"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 14/11/2015 20:54, T i m wrote:


eg, If it's 'The government' are going to be fined by Europe for not
meeting various (and some possibly dubious) 'targets' then it should
be they that raise the money for the fines from the general population
as they do with any similar revenue. Better, they get the energy
suppliers to spend more money or realistic solutions, rather than
subsidising a toy for the well_to_do? It should all be Nationalised
again, they it all makes better sense (than trying to get an energy
generator to influence the will / direction of the population etc).

The problem is that they have to reduce carbon emissions to not be fined.
Just how do they do that in a reasonable time scale?

Get nukes from France.

On 12/11/2015 14:35, bert wrote:

It's being actively encouraged in Germany I believe. less peak but a
longer duration to help smooth out the all-southern facing power peak.


But does it give the best results for the individual installation?

If your roof is orientated that way then yes.

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:58:12 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 14/11/2015 20:54, T i m wrote:


eg, If it's 'The government' are going to be fined by Europe for not
meeting various (and some possibly dubious) 'targets' then it should
be they that raise the money for the fines from the general population
as they do with any similar revenue. Better, they get the energy
suppliers to spend more money or realistic solutions, rather than
subsidising a toy for the well_to_do? It should all be Nationalised
again, they it all makes better sense (than trying to get an energy
generator to influence the will / direction of the population etc).

The problem is that they have to reduce carbon emissions to not be
fined. Just how do they do that in a reasonable time scale?


Good question (and I'm not saying I have the answer). ;-)

The problem is as I see it and so far is we haven't found a workable
solution, even to throw money at. I mean, as of right now on a fairly
breezy day, we are getting 14.87% of our energy from wind. And that's
fine ... ignoring the carbon / Co2 footprint that the creation,
installation and running of these wind farms produced? So, do we know
how many years it will take before the (environmental) 'cost' and
'savings' of those two will balance out? We aren't talking about the
financial costs here but the thing the government may be fined over?

If the answer is 'never' then maybe they are not the answer? Similar
with solar PV etc.

There will always be a problem getting anyone to do 'the right thing'
when that said thing seems questionable and is in the main, invisible
and irrelevant to them. It's difficult enough stopping people
littering (inc chewing gum and dog-ends) let alone getting them to rip
out a working boiler to fit a more 'energy efficient' one (that may be
less reliable and therefore have a higher carbon footprint than the
old one)?

How many people bother to do anything when told they could save 'x' on
their (say) electricity, insurance, mobile phone or telephone bills?
To many people, the tiny savings on offer simply aren't worth the
perceived effort and potential issues (and in most cases we aren't
generally talking 'lots' on any of these things and in comparison with
the general annual COL).

Like this end of terrace house with it's solid 9" brick walls. I did
use 'thermal' render on the inside of the flank wall pre plastering
but to do something worthwhile thermally, considering it would have to
cater for the front door and stairs etc, probably isn't worth the cost
and effort, compared with just putting on a jumper or heating the
rooms we are in. We still haven't had any heating on this year yet (in
any room).

Now, a neighbour with a similar age / design property had a grant for
that external foam cladding but I'm really not sure about it in
general and am sure I wouldn't want it on a massive flank wall
directly on a public pavement (assuming I could get the permissions
needed to reduce the width of the pavement by 100 or so mm)? If they
wouldn't let me have a small front porch type extension because of the
shape of the windows (from tall narrow sashes to more conventional
single landscape) then in theory, what are the chances of the
cladding? My changes would 'Spoil the street scene ...' apparently ...
and some single colour cladding over the yellow and red stock bricks
would be acceptable presumably (and it seems to be)?

So, I'm not suggesting everone do nothing, I'm saying it isn't always
easy or even possible for everyone to do something that will make any
real / tangible difference ... well, not until we all change our
lifestyles massively? I know 'every little helps' but sometimes that
simply doesn't help enough.

Like if everyone had solar PV ... it still wouldn't help for a minimum
of 1/3 of the year. Or maybe it would ... if we all drove solar
charged electric cars and restricted our journey times and instances
to what level we could charge them to from our own (or our families /
friends / hired-use) panels? Now I could probably get away with that
for most times, but not everyone could and again that's ignoring the
pollution created by building the cars themselves and especially from
the batteries?

