On 11/08/2019 13:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/2019 13:09, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power
station to
serve the entire country

I am perpetually amazed at the extraordinary statements made by
lefty****s, ecotards and remoaners. I mean they are nonsense even to
someone with subnormal learning skills.

And I'm even more amazed by how the likes of you don't understand a
common
enough saying.

But perhaps given the standard of your posts, you don't understand the
difference between an egg and eggs.

You miss the point.Â* It is the increased vulnerability of the one basket
we are querying.

And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

I was aware of the numbers but missed out the 'millions'! Expensive to
extract but only 10 times the current market rates for Uranium.

There is also the consideration that more Uranium is leached out of
rocks such it would take longer than 5,000 years to deplete.

Ther is 10 years worth of plutonium sitting at Sellafield


Lots of eggs and numerous baskets come to mind.

In article , Andrew Andrew97d-
scribeth thus
On 10/08/2019 18:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
I told them they should mass produce the ones in submarines and tow them to
where they are needed.
Brian


Rolls Royce aero-engines (who design and build the UK nuclear sub
power plants) are already suggesting this.


So they are...


https://www.rolls-royce.com/products...small-modular-
reactors.aspx#/
--
Tony Sayer


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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 11/08/2019 12:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
The 'best of all worlds' power is about 30% hydro 70% nuclear. 0%
renewable.


FFS. Hydro isn't a renewable now in Turnip's world. Means we are going to
run out of water at some point. Then, power will be the least of your
worries.


There are no renewable energy sources that we know of.

Even the Sun is using up fusible elements, its just got a lot of them to
use up.
Once they all get to iron fusion will stop as the Sun doesn't get hot
enough to fuse them and can't get any energy out.

We won't be around when it happens.

The elements heavier than iron are produced by fusion in novae and
supernovae so aren't renewable either.

On 11/08/2019 12:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...


All nuclear power does not stop because th wind drops, or the sun goes
down.

Except in France where it had to be stopped on a hot day.

Thats because they use rivers for cooling and they don't want to cook
the environment. They could have been left running.

Maybe they need big cooling towers?


Thanks for confirming your tunnel vision.


Yes a tunnel to get sea water in to cool would work too.

On 11/08/2019 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power station to
serve the entire country

I am perpetually amazed at the extraordinary statements made by
lefty****s, ecotards and remoaners. I mean they are nonsense even to
someone with subnormal learning skills.

And I'm even more amazed by how the likes of you don't understand a common
enough saying.

But perhaps given the standard of your posts, you don't understand the
difference between an egg and eggs.


He's a brexiteer, understanding things doesn't suit his arguments.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its is clear that the plow**** actually is that stupid. That
is also the reason that he's into unions and Labour.

or think other people are.

He's not smart enough for that.

Dense is, but the plow**** isnt.

Replying to yourself again ???

I am flattered that you think 'jleikppkywk' is in fact me, but sadly I
have to say that it is not.

You are flattered to be confused with Wodney? That says a great deal.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

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

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power station to
serve the entire country

I am perpetually amazed at the extraordinary statements made by
lefty****s, ecotards and remoaners. I mean they are nonsense even to
someone with subnormal learning skills.

And I'm even more amazed by how the likes of you don't understand a common
enough saying.

But perhaps given the standard of your posts, you don't understand the
difference between an egg and eggs.

That also depends on whether you think your basket should include all
the nukes over the UK.

You must have one big basket in mind.

Another who doesn't understand the meaning of a pretty simple saying.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

It also contains hydrogen. In even more vast quantities. Enough for all
the energy ever needed. If it could be extracted economically.

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

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

On 11/08/2019 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

It also contains hydrogen. In even more vast quantities. Enough for all
the energy ever needed. If it could be extracted economically.

One very big difference, even using conventional means it would still be
viable to extract uranium from the sea and burn in reactors, from a cost
as well as an energy perspective.

The same could not be said for extracting hydrogen from an energy
perspective alone.

Your judgement is flawed once again.

On 11/08/2019 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

It also contains hydrogen. In even more vast quantities. Enough for all
the energy ever needed. If it could be extracted economically.


Only if you can get fusion to work.
It takes energy to get hydrogen out of water molecules and you at best
get the same back when you convert it back to water so it doesn't
actually contain energy you can use easily.
Its another of those green dreams that environmentalists come out with
because they don't understand any science.

On 11/08/2019 17:00, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 11/08/2019 12:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
The 'best of all worlds' power is about 30% hydro 70% nuclear. 0%
renewable.

FFS. Hydro isn't a renewable now in Turnip's world. Means we are
going to
run out of water at some point. Then, power will be the least of your
worries.

There are no renewable energy sources that we know of.

Even the Sun is using up fusible elements, its just got a lot of them
to use up.
Once they all get to iron fusion will stop as the Sun doesn't get hot
enough to fuse them and can't get any energy out.

Sun won't get that far. Carbon will be its limit.


I think oxygen is the limit for a star of the suns mass.

The limit is iron for all of them as you don't get energy out after iron.

Anything heavier is novae and up.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...


All nuclear power does not stop because th wind drops, or the sun goes
down.

Except in France where it had to be stopped on a hot day.

That’s because theirs are mostly river/lake cooled.
They don’t have to be with a small island.

On 11/08/2019 13:17, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 13:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/2019 13:09, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power
station to
serve the entire country

I am perpetually amazed at the extraordinary statements made by
lefty****s, ecotards and remoaners. I mean they are nonsense even to
someone with subnormal learning skills.

And I'm even more amazed by how the likes of you don't understand a
common
enough saying.

But perhaps given the standard of your posts, you don't understand the
difference between an egg and eggs.

You miss the point.Â* It is the increased vulnerability of the one
basket
we are querying.

And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel
up to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of
Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

I was aware of the numbers but missed out the 'millions'! Expensive to
extract but only 10 times the current market rates for Uranium.

There is also the consideration that more Uranium is leached out of
rocks such it would take longer than 5,000 years to deplete.

Mmm. yes and no. When we transition to a uranium economy most of that
wont get to the sea - we are likely to mine it.

I thibk the contributrion of *raw* uranium costs to electricity so
generated is about 0.1p per unit.

Since reneable electricity is not cost effective at 10p a unit, theres
plenty of room for economically viable uranium at 50 times the cost it
is now.

The ecomonics of breeders take off at a cost about 3-4 times what it is now.

Nuclear power is actually suffering from the fuel being too cheap. And
te reactors too expensive.

I note that both EPRS built in and for China are now operational whilst
their European ones - started earlier - are still mired in paperwork



--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 11/08/2019 16:46, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

It also contains hydrogen. In even more vast quantities. Enough for all
the energy ever needed. If it could be extracted economically.

One very big difference, even using conventional means it would still be
viable to extract uranium from the sea and burn in reactors, from a cost
as well as an energy perspective.

The same could not be said for extracting hydrogen from an energy
perspective alone.

Exactly. Current spot rate of yellowcake is around $30 per lb ($66/kg) IIRC.

Japanese study estimated $200/kg for seawater extraction. Take you up to
about 0.3p per unit of elecrticity in a conventional reactor. Less in a
breeder.

Only problem is time and cost of meeting regulations to build a sodding
reactor.

SMRs are not better reactors, just a way around the regulatory red tape




Your judgement is flawed once again.

Less flawed, more nonexistent



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

On 11/08/2019 17:00, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 11/08/2019 12:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
The 'best of all worlds' power is about 30% hydro 70% nuclear. 0%
renewable.

FFS. Hydro isn't a renewable now in Turnip's world. Means we are
going to
run out of water at some point. Then, power will be the least of your
worries.

There are no renewable energy sources that we know of.

Even the Sun is using up fusible elements, its just got a lot of them
to use up.
Once they all get to iron fusion will stop as the Sun doesn't get hot
enough to fuse them and can't get any energy out.

Sun won't get that far. Carbon will be its limit.

Will it supernova?



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

Joseph Goebbels

On 11/08/2019 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power station to
serve the entire country

Neither did I. Or do you think one wind farm could too? Or one gas fired
station?

But wind can be virtually zero across the whole country at the same time
or shut down due to high winds across large areas.

SteveW

On 11/08/2019 21:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/08/2019 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating
our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power
station to
serve the entire country

Neither did I. Or do you think one wind farm could too? Or one gas fired
station?

But wind can be virtually zero across the whole country at the same time
or shut down due to high winds across large areas.

SteveW
#
I am beginning to wonder if Dave is actually mentally ill.

The point of diversity is no single point of failure. Wind has an
inherent single point of failure and so has solar so you need other stuff.

Nuclear power has no inherent single point of failure, so you dont need
other stuff.


The other reason to have a mix (that excludes renewables) is so that
depending on what rôle it takes in power generation - base load, loåd
following, or STOR - different technologfies represent optimal cost benefit.

Coal, waste burn and nuclear for baseload, CCGT for load following (and
hydro if you have any) and OCGT or diesel for STOR.

Wind and solar are not cost competitive for anything other than off grid
low reliability battery charging


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 05:29:59 +1000, jleikppkywk, better known as
cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


All nuclear power does not stop because th wind drops, or the sun goes
down.

Except in France where it had to be stopped on a hot day.

That¢s because theirs are mostly river/lake cooled.
They don¢t have to be with a small island.

Are you talking about Britain, senile Ozzietard? NONE of yours!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sunday, 11 August 2019 12:25:57 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/2019 10:53, Andrew wrote:
On 10/08/2019 20:11, jleikppkywk wrote:

Replying to yourself again ???

I am flattered that you think 'jleikppkywk' is in fact me, but sadly I
have to say that it is not.

Jellyprck is of course Rod

On 11/08/2019 21:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/08/2019 17:00, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 11/08/2019 12:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
The 'best of all worlds' power is about 30% hydro 70% nuclear. 0%
renewable.

FFS. Hydro isn't a renewable now in Turnip's world. Means we are
going to
run out of water at some point. Then, power will be the least of your
worries.

There are no renewable energy sources that we know of.

Even the Sun is using up fusible elements, its just got a lot of
them to use up.
Once they all get to iron fusion will stop as the Sun doesn't get
hot enough to fuse them and can't get any energy out.

Sun won't get that far. Carbon will be its limit.

Will it supernova?

No. Nothing like big enough. A (much, 30 or so solar masses) larger
star would go through the extra fusion phases Dennis mentioned, until
there was a substantial iron core to it. Up to then, all fusion phases
are exothermic. Fusing iron and above is endothermic. At this point the
star has onion-like layers, fusing hydrogen on the outermost layer, and
silicon on the layer just above the iron core.

The core (if larger than about 1.4 solar masses IIRC) may collapse to a
neutron star, leaving a void into which the rest of the star collapses.
It's during the collapse and subsequent events that heavier than iron
elements are produced (Winky has much more detail). And the *******
then, for a while, outshines the other 500 billion or so other stars
put together.

You don't want to be less than 500 light years away from one of these
when it goes off.

Especially if the AA dont get there in time


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

On 10/08/2019 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

Sorry, must have missed that. I always thought the plan was multiple
generating plant, not just one big power station.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

It also contains hydrogen. In even more vast quantities. Enough for all
the energy ever needed. If it could be extracted economically.

One very big difference, even using conventional means it would still be
viable to extract uranium from the sea and burn in reactors, from a cost
as well as an energy perspective.

Really? Care to provide figures?

The same could not be said for extracting hydrogen from an energy
perspective alone.

Ah - *just* energy again. The blinkered view.

Your judgement is flawed once again.

And you can't see further than the end of your nose.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/08/2019 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power station to
serve the entire country

Neither did I. Or do you think one wind farm could too? Or one gas fired
station?

But wind can be virtually zero across the whole country at the same time
or shut down due to high winds across large areas.

You've rather missed the point that this wasn't the case with this power
cut.

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I am beginning to wonder if Dave is actually mentally ill.

The point of diversity is no single point of failure. Wind has an
inherent single point of failure and so has solar so you need other
stuff.

Nuclear power has no inherent single point of failure, so you don‘t need
other stuff.

Keep banging the drum. There is a simple answer to everything in your
little world. And you are never wrong.

Don't you find it odd that no country in the world seems to agree with you?

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 10/08/2019 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

Sorry, must have missed that. I always thought the plan was multiple
generating plant, not just one big power station.

Eggs, John. Not egg.

--
*Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

It also contains hydrogen. In even more vast quantities. Enough for all
the energy ever needed. If it could be extracted economically.

One very big difference, even using conventional means it would still be
viable to extract uranium from the sea and burn in reactors, from a cost
as well as an energy perspective.

Really? Care to provide figures?

The same could not be said for extracting hydrogen from an energy
perspective alone.

Ah - *just* energy again. The blinkered view.

The point that there would be a net loss of energy involved in
extracting and then using hydrogen is not blinkered. Indeed, ignoring
this would be barking mad.




Your judgement is flawed once again.

And you can't see further than the end of your nose.


--

Roger Hayter

On 12/08/2019 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 10/08/2019 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

Sorry, must have missed that. I always thought the plan was multiple
generating plant, not just one big power station.

Eggs, John. Not egg.


Basket, not eggs.




--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 12/08/2019 11:43, Robin wrote:
On 12/08/2019 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* John Rumm wrote:
On 10/08/2019 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating
our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

Sorry, must have missed that. I always thought the plan was multiple
generating plant, not just one big power station.

