In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:09:58 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:


Given its not unusual to have in effect no wind due to an area of high
pressure centred over Europe that can last several days in the winter,
while the output from solar is approaching the cube root of f all, you
also have to wonder how one will have the spare generating capacity to
"charge" these storage systems if they existed, while also meeting the
current demand for power.

Simple - you'd need double the generating capacity, and probably also
significant upgrading of the transmission system to carry the extra
power. Funny how it doesn't get much of a mention!

Cruachan was built at the same time as Hunterston (I think) nuclear site to
absorb the overnight surplus energy. i suspect the same applied to
Dinorwik.
If we have no nuclear, then there's no overnight surplus (except some
possible wind or tidal). I

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/12/2018 16:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote:


Apparently someone has already done the relevant sums, no surprisse
really.

It coimes as a total surprise to Leftards that people have actually done
all of the sums on most of te technology that is conatslty being
proposed by greentards as a solution to te nixeistent prtoblem of CO2
emissions.

They seem to think that if a renewable energy solution way chea[per and
more reliable than say coal existed, no one would have, for profit,
implemented it and driven coal out of business.

The total lack of understanding of market forces, capital and economics
is reflected in their childlike desire to remain in the European [dis]Union.


--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 03/12/2018 17:31, Chris Hogg wrote:
Quite a good document here on storage:

http://www.british-hydro.org/wp-cont...age-report.pdf
The trouble is that although Pumped Storage is generally accepted as a
'good thing', we haven't got the topography to implement it in any way
sufficient to make a significant difference to stored energy relative
to what's needed for an all-renewable supply, as table 5-1 on p. 15
shows.

In teh end bfoer energy waqs pliticised, pumped storage was assesed on a
pure cost benefitr basis.

Dinorig saved building one 1.2GW power station that wouuld have run at
rather low capacity factor to do evening peak following.

One North Sea gas came in big time there really wasnt much
justification for mopre pumped storage as fast start gas turbine
technology was a bit cheaper overall.



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

On 03/12/2018 17:54, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:

Max Demian wrote:

Go round the junk shops and by up all the wind up gramophones!

Apparently someone has already done the relevant sums, no surprisse
really.

There's a scheme to run heavy rail vehicles up a slope to store
energy.

And they mine pixie dust at the top and carry it down to help things out.

https://interestingengineering.com/energy-storage-trains-work-power-gravity

Chris



--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 03/12/2018 18:33, RJH wrote:
Interesting, thanks - especially the exchange with 'Gilbert' - who
worked on and studied the Scottish schemes - and concludes:

'It is not about have we the capacity to store renewable energy, we do.
Its about who pays for it and how much'.

Yes. I calculated that all the summer solar energy could be stored by
pumping out loch ness to aboyt 500 feet deep (or damming it and gfilling
it that deep) in summer and letting it fill (or empoty) with seawater
in winter.

Howber te environmmental damage and cost is many times what 15 nuclear
power stations would cost.


--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

Vir Campestris a exprimé avec précision :
The price paid for the water was based very loosely on the value of the
house.
Many thanks for this information.
In France at first meters were inside the house.
Then they were buried 1m deep outside to avoid frost and allow reading
when the house was unoccupied.
Now they are getting "clever" with a buried battery powered 864MHz
transmitter. lol
Prices vary a lot .
A very complicated situation IMHO.

On Monday, 3 December 2018 18:05:07 UTC, JimK wrote:
tabbypurr Wrote in message:
On Monday, 3 December 2018 15:19:13 UTC, JimK wrote:
tabbypurr Wrote in message:

10kW is about 40A, so demand management would not be a challenge. I still remember a load of flats each on a 5A supply. That was easy enough to live with once you knew how, but I don't think any of the occupants did.

Yebbut 10kw was the power of the +mill+ turbine setup, not some
plastic spoon creation in an inverted washing up
bowl....

Obviously. Was there a point?


Obviously the op of the thread (if you bother to read anything
anymore) is pondering wasting water from his tap to try &
generate power....

Congratulations on reading the OP.
I ask again, do you have a point? Or are you, like 99% of the time, just wasting others' time?

On Monday, 3 December 2018 20:41:15 UTC, bilou wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... a utilisé son clavier pour écrire :

Has anybody who has not got a water meter ever thought about installing a
small hydro electric generator to reap back some of the water and lecy bills?

Sorry for the OT.
What is the part of English homes that have no water meters ?
For a French this seems unbeliveable.
May be it's true that it rains a lot overthere after all. lol

most of us have unmetered water. And yes, a lot of rain!


