ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that systems efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that systems efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing.
The energy that is put into the system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity)
Eg solar power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc. No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be taken from us/cut off.
No maintence costs (apart from a light dusting).

In article ,
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that system‘s efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put into the
system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity) Eg solar
power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting
it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc.
No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be
taken from us/cut off.

do the solar panels get made by magic? and what about blocking by cloud -
as we have here today? and what about night time?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Well, yes, its not a secret though, and I oftne wonderd why the cost has not
fallen further by now with the greater number being made and sold. One might
expect this to have happened by now.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that system's efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 07:42:07 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that system€˜s efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put into the
system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity) Eg solar
power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting
it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc..
No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be
taken from us/cut off.

do the solar panels get made by magic? and what about blocking by cloud -
as we have here today? and what about night time?

Of course not dimwit.
But embodied energy considered on its own does not give the full picture.
Eg, I have and electric car.
Similar embodied energy to a petrol car.
But I charge it up on sunlight on days that are suitable.

PV panels are a small part of the solution.
We need all form of renewable energy.
Especially tidal as things stand.

On 25/05/2016 08:18, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, yes, its not a secret though, and I oftne wonderd why the cost has not
fallen further by now with the greater number being made and sold. One might
expect this to have happened by now.
Brian


Tories cut funding by 65% last year while doubling that of nuclear
research and development.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.


NT

On 25/05/16 07:39, charles wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that system€˜s efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put into the
system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity) Eg solar
power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting
it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc.
No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be
taken from us/cut off.

do the solar panels get made by magic? and what about blocking by cloud -
as we have here today? and what about night time?

Harry is a real ostrich isn't he?

That basic fact that a solar panel doesn't make enough electricity to
construct its replacement is just brushed aside.

Not renewable, not sustainable, not actually overall producing any
energy at all.

Hey harry, if the wind and sun are free, how much is God charging for
Uranium these days?


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 25/05/16 08:32, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.

No, even that do9esmn't.
The only renewable energy that anything like works is water up a hill -
hydroelectricity. Thats because a reservoirs ois a storage devicve.

Biomass works, becaus enio9mass is a storage decice.

energy that is generated by intermittent sources with no storage is
almost completely useless.

And we dont need 'renewable' energy. WE have ten thousand years of
fertile and fissionable materials at least, and we haven't even started
on fusion.



NT



--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:53:45 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar
thermal.

Which is probably the rarest.

Go figure.

Only because you can't get a grant for installing it and domestically
you can only get the RHI payment for a stand alone hot water system.
Hybrid systems, using a heatstore, are not eligiable. **** knows why
they changed the rules, our hybrid system still burns less oil than
it would without the solar thermal.

The RHI only runs for seven years and I don't think is protected like
the FIT payments. You also needed to have got and paid for "Green
Deal" assesment and an EPC, They also deduct the RHPP if you had
received that.

The bottom line for our 1.123 MWHr/year rated solar thermal system at
19.2 p/kWHr is less than £35/qtr. Not worth jumping through the Green
Deal and EPC hoops for even if the system was eligable.

Wonder how things have changed now they have scrapped the "Green
Deal"?

--
Cheers
Dave.

En el artículo ,
escribió:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.

There's one at Ivanpah in California. Uses light reflected from the sun
by mirrors to produce steam that is used to drive turbines.

Despite massive hype, loads of public money thrown at it, built on
protected land, and funding from the likes of Google, it has never
achieved expectations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpa...Power_Facility

Earlier this week, it even managed to set itself on fire.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05...ity_sets_itsel
f_on_fire/

It's time to shoot a few greenies and get on with building some more
nukes.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

On 25/05/2016 09:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 08:32, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.

No, even that do9esmn't.
The only renewable energy that anything like works is water up a hill -
hydroelectricity. Thats because a reservoirs ois a storage devicve.

Biomass works, becaus enio9mass is a storage decice.

energy that is generated by intermittent sources with no storage is
almost completely useless.

And we dont need 'renewable' energy. WE have ten thousand years of
fertile and fissionable materials at least,


They've put the price at £18billion just to build Hinkley Point. EDF are
demanding £92.50/MWh, nearly twice what we pay now, which will be linked
to inflation during the construction period, as well as money from
French taxpayers.

They haven't even began to pour concrete into the construction yet have
already shelled out over £2billion of taxpayers money and their Chief
Financial Officer has resigned.

