On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>
> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>
> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
> other generations system are not required to have.

Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <sv7jc5$60m$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:32:53 on Thu, 24 Feb
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:

>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?

>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems
>>which other generations system are not required to have.
>
>Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…

Remind me - which of those did a plane crash into?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <fr971h5jo38v4p1am003lbb1o1fn9cm4of@4ax.com>, at 14:54:44 on
> Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:49:59 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <sv00fa$9ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:27:22 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <suvp1a$j88$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:20:27 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>
>>>>>> Our other big problem with the Freelander was the poor ground
>>>>>> clearance.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was a criticism of the Freelander 1 (fixed in the Freelander 2).
>>>>>
>>>>> The F1 was a fork from the Honda CRV, and not really intended to be a
>>>>> fully fledged off-roader.
>>>>
>>>> Are you quite sure of that? I didn't think that the original Freelander
>>>> had nothing to do with any Honda. I think you're demonstrating your New
>>>> Scientist 'little knowledge' syndrome.
>>>
>>> It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon split,
>>> and while the CRV got to market earlier, the Freelander 1 was much more
>>> of a shrunken Discovery, than a Honda Civic [Rover 400] on stilts.
>>> because they wanted to get it right, rather than sooner.
>>
>> No, I'm afraid you're wrong, yet again. It was based on the older
>> Maestro, not any Honda chassis.
>
> Oh well, there goes Wikipedia out of the window again. Eight references
> to Honda Civic on the CRV page, and none to Maestro.

The CR-V was indeed based on the Civic, and had nothing to do with any
Rover or LR models, just as the Freelander was based on the Maestro, and
had nothing to do with any Honda models. So what do you think is wrong with
the Wikipedia entries?

On 24/02/2022 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sv7jc5$60m$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:32:53 on Thu, 24 Feb
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>
>>>  Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>  Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems
>>> which  other generations system are not required to have.
>>
>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>
> Remind me - which of those did a plane crash into?

I knew you would immediately miss the point. That's £5 I owe myself.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>
>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>
>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>> other generations system are not required to have.
>
> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…

<cough> Three Mile Island </cough>

Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
executed experiment
Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws
Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error
Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <sv7mbd$40b$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:41 on Thu, 24 Feb
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 24/02/2022 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <sv7jc5$60m$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:32:53 on Thu, 24 Feb
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>
>>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>
>>>>  Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>>  Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection
>>>>systems which  other generations system are not required to have.
>>>
>>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…

>> Remind me - which of those did a plane crash into?
>
>I knew you would immediately miss the point. That's £5 I owe myself.

If the point was intended to illustrate a non-sequitur, then perhaps I
did miss it.
--
Roland Perry

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>>
>>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>
>>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>>> other generations system are not required to have.
>>
>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>
> <cough> Three Mile Island </cough>
>
> Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
> executed experiment
> Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws

Also, these were elderly reactors, built to lower standards than modern
reactors, which should have been retired and replaced with safer modern
designs. But despite all the fuss, there were almost no human casualties
from the meltdown; most of the casualties occurred during the evacuation,
rather than from radiation.

> Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error

And no casualties.

> Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
> much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly

Yes. That was, of course, primarily an armaments plant, not a civilian
power station. Its principal job was to create plutonium for Britsh atom
bombs, not electricity to boil kettles. As such, it was built and operated
to the lower safety standards of defence installations. The commercial
Magnox stations that followed, and their AGR successors, were much safer.

The consequence of these accidents has been that subsequent nuclear power
stations have been loaded up with additional safety features, which have
made them almost unaffordable, so we burn fossil fuels instead.

On 24/02/2022 10:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>>
>>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>
>>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>>> other generations system are not required to have.
>>
>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>
> <cough> Three Mile Island </cough>

Time lends distance, or something :-)

>
> Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
> executed experiment
> Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws
> Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error
> Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
> much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly
>

Which is the point that Roland so adroitly missed.

Fukushima, especially, makes the point that hardening the containment
building doesn't help if the auxiliary systems are destroyed.

Going back to Martin's earlier complaint about big ships and wind farms.
The latter are usually in shallow waters which a laden VLCC probably
wouldn't be able to navigate.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Or wave power ? - If anyone can make a design that is both reliable and
>> affordable.
>>
>>
>
> £45 million funds from various sources but ultimately taxpayers were
> invested in the wave hub
> project off the Cornwall Coast, basically it was a preinstalled connection
> point that would have allowed power from up to four experimental wave power
> projects a route to shore so they would not have to lay their own cable all
> the way.
>
> In 11 years no successful project ever came and last year it was sold off
> to be used by some experimental floating wind turbines.
>
> <Cornwall Wave Hub to be sold for offshore wind farm
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-57156482>
>
>
> Wave power structures seems to be something that cannot yet be made robust
> enough to survive
> long enough to viable.

