Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

All renewables? Does that include Hydro Electric?

Yes. The Strike Price* for Hydro is £95/MWh, slightly higher than for
Hinkley C. See table here http://tinyurl.com/zcjljqw Even biomass is
more expensive. Anyway, hydro only accounts for ~2% of UK electricity
demand, http://tinyurl.com/jtgzjkq

http://www.wvic.com/Content/Facts_About_Hydropower.cfm

Says nothing useful about the real cost of hydro power in Britain.

On 8/5/2016 5:24 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/08/16 15:40, newshound wrote:
On 8/5/2016 6:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/08/16 22:38, newshound wrote:
You wouldn't want to be too close to them if they failed, but you would
not be *anyway* because of the local radiation levels when the reactors
were at power.

The local radiation levels are trivial in the water circuits of a
working reactor, especially AGR or PWR designs, which use two stage heat
exchangers to cool the cores and heat the water.

The issue isn't the activity of the water, it is because the gas has to
get from the reactor to the boiler, through the substantial concrete
biological shield which surrounds the reactor. There are pathways where
gamma and neutrons "stream" from the core in the bellows regions, and to
some points in the boiler buildings (when these are separate). In fact
even when the reactor is shut down there are some regions around the
boilers where gamma from fission products gives R4 levels even in a
shutdown reactor. DAMHIK.


The boilers are not the turbines.

Where do turbines come into it? We were talking about steel pressure
vessels as used in PWR primary vessels, and Magnox boilers (or at least,
I was).

En el artículo ,
newshound escribió:

We were talking about steel pressure
vessels as used in PWR primary vessels, and Magnox boilers (or at least,
I was).

Yes, we were.

Turnip has his own peculiar comprehension problems.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 07/08/2016 18:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
(think Aliso Canyon gas leak
earlier this year, and BP's Deep Water Horizon blowout).

Both of which were wells deliberately drilled into an oil/gas reservoir
with the intention of extraction, and both of which were botched jobs
resulting in massive leaks.

And the other point is a minor leak from a CO2 container isn't potentially
dangerous.


Define minor?
CO2 is heavier than air so if it leaks into a valley it will suffocate
any animal life living there.
It has happened in the past and storing the stuff will make it far more
likely.

On 07/08/2016 16:39, harry wrote:


The idea was that the CO2 would be dissolved in water.
When pumped underground,the massive pressures down there would keep it dissolved.
Lots of practical problems when it was tried apparently.




But that is fracking and the greens don't like it.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And the other point is a minor leak from a CO2 container isn't potentially
dangerous.


Define minor?

The opposite of major?

CO2 is heavier than air so if it leaks into a valley it will suffocate
any animal life living there.

I'd call that a major leak.

It has happened in the past and storing the stuff will make it far more
likely.

There has been such a big concentration of CO2 in a *valley* it killed
livestock? Do tell.

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

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

On Monday, 8 August 2016 14:07:29 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And the other point is a minor leak from a CO2 container isn't potentially
dangerous.


Define minor?

The opposite of major?

CO2 is heavier than air so if it leaks into a valley it will suffocate
any animal life living there.

I'd call that a major leak.

It has happened in the past and storing the stuff will make it far more
likely.

There has been such a big concentration of CO2 in a *valley* it killed
livestock? Do tell.


It was a volcanic lake in Cameroon Africa. Hundred were killed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 02/08/2016 14:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
However, there really isn't anything to understand is there.

Solar panels only work when there is light on them. At night there is
no light so there is no power. ZERO.

Wind turbines only work when the wing is blowing over them (and even
then only over a fairly small range of speeds). So, when the wind
isn't blowing there is NO POWER.

And conventional power stations only work when there is fuel for them.
Remember the 3 day week?

That was when the NUM decided there should be an end to coal mining in
the UK.

And most of our fuel now comes from abroad, so totally secure. You think?

Fracking will solve that problem.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
That was when the NUM decided there should be an end to coal mining
in the UK.

And most of our fuel now comes from abroad, so totally secure. You
think?

All the more reason to push forward with fracking ASAP.

Very true. Would it happen close to where you live?

Possible but so what? The disruption is minimal and probably less than
that caused by all the house building going on.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
Bearing in mind your electric car has a sizeable battery in it, and
also that the likes of Tesla and Nissan are now promoting batteries
for storing electricity in the home, either charged off the grid
overnight or from PV's on sunny days, why don't you use your car
battery in a similar fashion? All you'd need is a suitable converter
to plug into.

You make it sound so very simple. ;-)

Well he is trying to explain something to Harry.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'm certainly in favour of having nuclear as part of a diverse package
of power generation. But not at any price - unlike so many here.

Well what are we to do?, ageing coal plants that are to be shut to meet
emissions etc, and a fleet of ageing nuclear plants thats the real
future problem and not one that windy mills are going to fix!...

Is the only option to build nuclear where the guaranteed unit price will
be twice that of today? Using technology which has yet been proved to work?

yes
How much research has been done on a method of burning coal more cleanly?
Lots but none has yet produced a viable method of carbon capture.
Using gas?

OMG all that CO2 And as you pointed out earlier all our gas is under the
control of nasty johnny foreigner unless we get fracking.
After all, we're leaving the EU so not bound by what they want in future.

We still have our own lunatic greenies to deal with.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
Is the only option to build nuclear where the guaranteed unit price
will be twice that of today? Using technology which has yet been proved
to work?

Of course not. We could build more offshore wind farms, where the
guaranteed unit price is three times what we pay today.

How much research has been done on a method of burning coal more
cleanly?

I thought the object of this whole exercise was to reduce CO2. However
you burn coal, clean or dirty, you get CO2. The fact that you don't
seem to realise that, explains a lot.

And the fact you've snipped the bit about gas says it all too.

And gas too produces CO2 thicko.
But do I take it you now believe in man made climate change? Odd for a
nuclear supporter.


--
bert

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote

And the other point is a minor leak from
a CO2 container isn't potentially dangerous.

CO2 is heavier than air so if it leaks into a valley
it will suffocate any animal life living there.

I'd call that a major leak.

It has happened in the past and storing the stuff will make it far more
likely.

There has been such a big concentration of
CO2 in a *valley* it killed livestock? Do tell.

Yep in africa, geological CO2. Only happened twice in recorded history tho.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limnic_eruption

And that wouldn’t happen with CO2 stored underground as a gas.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
(think Aliso Canyon gas leak
earlier this year, and BP's Deep Water Horizon blowout).

Both of which were wells deliberately drilled into an oil/gas reservoir
with the intention of extraction, and both of which were botched jobs
resulting in massive leaks.

And the other point is a minor leak from a CO2 container isn't potentially
dangerous.

Of course it is. The ice caps will melt and sea levels will rise by
several metres flooding most of the south of Eng... maybe not such a bad
idea.
--
bert

On Monday, 8 August 2016 21:04:26 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
Is the only option to build nuclear where the guaranteed unit price
will be twice that of today? Using technology which has yet been proved
to work?

Of course not. We could build more offshore wind farms, where the
guaranteed unit price is three times what we pay today.

How much research has been done on a method of burning coal more
cleanly?

I thought the object of this whole exercise was to reduce CO2. However
you burn coal, clean or dirty, you get CO2. The fact that you don't
seem to realise that, explains a lot.

And the fact you've snipped the bit about gas says it all too.

And gas too produces CO2 thicko.

But mostly water ****-fer-brains.