Current estimation for completion (power generation) are in 2023.

and we haven't even started
on fusion.

Billions have already been spent on it worldwide, no worthwhile results yet.

Brian Gaff wrote

Well, yes, its not a secret though, and I oftne wonderd why the
cost has not fallen further by now with the greater number being
made and sold. One might expect this to have happened by now.

It has, quite dramatically.

Mike Tomlinson wrote

ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any
energy gathering system is a measure of that system's efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

wrote
harry wrote

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.

That isn't true when you are off the grid. Solar panels do that when
you aren't as far form the equator as that soggy little frigid island is.

On 25/05/16 11:08, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
It's time to shoot a few greenies and get on with building some more
nukes.
Hear Hear! But the EU wont let us...

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 25/05/16 11:10, Dex wrote:
On 25/05/2016 09:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 08:32, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.

No, even that do9esmn't.
The only renewable energy that anything like works is water up a hill -
hydroelectricity. Thats because a reservoirs ois a storage devicve.

Biomass works, becaus enio9mass is a storage decice.

energy that is generated by intermittent sources with no storage is
almost completely useless.

And we dont need 'renewable' energy. WE have ten thousand years of
fertile and fissionable materials at least,


They've put the price at £18billion just to build Hinkley Point. EDF are
demanding £92.50/MWh, nearly twice what we pay now, which will be linked
to inflation during the construction period, as well as money from
French taxpayers.


Yep. Its amazing how much the eU and teh greens combined can add to teh
cost of a steel pot containing uranium full of boiling water

They haven't even began to pour concrete into the construction yet have
already shelled out over £2billion of taxpayers money and their Chief
Financial Officer has resigned.

Current estimation for completion (power generation) are in 2023.

and we haven't even started
on fusion.

Billions have already been spent on it worldwide, no worthwhile results
yet.

Depends on what you mean by 'worthwhile'

Trillions have already been spent on renewable energy worldwide, no
worthwhile results yet...

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 07:42:07 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that system€˜s efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put into the
system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity) Eg solar
power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting
it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc.
No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be
taken from us/cut off.

do the solar panels get made by magic? and what about blocking by cloud -
as we have here today? and what about night time?

Of course not dimwit.
But embodied energy considered on its own does not give the full picture.
Eg, I have and electric car.
Similar embodied energy to a petrol car.

No because it takes a lot more energey to make the battery that to make a petrol, or desiel tank. A tank will mostly last the life of teh car unlike a battery which yopu may have to replace 5 times.

But I charge it up on sunlight on days that are suitable.

But not at night or on unsuitable days, and then theres the time it takes to fill up.


PV panels are a small part of the solution.

tiny part and not really a solution for most things although could be used for charging phones quite easily.


We need all form of renewable energy.
Especially tidal as things stand.

Trouble is it's rather expensive for most that's why we dontl have it.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 11:08:36 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo ,
escribió:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.

There's one at Ivanpah in California. Uses light reflected from the sun
by mirrors to produce steam that is used to drive turbines.

Despite massive hype, loads of public money thrown at it, built on
protected land, and funding from the likes of Google, it has never
achieved expectations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpa...Power_Facility

Earlier this week, it even managed to set itself on fire.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05...ity_sets_itsel
f_on_fire/

It's time to shoot a few greenies

why can;t greenies be used as a renuable energy source they seem to create enough crap, :-)

and get on with building some more
nukes.

In article ,
Dex wrote:
They've put the price at £18billion just to build Hinkley Point. EDF are
demanding £92.50/MWh, nearly twice what we pay now, which will be linked
to inflation during the construction period, as well as money from
French taxpayers.

They haven't even began to pour concrete into the construction yet have
already shelled out over £2billion of taxpayers money and their Chief
Financial Officer has resigned.

You have to realise that nuclear is worth it at *any* cost - and
preferably using designs that are as yet unproved. The cost of electricity
to the consumer from them simply doesn't matter.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/05/16 14:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
And that, in a nutshell, told me all I needed to know about "green"
energy. It has **** all to do with helping the environment, and
everything about making money for the middleman.

It's cognitive dissonance at it's best. We're being asked to believe we
are on the edge of a precipice on the one hand, and then being told we
should walk backwards on the other.

Double think.

You know 'The science is settled' 'we need to spend much more money on
settling the science' ....The world will get warmer because..' the world
isnt getting warmer, because'...

If you look at it objectivcely, the only consistent thing about the
whole shoddy edifice, is that it means more big government and more
taxpayer money going into the hands of those shouting about it the loudest.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 25/05/2016 07:31, harry wrote:

Eg solar power. Arrives for free.

Except it doesn't (in Northern Europe). Needs a huge subsidy from other
users to make it 'free'.

But according to the tories market forces should be able to achieve this.
The economy of scale etc.
Watching that programme last night on the nuclear submarine and their
reactors on Yesterday, I simply do not understand why this technology is not
being deployed around the world to make cheap leccy. 33 years without any
fuel, I mean...
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dex" wrote in message ...
On 25/05/2016 08:18, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, yes, its not a secret though, and I oftne wonderd why the cost has
not
fallen further by now with the greater number being made and sold. One
might
expect this to have happened by now.
Brian


Tories cut funding by 65% last year while doubling that of nuclear
research and development.

On 25/05/16 15:33, Andrew wrote:
On 25/05/2016 07:31, harry wrote:

Eg solar power. Arrives for free.

Except it doesn't (in Northern Europe). Needs a huge subsidy from other
users to make it 'free'.

There's carbon dioxide and di-hydrogen oxide free all over the place.
Just takes money to turn it into energy ;-)

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 25/05/16 16:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
But according to the tories market forces should be able to achieve this.
The economy of scale etc.
Watching that programme last night on the nuclear submarine and their
reactors on Yesterday, I simply do not understand why this technology is not
being deployed around the world to make cheap leccy. 33 years without any
fuel, I mean...

Because it threatened Big Oil, and now it threatens Big Green, and Big
Gas and because it was linked to nuclear weapons, so the Russkies poured
billions into anti-nuclear propaganda and all the hippy tree huggers
without a science degree to their name swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Brian



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 25/05/16 17:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 08:27:48 +0100, Dex wrote:

On 25/05/2016 08:18, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, yes, its not a secret though, and I oftne wonderd why the cost
has not fallen further by now with the greater number being made and
sold. One might expect this to have happened by now.
Brian


Tories cut funding by 65% last year while doubling that of nuclear
research and development.

One wonders - idly - how *much* R&D is needed into nuclear power ? The
underlying physics are pretty well understood*, it's hardly "new" (the
first atomic reactor predates the first digital computer), and end
product - electricity - is also well understood. To the extent that we
have a national grid which predates nuclear too.


A lot of research is actually going into fuel handling and
decommissioning stuff.


Building a reactor is a piece of ****. Even an american schoolboy in a
shed did that.

Complying with regulatory ******** is 90% of the cost. Research to
reduce that is worthwhile



There are also well-proven reactor designs (personally I'd happily use
the stress-tested Fukashima (sp) design).

Admittedly if you wanted a more efficient design, or to use a different
nuclear cycle you would need *serious* R&D. But is anyone proposing that ?


Yes, that's around too - the thorium cycle, and MOX stuff to use up
plutonium, and various particle accelerator and other technologies to
create nuclear waste burners.


For some reason, I am recalling an archaeology programme. (It may have
had the eminently watchable Francis Prior). The point was made that we
can excavate a Roman trowel and know *exactly* what it is, because the
basic design was so perfected, it simply hasn't changed.

*Well understood in terms of being able to engineer around, rather than
known to the nth degree.





--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 25/05/16 17:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 16:40:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/05/16 16:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
But according to the tories market forces should be able to achieve
this. The economy of scale etc.
Watching that programme last night on the nuclear submarine and their
reactors on Yesterday, I simply do not understand why this technology
is not being deployed around the world to make cheap leccy. 33 years
without any fuel, I mean...

Because it threatened Big Oil, and now it threatens Big Green, and Big
Gas and because it was linked to nuclear weapons,

Once again: Thorium ....

....is not the answer. You can still use it for bombs, it still creates
radioactive waste, and its a whole new ball game in terms of issues and
solutions.



--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

They've put the price at £18billion just to build Hinkley Point. EDF are
demanding £92.50/MWh, nearly twice what we pay now, which will be linked
to inflation during the construction period, as well as money from
French taxpayers.


They haven't even began to pour concrete into the construction yet have
already shelled out over £2billion of taxpayers money and their Chief
Financial Officer has resigned.

You have to realise that nuclear is worth it at *any* cost - and
preferably using designs that are as yet unproved. The cost of electricity
to the consumer from them simply doesn't matter.


There are proven designs, the Canadian one is very good I
understand, China is building Nukes at a massive scale. Want to buy some
cheap electricity from Ebay?

On 25/05/16 17:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 17:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 16:40:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/05/16 16:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
But according to the tories market forces should be able to achieve
this. The economy of scale etc.
Watching that programme last night on the nuclear submarine and their
reactors on Yesterday, I simply do not understand why this technology
is not being deployed around the world to make cheap leccy. 33 years
without any fuel, I mean...

Because it threatened Big Oil, and now it threatens Big Green, and Big
Gas and because it was linked to nuclear weapons,

Once again: Thorium ....

....is not the answer. You can still use it for bombs, it still creates
radioactive waste, and its a whole new ball game in terms of issues and
solutions.



I realised that there is a very very good bit of objective info on
thorium MSFR he-

http://euanmearns.com/molten-salt-fa...y-an-overview/


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 25/05/16 17:39, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 17:37:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/05/16 17:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 17:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 16:40:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/05/16 16:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
But according to the tories market forces should be able to achieve
this. The economy of scale etc.
Watching that programme last night on the nuclear submarine and
their reactors on Yesterday, I simply do not understand why this
technology is not being deployed around the world to make cheap
leccy. 33 years without any fuel, I mean...

Because it threatened Big Oil, and now it threatens Big Green, and
Big Gas and because it was linked to nuclear weapons,

Once again: Thorium ....

....is not the answer. You can still use it for bombs, it still creates
radioactive waste, and its a whole new ball game in terms of issues and
solutions.



I realised that there is a very very good bit of objective info on
thorium MSFR he-

http://euanmearns.com/molten-salt-fa...y-an-overview/

Tx

I just reread the thread and comments, and if you are after facts,
rather than opinions, all sides are well represented there.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 25/05/16 17:32, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 17:20:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/05/16 17:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 08:27:48 +0100, Dex wrote:

On 25/05/2016 08:18, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, yes, its not a secret though, and I oftne wonderd why the cost
has not fallen further by now with the greater number being made and
sold. One might expect this to have happened by now.
Brian


Tories cut funding by 65% last year while doubling that of nuclear
research and development.

One wonders - idly - how *much* R&D is needed into nuclear power ? The
underlying physics are pretty well understood*, it's hardly "new" (the
first atomic reactor predates the first digital computer), and end
product - electricity - is also well understood. To the extent that we
have a national grid which predates nuclear too.


A lot of research is actually going into fuel handling and
decommissioning stuff.

Not really science though - more engineering. (I view the Apollo
programme as a triumph of engineering, not science)



Building a reactor is a piece of ****. Even an american schoolboy in a
shed did that.

Complying with regulatory ******** is 90% of the cost. Research to
reduce that is worthwhile


Ah ! The ever shifting goalposts.



There are also well-proven reactor designs (personally I'd happily use
the stress-tested Fukashima (sp) design).

Admittedly if you wanted a more efficient design, or to use a different
nuclear cycle you would need *serious* R&D. But is anyone proposing
that ?


Yes, that's around too - the thorium cycle, and MOX stuff to use up
plutonium, and various particle accelerator and other technologies to
create nuclear waste burners.


Again, the science seems well understood. It's the engineering
challenge ....

The 'science' of fission was established in the late 1930s, and that was
what said 'a bomb will work' (and it did) .

Its ALL engineering now.



--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 25/05/2016 07:31, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that systems efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing.
The energy that is put into the system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity)
Eg solar power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc. No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be taken from us/cut off.
No maintence costs (apart from a light dusting).


No wonder the NHS wastes so much when they have efficiency people like
you. Read the damn thing and think about what it says rather than
repeating the same cr@p you usually do. Try and prove you aren't brain
dead like you accuse others to be.

On 25/05/16 18:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
Its ALL engineering now.
You mean that subject that kids dodge as they'd rather be on £40K working
for a bank after they graduate

Mind you, a cursory reading of English (I deliberately exclude Scotland)
reveals that engineers have*never* really had a good status - or
grounding - at any time in history.

And of course, it is fundamentally engineers who have built the world
you live in, so that lefty****s can pour scorn on them :-)

And the geek shall inherit their earth.


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 25/05/2016 08:19, harry wrote:

do the solar panels get made by magic? and what about blocking by cloud -
as we have here today? and what about night time?

