Ryde this.



What we need is an inVentnor to come along and have An Idea

or a Freshwater look at the situation.

In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...110420/Swansea
-Bay-tidal-lagoon-plan-bolstered-by-former-Atkins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator

An even better alternative is a f****** great nuke.
--
bert

On 24/09/2014 22:16, bert wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...110420/Swansea
-Bay-tidal-lagoon-plan-bolstered-by-former-Atkins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator

An even better alternative is a f****** great nuke.

Collect all the greenies in one place and drop one on them?

--
Colin Bignell

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

treats the energy density issue.

Entropy is really tied up in the efficiency curves.
I.e there is the same energy in a red hot poker as a bath of luke warm
water, but the red hot poker is a lot easier to get most of it out of.

It's lower entropy.

Mots renewable sources - wind and tidal and so on - are high entropy, so
you can only get out maybe 20-40% of what's in there to start with.

And low energy density as well. So you need BIG stuff to get it.



--
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 24/09/2014 00:28, Jabba wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote


I was just thinking that, as in the long run it is more efficient and should
enable wildlife changes to be catered for more cost effectively.

Still, you cannot tell some people....
Brian


Swansea trawlermen reckon the lagoon will affect the fish stock in the
area. That would be the fish which haven't been poisoned by the heavy
metal in the bay.


There isn't any fishing industry in the Bristol Channel any more. There
aren't any 'Swansea Trawlermen'.

On 23/09/2014 17:23, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.


A tidal lagoon in the Bristol Channel would fill with mud in a year.
Doing the whole Estuary would just be an even more monstrous **** up.

Tim w

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:20:48 +0100, Tim w wrote:

A tidal lagoon in the Bristol Channel would fill with mud in a year.

Properly designed you use the outgoing tide to flush it clear every
so often. Just like they used to flush Bristols Floating Harbour
partly by tide and partly by letting more of the Rivers Frome and
Avon flow that way instead of along the New Cut.

Doing the whole Estuary would just be an even more monstrous **** up.

That would present far greater flushing problems.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:50:57 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:20:48 +0100, Tim w wrote:

A tidal lagoon in the Bristol Channel would fill with mud in a year.

Properly designed you use the outgoing tide to flush it clear every
so often. Just like they used to flush Bristols Floating Harbour
partly by tide and partly by letting more of the Rivers Frome and
Avon flow that way instead of along the New Cut.

As a complete aside we took the monthly boat trip operated by Bristol
ferry boats up and back the New Cut last month, interesting trip for
people who like going along unusual waterways.
Exeter Canal next month.

G.Harman

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear
and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK,
Europe and America.

I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My
thanks to you for providing that link.
--
J B Good

On 25/09/14 17:04, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

treats the energy density issue.

Entropy is really tied up in the efficiency curves.
I.e there is the same energy in a red hot poker as a bath of luke warm
water, but the red hot poker is a lot easier to get most of it out of.

It's lower entropy.

Mots renewable sources - wind and tidal and so on - are high entropy, so
you can only get out maybe 20-40% of what's in there to start with.

And low energy density as well. So you need BIG stuff to get it.

Many thanks. Just ordered McKay's book on sustainable energy.


That treats the energy density issues very well, but stops short of the
intermittency issues.


--
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 25/09/14 23:58, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear
and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK,
Europe and America.

I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My
thanks to you for providing that link.


Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

and

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/




--
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
...
On 25/09/14 23:58, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable
energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear
and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK,
Europe and America.

I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My
thanks to you for providing that link.


Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

and

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/

Quote from above.:-
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to
convert the waste into a glass - a technology that is well in hand - and
simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.5 No one can claim that we
don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the waste produced by one
power plant in one year would eventually cause an average total of 0.6
fatalities, spread out over many millions of years, by contaminating
seafood. Incidentally, this disposal technique would do no harm to ocean
ecology. In fact, if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear
power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in
the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as
much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.

So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste.
Everything is simple to the simpleminded.

The rest is nothing new.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/14 23:58, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable
energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear
and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK,
Europe and America.

I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My
thanks to you for providing that link.


Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

On the first line of the first page.

Introduction
This paper is a response to what the author considers are not opinions, but
near facts, with respect to
the ongoing use of fossil fuels: namely that, irrespective of any climate
change implications, the
world is, if not running out of fossil fuels, running into an area
characterised by high costs of fossil
fuels, and that a transition to alternatives to fossil fuels, as the
alternatives become cost competitive,
is inevitable.


What is a "near fact"?

"harryagain" wrote in message ...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/14 23:58, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high
entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable
energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear
and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK,
Europe and America.

I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My
thanks to you for providing that link.


Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

and

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/

Quote from above.:-
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to
convert the waste into a glass - a technology that is well in hand - and
simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.5 No one can claim that
we don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the waste produced by one
power plant in one year would eventually cause an average total of 0.6
fatalities, spread out over many millions of years, by contaminating
seafood. Incidentally, this disposal technique would do no harm to ocean
ecology. In fact, if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear
power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in
the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as
much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.

