"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:27:01 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 12:28:16 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
On 30/04/2019 12:15, tony sayer wrote:


Well right now. 30/4 at 12:14 not that sunny today Gridwatch is
reporting 6.31 GW 16% which is a fair chunk of the UK demand..



At 12:14...

The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power
when
we need it most.

I'm still having mega problems understanding why we can't deliver
nuclear more cost effectively. It seem we should be able to do that
and
keep both TNP and the global warming crowd happy. A reliable base load
give us much more scope for load balancing via smart devices.

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear waste.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

Because they have enough of a clue to realise that at some
time it may well make sense to reprocess it into more fuel
given that **** all of the radioactive material in the fuel rods
is actually consumed when its no longer of any use in the nuke.

On Thu, 2 May 2019 08:55:10 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


We did - apart from sizewell 'B'

So why can't we design and build new ones?

Because its cheaper to get those who currently build them to build another.

Post proof, you all-knowing senile asshole!

Have all the staff emigrated?

Mostly retired by now.

Post proof, you all-knowing senile asshole!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:26:41 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

What is the link to Brexit?

The EU wouldn¢t allow the sensible way to do nuclear power, state subsidys.

Our nuclear industry perished

Even sillier than you usually manage and that¢s saying something.

What could be sillier than your idiotic trolling, silly senile asshole?

--
Senile Rodent about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID:

On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:24:35 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

https://www.cruiseline.co.uk/Windsta...saAguPEALw_wcB

That isnt to save on fuel costs, its just another stunt that
is an attempt to appeal to the more greeny tourist fools.
As the doco on it showed, the sails arent used much at all.

Another load of your known idiotic, self-opinionated, senile bull****!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:28:26 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

Because they have enough of a clue to realise that at some
time it may well make sense to reprocess it into more fuel
given that **** all of the radioactive material in the fuel rods
is actually consumed when its no longer of any use in the nuke.

Yet another load of your absolutely idiotic, self-opinionated, senile
drivel!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Thu, 2 May 2019 08:50:20 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

It might or might not be worthwhile. You need to get some early adopters
on board if the mass production cycle is ever to get off the ground.

Then they should have used the stick approach and not the carrot.
Instead of bribing people and slapping the cost of the bribe onto other
peoples electric bills they should have assessed every property for
suitability (location, age of property, orientation etc) and put all
all those properties UP by one council tax band. Those that fitted
solar PV (no grants, no FITS) or other effiociency measures would then
have their house rebanded one or two council tax bands lower.

But

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal senile pest?

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:22:38 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another load of your absolutely idiotic, senile and self-opinionated
blather

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On 01/05/2019 23:06, TOJ wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2019 21:20:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We did - apart from sizewell 'B'

So why can't we design and build new ones? Have all the staff emigrated?

Retired mostly




--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 02/05/2019 06:33, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:18:03 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
On 01/05/2019 10:31, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/05/2019 07:36, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:51:43 UTC+1, The Natural PhilosopherÂ* wrote:
On 30/04/2019 16:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â* Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive Page
wrote:

Well it's only worth-while because of the very generous subsidy for
those of us who got in early ...

Meaning that it was never really worthwhile. Subsidies are always
a bad
idea as they hide the true cost of something.

Thus spake a true Tory. Except where that subsidy applies to him, of
course.

Even true tory's can understand basic economics... subsidy can be
worthwhile when it promotes a behaviour that contributes to a common
good. Much like taxation can be be use to fold the costs of
externalities back into any practice where they are currently avoided.
That forces the true cost of an activity back onto those responsible
for
it, and restores more realistic market forces.

Those that promote subsidy of renewable energy generation will argue
that its an industry that is new and hence needs support to reach
maturity (an argument wearing thin IMHO), and that there is a common
good being achieved from the production of low carbon energy.

There are major flaws in the argument that stem from the fact that we
currently have no practical use for intermittent energy sources. Hence
the delivery of it must be forced to become a continuous. Either the
producer of the energy must provide their own storage, or they rely on
existing flexible generation capacity elsewhere in the grid to make up
the shortfalls. Currently a massive externality the producer is not
having to meet. To add insult to injury, most of that flexible
generation capacity will be gas powered. So currently, by having grid
connected solar, you just lock in a requirement for gas generation
which
seems to go against much of its whole stated purpose.



All renewable energy does is push electricity prices up, so instead of a
common good its straight profiteeri8nmg by ****s at the expense of
society.

In short exactly what lefty****s accuse the capitalists of doing.

All Socialists and Greens are now the people they warned you about


And nuclear energy profits the Chinese and French.
(At least they are hoping so.Â* They may well get their fingers burned.)

Yes, I agree on that. It is stupid to export the profits, that is just
money taken out of our economy.

Our government should have funded new nuclear power plants directly - it
can borrow at much lower cost than private companies and once paid off,
any profits from selling electricity could have gone to the treasury
(reducing the required tax take) or been used to lower consumers' bills.


I'm trying to understand this currently I'm coming up with the following
theory.

The key issues with nuclear seems to be that economic viability depends
on a lot of reactors using the same design being built. This allows
design cost and the cost of understanding build issues to be spread.

I guess France did it in the past so it is viable. But the UK government
does have a habit of messing up big projects.

Really speaking a multinational would have a better chance at these
economies of scale but I suspect they fear that government regulation
and/or new technology could limit their ability to use the same design
multiple times.

So we currently have the technology to solve the low CO2 energy
production issue but we aren't doing it, primarily because companies are
worried that someone will figure a way to do it cheaper.

The French went for nuclear electricity in a big way.
Now they are paying the (decommissioning) price.
Nuclear power is the most expensive power you can have. No-one knows the full decommissioning cost because no-one has completed the process.

They just store the nuclear waste away and leave the problem for future generations.

Very low level waste is disposed of in various municipal waste sites, as
it has little hazard.

The low level waste (90% of remaining total) is split into two streams -
much is contamination that is only on the surface or has penetrated very
little (85% of it has the surface cleaned/removed and is then recycled
for normal use), the remainder is buried at the National Low Level Waste
Repository.

Intermediate level waste is currently stored, but has begun to be
reduced and moved to permanent, grouted, storage containers. Some has
deliberately been left for decades in tank or other storage to a) allow
the activity to reduce and b) often to allow it to oxidise into a sludge
that is easier to handle. There is currently no National Repository for
these containers, although "temporary" storage buildings have been built
and are in use.

High level waste is just stored, awaiting government actually getting
around to designating somewhere to build the long term repository. Even
if the repository was available now, the HLW would be left until the
heat level had reduced (50 years or more) before being moved there. The
total is less than a 10m cube.

The total stored waste (of all types), projected to 2125 comes to a
volume that would fit inside Wembley stadium!

The Hinkley point power station is hugely over budget and late. And may never be completed.

Agreed. Which is why we need to produce one design that incorporates all
the latest knowledge on contruction, use and decomissioning and roll
them out - as France did.

SteveW

On 02/05/2019 10:09, Steve Walker wrote:
The Hinkley point power station is hugely over budget and late. And
may never be completed.

Agreed. Which is why we need to produce one design that incorporates all
the latest knowledge on contruction, use and decomissioning and roll
them out - as France did.

That wont fix the problem of over regulation designed to strangle
nuclear power.


The problem is that nuclear power actually solves problems: politics is
about looking like you are *trying* to solve problems.

If the problems were solved - who needs the politicians?

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

Rod Speed wrote:


"TOJ" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 01 May 2019 21:20:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We did - apart from sizewell 'B'

So why can't we design and build new ones?

Because its cheaper to get those who currently build them to build another.

Have all the staff emigrated?

Mostly retired by now.



Dead more like.

My natural Father did some design work on the first generation stations
which is why I have some dim childhood recollections of long journeys in
pre motorway Britain to various out of the way places as he often tacked on
a family weekend outing on. If you drove from West London to Scotland in
them days you made sure it was worthwhile.
Dungeness sticks out as they were building the new lighthouse when we
visited.
Unfortunately aged 30 he already had the big C and wasnt around much
longer but if that hadnt occurred then it is likely his career would have
continued and matured through the next generation of stations to a
retirement in the early nineties, although it is also possible he could
have been made redundant or forced to a different path before then.
Either way he would have been ninety this year and though we are well used
to people living longer speak
to anyone of that age and they will know a string of colleagues who faded
out earlier.

GH

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 01/05/2019 13:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Are you saying there is no point in reducing CO2? Got to be all or nothing?

No, I am suggesting that its unwise to opt for a solution that only
has a limited reduction effect, and once implemented, will make it
much harder to achieve any further reductions - thus taking the
option of "nothing" off the table.

Especially when you consider we already have existing proven
technology that goes straight to "nothing" in one hit.

