On 28/02/2021 18:13, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:42:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 28/02/2021 17:18, bert wrote:
In article , T i m
writes
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:19:37 +0000, bert wrote:
snip for the lazy troll and nymshifter

Just as a matter of interest and digressing a little does anyone know
how they propose to dispose of all these solar panels from warms and
roof tops at end of life in about 25 years?

Yes, by recycling, easy given they are mostly glass and metal.

And which metals would they be?
And why
25 years?
Approximate life cycle.
Just because they might not be giving 100% of their initial
capacity there would be no reason to dispose of them if they were
still outputting something?

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/20...s-of-solar-pan
el-recycling

I also wonder how many CFL
bulbs are now ending up in land fill.

Oh dear, the poor burke / Spuke troll doesn't even know what CFL
stands for ...

'Compact fluorescent lamp / bulb' ... of did you mean CFBs but I guess
more than there might be in landfill if 'people' like you don't
dispose of them properly (our local recycling centre has a place for
them and plain tubes).


Wiki CFL
A compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), also called compact fluorescent light

Not as smart as you think.
And why focus on CFL's and not smoke detectors and not anything
powered by nicad or NiMh cells?

10 year life expectancy Much less of a problem, but a problem just the
same. How many people will simply chuck them in the waste bun esp those
without a car to go to the recycling centre.


And mercury has an infinite half life, so arguably far worse than any
radioisotope as, unlike low level radiation, mercury does stay in the
body and build up and cause madness....hello T i m? Been eating the
CFLs again?


perhaps he's a hatter! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_as_a_hatter

Read 'Hatters castle' for a truly dark account of mercury poison,
religious mania and Scottishness.

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 26/02/2021 00:29, T i m wrote:
How soon after it 'destroyed Manchester' could they rebuild Manchester
again?

a) Straight away.
b) Many years later.

c) Neither of the above. There would be an awful lot of nasty stuff
floating around in the water from all the destroyed industry, and at the
least they'll have to deal with the mud. And assuming they rebuild the
dam demand for property might be a bit low.

What is it with you people who feel there is a need to try to conflate
a man made disaster that is just what it is then goes away ... with a
man made disaster that means you can't go near the place for many
years after? (And that doesn't only have to be nuclear but that's one
of the worst to mange / clear up). 1500+ miles is a long way to walk
with a dustpan and brush.

Ok, for the hard of thinking, working on the 'what the can go wrong,
will go wrong' basis,*anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way
that it can't be inhabited for a very long time, in my book, isn't 'a
good thing'?

Now, does that mean we have the choice to do without all bad /
potentially bad things? No, of course not, but 'most people' would
only consider keeping them on whilst there was no alternative.

I can promise you, as soon as there is a viable 'alternative' form of
energy (to nuclear), we will stop using nuclear, no matter how close
(but not at) 100% 'safe' they promise it to be.

We have seen such promises before ...

My point is not that nuclear is 100% safe. It's just that it doesn't
destroy the climate, stop at night or when the weather is wrong, nor
have the risks that the Chinese demonstrated so nicely.

IMHO It's the least bad alternative. Fusion would be better, especially
H-H fusion, not least because the waste is short life and there's no
fuel problem. But I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

Show me a viable safe alternative and I'll be campaigning outside Sizewell.

Andy

T i m wrote

That's why daughter (her group and many others)
fast for 24 hours on the 2nd of every month in support
for all the animals that are starved before slaughter ...

They should be doing that for every day of the month.

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 21:20:22 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 26/02/2021 00:29, T i m wrote:
How soon after it 'destroyed Manchester' could they rebuild Manchester
again?

a) Straight away.
b) Many years later.

c) Neither of the above. There would be an awful lot of nasty stuff
floating around in the water from all the destroyed industry, and at the
least they'll have to deal with the mud. And assuming they rebuild the
dam demand for property might be a bit low.

OOI, how much of what was (conventionally) bombed flat during any war
(where the war has stopped) has not been rebuilt pretty quickly?