So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste.
Everything is simple to the simpleminded.

The text quoted by you is an answer to the disposal of nuclear waste.
Perhaps I'm being simpleminded, but it is much preferable to being a
complete idiot.


The rest is nothing new.

--
Windows Live Mail?
Use this to make it behave itself:
WLMail QuoteFix - http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/

On 26/09/2014 08:15, harryagain wrote:
So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste.
Everything is simple to the simpleminded.

The rest is nothing new.


harry, what *would* you accept as an answer to your perceived problem
with nuclear waste? You seem to reject every solution that is linked to,
so you must presumably have a better idea.

While you're at it, maybe you could come up with a solution for the
environmental damage and excess CO2 emissions caused by your favoured
intermittent power generating solutions.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/09/14 10:18, Richard wrote:
So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste.
Everything is simple to the simpleminded.

The text quoted by you is an answer to the disposal of nuclear waste.
Perhaps I'm being simpleminded, but it is much preferable to being a complete idiot

:-)


Harry thinks that no one actually follows the links he posts..

That's how much of a complete idiot he is.


--
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 26/09/14 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

"harryagain" wrote in message ...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

and

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/

Quote from above.:-
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be
to convert the waste into a glass - a technology that is well in hand
- and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.5 No one can
claim that we don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the
waste produced by one power plant in one year would eventually cause
an average total of 0.6 fatalities, spread out over many millions of
years, by contaminating seafood. Incidentally, this disposal
technique would do no harm to ocean ecology. In fact, if all the
world's electricity were produced by nuclear power and all the waste
generated for the next hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the
radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as much as
1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.

So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste.
Everything is simple to the simpleminded.

The text quoted by you is an answer to the disposal of nuclear waste.
Perhaps I'm being simpleminded, but it is much preferable to being a
complete idiot.

harry is in la-la land, with his fingers in his ears. He's been told
that glassification has been being done in the UK for 20 years but
pretends he's never heard of it.

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.


If it were actually that dangerous.

The more studies are done, the more the answer seems to be that
radiation is 100 to 1000 times less dangerous at low levels, than the
regulations imply.



--
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 Friday, 26 September 2014 08:21:16 UTC+1, harry wrote:


Try also



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

On the first line of the first page.


Introduction
This paper is a response to what the author considers are not opinions, but
near facts, with respect to
the ongoing use of fossil fuels: namely that, irrespective of any climate
change implications, the
world is, if not running out of fossil fuels, running into an area
characterised by high costs of fossil
fuels, and that a transition to alternatives to fossil fuels, as the
alternatives become cost competitive,
is inevitable.

yes they will as the cost of using fossil fuel's increase.
i.e coal and oil will get so expensive it will be just as expensive as renewable energy then the answer is obvious don;t use either use nuclear
as that will be the cheapest, and as we build more nukes effecincy is likely to increase bringing the costs down, unlike renewable or rare fossil fuel.



What is a "near fact"?

I assume in near fact is one where they claim the cost of fossil fuels will rise, because or scarcity because fossil fuels get mined and mines DO run out of coal or it gets more difficult to mine it, that was true 50 years ago.

That once coal gets as 'rare' as gold the cost of buying it goes up, just like the cost of a gold ingot.
But remmeber once coals burnt it's gone as a source of possible power.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:47:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

====snip====


harry is in la-la land, with his fingers in his ears. He's been told
that glassification has been being done in the UK for 20 years but
pretends he's never heard of it.

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 5000 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.

Fixed your post for you. :-)

Btw, +1
--
J B Good

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:20:18 +0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:47:25 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Richard
wrote:

====snip====


harry is in la-la land, with his fingers in his ears. He's been told
that glassification has been being done in the UK for 20 years but
pretends he's never heard of it.

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged until
the planet melts in 5000 million years time, it could just be left to
itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench, where
over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the other
radioactive material that's already there.

I often wondered why not drop it into volcano ?

Wrong end of the geological process.
--
J B Good

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:

I often wondered why not drop it into volcano ?

Because you have to get past a Balrog, a giant spider, and thousands
of Orcs. And you get your finger bitten off.

-- Richard

On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.


I won't claim to know my arse from my elbow but I thought a lot of this
waste contained valuable metals. Wouldn't it be better to store it so
that it is retrievable for a time we may be able to process them
effectively.

e.g. Gasification and stored in underground caverns in granite or such like.

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

"harryagain" wrote in message ...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

and

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/

Quote from above.:-
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to
convert the waste into a glass - a technology that is well in hand - and
simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.5 No one can claim
that we don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the waste
produced by one power plant in one year would eventually cause an
average total of 0.6 fatalities, spread out over many millions of years,
by contaminating seafood. Incidentally, this disposal technique would do
no harm to ocean ecology. In fact, if all the world's electricity were
produced by nuclear power and all the waste generated for the next
hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the radiation dose to sea
animals would never be increased by as much as 1% above its present
level from natural radioactivity.

So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste.
Everything is simple to the simpleminded.