Eggs, John. Not egg.


Basket, not eggs.


baskets, not basket




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

In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 12/08/2019 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 10/08/2019 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

Sorry, must have missed that. I always thought the plan was multiple
generating plant, not just one big power station.

Eggs, John. Not egg.


Basket, not eggs.

OK then. How would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

Multiple grids from one generator? ;-)

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

how would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

e.g Hinkley C would count as two 1630MW eggs in one basket.

On 12/08/2019 14:41, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

how would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

e.g Hinkley C would count as two 1630MW eggs in one basket.

Quite.

There is a possible argument that replicating the /same/ nuclear power
station would be "one basket" because of the risk of a fatal design flaw
emerging. C.f. lack of genetic diversity in e.g. bananas. At present
though...chance would be a fine thing?



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Sunday, 11 August 2019 12:39:18 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power station to
serve the entire country

I am perpetually amazed at the extraordinary statements made by
lefty****s, ecotards and remoaners. I mean they are nonsense even to
someone with subnormal learning skills.

And I'm even more amazed by how the likes of you don't understand a common
enough saying.

But perhaps given the standard of your posts, you don't understand the
difference between an egg and eggs.

That also depends on whether you think your basket should include all
the nukes over the UK.

You must have one big basket in mind.

What's needed in this is a basket case ;-)
to hold all the baskets.

On 12/08/2019 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 10/08/2019 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

Sorry, must have missed that. I always thought the plan was multiple
generating plant, not just one big power station.

Eggs, John. Not egg.

I thought we were discussing baskets...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 12/08/2019 14:41, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

how would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

e.g Hinkley C would count as two 1630MW eggs in one basket.
Not really.


It woudl be two compeletely separaqte power stations sharing only a
perimeter fence


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 12/08/2019 15:14, Robin wrote:
On 12/08/2019 14:41, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

how would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

e.g Hinkley C would count as two 1630MW eggs in one basket.

Quite.

There is a possible argument that replicating the /same/ nuclear power
station would be "one basket" because of the risk of a fatal design flaw
emerging.Â* C.f. lack of genetic diversity in e.g. bananas.Â* At present
though...chance would be a fine thing?



What is te risk that a fatal design flaw would result in both sides
being shut down within minutes?
None


--
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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What is te risk that a fatal design flaw would result in both sides
being shut down within minutes?
None

Do power stations that are split into "units" have totally separate
interconnects/switchyards/whatever?

On 12/08/2019 19:36, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What is te risk that a fatal design flaw would result in both sides
being shut down within minutes?
None

Do power stations that are split into "units" have totally separate
interconnects/switchyards/whatever?

depends what you mean by 'interconnects'

Typically ther are at least two trunk EHT routes leading from a power
station and of course they (the reator/turbines assys) are independently
switched


--
€œwhen things get difficult you just have to lie€�

€• Jean Claud Jüncker

On 12/08/2019 11:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/08/2019 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power station to
serve the entire country

Neither did I. Or do you think one wind farm could too? Or one gas fired
station?

But wind can be virtually zero across the whole country at the same time
or shut down due to high winds across large areas.

You've rather missed the point that this wasn't the case with this power
cut.

Not at all. I was not saying what failed this time, I was simply
pointing out one simple, single point of failure that can apply to *all*
wind power at the same time. Similarly, night is a single point for
solar power.

No other forms of energy have such a single point vulnerability.

You could argue that coal, gas or diesel are subject to disruption to
supplies from abroad, but that would only reduce availability, not
remove it completely, we have a (small) reserve and supplies can be
routed from elsewhere.

SteveW

On 12/08/2019 19:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/2019 15:14, Robin wrote:
On 12/08/2019 14:41, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

how would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

e.g Hinkley C would count as two 1630MW eggs in one basket.

Quite.

There is a possible argument that replicating the /same/ nuclear power
station would be "one basket" because of the risk of a fatal design
flaw emerging.Â* C.f. lack of genetic diversity in e.g. bananas.Â* At
present though...chance would be a fine thing?



What is te risk that a fatal design flaw would result in both sides
being shut down within minutes?
None

I had in mind a flaw that required all Model X reactors to be shut down
without delay for inspection (c.f. Boeing's current little
difficulties). Probability very small indeed but with a massive impact
if X is all we've got.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 10/08/2019 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating
our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

Sorry, must have missed that. I always thought the plan was multiple
generating plant, not just one big power station.

Eggs, John. Not egg.

There is no ONE BASKET with nukes.