How many of the areas flooded during our floods have just been
abandoned for 30+ years?

Is all the rubble, glass and insulation from the twin towers still in
a heap?

My point is whilst I agree there can be some pretty grim stuff kicking
about after any major event / disaster / catastrophe, most of it *can*
be safely cleaned away by folks with buckets and shovels.

What is it with you people who feel there is a need to try to conflate
a man made disaster that is just what it is then goes away ... with a
man made disaster that means you can't go near the place for many
years after? (And that doesn't only have to be nuclear but that's one
of the worst to mange / clear up). 1500+ miles is a long way to walk
with a dustpan and brush.

Ok, for the hard of thinking, working on the 'what the can go wrong,
will go wrong' basis,*anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way
that it can't be inhabited for a very long time, in my book, isn't 'a
good thing'?

Now, does that mean we have the choice to do without all bad /
potentially bad things? No, of course not, but 'most people' would
only consider keeping them on whilst there was no alternative.

I can promise you, as soon as there is a viable 'alternative' form of
energy (to nuclear), we will stop using nuclear, no matter how close
(but not at) 100% 'safe' they promise it to be.

We have seen such promises before ...

My point is not that nuclear is 100% safe.

Quite.

It's just that it doesn't
destroy the climate,

Well, if we ignore the damage done to the environment done when you
make anything, be it a solar panel, wind turbine or nuclear power
station (and in their decommissioning ... but where nuclear may have
'extra issues'), neither do solar, wind, hydro etc?

stop at night or when the weather is wrong,

Different subject.

nor
have the risks that the Chinese demonstrated so nicely.

No, but certainly do have 'risks'.

IMHO It's the least bad alternative.

Ah, that it may well be, again, until it goes wrong and impacts you or
your family. And that 'going wrong' can be in a different country
thousands of miles away.

Fusion would be better, especially
H-H fusion, not least because the waste is short life and there's no
fuel problem.

Agreed.

But I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

No, it does look to be a long way off still, well, how they are
dealing with it so far.

Show me a viable safe alternative and I'll be campaigning outside Sizewell.

Again, just because something seems to be the only solution, doesn't
justify it's existence, *if* the risks / costs are too great.

It's very similar to our keeping of sentient animals to then slaughter
and eat when there are *already* alternatives out there, when the mere
keeping and feeding them is already causing all of us (humans and the
other animals) more issues than the solution it provides.

The 'lesser of two evils' in this case would be *having* to kill and
exploit sentient creatures, not be doing so as the first choice?

Like with consuming animals, consuming fossil fuels have distracted us
from doing what we could / should have been doing otherwise.


Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:18:48 +0000, bert wrote:

snip

Yes, by recycling, easy given they are mostly glass and metal.

And which metals would they be?

Look at the link you stupid lazy troll.

And why
25 years?

Approximate life cycle.

What, till they are completely dead?

Just because they might not be giving 100% of their initial
capacity there would be no reason to dispose of them if they were
still outputting something?

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/20...s-of-solar-pan
el-recycling

I also wonder how many CFL
bulbs are now ending up in land fill.

Oh dear, the poor burke / Spuke troll doesn't even know what CFL
stands for ...

'Compact fluorescent lamp / bulb' ... of did you mean CFBs but I guess
more than there might be in landfill if 'people' like you don't
dispose of them properly (our local recycling centre has a place for
them and plain tubes).


Wiki CFL
A compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), also called compact fluorescent light

What? You really are thick aren't you? Whoosh.

What you called them was a 'Compact fluorescent lamp bulb' because you
didn't realise that 'CFL' already described them as 'lamps' (they
aren't 'bulbs'). You would probably also say '3 am in the morning'.
....'

Not as smart as you think.

Certainly smarter than you on that.

And why focus on CFL's and not smoke detectors and not anything
powered by nicad or NiMh cells?

10 year life expectancy Much less of a problem, but a problem just the
same.

Quite.

How many people will simply chuck them in the waste bun esp those
without a car to go to the recycling centre.

Many (was my prediction), but then your issue is with 'people', not
equipment (as may have been some of the issue with Chernobyl).

Cheers, T i m

On 28/02/2021 17:18, bert wrote:

Wiki CFL
A compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), also called compact fluorescent light

Not as smart as you think.
And why focus on CFL's and not smoke detectors and not anything
powered by nicad or NiMh cells?

10 year life expectancy Much less of a problem, but a problem just the
same. How many people will simply chuck them in the waste bun esp those
without a car to go to the recycling centre.

Not very environmentally friendly to drive to the recycling centre to
dispose of a single CFL; or remote control; or toaster; or any of the
other "small electricals". All right for something big like a TV.

--
Max Demian

On 28/02/2021 21:20, Vir Campestris wrote:
My point is not that nuclear is 100% safe. It's just that it doesn't
destroy the climate, stop at night or when the weather is wrong, nor
have the risks that the Chinese demonstrated so nicely.

Neither do coal or gas.

Of course its possible that one day a protester might fall off the roof
of a nuclear power station and kill themselves, but that is as far as
its likely to go in this country.



IMHO It's the least bad alternative. Fusion would be better, especially
H-H fusion, not least because the waste is short life and there's no
fuel problem. But I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

No fuel problem on fission either, for the next 10,000 years

Show me a viable safe alternative and I'll be campaigning outside Sizewell.

Well exactly.


--
"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 28/02/2021 15:53, T i m wrote:

That's why daughter (her group and many others) fast for 24 hours on
the 2nd of every month

Why don't they do that on the 25th of every month?

Oh! That would kinda spoil Christmas.

--
Spike

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 22:57:22 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

snip

Not very environmentally friendly to drive to the recycling centre to
dispose of a single CFL; or remote control; or toaster; or any of the
other "small electricals".

Quite, and why I'm hoping most people wouldn't and would only *drive*
them there when going past or there with a general load.

All right for something big like a TV.

I generally take stuff to pieces before disposing of it because:

1) I am likely to already have it open for faultfinding and so I might
retain some of the components for my own use / spares.

2) It means I can then better recycle the stuff, plastics in with the
(hard) plastics, metal in the metals etc.

3) I can sell PCB's to a recycler of such (who reclaim the solder and
precious metals etc). The local scrap yard also pays a couple of guide
for motors, as out of a washing machine etc [1].

4) I like to see how stuff was built.

The last thing I took to bits was a 40" plasma monitor and I was
amazed just how packed full of stuff it was (and explained why it was
so heavy)! It added a load of (lowish grade unfortunately) PCB's to
the box for when I go near the recyclers next and I also got some nice
ally sheet, some insulator material sheet and a small box of screws.
;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] Our old conventionally vented tumble dryer went wrong (again, but
it's very old) a good few months and we just haven't got round to
pulling it out and fixing it. All the small stuff can be dried indoors
in a room with a de-humidifier and daughter has been doing our bed
linen.

The other day I rigged up some dryer rails in the de-humidifier room
that will easily take the bed linen so we really don't need the TD
now.

I'm torn if to just use the fact that the TD is 'broken' to strip and
recycle it and use the space for a small freezer so I can buy a bit
more bulk and cook and freeze more stuff?

On 01/03/2021 11:46, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 22:57:22 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

snip

Not very environmentally friendly to drive to the recycling centre to
dispose of a single CFL; or remote control; or toaster; or any of the
other "small electricals".

Quite, and why I'm hoping most people wouldn't and would only *drive*
them there when going past or there with a general load.

You might rarely/never drive past there. When you did, you probably
wouldn't remember the item(s) unless you are organised enough to compile
a list, and no-one has moved them from where they are in your house.

(I'm thinking of the "small electricals" bins that have a hopper big
enough for a VCR, but are not in every supermarket car park.)

--
Max Demian