The text quoted by you is an answer to the disposal of nuclear waste.
Perhaps I'm being simpleminded, but it is much preferable to being a
complete idiot.

harry is in la-la land, with his fingers in his ears. He's been told
that glassification has been being done in the UK for 20 years but
pretends he's never heard of it.

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.

Why do you supposeglass is stable even for five thousand years?
If it were soeasy it would bebeing done.
And it isn't.
Just another half wit "academic" dismissing the problem because they
don'tknow what to do aboutit.

BTW how do you "turm nuclear waste into glass"?

"Nick" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.


I won't claim to know my arse from my elbow but I thought a lot of this
waste contained valuable metals. Wouldn't it be better to store it so
that it is retrievable for a time we may be able to process them
effectively.

e.g. Gasification and stored in underground caverns in granite or such
like.


You are not alone.
Gasification?
There is a big debate as to whether nuclear waste in geological storage
should be easily retrievable or not.

On 26/09/14 16:51, Nick wrote:
On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.


I won't claim to know my arse from my elbow but I thought a lot of this
waste contained valuable metals. Wouldn't it be better to store it so
that it is retrievable for a time we may be able to process them
effectively.


well that's for reprocessed fuels. They are worth keeping, but there are
some medium to long term transuranics and unstable isotopes that are not
much use really and in pretty small quantities. Just enough to give
harry dhobi-itch, that's all.

At the moment glassification is the best way, or they might be burnt in
a special purpose reactor. Not a lot of energy in the fission though so
less a fuel than a sort of damp cardboard.


e.g. Gasification and stored in underground caverns in granite or such like.



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

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2014 08:15, harryagain wrote:
So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste.
Everything is simple to the simpleminded.

The rest is nothing new.


harry, what *would* you accept as an answer to your perceived problem with
nuclear waste? You seem to reject every solution that is linked to, so you
must presumably have a better idea.

While you're at it, maybe you could come up with a solution for the
environmental damage and excess CO2 emissions caused by your favoured
intermittent power generating solutions.

There isn't one.
That is the exact problem.
And there have been failed permanent storage attempts where there has been
leakage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_g..._certain_sites
And there has been "breeder" reactors that don't work.
And there are proposed thorium reactors that produce much less waste.
Only now being designed in India (of all places)

I suppose you could launch it into the sun, but that would hardly be
practicable.

At the proposed Hinkley point reactor,they are just going to store the
unprocessed waste because
(a) they want to dodge the cost of processing
(b) they don't know what to do with the waste after processing anyway.
http://news.yahoo.com/cooper-nrc-no-...ZJUFVLMTNfMQ--

They are watching others, hoping a (low cost?) solution will emerge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse/...rch_Laboratory
No signs of it in fifty odd years.

There will be a need for efficient generation of electricity/micro CHP from
gas for years.
Both in the home or in central power ststions but it can only be regarded as
a temporary fix.

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/...heat-and-power
You should be thinking about this now.

It will take decades to set up a total renewable electricity system

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 26 September 2014 08:21:16 UTC+1, harry wrote:


Try also



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

On the first line of the first page.


Introduction
This paper is a response to what the author considers are not opinions,
but
near facts, with respect to
the ongoing use of fossil fuels: namely that, irrespective of any climate
change implications, the
world is, if not running out of fossil fuels, running into an area
characterised by high costs of fossil
fuels, and that a transition to alternatives to fossil fuels, as the
alternatives become cost competitive,
is inevitable.

yes they will as the cost of using fossil fuel's increase.
i.e coal and oil will get so expensive it will be just as expensive as
renewable energy then the answer is obvious don;t use either use nuclear
as that will be the cheapest, and as we build more nukes effecincy is
likely to increase bringing the costs down, unlike renewable or rare
fossil fuel.



What is a "near fact"?

I assume in near fact is one where they claim the cost of fossil fuels
will rise, because or scarcity because fossil fuels get mined and mines DO
run out of coal or it gets more difficult to mine it, that was true 50
years ago.

That once coal gets as 'rare' as gold the cost of buying it goes up, just
like the cost of a gold ingot.
But remmeber once coals burnt it's gone as a source of possible power.

Something is either a facto r it isn't.
It's a conjecture.

On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:
....
As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.

Unfortunately, there are international treaties that prohibit doing that.


--
Colin Bignell

On 26/09/14 18:42, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , \"cpb\"@"
wrote:

On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:
...
As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.

Unfortunately, there are international treaties that prohibit doing that.

The US and the UK can declare war on each other. Then each can sail
merchant ships full of the stuff over the trenches. These ships can be
sunk by the other side's subs. One war every 10 years should do it,
followed each time by treaties of eternal friendship.

Or we could sell it to the Russians, who will just sink with it anyway.
How many russky nuke subs are down there? and how much radioactive dross
did they dump?

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issu...led-begin-week

"According to NRPA, a catalogue of waste in the Kara Sea released in
2012 includes 19 ships containing radioactive waste; 14 nuclear
reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735
other pieces of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery; 17,000
containers of radioactive waste, and the K-27 nuclear submarine."

Oh joy!


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