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China
and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

I do believe we are very fast out growing the planet (if we haven't
done so already?) and when you see these SiFi shows where an invading
and highly evolved species sees how we are screwing things up for
ourselves 'infesting' the planet etc ... I often find myself agreeing
with them. ;-(

So it looks like the ways of most of the native (and as we would call
'primitive) peoples around the world had it pretty well right. Take no
more than you need and use everything you have 100%.

I'm glad in a way I probably won't be here to see it reach meltdown
but I'm sorry for my (one) child and what mess we will leave them (or
children, even if only the few left to keep humanity going) have to
deal with.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:14:02 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

So it looks like the ways of most of the native (and as we would call
'primitive) peoples around the world had it pretty well right. Take no
more than you need and use everything you have 100%.

They did that because they had to.

Ok ...

Given the chance of an easy
alternative, they'll take it just like the rest of us.

I'm not sure that's the case though is it? There are many peoples who
*choose* to live say a simple / nomadic life and whilst I'm sure some
of them may well have gone off and joined the rest of the world, the
bulk of their kind carry on as they have for thousands of years.

And you can't say they aren't aware of the modern world as many make
use of some of the technology (mobile phones and the like), and are
fully aware of what they could have if they wanted ... it's just they
don't want to swap 'their way' for the modern alternative.

And the thing is, there were able (in the most part) able to both
survive and have what is probably a more fulfilling life (in the real
sense of it) than many of us?

It's sort of along the lines of why many of us cycle when we could
drive, or go camping when we could stay in a hotel, or go walking in
rainy England rather than lay in the sun in Spain. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 15 Nov 2015 17:49:41 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:
On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China
and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

We're going to have to stop having babies at some point; why not now?

I know what you are saying but who is going to pay for everyone as
they live longer?

I agree with you that we may not need as many babies (each) ...
especially in countries and cultures where infant mortality rate isn't
very high.

I was happy to have just the one and came from a family where I just
had one sister.

Maybe when we ALL get given Solar PV for free (could still be cheaper
than the fines), aren't robbing FIT payments off others and just use
it to reduce our own energy costs, we could all pay for our own old
age care. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that

And that is what all modern first world countrys have done.
Not one of them is even self replacing now if you take out
immigration.

but didn't they do something like that in China

Yep.

and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

Nope.

I do believe we are very fast out growing the planet

More fool you.

(if we haven't done so already?)

Corse we haven't.

and when you see these SiFi shows where an invading
and highly evolved species sees how we are screwing
things up for ourselves 'infesting' the planet etc ...
I often find myself agreeing with them. ;-(

So it looks like the ways of most of the native (and as we would
call 'primitive) peoples around the world had it pretty well right.

It was those that got to watch their kids die in droughts etc.

Take no more than you need and use everything you have 100%.

I'm glad in a way I probably won't be here to see it reach meltdown

There will be no meltdown, you watch.

but I'm sorry for my (one) child and what mess we
will leave them (or children, even if only the few
left to keep humanity going) have to deal with.

Lot less of a mess our parents and grandparents
left us with no full world wars anymore.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:
On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China
and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

We're going to have to stop having babies at some point; why not now?

The modern first world has done that already. Not
one is even self replacing if you take out immigration.

In message , Huge
writes
On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:
On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China
and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

We're going to have to stop having babies at some point; why not now?

Still doesn't stop us aspiring to live at the same level as the
residents of California!


--
Tim Lamb

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:14:02 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

So it looks like the ways of most of the native (and as we would call
'primitive) peoples around the world had it pretty well right. Take no
more than you need and use everything you have 100%.

They did that because they had to.

Ok ...

Given the chance of an easy
alternative, they'll take it just like the rest of us.

I'm not sure that's the case though is it?

Yes it is. When the white man showed up they just took
anything they could get from them and some of them did
that so enthusiastically that they ended up with cargo cults.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

There are many peoples who *choose* to live say a simple / nomadic life

There are in fact very few that choose to do that.

and whilst I'm sure some of them may well have gone
off and joined the rest of the world, the bulk of their
kind carry on as they have for thousands of years.

In fact almost none of them don't use anything useful to
them from the rest of the world like axes and machetes etc.

And you can't say they aren't aware of the modern world as many
make use of some of the technology (mobile phones and the like),

Much more often its stuff like axes and machetes etc.

and are fully aware of what they could have if they wanted ... it's
just they don't want to swap 'their way' for the modern alternative.

There are a few that operate like that, but very very few of those anymore.

And the thing is, there were able (in the most part) able to both survive

Yes, but shivering in front of a fire with no clothes
at all in places like Tierra del Feugo or Tasmania
in the depths of winter is a pretty ****ed existence.

and have what is probably a more fulfilling life
(in the real sense of it) than many of us?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

It's sort of along the lines of why many of us cycle when we could
drive, or go camping when we could stay in a hotel, or go walking
in rainy England rather than lay in the sun in Spain. ;-)

You don't see too many actually stupid enough to spend the
entire winter in england stark naked out in the wind and rain.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 18:30:52 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

I'm not sure that's the case though is it? There are many peoples who
*choose* to live say a simple / nomadic life and whilst I'm sure some
of them may well have gone off and joined the rest of the world, the
bulk of their kind carry on as they have for thousands of years.

I'd say that in many cases these are people who are cut off enough that
although they are aware of the "outside world", they've not been
exposed to it enough to be tempted by it.

Hmm, I think there are more peoples like that in say rural China than
those who have chosen (say) a more simple / nomadic way of life? If
you are a nomad, no one is stopping you finding out about the outside
world eh. ;-)

And you can't say they aren't aware of the modern world as many make
use of some of the technology (mobile phones and the like), and are
fully aware of what they could have if they wanted ... it's just they
don't want to swap 'their way' for the modern alternative.

Once you've grown up, most people can't imagine and wouldn't be able to
cope with a drastic lifestyle change.

But I'm saying many will be aware of it all and simply chosen to carry
on doing their own thing. It's even more extreme for those who abandon
the 'rat race' and go and live on an island etc.

And the thing is, there were able (in the most part) able to both
survive and have what is probably a more fulfilling life (in the real
sense of it) than many of us?

Why would it necessarily be more fulfilling?

It wouldn't necessarily be so, but could be so for many. For you to
fully understand why, you may need to be able to understand why
someone with money and standing may *choose* to live in a tent or
isolated in the outback or on their own island etc.

It's sort of along the lines of why many of us cycle when we could
drive, or go camping when we could stay in a hotel, or go walking in
rainy England rather than lay in the sun in Spain. ;-)

Nah. It's because you enjoy the activity for its own sake.

Not always so black and white (IMHO). The are many cyclists who make
cycling a way of life. They don't own a car or motorbike and don't
agree with their use (on behalf of the planet etc). After all,
humanity did survive before the invention of the internal combustion
engine and many million still rely on something as basic as a bicycle
to live their lives.

All of the
above involve a large amount of faffing about. You have to enjoy the
faffing aspects otherwise the rest of it doesn't work.

Or have a 'bigger picture' that includes things that many today don't
even consider or hold important?

When I lived in Geneva I used to enjoy day hikes. Rucksack with camera,
a few sarnies, apples/choc and water, drive to somewhere and spend the
day walking. Back for a ****ing great scoff in Geneva. Great! But they
were always day hikes. If you wanted to stay overnight, even in a small
village hotel, suddenly it's a much bigger production. Even in a
mountain hut you're gonna need more food, sleeping bag, etc etc. And if
you camp, well ****, can you imagine humping a tent and a ton of other
stuff up - up several thousand feet. Blow that for a game of soldiers.

OTOH, we (as a family) used to enjoy our family holiday motorcycle
camping round the UK, cooking most of our own food and moving camp
every couple of days or so. One year it was London to The New Forest
(day trip to Southampton), St Austell (day trip to the Eden Project)
to Lynon and Lynmouth via Lands End, Cardiff (day trip to Techniquest)
then to Porthmadog (with day trips to Ffestiniog (Railway / Slate
mines) and Pwllheli), back to Malvern (to Bike Club National) and then
home.

Another year was Peak District, Lake District, Fort William, Dornoch
(daytrip to JoG / Dunnet Head / Thurso), Perth, Skeggy and home,
visiting loads of things along the way.

OTOH some people enjoy the faffing.

And therefore don't consider it so. They also enjoy the (different)
lifestyle along the way. ;-)

My BiL and his wife built their own
sailing boat and sailed it around the world. Include me out of that :-)

No, it's not for everyone and something you have to feel in your soul
to be able to enjoy. ;-)

Bringing it back onto the general topic of d-i-y, it's very similar to
the 'pleasure' most of us get from that ... when in many instances we
could get someone in to do it for us.

In many cases I have a much better experience from buying something
cheap / second hand and it needing some TLC than the 'easier' option
of just buying something new. It's all part of the experience for me
(us), becoming more involved in what we are doing / using and in many
cases, producing the finished product the way we want it and / or
understanding it better.

For us, staying at a hotel ... we might as well be at home ... doing
the same old, same old ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)
Nukes
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On 15 Nov 2015 17:49:41 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:
On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China
and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

We're going to have to stop having babies at some point; why not now?

I know what you are saying but who is going to pay for everyone as
they live longer?

For the third successive year life expectancy in the UK has gone down.

Snip
Cheers, T i m


--
bert

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:59:18 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On 15 Nov 2015 17:49:41 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:
On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China
and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

We're going to have to stop having babies at some point; why not now?

I know what you are saying but who is going to pay for everyone as
they live longer?

For the third successive year life expectancy in the UK has gone down.

"Despite this, the falls in female life expectancy between 2011 and 20
12 at ages 65, 75 and 85 were all statistically significant, as was
the fall in male life expectancy at 85.
Although these small falls were statistically significant, the overall
trend has been upwards and this does not point to a change in the
overall trend. "

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

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:56:17 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Nukes

Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?

I mean, it doesn't hurt too much or for too long if a wind turbine or
solar panel fall over? (so they have that going for them at least).
;-)

Cheers, T i m

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , T i m
writes
On 15 Nov 2015 17:49:41 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:
On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China
and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

We're going to have to stop having babies at some point; why not now?

I know what you are saying but who is going to pay for everyone as
they live longer?

For the third successive year life expectancy in the UK has gone down.

Only because you lot are so stupid about letting
so many of the dregs of europe to pour in.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:56:17 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Nukes

Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?

They are in the sense the breeders allow the breeding of more fuel.

I mean, it doesn't hurt too much or for too long if a wind turbine or
solar panel fall over? (so they have that going for them at least).
;-)

On Sunday, 15 November 2015 18:10:35 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:14:02 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

So it looks like the ways of most of the native (and as we would call
'primitive) peoples around the world had it pretty well right. Take no
more than you need and use everything you have 100%.

They did that because they had to.

Ok ...

Given the chance of an easy
alternative, they'll take it just like the rest of us.

I'm not sure that's the case though is it? There are many peoples who
*choose* to live say a simple / nomadic life and whilst I'm sure some
of them may well have gone off and joined the rest of the world, the
bulk of their kind carry on as they have for thousands of years.

And you can't say they aren't aware of the modern world as many make
use of some of the technology (mobile phones and the like), and are
fully aware of what they could have if they wanted ... it's just they
don't want to swap 'their way' for the modern alternative.

And the thing is, there were able (in the most part) able to both
survive and have what is probably a more fulfilling life (in the real
sense of it) than many of us?

It's sort of along the lines of why many of us cycle when we could
drive, or go camping when we could stay in a hotel, or go walking in
rainy England rather than lay in the sun in Spain. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Pages of drivel.
Have you FA else to do but sit there and whinge?

I have lived among primitive people.
Everyone of them would change their lifestyle to mine like a shot if they had a chance.
That's why all these arseholes are trying to invade our shores.

You have a brain dead view of the "primitive" lifestyle.
It about filth, disease, hunger, crime and want.
But they bring it on themselves with their ****ty culture and corruption.
The ones that come here bring this same ****ty culture with them.

In article , T i m
writes
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:59:18 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On 15 Nov 2015 17:49:41 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:
On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China
and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

We're going to have to stop having babies at some point; why not now?

I know what you are saying but who is going to pay for everyone as
they live longer?

For the third successive year life expectancy in the UK has gone down.

"Despite this, the falls in female life expectancy between 2011 and 20
12 at ages 65, 75 and 85 were all statistically significant, as was
the fall in male life expectancy at 85.
Although these small falls were statistically significant, the overall
trend has been upwards and this does not point to a change in the
overall trend. "

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...hment_data/fil
e/403477/Recent_trends_in_life_expectancy_at_older_ages.pdf

Cheers, T i m
So for how many years does it have to decrease in order to "show a
trend"
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:56:17 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Nukes

Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?