Of course not dimwit.

Don't you dare call Charles a dimwit, you sewer rat!

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 25/05/2016 08:19, harry wrote:

do the solar panels get made by magic? and what about blocking by
cloud -
as we have here today? and what about night time?

Of course not dimwit.

Don't you dare call Charles a dimwit,

Why, is he one of your bum buddies ?

you sewer rat!

Bet that will see him curl up and die for sure.

On 25/05/16 20:29, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 18:33:32 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 25/05/2016 07:31, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that systems efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing.
The energy that is put into the system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity)
Eg solar power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc. No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be taken from us/cut off.
No maintence costs (apart from a light dusting).


No wonder the NHS wastes so much when they have efficiency people like
you. Read the damn thing and think about what it says rather than
repeating the same cr@p you usually do. Try and prove you aren't brain
dead like you accuse others to be.

Quite. He's missed the point. The fact that sunshine and wind are
'free' in Harry's terms is irrelevant. ERoEI is an energy calculation,
not a cost calculation. It's not an RoI.

Well it is, but the currency is watt hours, not Euros...


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 25/05/2016 08:32, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.

Even that does not hack it... Look at the financial difficulty the big
solar thermal plants are getting into.

Hydro is the most useful, if you have the geography and rainfall for it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 25/05/2016 07:31, harry wrote:

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put
into the system once constructed

The whole point of the article was that you can't ignore that bit. If
when you include that construction cost you end up with a net energy
sink then the whole enterprise is worse than useless.

to be converted to (say
electricity) Eg solar power. Arrives for free.

But can't be collected "for free".

Can't be made dispatchable "for free"

No pollution cost in extracting it or converting it.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No CO2 emitted.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No transport costs.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No clear up cost

What you leave the place covered with dead solar panels?

for mining etc. No health costs

What about the disposal of toxic materials in the EOL equipment?

to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be taken from
us/cut off.

Unless the earth were to rotate on its axis... oh hang on a mo?

No maintence costs (apart from a light dusting).

And all worthless if the net energy generated is less than zero!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 25/05/2016 09:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 08:32, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.

No, even that do9esmn't.
The only renewable energy that anything like works is water up a hill -
hydroelectricity. Thats because a reservoirs ois a storage devicve.

Biomass works, becaus enio9mass is a storage decice.

Much biomass in in effect a secondary fuel anyway - intensive farming of
crops for production of ethanol etc simply converts the energy contained
in the diesel, electric, gas etc used to produce and grow the crop into
less energy than can be recovered from it.

It does have storage, and is not intermittent, but we would be far
better off not doing it at all and eating the crop!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
harry writes
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 07:42:07 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that system€˜s efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put into the
system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity) Eg solar
power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting
it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc.
No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be
taken from us/cut off.

do the solar panels get made by magic? and what about blocking by cloud -
as we have here today? and what about night time?

Of course not dimwit.
But embodied energy considered on its own does not give the full picture.
Eg, I have and electric car.
Similar embodied energy to a petrol car.
But I charge it up on sunlight on days that are suitable.

PV panels are a small part of the solution.
We need all form of renewable energy.
Especially tidal as things stand.
We do not "need " any renewables. We can have a 24/7 energy supply with
nukes.
--
bert

In article , Dex writes
On 25/05/2016 09:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 08:32, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar thermal.

No, even that do9esmn't.
The only renewable energy that anything like works is water up a hill -
hydroelectricity. Thats because a reservoirs ois a storage devicve.

Biomass works, becaus enio9mass is a storage decice.

energy that is generated by intermittent sources with no storage is
almost completely useless.

And we dont need 'renewable' energy. WE have ten thousand years of
fertile and fissionable materials at least,


They've put the price at £18billion just to build Hinkley Point. EDF
are demanding £92.50/MWh, nearly twice what we pay now, which will be
linked to inflation during the construction period, as well as money
from French taxpayers.

That is less than the latest contract for off-shore wind.
They haven't even began to pour concrete into the construction yet have
already shelled out over £2billion of taxpayers money and their Chief
Financial Officer has resigned.

Current estimation for completion (power generation) are in 2023.

and we haven't even started
on fusion.

Billions have already been spent on it worldwide, no worthwhile results yet.

EDF have got cold feet and are probably prying for Brexit as an excuse
to cop out. We should build to the latest proven design in the first
instance.
--
bert