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/12/2018 16:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote:


Apparently someone has already done the relevant sums, no surprisse
really.

It coimes as a total surprise to Leftards that people have actually done
all of the sums on most of te technology that is conatslty being
proposed by greentards as a solution to te nixeistent prtoblem of CO2
emissions.

They seem to think that if a renewable energy solution way chea[per and
more reliable than say coal existed, no one would have, for profit,
implemented it and driven coal out of business.

The total lack of understanding of market forces, capital and economics
is reflected in their childlike desire to remain in the European [dis]Union.

Has anyone looked into the feasibility of short term energy storage by
reducing carbon dioxide in some sort of electric furnace and storing the
resulting hydrocarbons (to drive standard gas turbines when needed)? I
expect it would be important *not* to store any oxygen produced in the
same tank as the hydrocarbons, but the only barrier I can see is finding
some sort of catalyst to make the reduction reasonably efficient.


--

Roger Hayter

John Rumm wrote:

On 03/12/2018 18:52, Andy Burns wrote:
RJH wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Dinorwig 1.73GW Foyers 305 MW
Ffestiniog 360MW Cruachan 440MW

with a load of 40GW (see my earlier calculation) would keep the
lights on in the UK for just....wait for it....40 minutes

Not 'nothing' IOW

Together they may be able to supply 27GWh of energy, but can only supply
2.8GW of power, so couldn't keep the lights on, you'd have a burnt-out
electric mountain if it tried to supply the 45GW of demand that exists
right now.

Indeed, I was not suggesting that this was a national scale storage
solution. Mearley highlighting that Dinorwig gets all the recognition,
there are other players.

Dinorwig is at least pretty, in a satanic mills sort of way.

--

Roger Hayter

On 04/12/2018 12:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 03/12/2018 18:52, Andy Burns wrote:
RJH wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Dinorwig 1.73GW Foyers 305 MW
Ffestiniog 360MW Cruachan 440MW

with a load of 40GW (see my earlier calculation) would keep the
lights on in the UK for just....wait for it....40 minutes

Not 'nothing' IOW

Together they may be able to supply 27GWh of energy, but can only supply
2.8GW of power, so couldn't keep the lights on, you'd have a burnt-out
electric mountain if it tried to supply the 45GW of demand that exists
right now.

Indeed, I was not suggesting that this was a national scale storage
solution. Mearley highlighting that Dinorwig gets all the recognition,
there are other players.

Dinorwig is at least pretty, in a satanic mills sort of way.

Cruachan has a beautiful setting.

Ffestiniog is plain ugly. Dinorwig in between


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

On 04/12/2018 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
Has anyone looked into the feasibility of short term energy storage by
reducing carbon dioxide in some sort of electric furnace and storing the
resulting hydrocarbons (to drive standard gas turbines when needed)? I
expect it would be important*not* to store any oxygen produced in the
same tank as the hydrocarbons, but the only barrier I can see is finding
some sort of catalyst to make the reduction reasonably efficient.

Of course they have.

If it were thast simple/efficient/profitable everyone would be doing it.

Synthetic fuels have a crap efficiency compared with pumped storage.

Might as well use hydrogen anyway.

Burning hydrocarbon fuel nets us at best 65% efficient that's below
pumped storage for just half of the equation.

No stine has been left untirned in the search for economical practical
grid storage. There is none.

Just grant funded bull**** and virtue signalling


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

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 04:41:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, 3 December 2018 11:45:36 UTC, mechanic wrote:

minute by minute details. In the long term energy requirements can
be met by renewables even if sometimes energy is being supplied to
the grid by other sources.

trust you to believe in a postion that is beyond any reality-based hope.

It's how our energy supplier meets its claim for 100% renewable
supply.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 15:49:58 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2018 15:11:41 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

The main objection to nukes in the public's perception is the
disposal of the nuclear waste, which in reality isn't a problem
at all;...

Eh? Tell that to people in West Cumbria, not to mention the
Fukushima province in Japan.

In what way has it been a problem to people in either location?

Big augments about geological waste disposal facilities in W.
Cumbria; many tonnes radioactive water produced at Fukushima with
little alternative to dumping it into the ocean. That enough
problems for you?

On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:12:39 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

The dangers of radioactivity are grossly exaggerated, to our
detriment.

I think the query was about waste disposal - try to keep up!

On 04/12/2018 14:24, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 15:49:58 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2018 15:11:41 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

The main objection to nukes in the public's perception is the
disposal of the nuclear waste, which in reality isn't a problem
at all;...