There’s still an active but relatively small scale thing happening in
Scotland. <https://www.waveenergyscotland.co.uk/>. It’s very much aimed
at early development and viability funding. There is also EMEC, the
European test site in Orkney <https://www.emec.org.uk/>.

Disclaimer: I have a family member who works in the field. He was
recruited by a company which got a major injection of funding from a large
multinational engineering company and expanded hugely. About 2 years later
all European governments shut down funding for marine energy projects (I
*think* it was individual governments rather than the EU, BICBW), the
funding from the big company was pulled, and within about 6 months the
local company had had to shrink from 30+ engineers to 6. Four of them then
split off to form their own company and while they’ve diversified they
still have interests in marine energy and have participated in several WES
funding rounds, either directly or indirectly.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/02/2022 22:45, ColinR wrote:
>> On 23/02/2022 16:25, Bevan Price wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2022 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/2022 10:16, ColinR wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/2022 10:02, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 10:31, Bob wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-18 17:58:36 +0000, Sam Wilson said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/2022 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <aurp0h9jjfks9al53ao5j4rm0b0mjdbqco@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>> 12:37:51 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Britishvolt, which is also planning a "gigafactory" in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Northumberland
>>>>>>>>>>>> to make electric car batteries, has set out plans to recycle
>>>>>>>>>>>> more than
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 tonnes of battery packs a year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It aims to power the new centre, in Northfleet, with wind and
>>>>>>>>>>>> solar
>>>>>>>>>>>> energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not exclusively, though, unless they install a very big set of
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>> batteries. Sometimes we have a whole week with virtually no
>>>>>>>>>>> wind/sun,
>>>>>>>>>>> and this time of year just no-wind would mean operating for only
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>> five hours a day.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Northfleet is near the coast - use reliable tidal power instead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> … which drops to zero (locally) approximately 4 times a day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A tidal barrage with two separate storage pounds can manage water
>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>> in such a way that it should always be able to generate some power.
>>>>>>>> With the demise of actual shipping uses for the docks in East
>>>>>>>> London,
>>>>>>>> I'm surprised nobody has suggested using something like the Royal
>>>>>>>> Docks
>>>>>>>> as a tidal energy storage facility.  The Royal Docks have plenty of
>>>>>>>> volume, and the tidal range of the Thames in that reach ought to
>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>> for a reasonable amount of energy to be produced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tides rotate around the country and with a number of tidal schemes
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> one or two at a time would not be producing power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but that doesn’t match with the idea that Northfleet should
>>>>>> use tidal
>>>>>> power because it’s near the coast.  Either it needs local storage
>>>>>> to match
>>>>>> supply and demand, or it needs long distance transmission to use
>>>>>> non-local
>>>>>> supply, in which case being near the coast is irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree, but a newbuild site could easily incorporate a pond type of
>>>>> storage to even out generation across the day.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Modern day tide mill!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or wave power ? - If anyone can make a design that is both reliable
>>> and affordable.
>>>
>>
>> Wind = unreliable.
>> Wave = unreliable
>> Tide = predictable and reliable for approx 20 hours per day
>
> Wind generation, mature technology, works well
> Wave generation currently sunk without trace
> Tide generation, this year, next year. sometime, never.

Check my posting elsewhere re <https://www.waveenergyscotland.co.uk/> and
<https://www.emec.org.uk/>.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <sv7lhu$knv$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:10:06 on Thu, 24 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <fr971h5jo38v4p1am003lbb1o1fn9cm4of@4ax.com>, at 14:54:44 on
>> Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:49:59 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <sv00fa$9ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:27:22 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <suvp1a$j88$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:20:27 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>
>>>>>>> Our other big problem with the Freelander was the poor ground
>>>>>>> clearance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was a criticism of the Freelander 1 (fixed in the Freelander 2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The F1 was a fork from the Honda CRV, and not really intended to be a
>>>>>> fully fledged off-roader.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you quite sure of that? I didn't think that the original Freelander
>>>>> had nothing to do with any Honda. I think you're demonstrating your New
>>>>> Scientist 'little knowledge' syndrome.
>>>>
>>>> It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon split,
>>>> and while the CRV got to market earlier, the Freelander 1 was much more
>>>> of a shrunken Discovery, than a Honda Civic [Rover 400] on stilts.
>>>> because they wanted to get it right, rather than sooner.
>>>
>>> No, I'm afraid you're wrong, yet again. It was based on the older
>>> Maestro, not any Honda chassis.
>>
>> Oh well, there goes Wikipedia out of the window again. Eight references
>> to Honda Civic on the CRV page, and none to Maestro.
>
>The CR-V was indeed based on the Civic, and had nothing to do with any
>Rover or LR models, just as the Freelander was based on the Maestro, and
>had nothing to do with any Honda models. So what do you think is wrong with
>the Wikipedia entries?

I was puzzled by the way you were saying the CRV wasn't based on the
Civic, but now you've relented, all is well.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sv7lhu$knv$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:10:06 on Thu, 24 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <fr971h5jo38v4p1am003lbb1o1fn9cm4of@4ax.com>, at 14:54:44 on
>>> Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:49:59 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <sv00fa$9ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:27:22 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <suvp1a$j88$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:20:27 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our other big problem with the Freelander was the poor ground
>>>>>>>> clearance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was a criticism of the Freelander 1 (fixed in the Freelander 2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The F1 was a fork from the Honda CRV, and not really intended to be a
>>>>>>> fully fledged off-roader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you quite sure of that? I didn't think that the original Freelander
>>>>>> had nothing to do with any Honda. I think you're demonstrating your New
>>>>>> Scientist 'little knowledge' syndrome.
>>>>>
>>>>> It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon split,
>>>>> and while the CRV got to market earlier, the Freelander 1 was much more
>>>>> of a shrunken Discovery, than a Honda Civic [Rover 400] on stilts.
>>>>> because they wanted to get it right, rather than sooner.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm afraid you're wrong, yet again. It was based on the older
>>>> Maestro, not any Honda chassis.
>>>
>>> Oh well, there goes Wikipedia out of the window again. Eight references
>>> to Honda Civic on the CRV page, and none to Maestro.
>>
>> The CR-V was indeed based on the Civic, and had nothing to do with any
>> Rover or LR models, just as the Freelander was based on the Maestro, and
>> had nothing to do with any Honda models. So what do you think is wrong with
>> the Wikipedia entries?
>
> I was puzzled by the way you were saying the CRV wasn't based on the
> Civic, but now you've relented, all is well.

Obviously, I never said any such thing. As I said, the CR-V was based on
the Honda Civic just as the FL1 was based on the Austin Maestro. You really
need to learn to read!

[OK, let me rephrase — you really need to get your carer to explain it to
you, as you no longer have the ability to comprehend basic English.]

In message <svg8gp$3r1$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:22:49 on Sun, 27 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sv7lhu$knv$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:10:06 on Thu, 24 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <fr971h5jo38v4p1am003lbb1o1fn9cm4of@4ax.com>, at 14:54:44 on
>>>> Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:49:59 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <sv00fa$9ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:27:22 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <suvp1a$j88$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:20:27 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our other big problem with the Freelander was the poor ground
>>>>>>>>> clearance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was a criticism of the Freelander 1 (fixed in the Freelander 2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The F1 was a fork from the Honda CRV, and not really intended to be a
>>>>>>>> fully fledged off-roader.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you quite sure of that? I didn't think that the original Freelander
>>>>>>> had nothing to do with any Honda. I think you're demonstrating your New
>>>>>>> Scientist 'little knowledge' syndrome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon split,
>>>>>> and while the CRV got to market earlier, the Freelander 1 was much more
>>>>>> of a shrunken Discovery, than a Honda Civic [Rover 400] on stilts.

ie The CRV was a Civic on stilts.

>>>>>> because they wanted to get it right, rather than sooner.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm afraid you're wrong, yet again. It was based on the older
>>>>> Maestro, not any Honda chassis.
>>>>
>>>> Oh well, there goes Wikipedia out of the window again. Eight references
>>>> to Honda Civic on the CRV page, and none to Maestro.
>>>
>>> The CR-V was indeed based on the Civic, and had nothing to do with any
>>> Rover or LR models, just as the Freelander was based on the Maestro, and
>>> had nothing to do with any Honda models. So what do you think is wrong with
>>> the Wikipedia entries?
>>
>> I was puzzled by the way you were saying the CRV wasn't based on the
>> Civic, but now you've relented, all is well.
>
>Obviously, I never said any such thing. As I said, the CR-V was based on
>the Honda Civic just as the FL1 was based on the Austin Maestro. You really
>need to learn to read!

See above

>[OK, let me rephrase — you really need to get your carer to explain it to
>you, as you no longer have the ability to comprehend basic English.]

Oh dear that bankrupt playbook open on your desk, again.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <svg8gp$3r1$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:22:49 on Sun, 27 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sv7lhu$knv$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:10:06 on Thu, 24 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <fr971h5jo38v4p1am003lbb1o1fn9cm4of@4ax.com>, at 14:54:44 on
>>>>> Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:49:59 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <sv00fa$9ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:27:22 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <suvp1a$j88$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:20:27 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Our other big problem with the Freelander was the poor ground
>>>>>>>>>> clearance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was a criticism of the Freelander 1 (fixed in the Freelander 2).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The F1 was a fork from the Honda CRV, and not really intended to be a
>>>>>>>>> fully fledged off-roader.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you quite sure of that? I didn't think that the original Freelander
>>>>>>>> had nothing to do with any Honda. I think you're demonstrating your New
>>>>>>>> Scientist 'little knowledge' syndrome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon split,
>>>>>>> and while the CRV got to market earlier, the Freelander 1 was much more
>>>>>>> of a shrunken Discovery, than a Honda Civic [Rover 400] on stilts.
>
> ie The CRV was a Civic on stilts.

