On 26/02/17 21:43, Moron Watch wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-02-26, RJH wrote:

It's of that order, and Fossil:Renewals 10:1. Have a look at Wikipedia
for a ball park figure(s). If you have access to peer reviewed
literature, plenty of decent studies.

For very small values of "decent". Essentially they're all variations
on the favourite mathematical system of most greenies; "makey-uppey
numbers".

Fossil fuel subsidies consist of the social costs in terms of pollution
born in the main i.e. breathed in, by city dwellers, which will impact
on their health in years to come.

which is more than paid for in taxes on road fuel.

Hint: power stations are no longer built near cities


You on the other hand despite professing not to believe all the "makey
uppy" numbers concerning the deleterious effects of all this pollution
just happen to chose to live in the country far away as possible from all
this pollution. Along with a your sceptical mates, Streater, Hogg, The Natural
Philosopher Now there's a surprise. Not being greens this can't because you all like
looking at trees, and it can't be for the company as you all seem to spend
all of your time applauding each other with your OT crap on here.


The countryside is where all the power stations are. It where all the
things you enjoy and need are grown and made too.

I am 10 times greener than you are.

That's why I despise the Greens

Lefty**** townies who have never seen mud in their lives

Without fossil fuel your towns would collapse and die. I hope yours does.


What's the old saying ? Don't do as I say, do as I do.

#
Ha. Dont apply that the oan Greens...

No "modest proposal" from you about all this OT **** I notice. Now there's
another surprise.

For hypocritical bull**** you just about take the biscuit old chum. But then
given your apparent expertise on banking matters this should really
have come as no surprise to anyone.





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

On 26/02/17 21:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 26/02/17 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 26/02/17 14:13, Roger Hayter wrote:



snip

I actually agree with your conclusion, but I do think you need to factor
in the cost of loss of containment of radioactive materials when it does
occur. There is a very real cost in terms of human lives and health
and loss use of land for quite a long time.

That is total nonsense.

There was no need to evacuate a single person from Fuku after a week to
let any I131 fizzle out had elapsed. Everything was contained.

Probably still a price
worth paying, but it's not quite as clear cut as you say above.


In fact it is.

The worst that can happen to any reactor that isn't a windscale or
Chernobyl design is a total core meltdown. At that point the secondary
containment contains the core, and that is in effect that.

You may have some hydrogen to vent: Provided you just let it vent
(instead of trying to contain it) there is no risk of a hydrogen
explosion, and that means a small but controlled release of radiation.
Nothing after that is in any way dangerous remote from the actual core.

Its is perfectly possible to build a reactor that can have a total
meltdown and suffer nothing more than a minor radiation release. It wont
stop the biased faux new press calling it a disaster, but it isn't. Its
an expensive industrial accident, but its not unsafe for the public.


Possibly, Or possibly something worse than what we think is the worst
could happen if people were stupid enough. It isn't sensible to
underestimate human stupidity, let alone malice. But perhaps you're
right.


No matter how stupid/maliciuous/evil genius your are its damned hard to
kill someone with a marshmallow.

Its a lot easier to get into a car and kill someone, than a nuclear
power station;

Nuclear reactions are very very tricky to get started and maintain. At
the first oddity they stop, apart from decay heat

That's enough to melt a core, but its not enough to get through containment.

even a reactor ancient as Fukushima was *designed* to contain a melted
down core, and it did.

Core meltdown IS the worst possible thing that can happen to a BWR or PWR.

Only Chernobyl could be worse, because there was no secondary
containment, and so the damn thing BURNT. That type of reactor was never
built in the west, basically because it was crap and dangerous.
But even Chernobyl only killed 56 people give or take, The pint is that
there is not even enough U235 in a bog standard reactor to even do a
Hiroshima, and they radiation there only killed people for about 5 miles.

I know radiation is scary but its not that deadly at all.

Not compared with many other things.

Admittedly the precise degree of harm is contentious, but totally
ignoring the Sr-90 and Cs-137 emitted from Chernobyl seems a bit on the
optimistic side.


We had all that at Windscale in the 50s. No one demonstrably died: There
were no cancer blips.

So not optimistic, realistic


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

On 27/02/17 02:17, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Roger Hayter
escribió:

Admittedly the precise degree of harm is contentious, but totally
ignoring the Sr-90 and Cs-137 emitted from Chernobyl seems a bit on the
optimistic side.

Not to mention the huge amount of land contaminated as a direct cause of
Chernobyl. It's interesting how TNP ignores your comment "There is a
very real cost in terms of human lives and health and *loss use of land*
for quite a long time" (my emphasis).

Perhaps he could go live there and let us know he makes out.

Plenty of people are living there ****linson.

They do not die. They have not died. The reactor adjacent carried on
working for years afterwards.

There was no need to evacuate the area at all.

As with Fukushima fear of radiation caused a huge financial cost to
accrue that was unjustified by the science.

The exclusion zone is by and large less radiative than Dartmoor


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

Al Capone

On 27/02/17 11:40, Moron Watch wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-02-26, Moron wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-02-26, RJH wrote:

It's of that order, and Fossil:Renewals 10:1. Have a look at Wikipedia
for a ball park figure(s). If you have access to peer reviewed
literature, plenty of decent studies.

For very small values of "decent". Essentially they're all variations
on the favourite mathematical system of most greenies; "makey-uppey
numbers".

Fossil fuel subsidies consist of the social costs in terms of pollution

IOW, made up numbers.

But big enough to persuade you to move to the country, along with your
sceptical mates. Stuck in the middle of a field breathing in all that
fresh country air, but a good ten mile drive from the nearest
supermarket.


What an ignorant **** you are

Living in the country means not living next to people like you.

Its that simple.




--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

En el artículo , Huge
escribió:

although you won't hear Mr.Spineless complaining about that
particular subsidy.

oh, quite. I see he's responded to my post suggesting a whois, but
can't see the content as he's killfiled, his posts being devoid of
useful content posted by an anonymous cowardly ****wit.

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

On 27/02/17 14:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/02/17 02:17, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Roger Hayter
escribió:

Admittedly the precise degree of harm is contentious, but totally
ignoring the Sr-90 and Cs-137 emitted from Chernobyl seems a bit on the
optimistic side.

Not to mention the huge amount of land contaminated as a direct cause of
Chernobyl. It's interesting how TNP ignores your comment "There is a
very real cost in terms of human lives and health and *loss use of land*
for quite a long time" (my emphasis).

Perhaps he could go live there and let us know he makes out.

Plenty of people are living there ****linson.

They do not die. They have not died. The reactor adjacent carried on
working for years afterwards.

There was no need to evacuate the area at all.

Is that 100% true? I thought there was a strip of land where the pine
trees all went red and died - pretty close to and downwind of the site.
Presumably they received a dose.

OTOH, there's plenty of wild life in the exclusion zone, thriving too
by all accounts as there are no humans there. And no reports of
two-headed wolves either.

What was needed (and didn't happen) was immdiateue iodine pills for all
the locals, then a temporary evaucuation of a few extremely hot spots,
most of which were not actually inhabited anyway.

Probably 100mSV/y is a reasonable 'well you don't need to evacuate' level.

In Fukushima it is 3mSv/y IIRC.

Lower background than say Rome....

The whole Fukushima evacuation zone is last time I could actually find
data well below 20mSv/y which is less than parts of Dartmoor.

Very hard to find ANY data on Chernobyl at all other than the odd
anecdotal 'supports my position' stuff.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 26/02/2017 08:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, actually there are not.
You *always* use more materials and space because the energy density is
so low.
And its intermittent, so you have to build something else to accomodate
that.

The overall cost is always higher than fossil or nuclear.

I gather a mixture of wind and hydro works quite well in New Zealand.

Wet, windy, empty NZ...

The overall cost isn't _always_ higher. Just usually.

Andy

On 26/02/2017 13:53, RJH wrote:
Nothing like the direct c.£600B subsidy to fossil fuels.

Source?

"The government revenue from fuel duty was £27.1 billion for the
financial year 2014-2015"

That's not a subsidy is it?

Andy

On 27/02/17 20:59, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/02/2017 08:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, actually there are not.
You *always* use more materials and space because the energy density is
so low.
And its intermittent, so you have to build something else to accomodate
that.

The overall cost is always higher than fossil or nuclear.

I gather a mixture of wind and hydro works quite well in New Zealand.

Wet, windy, empty NZ...

The overall cost isn't _always_ higher. Just usually.

It is ALWAYS higher.

New zealand has existing hydro. They don't have enough., They could have
putt in baseload nuclear at half the price of wind, and augmented their
hydro just like the winpower does.


Andy


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 27/02/2017 21:03, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/02/2017 13:53, RJH wrote:
Nothing like the direct c.£600B subsidy to fossil fuels.

Source?


*Global* :-) I gave that figure in the context of global figures, but
you snipped it. £600B is not far off the total UK income! I think it's
about £10B in the UK.

Since commenting I've come across some recent IMF reports that suggest
it's far higher. Do you/Huge consider the IMF to be too 'lefty'?

TBH I'm struggling to find any source could be considered decent by many
on this NG. Perhaps you could mention one or two - say that you use to
form an opinion? Or is it some way secret, or subscriber only?

It's hard enough finding consistent measures in any event, I've found.

"The government revenue from fuel duty was £27.1 billion for the
financial year 2014-2015"

That's not a subsidy is it?


No, that's tax. Which easily covers the subsidy. Can hardly be made up.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 27/02/2017 23:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
New zealand has existing hydro. They don't have enough., They could have
putt in baseload nuclear at half the price of wind, and augmented their
hydro just like the winpower does.

I think we can agree that pure hydro/wind won't work anywhere in Europe.

Andy