Eh? Tell that to people in West Cumbria, not to mention the
Fukushima province in Japan.

In what way has it been a problem to people in either location?

Big augments about geological waste disposal facilities in W.
Cumbria;

By ignorant peole. 'Augmenst' (sic!) are, by themselves, not a 'problem'

many tonnes radioactive water produced at Fukushima with
little alternative to dumping it into the ocean. That enough
problems for you?

Theres 4 billion tonnes of radioactive uranium in the sea already. No to
menton radiocarbon and potassium

A few tonnes more isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. Drop in
the ocean as it were.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 04/12/2018 14:26, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:12:39 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

The dangers of radioactivity are grossly exaggerated, to our
detriment.

I think the query was about waste disposal - try to keep up!


Oh, sio the waste in question is not radioactive then?

Well what's all the fuss about?

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

In article x_
,
says...


Given its not unusual to have in effect no wind due to an area of high
pressure centred over Europe that can last several days in the winter,
while the output from solar is approaching the cube root of
f all ...

Just what happened when Merkel wet her knickers just after
she'd closed all the nukes down. Large high pressure system
stationary over Germany, no wind, no solar, and temperatures
plummetted.I would imagine that all the surrounding countries
that had to come to her rescue made a tidy profit out of it.

We kept piling more coal on the fire and drove the Dutch and
French interconnects flat out, becoming a net exporter of
electricity for the first ever!

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 04/12/2018 08:09, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/12/2018 17:31, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 15:42:02 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:
A bit less than that... 1.73GW and 9.1GWh capacity

But that's all.

Not quite, there is Foyers (305 MW, 6.3GW) and Ffestiniog (360MW,
1.3GW), and Cruachan (440MW / 10GWh)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffestiniog_Power_Station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruachan_Power_Station

(So a total capacity of just under 27GWh)

Which, with a load of 40GW (see my earlier calculation) would keep the
lights on in the UK for just....wait for it....40 minutes! Long enough
to find the candles, Gaz lamp and matches, I suppose!

Indeed - as with many proposed storage solutions they wither comically
when exposed to the forensic probing analysis of, erm, arithmetic!


Well, there is a model he

http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/03-04/wind/content/cost%20model.html

Scroll to the foot of the page for the spreadsheet. It's entirely wasted
on me as I have no way of verifying the data - or the assumptions. Or
the whole thing ;-)



--
Cheers, Rob

Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:06:27 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Has anyone looked into the feasibility of short term energy storage by
reducing carbon dioxide in some sort of electric furnace and storing the
resulting hydrocarbons (to drive standard gas turbines when needed)? I
expect it would be important *not* to store any oxygen produced in the
same tank as the hydrocarbons, but the only barrier I can see is finding
some sort of catalyst to make the reduction reasonably efficient.

Take your pick: https://tinyurl.com/y9jwqgto All you need is loads of
energy.

Ok, so it has been looked at. Still not better than a forest. I do
wonder if, after all possible battery processes have been considered,
some more indirect chemical change could be used for electricity storage
in the hours to weeks range. But, like fusion, it is clear that it
does not exist at the moment, and nuclear is the only option.

--

Roger Hayter

On 04/12/2018 16:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:06:27 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Has anyone looked into the feasibility of short term energy storage by
reducing carbon dioxide in some sort of electric furnace and storing the
resulting hydrocarbons (to drive standard gas turbines when needed)? I
expect it would be important *not* to store any oxygen produced in the
same tank as the hydrocarbons, but the only barrier I can see is finding
some sort of catalyst to make the reduction reasonably efficient.

Take your pick: https://tinyurl.com/y9jwqgto All you need is loads of
energy.

Ok, so it has been looked at. Still not better than a forest. I do
wonder if, after all possible battery processes have been considered,
some more indirect chemical change could be used for electricity storage
in the hours to weeks range. But, like fusion, it is clear that it
does not exist at the moment, and nuclear is the only option.

If you believe the climate alarmism crap yes. Nuclear is the most cost
effective way to reduce power statiuon emissions

Years ago a study was doimne on the cost benefitr of may menas of
carbon reduction. Insulation. HEbulbs. nuclear power.

Insulation paid for itself. So did HE bulbs. Nuclear was cost neutral
and renewables were fiendishly expensive.

Ive got a copy somewhere

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/cocu07.pdf

2007 that was written.

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

Wrote in message:
On Monday, 3 December 2018 18:05:07 UTC, JimK wrote:
tabbypurr Wrote in message:
On Monday, 3 December 2018 15:19:13 UTC, JimK wrote:
tabbypurr Wrote in message:

10kW is about 40A, so demand management would not be a challenge. I still remember a load of flats each on a 5A supply. That was easy enough to live with once you knew how, but I don't think any of the occupants did.