But "we" don't have such technology. We'd have to buy it in.

Well that's a legacy you get from listening to green nimbys for decades
after being world leaders in the field...

We buy in all the renewable generating kit as well.

And you really blame that on green nimbies?

Nor is the
latest technology 'proven' either.

You don't have to have the latest, just working.

All so easy, isn't it?

--
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

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

On 02/05/2019 06:41, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:27:01 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 12:28:16 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
On 30/04/2019 12:15, tony sayer wrote:


Well right now. 30/4 at 12:14 not that sunny today Gridwatch is
reporting 6.31 GW 16% which is a fair chunk of the UK demand..



At 12:14...

The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power when
we need it most.

I'm still having mega problems understanding why we can't deliver
nuclear more cost effectively. It seem we should be able to do that and
keep both TNP and the global warming crowd happy. A reliable base load
give us much more scope for load balancing via smart devices.

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear waste.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

They are, and have been doing so for quite some time:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...e-1101187.html

"The new melter was installed by liquid waste contractor Savannah River
Remediation (SRR). It is the third melter in the 20-year history of the
facility, and replaced Melter 2 which reached the end of its operational
life in 2017 after 14 years of operation. In that time, Melter 2 poured
10. 8 million pounds (4900 tonnes) of glass into 2819 canisters"




--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , 2987pl
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Pancho Pancho.Dontmaileme@outl
ook.com scribeth thus
On 30/04/2019 14:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:28:13 +0100, Pancho wrote:

The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power when
we need it most.

That's if you are obsessed about PV solar (which conveniently is also
the
only solar you can sell to the grid).

Now if it was a case about being *serious* about solar, rather than a
greenwashed ponzi scheme, you'd be using solar panels to directly heat
water and then keep that stored in your hot tank for used whenever -
thus
reducing your gas/electric consumption.

The point is in the UK we use most energy in the winter.

So yes piping hot water in the summer. I don't know about you but I
spend very little on hot water.

Solar power is an excellent idea, but not in the UK.

The point I find irritating is that I'm not seeing sensible energy
policy from anyone important.

A bit like Brexit, politicians would rather twiddle their thumbs than
make a good long term decision that would cause problems for them in the
short term.


You wont see anything of sense from the politicos as IF all the global
warming issue is true then the changes needed aren't going to get any
votes at all..

Thats overstated. Some would vote for the changes needed in that situation.


OK so aviation takes or chucks out carbon alternative fuels for Jet
aircraft anyone?.

Transport, busses lorries on batteries etc don't think so.

In the case of flying is joe publick going to like their flying
rationed?..



Here's one for starters at the moment 3 GW solar, **** all wind and 55%
of the UK power is from fossil Gas, so what are you going to do to
replace that with a non fossil carbon supply???

Any further forward on that yet?..


Nukes.


--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 02/05/2019 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/2019 10:09, Steve Walker wrote:
The Hinkley point power station is hugely over budget and late. And
may never be completed.

Agreed. Which is why we need to produce one design that incorporates
all the latest knowledge on contruction, use and decomissioning and
roll them out - as France did.

That wont fix the problem of over regulation designed to strangle
nuclear power.

No, but it does mean only one set of design documents, operation docs
and safety case docs - the vast majority of which need not be reviewed
for the next reactor, as long as the design remains the same. That
vastly reduces the engineering and design costs and speeds up
implementation.

I agree that it does not solve the basic problem of overregulation, but
it does as least streamline part of the problem of getting new stations
licensed.

SteveW

On 02/05/2019 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 01/05/2019 13:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Are you saying there is no point in reducing CO2? Got to be all or nothing?

No, I am suggesting that its unwise to opt for a solution that only
has a limited reduction effect, and once implemented, will make it
much harder to achieve any further reductions - thus taking the
option of "nothing" off the table.

Especially when you consider we already have existing proven
technology that goes straight to "nothing" in one hit.

But "we" don't have such technology. We'd have to buy it in.

Well that's a legacy you get from listening to green nimbys for decades
after being world leaders in the field...

We buy in all the renewable generating kit as well.

And you really blame that on green nimbies?

No I blame our loss of expertise in large scale nuclear power plant on
that. Pretty much like I said above.

As far as I am aware, we don't have a long and industrious history of
solar panel production or wind turbine production. Hence like any other
manufactured product, you buy it from whoever makes it at a price you
are willing to pay.

Also many renewable technologies are heavily dependant on a number of
rare earth elements, of which 80% are currently mined in China, who also
do 95% of the refining, so it ought not be too surprising that when lots
of the manufacturing is concentrated.

Nor is the
latest technology 'proven' either.

You don't have to have the latest, just working.

All so easy, isn't it?

No, building large scale nuclear power generation is difficult, it takes
time and planning, and lots of money. However if you invest that time
and money and get a standardised / modularised design that can be built
(and later decommissioned) with *relative* ease, then it does get
cheaper and easier with time. Others have made that investment, we
haven't. Hence we buy theirs.

We do still have world class expertise on small modular propulsion style
reactors though - hence why we can roll those out far more cost
effectively and also export them. There does seem to be some effort
going into re-purposing those for commercial power generation:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products...eactors.aspx#/






--
Cheers,

John.

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

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , 2987pl
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Pancho Pancho.Dontmaileme@outl
ook.com scribeth thus
On 30/04/2019 14:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:28:13 +0100, Pancho wrote:

The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power
when
we need it most.

That's if you are obsessed about PV solar (which conveniently is also
the
only solar you can sell to the grid).

Now if it was a case about being *serious* about solar, rather than a
greenwashed ponzi scheme, you'd be using solar panels to directly heat
water and then keep that stored in your hot tank for used whenever -
thus
reducing your gas/electric consumption.

The point is in the UK we use most energy in the winter.

So yes piping hot water in the summer. I don't know about you but I
spend very little on hot water.

Solar power is an excellent idea, but not in the UK.

The point I find irritating is that I'm not seeing sensible energy
policy from anyone important.

A bit like Brexit, politicians would rather twiddle their thumbs than
make a good long term decision that would cause problems for them in the
short term.


You wont see anything of sense from the politicos as IF all the global
warming issue is true then the changes needed aren't going to get any
votes at all..

Thats overstated. Some would vote for the changes needed in that
situation.


OK so aviation takes or chucks out carbon alternative fuels for Jet
aircraft anyone?.

Transport, busses lorries on batteries etc don't think so.

In the case of flying is joe publick going to like their flying
rationed?..

The worst of the greenies would still vote for that.

Here's one for starters at the moment 3 GW solar, **** all wind and 55%
of the UK power is from fossil Gas, so what are you going to do to
replace that with a non fossil carbon supply???

Any further forward on that yet?..


Nukes.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
And you really blame that on green nimbies?

No I blame our loss of expertise in large scale nuclear power plant on
that. Pretty much like I said above.

As far as I am aware, we don't have a long and industrious history of
solar panel production or wind turbine production. Hence like any other
manufactured product, you buy it from whoever makes it at a price you
are willing to pay.

Quite. At one time the UK would have been in the forefront of new
technology like that. But not since manufacture or anything not software
based became a dirty word.

--
*What hair colour do they put on the driver's license of a bald man? *

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

On Thu, 2 May 2019 22:25:08 +1000, 2987pl, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

OK so aviation takes or chucks out carbon alternative fuels for Jet
aircraft anyone?.

Transport, busses lorries on batteries etc don't think so.

In the case of flying is joe publick going to like their flying
rationed?..

The worst of the greenies would still vote for that.

It's not just the Greenies, senile idjit. There's actually a global movement
among all kinds of people to self-ration their flying.

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 02/05/2019 13:03, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/05/2019 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/2019 10:09, Steve Walker wrote:
The Hinkley point power station is hugely over budget and late. And
may never be completed.

Agreed. Which is why we need to produce one design that incorporates
all the latest knowledge on contruction, use and decomissioning and
roll them out - as France did.

That wont fix the problem of over regulation designed to strangle
nuclear power.

No, but it does mean only one set of design documents, operation docs
and safety case docs - the vast majority of which need not be reviewed
for the next reactor, as long as the design remains the same.

And yet they are. Every time.

And again halfway through construction when the rules change, Again.




--
"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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
And you really blame that on green nimbies?

No I blame our loss of expertise in large scale nuclear power plant on
that. Pretty much like I said above.

As far as I am aware, we don't have a long and industrious history of
solar panel production or wind turbine production. Hence like any other
manufactured product, you buy it from whoever makes it at a price you
are willing to pay.

Quite. At one time the UK would have been in the forefront of new
technology like that. But not since manufacture or anything not software
based became a dirty word.

That’s a lie with heavy aircraft engines, wings and portable
nuke reactors and with TV docos and drama too.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 02/05/2019 06:41, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:27:01 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear waste.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of
FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

They are, and have been doing so for quite some time:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...fied-waste-110
1187.html

"The new melter was installed by liquid waste contractor Savannah River
Remediation (SRR). It is the third melter in the 20-year history of the
facility, and replaced Melter 2 which reached the end of its operational
life in 2017 after 14 years of operation. In that time, Melter 2 poured
10. 8 million pounds (4900 tonnes) of glass into 2819 canisters"

Now perhaps harry will stop with his ******** that "no one knows what
to do with the waste".

Fat chance, and they dont do that with the high level waste anyway.

On 02/05/2019 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
And you really blame that on green nimbies?

No I blame our loss of expertise in large scale nuclear power plant on
that. Pretty much like I said above.

As far as I am aware, we don't have a long and industrious history of
solar panel production or wind turbine production. Hence like any other
manufactured product, you buy it from whoever makes it at a price you
are willing to pay.

Quite. At one time the UK would have been in the forefront of new
technology like that. But not since manufacture or anything not software
based became a dirty word.

Its frequently the nature of any advanced economy, labour prices,
business taxes, energy costs etc here are too high to make manufacturing
cost competitive unless you are talking about very high tech, high
precision stuff. However that does not stop us selling the design
expertise, or systems integration etc.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Fri, 3 May 2019 04:42:04 +1000, 2987pl, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:



Quite. At one time the UK would have been in the forefront of new
technology like that. But not since manufacture or anything not software
based became a dirty word.

That¢s a lie with heavy aircraft engines, wings and portable
nuke reactors and with TV docos and drama too.

You can shove all your aircraft engines, wings, nuke reactors and TV docos
and drama up yours, senile Ozzietard!

--
Senile Rot about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID:

On Fri, 3 May 2019 04:46:31 +1000, 2987plcantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Now perhaps harry will stop with his ******** that "no one knows what
to do with the waste".

Fat chance, and they don¢t do that with the high level waste anyway.

ROTFLOL In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal senile sow from Oz?

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On 02/05/2019 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 02/05/2019 06:41, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:27:01 UTC+1, tony sayerÂ* wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear waste.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of
FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

They are, and have been doing so for quite some time:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...fied-waste-110

1187.html

"The new melter was installed by liquid waste contractor Savannah
River Remediation (SRR). It is the third melter in the 20-year history
of the facility, and replaced Melter 2 which reached the end of its
operational life in 2017 after 14 years of operation. In that time,
Melter 2 poured 10. 8 million pounds (4900 tonnes) of glass into 2819
canisters"

Now perhaps harry will stop with his ******** that "no one knows what
to do with the waste".

I doubt it, harry is resistant to pretty much any information that does
not support his biases and preconceptions.

How many times have you seen him post a link to a site that he claims
supports his argument, and it turns out he either never read it, or just
failed to comprehend what it says, since it actually does the complete
opposite?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 01/05/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 21:19:55 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?

Andy

The same reason.
Because the wind moves about ****-fer brains.
I obviously am dense, if rather better mannered than you.

If the wind blows all the time why don't we use sailing ships?

(BTW I race small boats. Every decent Wednesday in the summer. Yesterday
I went to the pub instead)

Andy

On 01/05/2019 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel. The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are
improving as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?

Don't some still use wind in addition to their engines? To save on fuel
costs?


A very few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind-assisted_propulsion

says it can save as much as 20% of the fuel costs.

Andy

On Thursday, 2 May 2019 20:09:40 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2019 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 02/05/2019 06:41, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:27:01 UTC+1, tony sayerÂ* wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear waste.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of
FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

They are, and have been doing so for quite some time:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...fied-waste-110

1187.html

"The new melter was installed by liquid waste contractor Savannah
River Remediation (SRR). It is the third melter in the 20-year history
of the facility, and replaced Melter 2 which reached the end of its
operational life in 2017 after 14 years of operation. In that time,
Melter 2 poured 10. 8 million pounds (4900 tonnes) of glass into 2819
canisters"

Now perhaps harry will stop with his ******** that "no one knows what
to do with the waste".

I doubt it, harry is resistant to pretty much any information that does
not support his biases and preconceptions.

How many times have you seen him post a link to a site that he claims
supports his argument, and it turns out he either never read it, or just
failed to comprehend what it says, since it actually does the complete
opposite?


Tell me what is happening to nuclear waste in the UK.
Clue:-
https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/wp-co...ntory-2016.pdf

No permanent solution here! Just aspirations.

On Thursday, 2 May 2019 21:49:55 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 01/05/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 21:19:55 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?

Andy

The same reason.
Because the wind moves about ****-fer brains.
I obviously am dense, if rather better mannered than you.

If the wind blows all the time why don't we use sailing ships?

(BTW I race small boats. Every decent Wednesday in the summer. Yesterday
I went to the pub instead)

Andy

Yes, you ARE dense. And your comprehension is poor. There was probably excellent sailing off the coast of Norway at that time. Or even Ireland

Surprised your knowledge of how our weather is driven is so limited.

On Friday, 3 May 2019 07:45:12 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 2 May 2019 20:09:40 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2019 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 02/05/2019 06:41, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:27:01 UTC+1, tony sayerÂ* wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear waste.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of
FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

They are, and have been doing so for quite some time:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...fied-waste-110

1187.html

"The new melter was installed by liquid waste contractor Savannah
River Remediation (SRR). It is the third melter in the 20-year history
of the facility, and replaced Melter 2 which reached the end of its
operational life in 2017 after 14 years of operation. In that time,
Melter 2 poured 10. 8 million pounds (4900 tonnes) of glass into 2819
canisters"

Now perhaps harry will stop with his ******** that "no one knows what
to do with the waste".

I doubt it, harry is resistant to pretty much any information that does
not support his biases and preconceptions.

How many times have you seen him post a link to a site that he claims
supports his argument, and it turns out he either never read it, or just
failed to comprehend what it says, since it actually does the complete
opposite?


Tell me what is happening to nuclear waste in the UK.
Clue:-
https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/wp-co...ntory-2016.pdf

No permanent solution here! Just aspirations.

I'll help you out.
Quote
High Level Waste (HLW)
Waste in which the temperature may
rise significantly as a result of their
radioactivity, so this factor has to be
taken into account in the design of
storage or disposal facilities.
Spent fuel is reprocessed at Sellafield to recover
uranium and plutonium. HLW is the residue
produced during spent fuel reprocessing. The
nature of reprocessing means that HLW is
produced as an acidic liquid, which is highly
radioactive and generates significant heat.
This liquid is converted to a stable solid form for
storage. The waste is heated to dryness
leaving a fine powder, which is mixed with
crushed glass in a furnace to produce a molten
product incorporating the waste. The product is
then poured into stainless steel canisters, where
it cools and solidifies. This process is known as
vitrification and it reduces the HLW volume by
about one third.
To date nearly 870 cubic metres of vitrified HLW
have been produced and 5,780 canisters have
been filled. These are held in a modern,
engineered air-cooled store known as the
Vitrified Product Store. This has thick concrete
walls to shield operators from the high radiation.
There is no existing disposal route for HLW.
However, current practice is for the canisters to
be stored for at least 50 years before disposal.
This allows the amount of heat produced by the
waste to fall, which makes it easier to transport
and dispose.
unquote

Just stored away. No permanent disposal.

On 03/05/2019 08:01, harry wrote:
On Friday, 3 May 2019 07:45:12 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 2 May 2019 20:09:40 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2019 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 02/05/2019 06:41, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:27:01 UTC+1, tony sayerÂ* wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear waste.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of
FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

They are, and have been doing so for quite some time:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...fied-waste-110

1187.html

"The new melter was installed by liquid waste contractor Savannah
River Remediation (SRR). It is the third melter in the 20-year history
of the facility, and replaced Melter 2 which reached the end of its
operational life in 2017 after 14 years of operation. In that time,
Melter 2 poured 10. 8 million pounds (4900 tonnes) of glass into 2819
canisters"

Now perhaps harry will stop with his ******** that "no one knows what
to do with the waste".

I doubt it, harry is resistant to pretty much any information that does
not support his biases and preconceptions.

How many times have you seen him post a link to a site that he claims
supports his argument, and it turns out he either never read it, or just
failed to comprehend what it says, since it actually does the complete
opposite?


Tell me what is happening to nuclear waste in the UK.
Clue:-
https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/wp-co...ntory-2016.pdf

No permanent solution here! Just aspirations.

I'll help you out.
Quote
High Level Waste (HLW)
Waste in which the temperature may
rise significantly as a result of their
radioactivity, so this factor has to be
taken into account in the design of
storage or disposal facilities.
Spent fuel is reprocessed at Sellafield to recover
uranium and plutonium. HLW is the residue
produced during spent fuel reprocessing. The
nature of reprocessing means that HLW is
produced as an acidic liquid, which is highly
radioactive and generates significant heat.
This liquid is converted to a stable solid form for
storage. The waste is heated to dryness
leaving a fine powder, which is mixed with
crushed glass in a furnace to produce a molten
product incorporating the waste. The product is
then poured into stainless steel canisters, where
it cools and solidifies. This process is known as
vitrification and it reduces the HLW volume by
about one third.
To date nearly 870 cubic metres of vitrified HLW
have been produced and 5,780 canisters have
been filled. These are held in a modern,
engineered air-cooled store known as the
Vitrified Product Store. This has thick concrete
walls to shield operators from the high radiation.
There is no existing disposal route for HLW.
However, current practice is for the canisters to
be stored for at least 50 years before disposal.
This allows the amount of heat produced by the
waste to fall, which makes it easier to transport
and dispose.
unquote

Just stored away. No permanent disposal.

As it is to be left for the heat produced to fall, it cannot be put into
a permanent repository for 50 years, so there isn't exactly a rush to
get one built!

It is in a purpose built store now, just not a "permanent one" -
although the thick, concrete structure is not what most people would
call "temporary".

SteveW


SteveW

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 2 May 2019 20:09:40 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2019 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 02/05/2019 06:41, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:27:01 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus

Nobody has a viable/economic solution to dispose of the nuclear
waste.

Glassify it and bury it deep its not impossible just theres a lot of
FUD
on the subject..

So why is nobody doing it?

They are, and have been doing so for quite some time:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...fied-waste-110

1187.html

"The new melter was installed by liquid waste contractor Savannah
River Remediation (SRR). It is the third melter in the 20-year history
of the facility, and replaced Melter 2 which reached the end of its
operational life in 2017 after 14 years of operation. In that time,
Melter 2 poured 10. 8 million pounds (4900 tonnes) of glass into 2819
canisters"

Now perhaps harry will stop with his ******** that "no one knows what
to do with the waste".

I doubt it, harry is resistant to pretty much any information that does
not support his biases and preconceptions.

How many times have you seen him post a link to a site that he claims
supports his argument, and it turns out he either never read it, or just
failed to comprehend what it says, since it actually does the complete
opposite?

Tell me what is happening to nuclear waste in the UK.

The UK is completely irrelevant, even with UK power generation nukes.

Clue:-
https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/wp-co...ntory-2016.pdf

That almost entirely what is the result of the production of nuclear
weapons, stupid.

No permanent solution here! Just aspirations.

Dont need a permanent solution when it can be reprocessed later, stupid.

On 03/05/2019 08:01, harry wrote:

To date nearly 870 cubic metres of vitrified HLW

A whole 870m^3 (Just under 13 standard shipping containers worth)...
after 70+ years of nuclear activity huh?

have been produced and 5,780 canisters have
been filled. These are held in a modern,
engineered air-cooled store known as the
Vitrified Product Store. This has thick concrete

Oh look, they are doing that thing a couple of posts ago some numpty
queried "So why is nobody doing it?"

walls to shield operators from the high radiation.
There is no existing disposal route for HLW.
However, current practice is for the canisters to
be stored for at least 50 years before disposal.
This allows the amount of heat produced by the
waste to fall, which makes it easier to transport
and dispose.
unquote

Just stored away. No permanent disposal.

You do realise that "disposal" means stored away don't you?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Fri, 3 May 2019 18:45:19 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the senile Ozzie troll's latest troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Fri, 03 May 2019 08:35:07 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

As it is to be left for the heat produced to fall, it cannot be put into
a permanent repository for 50 years, so there isn't exactly a rush to
get one built!

Is there no way that heat could be safely used to provide something like
district heating or to power a Stirling engined electricity generator?

--
TOJ.

On Friday, 3 May 2019 11:20:21 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2019 08:01, harry wrote:

To date nearly 870 cubic metres of vitrified HLW

A whole 870m^3 (Just under 13 standard shipping containers worth)...
after 70+ years of nuclear activity huh?

have been produced and 5,780 canisters have
been filled. These are held in a modern,
engineered air-cooled store known as the
Vitrified Product Store. This has thick concrete

Oh look, they are doing that thing a couple of posts ago some numpty
queried "So why is nobody doing it?"

walls to shield operators from the high radiation.
There is no existing disposal route for HLW.
However, current practice is for the canisters to
be stored for at least 50 years before disposal.
This allows the amount of heat produced by the
waste to fall, which makes it easier to transport
and dispose.
unquote

Just stored away. No permanent disposal.

You do realise that "disposal" means stored away don't you?

There also are thousands of tons of intermediate waste.

On 03/05/2019 16:25, harry wrote:
On Friday, 3 May 2019 11:20:21 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2019 08:01, harry wrote:

To date nearly 870 cubic metres of vitrified HLW

A whole 870m^3 (Just under 13 standard shipping containers worth)...
after 70+ years of nuclear activity huh?

have been produced and 5,780 canisters have
been filled. These are held in a modern,
engineered air-cooled store known as the
Vitrified Product Store. This has thick concrete

Oh look, they are doing that thing a couple of posts ago some numpty
queried "So why is nobody doing it?"

walls to shield operators from the high radiation.
There is no existing disposal route for HLW.
However, current practice is for the canisters to
be stored for at least 50 years before disposal.
This allows the amount of heat produced by the
waste to fall, which makes it easier to transport
and dispose.
unquote

Just stored away. No permanent disposal.

You do realise that "disposal" means stored away don't you?

There also are thousands of tons of intermediate waste.

There are millions of tons of fly ash from coal fired power stations
just laying about in heaps, and those are typically more radioactive
than 90% of actual "nuclear waste". What are you going to do with those?

What about all the Thorium dug up along with the rare earth elements
mined to make solar panels and wind turbines?

Someday someone will have to deal with all the cadmium telluride and
other highly toxic materials in those solar panels of yours harry.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Friday, 3 May 2019 19:01:41 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2019 16:25, harry wrote:
On Friday, 3 May 2019 11:20:21 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2019 08:01, harry wrote:

To date nearly 870 cubic metres of vitrified HLW

A whole 870m^3 (Just under 13 standard shipping containers worth)...
after 70+ years of nuclear activity huh?

have been produced and 5,780 canisters have
been filled. These are held in a modern,
engineered air-cooled store known as the
Vitrified Product Store. This has thick concrete

Oh look, they are doing that thing a couple of posts ago some numpty
queried "So why is nobody doing it?"

walls to shield operators from the high radiation.
There is no existing disposal route for HLW.
However, current practice is for the canisters to
be stored for at least 50 years before disposal.
This allows the amount of heat produced by the
waste to fall, which makes it easier to transport
and dispose.
unquote

Just stored away. No permanent disposal.

You do realise that "disposal" means stored away don't you?

There also are thousands of tons of intermediate waste.

There are millions of tons of fly ash from coal fired power stations
just laying about in heaps, and those are typically more radioactive
than 90% of actual "nuclear waste". What are you going to do with those?

What about all the Thorium dug up along with the rare earth elements
mined to make solar panels and wind turbines?

Someday someone will have to deal with all the cadmium telluride and
other highly toxic materials in those solar panels of yours harry.


Talking ****e as usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmiu...ogy_assessment
Plus it can be recycled.

Virtually everything we dig up is radioactive/toxic.
The deeper we go, the more radioactive.
Especially fossil fuels.
Solar panels don't require primary/fossil fuel.
Which is a big advance on what we do now.

https://solar.gwu.edu/do-solar-panel...oxic-chemicals

On 03/05/2019 07:50, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 2 May 2019 21:49:55 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 01/05/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 21:19:55 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2019 19:12, harry wrote:
Drivel.
The wind blows all the time. It just moves about. Maters are improving as the East West grid is built up.

Tell me Harry, why don't we use sailing ships any more?

Andy

The same reason.
Because the wind moves about ****-fer brains.
I obviously am dense, if rather better mannered than you.

If the wind blows all the time why don't we use sailing ships?

(BTW I race small boats. Every decent Wednesday in the summer. Yesterday
I went to the pub instead)

Andy

Yes, you ARE dense. And your comprehension is poor. There was probably excellent sailing off the coast of Norway at that time. Or even Ireland

Surprised your knowledge of how our weather is driven is so limited.

Let's suppose there was decent wind off the coast of Norway at the time.

How would that help a ship in the Channel?

Or a windfarm there for that matter...

And IAC someone posted upthread a map of light winds over the whole of
Western Europe.

As you don't seem to get the hint I'll tell you - the reason why they
"shed their sails like autumn leaves at the turning of the wheel" is
that a steam ship can run to a schedule, which no sailing ship can manage.

Andy