You don't need to renew them for 60 years - longer life than a solar
panel and the waste is less toxic and doesn't end up in landfill.
I mean, it doesn't hurt too much or for too long if a wind turbine or
solar panel fall over? (so they have that going for them at least).
;-)

Cheers, T i m

--
bert

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:17:25 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:56:17 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Nukes

Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?

I mean, it doesn't hurt too much or for too long if a wind turbine or
solar panel fall over? (so they have that going for them at least).

It doesn't seem to hurt to much if a nuke falls over, either, does it:

Three Mile Island: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Fukushima: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Chernobyl: number killed: about 75, number injured unknown.

Ok, so you would be ok sitting on a freshly broken nuke? Don't get me
wrong, I have no issue with nukes, just that they *are* more of a
potential liability (to as many people) than a solar panel or
windmill. ;-)

At Chernobyl, possibility of up to 4000 extra thyroid cancers due to
refusal of local communist politicians to allow import of iodine packs.

By contrast, number killed due to hydro-dam failure at the Banqiao dam
disaster: 170,000 (see article in Winky and elsewhere).

Yup ... have solar panels or windmills ever killed that many? ;-)

Note that wildlife is flourishing in the abandoned area around
Chernobyl.

I'm not all of it was at the beginning?

So much for any twaddle about two-headed monsters and the
like.

Quite ... dead or contaminated fish possibly.

And even at Chernobyl, the operators had to work bloody hard to
make it fail.

;-)


And contrary to further twaddle about "remains radioactive for millions
of years" it is worth noting that the substance that would have caused
the possible 4000 cancers mentioned above (iodine-131) will all have
decayed long since. Even at Fukushima, the most recent - not a single
atom left.

Question then, what IS all the fuss about re Nukes? Why aren't they
being built all over the place, including at the back of your place?
After all, you wouldn't be a NIMBY eh? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:26:45 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:56:17 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Nukes

Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?

You don't need to renew them for 60 years -

That's a good thing.

longer life than a solar panel

Also a good thing.

and the waste is less toxic

Hmmm ...

and doesn't end up in landfill.

Where does the radioactive remains of the structure go then?

Cheers, T i m

On 16 Nov 2015 10:09:34 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:
On 15 Nov 2015 17:49:41 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:
On 15 Nov 2015 15:24:37 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-11-15, T i m wrote:

No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Stop having babies.

Well, there is that but didn't they do something like that in China
and got themselves in a mess (with no one to 'keep' the elderly)?

We're going to have to stop having babies at some point; why not now?

I know what you are saying but who is going to pay for everyone as
they live longer?

A much easier problem to solve than dealing with billions of starving
people.

Unfortunately I think that one will solve itself.

After all, look at the problems caused by the "immigrant crisis",
and there aren't that many of them.

Yes, I'm sure that if you move any large groups of people it will take
time for the system to balance itself out but in most cases that is
what happens. Until we run out of resources on a wider scale of
course.

What was that film / program where they sterilised a specific
percentage of the population to force a reduction in the numbers?

Cheers, T i m

On 16/11/2015 21:10, T i m wrote:
Yup ... have solar panels or windmills ever killed that many?;-)

Per joule - yes. Lots more. This was the first hit on Google for "death
rate kilowatt hour" (no quotes)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...e-always-paid/

AKA http://tinyurl.com/6m2o7c5

Solar (rooftop) 440
Wind 150
Nuclear – global average 90

And nuclear works on a cold, calm winter's night...

Andy

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:17:25 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:56:17 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Nukes

Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?

I mean, it doesn't hurt too much or for too long if a wind turbine or
solar panel fall over? (so they have that going for them at least).

It doesn't seem to hurt to much if a nuke falls over, either, does it:

Three Mile Island: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Fukushima: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Chernobyl: number killed: about 75, number injured unknown.

Ok, so you would be ok sitting on a freshly broken nuke? Don't get me
wrong, I have no issue with nukes, just that they *are* more of a
potential liability (to as many people) than a solar panel or
windmill. ;-)

At Chernobyl, possibility of up to 4000 extra thyroid cancers due to
refusal of local communist politicians to allow import of iodine packs.

By contrast, number killed due to hydro-dam failure at the Banqiao dam
disaster: 170,000 (see article in Winky and elsewhere).

Yup ... have solar panels or windmills ever killed that many? ;-)

Note that wildlife is flourishing in the abandoned area around
Chernobyl.

I'm not all of it was at the beginning?