Yebbut 10kw was the power of the +mill+ turbine setup, not some
plastic spoon creation in an inverted washing up
bowl....

Obviously. Was there a point?


Obviously the op of the thread (if you bother to read anything
anymore) is pondering wasting water from his tap to try &
generate power....

Congratulations on reading the OP.
I ask again, do you have a point? Or are you, like 99% of the time, just wasting others' time?


Just how much value have you ever added?

Go off & finish this year's sweetheart pantomime, you're almost
believable on that thread.
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/12/2018 16:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
Max Demian wrote:


Apparently someone has already done the relevant sums, no surprisse
really.

It coimes as a total surprise to Leftards that people have actually done
all of the sums on most of te technology that is conatslty being
proposed by greentards as a solution to te nixeistent prtoblem of CO2
emissions.

They seem to think that if a renewable energy solution way chea[per and
more reliable than say coal existed, no one would have, for profit,
implemented it and driven coal out of business.

The total lack of understanding of market forces, capital and economics
is reflected in their childlike desire to remain in the European
[dis]Union.

Has anyone looked into the feasibility of short term energy storage by
reducing carbon dioxide in some sort of electric furnace and storing the
resulting hydrocarbons (to drive standard gas turbines when needed)?

Yes, that has been done. Its not a viable approach.

I expect it would be important *not* to store any oxygen produced in the
same tank as the hydrocarbons, but the only barrier I can see is finding
some sort of catalyst to make the reduction reasonably efficient.

It needs a lot more than just a catalyst.

On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:02:43 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:26:15 +0000, mechanic
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:12:39 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

The dangers of radioactivity are grossly exaggerated, to our
detriment.

I think the query was about waste disposal - try to keep up!

Nuclear waste is radioactive - try starting, let alone keeping up!

Try following the thread, which was sparked by your comment that

"The main objection to nukes in the public's perception is the
disposal of the nuclear waste, which in reality isn't a problem at
all; it's just blown up to be one by the likes of Harry."

- which is clearly nonsense.

On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:24:11 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

As others have pointed out, that's trivially unimportant. Get back to
us when there's a *real* problem, OK?

That's pretty crass - never eat fish?

Fortunately none of these pro-nuclear fans are in positions of
responsibility.

mechanic wrote:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:24:11 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

As others have pointed out, that's trivially unimportant. Get back to
us when there's a *real* problem, OK?

That's pretty crass - never eat fish?

If you do, mercury is a real problem. Radioactivity isn't.




Fortunately none of these pro-nuclear fans are in positions of
responsibility.


--

Roger Hayter

On 03/12/2018 21:36, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 03/12/2018 20:41, bilou wrote:
Sorry for the OT.
What is the part of English homes that have no water meters ?
For a French this seems unbeliveable.
May be it's true that it rains a lot overthere after all. lol

Water meters were very unusual in houses up to about 25 years ago.

The price paid for the water was based very loosely on the value of the
house.

Quite often the suppliers insist on a change to metering when the house
changes hands - so slowly they are forcing a change to metered by default.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 05/12/2018 13:15, mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:02:43 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:26:15 +0000, mechanic
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:12:39 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

The dangers of radioactivity are grossly exaggerated, to our
detriment.

I think the query was about waste disposal - try to keep up!

Nuclear waste is radioactive - try starting, let alone keeping up!

Try following the thread, which was sparked by your comment that

"The main objection to nukes in the public's perception is the
disposal of the nuclear waste, which in reality isn't a problem at
all; it's just blown up to be one by the likes of Harry."

- which is clearly nonsense.

No, its ceearly based on a good understanding of the actual real situation.

No one has ever died or even been made ill by controlled disposal of
nuclear waste nor will they be.


--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On 05/12/2018 13:18, mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:24:11 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

As others have pointed out, that's trivially unimportant. Get back to
us when there's a *real* problem, OK?

That's pretty crass - never eat fish?


Of cpurse. Swimming in that 4 billoon tonnees of uranium soaked sea.


Do yopu REALLY think that a couople of kg of a short lived isotope is
going to make a blind bit of doifference?

Fortunately none of these pro-nuclear fans are in positions of
responsibility.

Yep. we sall know that being an ignorant **** is the first requirement
for responsibility in todays idiocracy.


--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:35:40 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

IME all the people I talk to and those who are anti-nuclear on
this NG are far more concerned about disposal of nuclear waste.