Yup, it was. But, what has that got to do with the FL1?

As I keep trying to explain to you, the FL1 had nothing to do with the
Civic or the CR-V. It was based on the Maestro van.

And the CR-V had nothing to do with the Maestro. Why on earth you thought
the Wikipedia page on the CR-V should mention the Maestro, only your carer
would know.

>
>>>>>>> because they wanted to get it right, rather than sooner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm afraid you're wrong, yet again. It was based on the older
>>>>>> Maestro, not any Honda chassis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well, there goes Wikipedia out of the window again. Eight references
>>>>> to Honda Civic on the CRV page, and none to Maestro.
>>>>
>>>> The CR-V was indeed based on the Civic, and had nothing to do with any
>>>> Rover or LR models, just as the Freelander was based on the Maestro, and
>>>> had nothing to do with any Honda models. So what do you think is wrong with
>>>> the Wikipedia entries?
>>>
>>> I was puzzled by the way you were saying the CRV wasn't based on the
>>> Civic, but now you've relented, all is well.
>>
>> Obviously, I never said any such thing. As I said, the CR-V was based on
>> the Honda Civic just as the FL1 was based on the Austin Maestro. You really
>> need to learn to read!
>
> See above

Yup, it demonstrates your inability to comprehend simple English.

>
>> [OK, let me rephrase — you really need to get your carer to explain it to
>> you, as you no longer have the ability to comprehend basic English.]
>
> Oh dear that bankrupt playbook open on your desk, again.

I'm giving you the credit of once being able to understand English, before
your current mental condition developed.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 10:16, ColinR wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 10:02, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 21/02/2022 10:31, Bob wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-18 17:58:36 +0000, Sam Wilson said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/02/2022 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <aurp0h9jjfks9al53ao5j4rm0b0mjdbqco@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>> 12:37:51 on
>>>>>>>> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Britishvolt, which is also planning a "gigafactory" in
>>>>>>>>> Northumberland
>>>>>>>>> to make electric car batteries, has set out plans to recycle
>>>>>>>>> more than
>>>>>>>>> 10,000 tonnes of battery packs a year.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It aims to power the new centre, in Northfleet, with wind and solar
>>>>>>>>> energy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not exclusively, though, unless they install a very big set of their
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> batteries. Sometimes we have a whole week with virtually no
>>>>>>>> wind/sun,
>>>>>>>> and this time of year just no-wind would mean operating for only
>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>> five hours a day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Northfleet is near the coast - use reliable tidal power instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> … which drops to zero (locally) approximately 4 times a day.
>>>>>
>>>>> A tidal barrage with two separate storage pounds can manage water
>>>>> levels
>>>>> in such a way that it should always be able to generate some power.
>>>>> With the demise of actual shipping uses for the docks in East London,
>>>>> I'm surprised nobody has suggested using something like the Royal Docks
>>>>> as a tidal energy storage facility.  The Royal Docks have plenty of
>>>>> volume, and the tidal range of the Thames in that reach ought to allow
>>>>> for a reasonable amount of energy to be produced.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tides rotate around the country and with a number of tidal schemes only
>>>> one or two at a time would not be producing power.
>>>
>>> Yes, but that doesn’t match with the idea that Northfleet should use
>>> tidal
>>> power because it’s near the coast.  Either it needs local storage to
>>> match
>>> supply and demand, or it needs long distance transmission to use
>>> non-local
>>> supply, in which case being near the coast is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> Agree, but a newbuild site could easily incorporate a pond type of
>> storage to even out generation across the day.
>>
>
> Modern day tide mill!
>

On which point, if you’re ever in Woodbridge in Suffolk then visit the
historic tide mill. It’s very interesting (at least it was some years ago
when I visited it).

--
Jeremy Double

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>>
>>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>
>>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>>> other generations system are not required to have.
>>
>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>
> <cough> Three Mile Island </cough>
>
> Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
> executed experiment
> Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws
> Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error
> Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
> much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly

Yes, but that’s the point. Not everything works as expected. It’s easy to
be wise after the event. Look up Feynman’s comments about the probability
of Space Shuttle failure as quoted by NASA and what the on-the-ground NASA
engineers thought the probability of failure was, made when he was on the
Challenger enquiry. The

Empirical evidence shows that there’s a serious reactor accident somewhere
in the world every 10 to 20 years.

--
Jeremy Double

On 27/02/2022 19:28, Jeremy Double wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 10:16, ColinR wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2022 10:02, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 21/02/2022 10:31, Bob wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-18 17:58:36 +0000, Sam Wilson said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16/02/2022 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <aurp0h9jjfks9al53ao5j4rm0b0mjdbqco@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>> 12:37:51 on
>>>>>>>>> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Britishvolt, which is also planning a "gigafactory" in
>>>>>>>>>> Northumberland
>>>>>>>>>> to make electric car batteries, has set out plans to recycle
>>>>>>>>>> more than
>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 tonnes of battery packs a year.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It aims to power the new centre, in Northfleet, with wind and solar
>>>>>>>>>> energy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not exclusively, though, unless they install a very big set of their
>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>> batteries. Sometimes we have a whole week with virtually no
>>>>>>>>> wind/sun,
>>>>>>>>> and this time of year just no-wind would mean operating for only
>>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>>> five hours a day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Northfleet is near the coast - use reliable tidal power instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> … which drops to zero (locally) approximately 4 times a day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A tidal barrage with two separate storage pounds can manage water
>>>>>> levels
>>>>>> in such a way that it should always be able to generate some power.
>>>>>> With the demise of actual shipping uses for the docks in East London,
>>>>>> I'm surprised nobody has suggested using something like the Royal Docks
>>>>>> as a tidal energy storage facility.  The Royal Docks have plenty of
>>>>>> volume, and the tidal range of the Thames in that reach ought to allow
>>>>>> for a reasonable amount of energy to be produced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tides rotate around the country and with a number of tidal schemes only
>>>>> one or two at a time would not be producing power.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but that doesn’t match with the idea that Northfleet should use
>>>> tidal
>>>> power because it’s near the coast.  Either it needs local storage to
>>>> match
>>>> supply and demand, or it needs long distance transmission to use
>>>> non-local
>>>> supply, in which case being near the coast is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agree, but a newbuild site could easily incorporate a pond type of
>>> storage to even out generation across the day.
>>>
>>
>> Modern day tide mill!
>>
>
> On which point, if you’re ever in Woodbridge in Suffolk then visit the
> historic tide mill. It’s very interesting (at least it was some years ago
> when I visited it).
>

Or the one in Eling if you are around the Southampton area.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <svgd7o$bet$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:43:20 on Sun, 27 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <svg8gp$3r1$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:22:49 on Sun, 27 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sv7lhu$knv$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:10:06 on Thu, 24 Feb
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <fr971h5jo38v4p1am003lbb1o1fn9cm4of@4ax.com>, at 14:54:44 on
>>>>>> Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:49:59 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <sv00fa$9ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:27:22 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <suvp1a$j88$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:20:27 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Our other big problem with the Freelander was the poor ground
>>>>>>>>>>> clearance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was a criticism of the Freelander 1 (fixed in the Freelander 2).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The F1 was a fork from the Honda CRV, and not really intended to be a
>>>>>>>>>> fully fledged off-roader.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you quite sure of that? I didn't think that the original
>>>>>>>>>Freelander had nothing to do with any Honda. I think you're
>>>>>>>>>demonstrating your New Scientist 'little knowledge' syndrome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon split,
>>>>>>>> and while the CRV got to market earlier, the Freelander 1 was much more
>>>>>>>> of a shrunken Discovery, than a Honda Civic [Rover 400] on stilts.
>>
>> ie The CRV was a Civic on stilts.
>
>Yup, it was. But, what has that got to do with the FL1?

The fact that Landrover wanted something better than that, so broke off
the joint development project.

Since then the CRV has drifted inexorably towards being a crossover
saloon car rather than an SUV, while the Freelander has drifted the
other direction to being a slightly more comfortable Disco (3rd Gen,
while it's lost the branding, being the Discovery Sport).

Sadly the second Generation Discovery sport has also headed down the
crossover route.

>As I keep trying to explain to you, the FL1 had nothing to do with the
>Civic or the CR-V. It was based on the Maestro van.
>
>And the CR-V had nothing to do with the Maestro. Why on earth you thought
>the Wikipedia page on the CR-V should mention the Maestro, only your carer
>would know.
>
>>>>>>>> because they wanted to get it right, rather than sooner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm afraid you're wrong, yet again. It was based on the older
>>>>>>> Maestro, not any Honda chassis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh well, there goes Wikipedia out of the window again. Eight references
>>>>>> to Honda Civic on the CRV page, and none to Maestro.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CR-V was indeed based on the Civic, and had nothing to do with any
>>>>> Rover or LR models, just as the Freelander was based on the Maestro, and
>>>>> had nothing to do with any Honda models. So what do you think is
>>>>>wrong with
>>>>> the Wikipedia entries?
>>>>
>>>> I was puzzled by the way you were saying the CRV wasn't based on the
>>>> Civic, but now you've relented, all is well.
>>>
>>> Obviously, I never said any such thing. As I said, the CR-V was based on
>>> the Honda Civic just as the FL1 was based on the Austin Maestro. You really
>>> need to learn to read!
>>
>> See above
>
>Yup, it demonstrates your inability to comprehend simple English.

>>> [OK, let me rephrase — you really need to get your carer to explain it to
>>> you, as you no longer have the ability to comprehend basic English.]
>>
>> Oh dear that bankrupt playbook open on your desk, again.
>
>I'm giving you the credit of once being able to understand English, before
>your current mental condition developed.

That playbook is getting very tattered.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:47:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <svgd7o$bet$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:43:20 on Sun, 27 Feb
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <svg8gp$3r1$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:22:49 on Sun, 27 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sv7lhu$knv$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:10:06 on Thu, 24 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <fr971h5jo38v4p1am003lbb1o1fn9cm4of@4ax.com>, at 14:54:44 on
>>>>>>> Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:49:59 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <sv00fa$9ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:27:22 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <suvp1a$j88$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:20:27 on Mon, 21 Feb
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Our other big problem with the Freelander was the poor ground
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That was a criticism of the Freelander 1 (fixed in the Freelander 2).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The F1 was a fork from the Honda CRV, and not really intended to be a
>>>>>>>>>>> fully fledged off-roader.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you quite sure of that? I didn't think that the original
>>>>>>>>>>Freelander had nothing to do with any Honda. I think you're
>>>>>>>>>>demonstrating your New Scientist 'little knowledge' syndrome.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon split,
>>>>>>>>> and while the CRV got to market earlier, the Freelander 1 was much more
>>>>>>>>> of a shrunken Discovery, than a Honda Civic [Rover 400] on stilts.
>>>
>>> ie The CRV was a Civic on stilts.
>>
>>Yup, it was. But, what has that got to do with the FL1?
>
>The fact that Landrover wanted something better than that, so broke off
>the joint development project.

There never was a joint development project.

The Freelander was always a Rover project, and the CR-V always a Honda project. They were never connected.

What later became the CB40, then the Pathfinder and finally the LR Freelander project started in the late 1980s, and
had nothing to with Honda. It was inspired by cars like the Suzuki Vitara, long before there was any CR-V.

>
>Since then the CRV has drifted inexorably towards being a crossover
>saloon car rather than an SUV, while the Freelander has drifted the
>other direction to being a slightly more comfortable Disco (3rd Gen,
>while it's lost the branding, being the Discovery Sport).

Yes, that's true. The reason that the Freelander name was dropped was because its abysmal quality had trashed the brand.
Even the Freelander 2 only kept the name in a few markets, being called the LR2 elsewhere.

>
>Sadly the second Generation Discovery sport has also headed down the
>crossover route.

It's still based on an improved version of the same old Mondeo-derived platform, but LR is responding to market demand
in terms of how it evolves it. Most purchases in that segment are based on looks, space and comfort, not hardcore
off-road capabilities.

....

>>
>>Yup, it demonstrates your inability to comprehend simple English.
>
>>>> [OK, let me rephrase — you really need to get your carer to explain it to
>>>> you, as you no longer have the ability to comprehend basic English.]
>>>
>>> Oh dear that bankrupt playbook open on your desk, again.
>>
>>I'm giving you the credit of once being able to understand English, before
>>your current mental condition developed.
>
>That playbook is getting very tattered.

As you've demonstrated yet again, you no longer have the power to comprehend basic English, so you clearly need a carer
to help you.

Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>>>
>>>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>>
>>>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>>>> other generations system are not required to have.
>>>
>>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>>
>> <cough> Three Mile Island </cough>
>>
>> Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
>> executed experiment
>> Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws
>> Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error
>> Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
>> much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly
>
> Yes, but that’s the point. Not everything works as expected. It’s easy to
> be wise after the event. Look up Feynman’s comments about the probability
> of Space Shuttle failure as quoted by NASA and what the on-the-ground NASA
> engineers thought the probability of failure was, made when he was on the
> Challenger enquiry. The

I think my point is that there were specific causes for each of those
accidents, and the others, which were different; that there’s (probably!)
not a particular systematic flaw in nuclear engineering which causes
inevitable failures. It would also be nice to think that engineers have
learned the lessons of each event and will be able to mitigate those flaws
in future, but I’m not in any position to know that.

> Empirical evidence shows that there’s a serious reactor accident somewhere
> in the world every 10 to 20 years.

Though of course that’s not an inevitable progression.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:26:34 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>>>>> other generations system are not required to have.
>>>>
>>>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>>>
>>> <cough> Three Mile Island </cough>
>>>
>>> Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
>>> executed experiment
>>> Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws
>>> Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error
>>> Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
>>> much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly
>>
>> Yes, but that’s the point. Not everything works as expected. It’s easy to
>> be wise after the event. Look up Feynman’s comments about the probability
>> of Space Shuttle failure as quoted by NASA and what the on-the-ground NASA
>> engineers thought the probability of failure was, made when he was on the
>> Challenger enquiry. The
>
>I think my point is that there were specific causes for each of those
>accidents, and the others, which were different; that there’s (probably!)
>not a particular systematic flaw in nuclear engineering which causes
>inevitable failures. It would also be nice to think that engineers have
>learned the lessons of each event and will be able to mitigate those flaws
>in future, but I’m not in any position to know that.
>
>> Empirical evidence shows that there’s a serious reactor accident somewhere
>> in the world every 10 to 20 years.
>
>Though of course that’s not an inevitable progression.

In general, newer reactors are safer than older ones of the same type, as they incorporate the lessons from earlier
failures.

On 28/02/2022 12:42, Recliner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:26:34 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>>>>>> other generations system are not required to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>>>>
>>>> <cough> Three Mile Island </cough>
>>>>
>>>> Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
>>>> executed experiment
>>>> Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws
>>>> Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error
>>>> Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
>>>> much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly
>>>
>>> Yes, but that’s the point. Not everything works as expected. It’s easy to
>>> be wise after the event. Look up Feynman’s comments about the probability
>>> of Space Shuttle failure as quoted by NASA and what the on-the-ground NASA
>>> engineers thought the probability of failure was, made when he was on the
>>> Challenger enquiry. The
>>
>> I think my point is that there were specific causes for each of those
>> accidents, and the others, which were different; that there’s (probably!)
>> not a particular systematic flaw in nuclear engineering which causes
>> inevitable failures. It would also be nice to think that engineers have
>> learned the lessons of each event and will be able to mitigate those flaws
>> in future, but I’m not in any position to know that.
>>
>>> Empirical evidence shows that there’s a serious reactor accident somewhere
>>> in the world every 10 to 20 years.
>>
>> Though of course that’s not an inevitable progression.
>
> In general, newer reactors are safer than older ones of the same type, as they incorporate the lessons from earlier
> failures.

I was simply making the point that there was a greater chance of large
aircraft crashing into a nuclear power station and causing widespread
damage than a VLCC making its way through shallow water to take out a a
couple of wind turbines.

Arguments about modern nuclear power stations having better protection
than earlier ones applies equally to VLCCs.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:01:56 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 28/02/2022 12:42, Recliner wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:26:34 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>>>>>>> other generations system are not required to have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>>>>>
>>>>> <cough> Three Mile Island </cough>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
>>>>> executed experiment
>>>>> Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws
>>>>> Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error
>>>>> Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
>>>>> much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but that’s the point. Not everything works as expected. It’s easy to
>>>> be wise after the event. Look up Feynman’s comments about the probability
>>>> of Space Shuttle failure as quoted by NASA and what the on-the-ground NASA
>>>> engineers thought the probability of failure was, made when he was on the
>>>> Challenger enquiry. The
>>>
>>> I think my point is that there were specific causes for each of those
>>> accidents, and the others, which were different; that there’s (probably!)
>>> not a particular systematic flaw in nuclear engineering which causes
>>> inevitable failures. It would also be nice to think that engineers have
>>> learned the lessons of each event and will be able to mitigate those flaws
>>> in future, but I’m not in any position to know that.
>>>
>>>> Empirical evidence shows that there’s a serious reactor accident somewhere
>>>> in the world every 10 to 20 years.
>>>
>>> Though of course that’s not an inevitable progression.
>>
>> In general, newer reactors are safer than older ones of the same type, as they incorporate the lessons from earlier
>> failures.
>
>I was simply making the point that there was a greater chance of large
>aircraft crashing into a nuclear power station and causing widespread
>damage than a VLCC making its way through shallow water to take out a a
>couple of wind turbines.

I suspect that a crash into a nuclear power was far less likely than a large tanker taking out some wind turbines, but
that the consequences of a reactor pressure vessel failure would be far more serious.

Of course, the risks of both of these possible accidents have been considered for many years. It's one of the many
reasons for the extremely strong containment buildings that enclose modern reactor vessels.

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0231/ML023180425.pdf

https://hakaimagazine.com/news/designing-against-disaster/

>
>Arguments about modern nuclear power stations having better protection
>than earlier ones applies equally to VLCCs.

Does it?

On 28/02/2022 13:32, Recliner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:01:56 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/02/2022 12:42, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:26:34 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>>>>>>>> other generations system are not required to have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <cough> Three Mile Island </cough>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
>>>>>> executed experiment
>>>>>> Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws
>>>>>> Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error
>>>>>> Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
>>>>>> much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but that’s the point. Not everything works as expected. It’s easy to
>>>>> be wise after the event. Look up Feynman’s comments about the probability
>>>>> of Space Shuttle failure as quoted by NASA and what the on-the-ground NASA
>>>>> engineers thought the probability of failure was, made when he was on the
>>>>> Challenger enquiry. The
>>>>
>>>> I think my point is that there were specific causes for each of those
>>>> accidents, and the others, which were different; that there’s (probably!)
>>>> not a particular systematic flaw in nuclear engineering which causes
>>>> inevitable failures. It would also be nice to think that engineers have
>>>> learned the lessons of each event and will be able to mitigate those flaws
>>>> in future, but I’m not in any position to know that.
>>>>
>>>>> Empirical evidence shows that there’s a serious reactor accident somewhere
>>>>> in the world every 10 to 20 years.
>>>>
>>>> Though of course that’s not an inevitable progression.
>>>
>>> In general, newer reactors are safer than older ones of the same type, as they incorporate the lessons from earlier
>>> failures.
>>
>> I was simply making the point that there was a greater chance of large
>> aircraft crashing into a nuclear power station and causing widespread
>> damage than a VLCC making its way through shallow water to take out a a
>> couple of wind turbines.
>
> I suspect that a crash into a nuclear power was far less likely than a large tanker taking out some wind turbines, but
> that the consequences of a reactor pressure vessel failure would be far more serious.
>
> Of course, the risks of both of these possible accidents have been considered for many years. It's one of the many
> reasons for the extremely strong containment buildings that enclose modern reactor vessels.
>
> https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0231/ML023180425.pdf
>
> https://hakaimagazine.com/news/designing-against-disaster/
>
>>
>> Arguments about modern nuclear power stations having better protection
>> than earlier ones applies equally to VLCCs.
>
> Does it?

Yes - when I sailed on VLCCs they were single hulled, now all are double
hulled.

--
Colin

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:54:28 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 28/02/2022 13:32, Recliner wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:01:56 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/02/2022 12:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:26:34 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2022 08:54, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2022 07:40, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A opposed to a very large plane ploughing into Sizewell B?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aren't the containtment buildings designed with that in mind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nuclear power has to build layer up on layer of protection systems which
>>>>>>>>> other generations system are not required to have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 Mile Island…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <cough> Three Mile Island </cough>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chernobyl - fundamentally flawed design driven into unstable state by badly
>>>>>>> executed experiment
>>>>>>> Fukushima - possibly unwise location and system design flaws
>>>>>>> Three Mile Island - technical design faults and operator error
>>>>>>> Windscale extremely dodgy design (in hindsight) which would have been much,
>>>>>>> much worse except for Cockroft’s Folly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but that’s the point. Not everything works as expected. It’s easy to
>>>>>> be wise after the event. Look up Feynman’s comments about the probability
>>>>>> of Space Shuttle failure as quoted by NASA and what the on-the-ground NASA
>>>>>> engineers thought the probability of failure was, made when he was on the
>>>>>> Challenger enquiry. The
>>>>>
>>>>> I think my point is that there were specific causes for each of those
>>>>> accidents, and the others, which were different; that there’s (probably!)
>>>>> not a particular systematic flaw in nuclear engineering which causes
>>>>> inevitable failures. It would also be nice to think that engineers have
>>>>> learned the lessons of each event and will be able to mitigate those flaws
>>>>> in future, but I’m not in any position to know that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Empirical evidence shows that there’s a serious reactor accident somewhere
>>>>>> in the world every 10 to 20 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though of course that’s not an inevitable progression.
>>>>
>>>> In general, newer reactors are safer than older ones of the same type, as they incorporate the lessons from earlier
>>>> failures.
>>>
>>> I was simply making the point that there was a greater chance of large
>>> aircraft crashing into a nuclear power station and causing widespread
>>> damage than a VLCC making its way through shallow water to take out a a
>>> couple of wind turbines.
>>
>> I suspect that a crash into a nuclear power was far less likely than a large tanker taking out some wind turbines, but
>> that the consequences of a reactor pressure vessel failure would be far more serious.
>>
>> Of course, the risks of both of these possible accidents have been considered for many years. It's one of the many
>> reasons for the extremely strong containment buildings that enclose modern reactor vessels.
>>
>> https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0231/ML023180425.pdf
>>
>> https://hakaimagazine.com/news/designing-against-disaster/
>>
>>>
>>> Arguments about modern nuclear power stations having better protection
>>> than earlier ones applies equally to VLCCs.
>>
>> Does it?
>
>Yes - when I sailed on VLCCs they were single hulled, now all are double
>hulled.

Do they not still only have a single engine, screw and rudder?