So much for any twaddle about two-headed monsters and the
like.

Quite ... dead or contaminated fish possibly.

And even at Chernobyl, the operators had to work bloody hard to
make it fail.

;-)


And contrary to further twaddle about "remains radioactive for millions
of years" it is worth noting that the substance that would have caused
the possible 4000 cancers mentioned above (iodine-131) will all have
decayed long since. Even at Fukushima, the most recent - not a single
atom left.

Question then, what IS all the fuss about re Nukes?

Just the usual stupidity from those too stupid to even
notice that nukes add a lot less radioactive material
to the atmosphere than coal fired power stations do
and fools like Harry that are too stupid to even work
out that putting the waste back in the ground after
its been thru the nuke is no worse than the situation
when the nuclear material was taken from the ground
in the first place to use in nukes.

Why aren't they being built all over the place,

See above.

including at the back of your place?

For the same reason that coal fired power stations aren't.

On 16/11/15 21:12, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:26:45 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:56:17 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Nukes

Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?

You don't need to renew them for 60 years -

That's a good thing.

longer life than a solar panel

Also a good thing.

and the waste is less toxic

Hmmm ...

and doesn't end up in landfill.

Where does the radioactive remains of the structure go then?

what radioactive remains?
Cheers, T i m




--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 16/11/15 21:20, T i m wrote:
What was that film / program where they sterilised a specific
percentage of the population to force a reduction in the numbers?


Gay Bykers on Acid?

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Monday, 16 November 2015 22:46:18 UTC, John Jackson wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:17:25 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:56:17 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Nukes

Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?

I mean, it doesn't hurt too much or for too long if a wind turbine or
solar panel fall over? (so they have that going for them at least).

It doesn't seem to hurt to much if a nuke falls over, either, does it:

Three Mile Island: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Fukushima: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Chernobyl: number killed: about 75, number injured unknown.

Ok, so you would be ok sitting on a freshly broken nuke? Don't get me
wrong, I have no issue with nukes, just that they *are* more of a
potential liability (to as many people) than a solar panel or
windmill. ;-)

At Chernobyl, possibility of up to 4000 extra thyroid cancers due to
refusal of local communist politicians to allow import of iodine packs.

By contrast, number killed due to hydro-dam failure at the Banqiao dam
disaster: 170,000 (see article in Winky and elsewhere).

Yup ... have solar panels or windmills ever killed that many? ;-)

Note that wildlife is flourishing in the abandoned area around
Chernobyl.

I'm not all of it was at the beginning?

So much for any twaddle about two-headed monsters and the
like.

Quite ... dead or contaminated fish possibly.

And even at Chernobyl, the operators had to work bloody hard to
make it fail.

;-)


And contrary to further twaddle about "remains radioactive for millions
of years" it is worth noting that the substance that would have caused
the possible 4000 cancers mentioned above (iodine-131) will all have
decayed long since. Even at Fukushima, the most recent - not a single
atom left.

Question then, what IS all the fuss about re Nukes?

Just the usual stupidity from those too stupid to even
notice that nukes add a lot less radioactive material
to the atmosphere than coal fired power stations do
and fools like Harry that are too stupid to even work
out that putting the waste back in the ground after
its been thru the nuke is no worse than the situation
when the nuclear material was taken from the ground
in the first place to use in nukes.

What ignorant drivel.
In the first place nuclear waste is laregely stuuf that doesn't exist naturally.
It's not possible to just dig a hole and bury stuff and expect it to remain there.
They have tried and failed.
The holes they dig elsewhere get deeper more elaborate and costly.
If it were simple we would be doing it and we aren't.
We are hanging back watching what happens elsewhere. Hoping for a solution.
Success rate so far has been zero.

You are the living proof that everything is simple to the simple minded.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 16 November 2015 22:46:18 UTC, John Jackson wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:17:25 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:56:17 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
No, until we have an 'International' grid (with enough of it in the
sunshine at any one time to power the whole world) ... I'm not sure
what the answer is. ;-)

Nukes

Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?

I mean, it doesn't hurt too much or for too long if a wind turbine or
solar panel fall over? (so they have that going for them at least).

It doesn't seem to hurt to much if a nuke falls over, either, does it:

Three Mile Island: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Fukushima: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Chernobyl: number killed: about 75, number injured unknown.

Ok, so you would be ok sitting on a freshly broken nuke? Don't get me
wrong, I have no issue with nukes, just that they *are* more of a
potential liability (to as many people) than a solar panel or
windmill. ;-)

At Chernobyl, possibility of up to 4000 extra thyroid cancers due to
refusal of local communist politicians to allow import of iodine packs.

By contrast, number killed due to hydro-dam failure at the Banqiao dam
disaster: 170,000 (see article in Winky and elsewhere).

Yup ... have solar panels or windmills ever killed that many? ;-)

Note that wildlife is flourishing in the abandoned area around
Chernobyl.

I'm not all of it was at the beginning?

So much for any twaddle about two-headed monsters and the
like.

Quite ... dead or contaminated fish possibly.

And even at Chernobyl, the operators had to work bloody hard to
make it fail.

;-)


And contrary to further twaddle about "remains radioactive for millions
of years" it is worth noting that the substance that would have caused
the possible 4000 cancers mentioned above (iodine-131) will all have
decayed long since. Even at Fukushima, the most recent - not a single
atom left.

Question then, what IS all the fuss about re Nukes?

Just the usual stupidity from those too stupid to even
notice that nukes add a lot less radioactive material
to the atmosphere than coal fired power stations do
and fools like Harry that are too stupid to even work
out that putting the waste back in the ground after
its been thru the nuke is no worse than the situation
when the nuclear material was taken from the ground
in the first place to use in nukes.

What ignorant drivel.

We'll see...

In the first place nuclear waste is laregely stuuf that doesn't exist
naturally.

Irrelevant. What matters is that radioactive material is dug up,
used in nukes for a while and then put back in the ground again.

It's not possible to just dig a hole and
bury stuff and expect it to remain there.

It is when you pick the place you do that carefully.

They have tried and failed.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

The holes they dig elsewhere get deeper more elaborate and costly.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

If it were simple we would be doing it and we aren't.

Because we plan to reprocess what comes out of nukes when
that is economically viable instead of digging more up.

We are hanging back watching what happens elsewhere.
Hoping for a solution. Success rate so far has been zero.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

You are the living proof that everything
is simple to the simple minded.

You are living proof that you have never had a ****ing clue.

It doesn't seem to hurt to much if a nuke falls over, either, does it:

Three Mile Island: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Fukushima: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Chernobyl: number killed: about 75, number injured unknown.



To be pedantic, it seems Fukushima may no longer be zero

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...DqWGHH3ILkm.97




--
Chris B News

On 17/11/15 10:26, Chris B wrote:


It doesn't seem to hurt to much if a nuke falls over, either, does it:

Three Mile Island: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Fukushima: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Chernobyl: number killed: about 75, number injured unknown.



To be pedantic, it seems Fukushima may no longer be zero

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...DqWGHH3ILkm.97


Well if he died from less radiation than you get from a Cat scan, or
living on Dartmoor for a year, I should be dead ten times over.







--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 16/11/2015 22:46, John Jackson wrote:

...putting the waste back in the ground after
its been thru the nuke is no worse than the situation
when the nuclear material was taken from the ground
in the first place to use in nukes...

Except it occupies a much smaller volume so it's considerably more
concentrated?

--
F

In article , Chris B
writes


It doesn't seem to hurt to much if a nuke falls over, either, does it:

Three Mile Island: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Fukushima: number killed: 0, number injured: 0
Chernobyl: number killed: about 75, number injured unknown.



To be pedantic, it seems Fukushima may no longer be zero

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...-fukushima-idU
SKCN0SE0VD20151020#z7mkqDqWGHH3ILkm.97




On the other hand it may still be zero.
--
bert

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 02:02:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 16/11/15 21:20, T i m wrote:
What was that film / program where they sterilised a specific
percentage of the population to force a reduction in the numbers?


Gay Bykers on Acid?

Nope, "Utopia".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_%28UK_TV_series%29

I thought I remembered that part of the plot was that they were
sneaking drugs into the general population that affected the vast
majority to make them sterile / infertile (or just killed them) (and
hence reduce the population massively).

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 21:26:22 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 16/11/2015 21:10, T i m wrote:
Yup ... have solar panels or windmills ever killed that many?;-)

Per joule - yes. Lots more. This was the first hit on Google for "death
rate kilowatt hour" (no quotes)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...e-always-paid/

AKA http://tinyurl.com/6m2o7c5

Solar (rooftop) 440
Wind 150

So they were probably installers?

Nuclear – global average 90

They could be anyone, installers or local residents?

And nuclear works on a cold, calm winter's night...

Of course ...

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:07:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Where does the radioactive remains of the structure go then?

what radioactive remains?

I was thinking of the structure itself, pressure vessels and all that?
Surely it has to be more radioactive than the general surroundings or
say a std demolished house (and not one made of granite). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 18/11/15 10:13, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 02:02:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 16/11/15 21:20, T i m wrote:
What was that film / program where they sterilised a specific
percentage of the population to force a reduction in the numbers?


Gay Bykers on Acid?

Nope, "Utopia".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_%28UK_TV_series%29

I thought I remembered that part of the plot was that they were
sneaking drugs into the general population that affected the vast
majority to make them sterile / infertile (or just killed them) (and
hence reduce the population massively).

Cheers, T i m

Given the level of stupidity I reckon they have been doing it already
for years.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 18/11/15 10:19, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:07:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Where does the radioactive remains of the structure go then?

what radioactive remains?

I was thinking of the structure itself, pressure vessels and all that?
Surely it has to be more radioactive than the general surroundings or
say a std demolished house (and not one made of granite). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Well not really.

Not after a while.

to create unstable nuclei you do indeed have to acquire neutrons, but
most of what is created is fairly unstable and therefore short-lived.

That's why in general they simply seal up a reactor after the fuel rods
have been removed and wait about 60 years. Then its pretty much
'background radiation'.

That's the thing about radioactivity: the more intense and the more
dangerous it is, the quicker it decays.

Most of it is so stable its hardly a risk, or so unstable it isn't a
risk for long.

The very few things in between tend to be transuranics and those are
only created in the fuel itself.

You have a worse radiation hazard from coal ash tips than a 60 year old
reactor.




--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:43:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 10:19, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:07:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Where does the radioactive remains of the structure go then?

what radioactive remains?

I was thinking of the structure itself, pressure vessels and all that?
Surely it has to be more radioactive than the general surroundings or
say a std demolished house (and not one made of granite). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Well not really.

Not after a while.

to create unstable nuclei you do indeed have to acquire neutrons, but
most of what is created is fairly unstable and therefore short-lived.

That's why in general they simply seal up a reactor after the fuel rods
have been removed and wait about 60 years. Then its pretty much
'background radiation'.

That's the thing about radioactivity: the more intense and the more
dangerous it is, the quicker it decays.

Most of it is so stable its hardly a risk, or so unstable it isn't a
risk for long.

The very few things in between tend to be transuranics and those are
only created in the fuel itself.

Thanks for the feedback.

You have a worse radiation hazard from coal ash tips than a 60 year old
reactor.

Taken over the whole 60 years?

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro Nukes and especially until we actually
have something that can replace them (if we ever needed to etc).

Cheers, T i m

On 18/11/15 14:53, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:43:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 10:19, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:07:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Where does the radioactive remains of the structure go then?

what radioactive remains?

I was thinking of the structure itself, pressure vessels and all that?
Surely it has to be more radioactive than the general surroundings or
say a std demolished house (and not one made of granite). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Well not really.

Not after a while.

to create unstable nuclei you do indeed have to acquire neutrons, but
most of what is created is fairly unstable and therefore short-lived.

That's why in general they simply seal up a reactor after the fuel rods
have been removed and wait about 60 years. Then its pretty much
'background radiation'.

That's the thing about radioactivity: the more intense and the more
dangerous it is, the quicker it decays.

Most of it is so stable its hardly a risk, or so unstable it isn't a
risk for long.

The very few things in between tend to be transuranics and those are
only created in the fuel itself.

Thanks for the feedback.

You have a worse radiation hazard from coal ash tips than a 60 year old
reactor.

Taken over the whole 60 years?#

After the 60 years.

The basic point is this. The reactor vessel abosrbs the neutrons, and
gets a bit 'hot', and the concrete outside keeps everything inside.
After 60 years what you have left is a concrete bunker full of scrap
metal, and that's that. No special equipment needed. Just bulldozers.

The nastier stuff has all gone to Sellafield - spent fuel rods and high
atomic number detritus.

That has to be dealt with differently.




Don't get me wrong, I'm pro Nukes and especially until we actually
have something that can replace them (if we ever needed to etc).

Cheers, T i m



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.