Of course they are, decommisioning and disposal of waste is the
major cost in any nuclear power project. You claimed that this was
not a problem, and I never mentioned radiation by the way.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:29:30 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

And even there they are wrong, since waste disposal is not a problem.

Of course it is, just look at the history of Sellafield. Stop
talking nonsense!

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:18:49 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:24:11 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

As others have pointed out, that's trivially unimportant. Get back to
us when there's a *real* problem, OK?

That's pretty crass - never eat fish?

What do fish have to do with anything? I'm still waiting for you to
point out a real problem.

Been asleep? Waste disposal is a real and expensive problem.

On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:05:56 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

It's no problem to anyone. The oceans are full of radioactivity
from natural sources anyway. A few more grams will just
be...well...a drop in the ocean.

Estimates are of a million tonnes of contaminated water, and no
agreed way of disposing. Some drop! And releasing it into the
Pacific will not ensure it is stirred well into the whole of the
oceans. Thus fishermen in the area object to such release. Stay
away from Pacific Prawns!

On 06/12/2018 12:09, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:29:30 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

And even there they are wrong, since waste disposal is not a problem.

Of course it is, just look at the history of Sellafield. Stop
talking nonsense!

Ok, I've looked. So where is the problem?


--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On 06/12/2018 12:11, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:18:49 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:24:11 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

As others have pointed out, that's trivially unimportant. Get back to
us when there's a *real* problem, OK?

That's pretty crass - never eat fish?

What do fish have to do with anything? I'm still waiting for you to
point out a real problem.

Been asleep? Waste disposal is a real and expensive problem.

Only if you choose to make it so.



--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 06/12/2018 12:27, mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:05:56 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

It's no problem to anyone. The oceans are full of radioactivity
from natural sources anyway. A few more grams will just
be...well...a drop in the ocean.

Estimates are of a million tonnes of contaminated water,

with a kg of contaminant at most...

and no agreed way of disposing.

that is because anti-nuclear people will not agree on any way of
disposing of anything.

Some drop!

that is a drop. its a block of water 100 meters square and 100 meters
deep. In 1.3 billion cubic KILOMETRES of ocean.


0.000769231 parts per MILLION of 'contaminated water'.

As I said never mind a million tinnes of water with a kg ofd radiactive
materials theres already 4 BILLION TONNES of uranium of which at least
40 MILLION TONNES is U235.

Ok you may say, but thats a long lived isotope that 'lasts millions of
years' and that means it gives off not much radiaoctivity.
#
Except that its the main source of radon which is the biggest source of
natural radiation along with potassium and carbon.

And in comparison to X rays and use of CT scans and active xray surgery
its less thban thsoe by some margin.

You get nmore radiation at your dentists than you will in total from
Chernobyl and Fukushima ever.



and releasing it into the Pacific will not ensure it is stirred well
into the whole of the oceans.

Oh dear. I see physics of diffusion is NOT your strong point

Thus fishermen in the area object to such release. Stay
away from Pacific Prawns!

I guess someone has told them the sam bucnch of crap they told you then

Interesting that despite the Big Numbers you have nowhere quoted the
actual radioactivity content.

I can drop a microgram of cobalt 60 into the sea and instantly create
1.3 billion cubic kilometers of contaminated water.

Not that it wasnt contaminated with 4 billion tonnes of uranium already.


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:31:47 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Been asleep? Waste disposal is a real and expensive problem.

It's a solved problem.

That's good to know.
Thus no need for all this fuss over siting a geological depository?
Just stockpile the stuff for ever?
Yes that'll work.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:28:44 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:35:40 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

IME all the people I talk to and those who are anti-nuclear on
this NG are far more concerned about disposal of nuclear waste.

Of course they are, decommisioning and disposal of waste is the
major cost in any nuclear power project. You claimed that this was
not a problem, and I never mentioned radiation by the way.

It's a problem but not an unsolved problem. That is the point.

And you mentioned the radioactive water ending up in the sea.

That's your idea of a solution is it?

On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:33:37 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

Modern nuclear power stations are designed with decommissioning in
mind, which makes disposal of the waste a much simpler and safer
process, and no longer a problem.

Unfortunately not, as no-one knows how to store the waste long term.

On 06/12/2018 18:43, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:31:47 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Been asleep? Waste disposal is a real and expensive problem.

It's a solved problem.

That's good to know.
Thus no need for all this fuss over siting a geological depository?
Just stockpile the stuff for ever?
Yes that'll work.

nature has been doing it for years


--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching