On 17/11/2021 10:08, Chris Green wrote:
>
> Not to mention that the number of people killed by nuclear power is
> still pretty trivial compared with other sources. Hydro-electric
> power in particular has killed hundreds of thousands.

Really? Where is your provenance for this claim?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 17/11/2021 06:56, Tweed wrote:
>
> The good thing about the current crop of low wind high pressure systems
> whilst we are short of gas is to illustrate to the non scientific decision
> makers that wind turbines cannot be our only source of power.

Which nobody in their right mind has ever claimed anyway.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
>
> In article <sn0s53$nrr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>
>> On 16/11/2021 16:37, tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that
>>> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if
>>> we are to phase out fossil.
>>
>> Sigh! What hopelessly short memories people have! This subject has
>> been flogged to death in this ng multiple times over the last decade or
>> so, and nothing has changed since to make it worthwhile flogging it to
>> death all over again. Once again, let me remind you that:
>>
>> - The world doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph: without
>> 'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means something
>> like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' = significant
>> uncertainty, total current world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference
>> Scenario = predicted demand) ...
>>
>> https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-
>> resources/uranium-markets.aspx
>>
>> - The UK has bugger all!
>>
>> - That currently nuclear is by far the most expensive means of
>> generation by source in the UK:
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732
>>
>> "When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn.
>> Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn."
>>
>> So half-way through the build it's £5bn over budget, can we assume that
>> means it will be £10bn over budget by completion? I don't know, but I
>> won't be surprised if it is. Meanwhile from the same report:
>
> Lets forget Hinckley and the large reactors these are the new small
> modular ones that can be factory built such as Rolls Royce have now got
> the support to make them as have other firms in the USA even bill gates
> is behind the idea, suppose their all wrong;?.
>
> They can be factory built then stack as many of they as you need and
> where you need ..
>
> And yes we don't have the stuff we will have to get it from elsewhere
> but where does our gas now come from I wonder?..

Blue sky, years away, and how much fissile fuel will be left by the time
they're ready to start work?

>> "The deal he refers to is the so-called Strike Price for Hinkley C's
>> electricity. Also in 2016, the British government fixed that price at
>> £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh). The price rises with inflation and has
>> now reached £106/MWh.
>>
>> Back then, the equivalent price for electricity from offshore windfarms
>> was well over £120/MWh. But wind costs have fallen fast. Today new wind
>> projects are fixed at about £50/MWh, well under half the price of
>> Hinkley power."
>
> Yes but its NOT reliable enough, there was quite a long period earlier
> this year where the wind was contributing very little to the grid even
> if we doubled them tripled them if the wind isn't there then they
> aren't!..

No-one's denying that we need a range of supply technologies, it's just
that, with no indigenous supplies of fissile material of our own,
nuclear fission is a strategic dead end for us.

>> ... not forgetting that the projected excess of global nuclear fuel
>> demand over supply can only make the fuel more expensive, and while it's
>> a small part of the final price of electricity per unit, as above that's
>> already very high indeed, without being pushed even higher.
>>
>> Then there's the strategic weakness in reliance upon other nations for
>> our energy supply.
>
> Well be that as it may we haven't got any other option and fusion well
> long time coming but who knows?..

We do have another option, to burn fossil-fuels and capture the carbon.

>> The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
>> which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels, so we have to
>> burn as little of the latter as we can and capture the carbon as we do
>> so. Yes, it'll be expensive to do so, but at least we know we have the
>> fuel, so we won't be committing ourselves to reliance on other nations
>> for our electricity supply, as we would with nuclear.
>
> Well we have some wind as and when solar isn't a lot of cop in the
> winter overcast days and water?, we have bugger all of that and good
> luck with Carbon capture!. What are you going to do when the Gas runs
> out and coal if we could capture all the CO2?.

Global supplies of nuclear fissile material will run out long before
global supplies of fossil-fuels.

> I think Mac you'd have us all back to horse and carts if you had your
> way;!...

Don't be absurd.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 10:08, Chris Green wrote:
>>
>> Not to mention that the number of people killed by nuclear power is
>> still pretty trivial compared with other sources. Hydro-electric
>> power in particular has killed hundreds of thousands.
>
> Really? Where is your provenance for this claim?
>

https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

Not sure about the hundreds of thousands claim, as I don’t know the total
cumulative energy generation figure.

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> In article <sn0s53$nrr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>
>>> On 16/11/2021 16:37, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that
>>>> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if
>>>> we are to phase out fossil.
>>>
>>> Sigh! What hopelessly short memories people have! This subject has
>>> been flogged to death in this ng multiple times over the last decade or
>>> so, and nothing has changed since to make it worthwhile flogging it to
>>> death all over again. Once again, let me remind you that:
>>>
>>> - The world doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph: without
>>> 'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means something
>>> like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' = significant
>>> uncertainty, total current world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference
>>> Scenario = predicted demand) ...
>>>
>>> https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-
>>> resources/uranium-markets.aspx
>>>
>>> - The UK has bugger all!
>>>
>>> - That currently nuclear is by far the most expensive means of
>>> generation by source in the UK:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732
>>>
>>> "When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn.
>>> Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn."
>>>
>>> So half-way through the build it's £5bn over budget, can we assume that
>>> means it will be £10bn over budget by completion? I don't know, but I
>>> won't be surprised if it is. Meanwhile from the same report:
>>
>> Lets forget Hinckley and the large reactors these are the new small
>> modular ones that can be factory built such as Rolls Royce have now got
>> the support to make them as have other firms in the USA even bill gates
>> is behind the idea, suppose their all wrong;?.
>>
>> They can be factory built then stack as many of they as you need and
>> where you need ..
>>
>> And yes we don't have the stuff we will have to get it from elsewhere
>> but where does our gas now come from I wonder?..
>
> Blue sky, years away, and how much fissile fuel will be left by the time
> they're ready to start work?
>
>>> "The deal he refers to is the so-called Strike Price for Hinkley C's
>>> electricity. Also in 2016, the British government fixed that price at
>>> £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh). The price rises with inflation and has
>>> now reached £106/MWh.
>>>
>>> Back then, the equivalent price for electricity from offshore windfarms
>>> was well over £120/MWh. But wind costs have fallen fast. Today new wind
>>> projects are fixed at about £50/MWh, well under half the price of
>>> Hinkley power."
>>
>> Yes but its NOT reliable enough, there was quite a long period earlier
>> this year where the wind was contributing very little to the grid even
>> if we doubled them tripled them if the wind isn't there then they
>> aren't!..
>
> No-one's denying that we need a range of supply technologies, it's just
> that, with no indigenous supplies of fissile material of our own,
> nuclear fission is a strategic dead end for us.
>
>>> ... not forgetting that the projected excess of global nuclear fuel
>>> demand over supply can only make the fuel more expensive, and while it's
>>> a small part of the final price of electricity per unit, as above that's
>>> already very high indeed, without being pushed even higher.
>>>
>>> Then there's the strategic weakness in reliance upon other nations for
>>> our energy supply.
>>
>> Well be that as it may we haven't got any other option and fusion well
>> long time coming but who knows?..
>
> We do have another option, to burn fossil-fuels and capture the carbon.
>
>>> The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
>>> which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels, so we have to
>>> burn as little of the latter as we can and capture the carbon as we do
>>> so. Yes, it'll be expensive to do so, but at least we know we have the
>>> fuel, so we won't be committing ourselves to reliance on other nations
>>> for our electricity supply, as we would with nuclear.
>>
>> Well we have some wind as and when solar isn't a lot of cop in the
>> winter overcast days and water?, we have bugger all of that and good
>> luck with Carbon capture!. What are you going to do when the Gas runs
>> out and coal if we could capture all the CO2?.
>
> Global supplies of nuclear fissile material will run out long before
> global supplies of fossil-fuels.
>
>> I think Mac you'd have us all back to horse and carts if you had your
>> way;!...
>
> Don't be absurd.
>

There’s an interesting article on the status of practical fusion
electricity generation here

https://www.powermag.com/fusion-energy-is-coming-and-maybe-sooner-than-you-think/

Fission reactors may be a useful bridging technology. Having read the
world-nuclear report reference above, and other sources, eg

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

I’m unconvinced we will be short of fuel for fission reactors before fusion
ones take over.

On 17/11/2021 15:44, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/11/2021 10:08, Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>> Not to mention that the number of people killed by nuclear power is
>>> still pretty trivial compared with other sources. Hydro-electric
>>> power in particular has killed hundreds of thousands.
>>
>> Really? Where is your provenance for this claim?
>
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
>
> Not sure about the hundreds of thousands claim, as I don’t know the total
> cumulative energy generation figure.

It probably wasn't clear from my reply, apologies, that it was
specifically that part, the hydro figures, of the claim that I was
querying. The figures you have linked make it look even less likely to
be true, but let's see if Chris can give us provenance.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 15:44, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17/11/2021 10:08, Chris Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention that the number of people killed by nuclear power is
>>>> still pretty trivial compared with other sources. Hydro-electric
>>>> power in particular has killed hundreds of thousands.
>>>
>>> Really? Where is your provenance for this claim?
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
>>
>> Not sure about the hundreds of thousands claim, as I don’t know the total
>> cumulative energy generation figure.
>
> It probably wasn't clear from my reply, apologies, that it was
> specifically that part, the hydro figures, of the claim that I was
> querying. The figures you have linked make it look even less likely to
> be true, but let's see if Chris can give us provenance.
>

The figures do seem, on a per joule generated basis, to indicate that hydro
kills at least an order of magnitude more people than nuclear generation.
Clearly, figures are open to interpretation and challenge, but on the face
of it nuclear isn’t as unsafe as some folk like to make out.

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 10:08, Chris Green wrote:
> >
> > Not to mention that the number of people killed by nuclear power is
> > still pretty trivial compared with other sources. Hydro-electric
> > power in particular has killed hundreds of thousands.
>
> Really? Where is your provenance for this claim?
>
Just search for 'death rate of power generation' or something similar.

Anyway, there was a huge dam failure in China that killed something
between 150000 and 250000 people, that dwarfs just about anything else
except possibly the effects of burning coal.

When I researched this the death rates due to Wind, Nuclear and Solar
(I think Solar was the third) were all down in the negligable, lost in
the noise, sort of area whereas most others were much worse
(especially hydro electric).

--
Chris Green
·

In article <sn3aue$b23$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > On 17/11/2021 15:44, Tweed wrote:
> >>
> >> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 17/11/2021 10:08, Chris Green wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Not to mention that the number of people killed by nuclear power is
> >>>> still pretty trivial compared with other sources. Hydro-electric
> >>>> power in particular has killed hundreds of thousands.
> >>>
> >>> Really? Where is your provenance for this claim?
> >>
> >> https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
> >>
> >> Not sure about the hundreds of thousands claim, as I don‘t know the
> >> total cumulative energy generation figure.
> >
> > It probably wasn't clear from my reply, apologies, that it was
> > specifically that part, the hydro figures, of the claim that I was
> > querying. The figures you have linked make it look even less likely to
> > be true, but let's see if Chris can give us provenance.
> >

> The figures do seem, on a per joule generated basis, to indicate that
> hydro kills at least an order of magnitude more people than nuclear
> generation. Clearly, figures are open to interpretation and challenge,
> but on the face of it nuclear isn‘t as unsafe as some folk like to make
> out.

I assume the "Hydro-killed" include the construction phase and also dams
breaking

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

On 17/11/2021 16:34, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/11/2021 15:44, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17/11/2021 10:08, Chris Green wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention that the number of people killed by nuclear power is
>>>>> still pretty trivial compared with other sources. Hydro-electric
>>>>> power in particular has killed hundreds of thousands.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Where is your provenance for this claim?
>>>
>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
>>>
>>> Not sure about the hundreds of thousands claim, as I don’t know the total
>>> cumulative energy generation figure.
>>
>> It probably wasn't clear from my reply, apologies, that it was
>> specifically that part, the hydro figures, of the claim that I was
>> querying. The figures you have linked make it look even less likely to
>> be true, but let's see if Chris can give us provenance.
>
> The figures do seem, on a per joule generated basis, to indicate that hydro
> kills at least an order of magnitude more people than nuclear generation.
> Clearly, figures are open to interpretation and challenge, but on the face
> of it nuclear isn’t as unsafe as some folk like to make out.

I don't think anybody's disputing the nuclear figures, merely the hydro
claim of 'hundreds of thousands' killed. Chris has now clarified that
this is largely due to a single dam failure, so I'm not sure how
realistic or useable such a figure is, but certainly it shouldn't be
ignored, just as Chernobyl shouldn't be ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 17/11/2021 16:47, Chris Green wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/11/2021 10:08, Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>> Not to mention that the number of people killed by nuclear power is
>>> still pretty trivial compared with other sources. Hydro-electric
>>> power in particular has killed hundreds of thousands.
>>
>> Really? Where is your provenance for this claim?
>>
> Just search for 'death rate of power generation' or something similar.
>
> Anyway, there was a huge dam failure in China that killed something
> between 150000 and 250000 people, that dwarfs just about anything else
> except possibly the effects of burning coal.

Presumably you mean this ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

.... but the estimates of people killed range from 'only' 26,000 to
240,000, so the claim "Hydro-electric power in particular has killed
hundreds of thousands" is perhaps somewhat disingenuous when the truth
is that actually we don't really know!

> When I researched this the death rates due to Wind, Nuclear and Solar
> (I think Solar was the third) were all down in the negligable, lost in
> the noise, sort of area whereas most others were much worse
> (especially hydro electric).

Yes, I'm not disputing that nuclear has killed fewer than many suppose.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 17/11/2021 16:09, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <sn0s53$nrr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>
>>>> The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
>>>> which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels, so we have to
>>>> burn as little of the latter as we can and capture the carbon as we do
>>>> so. Yes, it'll be expensive to do so, but at least we know we have the
>>>> fuel, so we won't be committing ourselves to reliance on other nations
>>>> for our electricity supply, as we would with nuclear.
>>>
>>> Well we have some wind as and when solar isn't a lot of cop in the
>>> winter overcast days and water?, we have bugger all of that and good
>>> luck with Carbon capture!. What are you going to do when the Gas runs
>>> out and coal if we could capture all the CO2?.
>>
>> Global supplies of nuclear fissile material will run out long before
>> global supplies of fossil-fuels.
>
> There’s an interesting article on the status of practical fusion
> electricity generation here
>
> https://www.powermag.com/fusion-energy-is-coming-and-maybe-sooner-than-you-think/

"The joke about fusion energy is that it’s 30 years away and always will
be. But significant recent advances in fusion science and technology
could potentially put the first fusion power on the grid as soon as the
2040s."

Alright, it's 20 years away and always will be.

"No current device has been able to generate more fusion power than the
heating energy required to start the reaction. Scientists measure this
assessment with a value known as fusion gain (expressed as the symbol
Q), which is the ratio of fusion power to the input power required to
maintain the reaction. Q = 1 represents the breakeven point, but because
of heat losses, burning plasmas are not reached until about Q = 5.
Current tokamaks have achieved around Q = 0.6 with DT reactions. Fusion
power plants will need to achieve Q values well above 10 to be economic."

> Fission reactors may be a useful bridging technology. Having read the
> world-nuclear report reference above, and other sources, eg
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

Sorry, but the article is out of date and a lot of it was just wishful
thinking even for the time ...

"If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the
planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run
more than 200 years at current rates of consumption."

Note "at current rates of consumption" but the world is increasing
nuclear capacity, which the World Nuclear Association predictions take
into account.

"According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million
metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain
undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in
total."

Again, "at today's consumption", and two-thirds of the figures given are
speculative.

Etc, etc.

> I’m unconvinced we will be short of fuel for fission reactors before fusion
> ones take over.

The World Nuclear Association is the industry body representing nuclear
power, and I think you should listen to what they're saying now, not a
day-dreaming physicist back in 2009 who so far has not been proven
right. I've been watching that same WNA page for well over a decade
now, and it's never substantially changed: we can only meet projected
demand with speculative supplies.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 16:09, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16/11/2021 21:48, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <sn0s53$nrr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
>>>>> which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels, so we have to
>>>>> burn as little of the latter as we can and capture the carbon as we do
>>>>> so. Yes, it'll be expensive to do so, but at least we know we have the
>>>>> fuel, so we won't be committing ourselves to reliance on other nations
>>>>> for our electricity supply, as we would with nuclear.
>>>>
>>>> Well we have some wind as and when solar isn't a lot of cop in the
>>>> winter overcast days and water?, we have bugger all of that and good
>>>> luck with Carbon capture!. What are you going to do when the Gas runs
>>>> out and coal if we could capture all the CO2?.
>>>
>>> Global supplies of nuclear fissile material will run out long before
>>> global supplies of fossil-fuels.
>>
>> There’s an interesting article on the status of practical fusion
>> electricity generation here
>>
>> https://www.powermag.com/fusion-energy-is-coming-and-maybe-sooner-than-you-think/
>
> "The joke about fusion energy is that it’s 30 years away and always will
> be. But significant recent advances in fusion science and technology
> could potentially put the first fusion power on the grid as soon as the
> 2040s."
>
> Alright, it's 20 years away and always will be.
>
> "No current device has been able to generate more fusion power than the
> heating energy required to start the reaction. Scientists measure this
> assessment with a value known as fusion gain (expressed as the symbol
> Q), which is the ratio of fusion power to the input power required to
> maintain the reaction. Q = 1 represents the breakeven point, but because
> of heat losses, burning plasmas are not reached until about Q = 5.
> Current tokamaks have achieved around Q = 0.6 with DT reactions. Fusion
> power plants will need to achieve Q values well above 10 to be economic."
>
>> Fission reactors may be a useful bridging technology. Having read the
>> world-nuclear report reference above, and other sources, eg
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
>
> Sorry, but the article is out of date and a lot of it was just wishful
> thinking even for the time ...
>
> "If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the
> planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run
> more than 200 years at current rates of consumption."
>
> Note "at current rates of consumption" but the world is increasing
> nuclear capacity, which the World Nuclear Association predictions take
> into account.
>
> "According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million
> metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain
> undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in
> total."
>
> Again, "at today's consumption", and two-thirds of the figures given are
> speculative.
>
> Etc, etc.
>
>> I’m unconvinced we will be short of fuel for fission reactors before fusion
>> ones take over.
>
> The World Nuclear Association is the industry body representing nuclear
> power, and I think you should listen to what they're saying now, not a
> day-dreaming physicist back in 2009 who so far has not been proven
> right. I've been watching that same WNA page for well over a decade
> now, and it's never substantially changed: we can only meet projected
> demand with speculative supplies.
>

The same can be said for oil reserves.
The big difference for fusion is that private finance is starting to show
an interest.
We’ve got enough fission fuel for the next 50 years. An awful lot of
technical change happens over that time span.

On 17/11/2021 18:26, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The World Nuclear Association is the industry body representing nuclear
>> power, and I think you should listen to what they're saying now, not a
>> day-dreaming physicist back in 2009 who so far has not been proven
>> right. I've been watching that same WNA page for well over a decade
>> now, and it's never substantially changed: we can only meet projected
>> demand with speculative supplies.
>
> The same can be said for oil reserves.
> The big difference for fusion is that private finance is starting to show
> an interest.
> We’ve got enough fission fuel for the next 50 years. An awful lot of
> technical change happens over that time span.

But governments have to base policy on what is known to be achievable at
the time. We're arguably in a bad enough mess already, what sort of
worse mess would we be in now if 50 years ago and since our government
had always assumed that by now we'd be all living off nuclear fusion
power "too cheap to meter"?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 11:25:01 +0000, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 17/11/2021 10:07, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:09:36 +0000, Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
>>> which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels,
>> [...]
>>
>> Ultimately the only real answer to the question of how we use energy
>> supplies is to aim to have fewer people using them. Solve that problem
>> and everything else will fall into place.
>>
>> Unfortunately it still boils down to the practicality of how to change
>> the behaviour of vast numbers of people. I don't know the best way to
>> do this, but the main choices would seem to be despotism, advertising,
>> or something in the water. I'm not sure which would be worst.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>There is always Global Warming to submerge thousands of square miles of
>fertile, crop-bearing land under higher water levels. ;-)
>
>Jim

Yep. If we don't deal with it, Mother Nature will. One way or another
it will definitely happen. But the planet will survive, just without
so many of us on it.

Or maybe none of us at all. Maybe it'll be the cockroaches' turn next,
or the termites, probably something that we would call a lower
lifeform because it never produced a Shakespeare or a Beethoven, but
could outlast us by millions of years.

Cheer up. Soon be Christmas.

Rod.

In article <598c63e6e8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> That is the only sensible way to have reliable energy and reduce CO2
> output. Strangely though, many argue against nuclear maybe because CO2
> isn't really their target, it's capitalism.

Or maybe they've seen how both the construction costs and the legacy costs
of Fisson generators tend to expand over time to become well above the
orginal quotes by the companies promoting them.

The USA term is 'boondoggle' I think.

*Fusion* may be different. Time will tell. But if that is OK, it would be
far more promising than Fission, if only because the Oceans are full of
fuel.

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <ohypm7Ki59khFwov@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below enough of
> the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long enough either.

> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
> system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
> output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
> storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.

Your concern for the 'UK' may hinge on if Scotland becomes independent or
not.* :-) cf my previous posting about the error of assuming wind power is
land based. It is *already* significantly sea based, and it does tend to be
a tad windy in some of those places.

BTW There is also the detail that quite often when the 'surface' winds are
low, at modest altitudes the wind is still blowing. And yes, engineers are
already working on this.

IEEE Spectrum in recent years has had a number of articles on the progress
in these topics. Am I the only IEEE member here? I don't know which of the
items is openly on the web. But a fair bit of 'Spectrum' is I think.
However I just read the printed copies they send me.

Jim

* England's western extent of Ocean is limited by the presence of Ireland.
Scotland largely bypasses that.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <kPyKtbMndClhFwTT@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> >100% this.
> >
> >That is the only sensible way to have reliable energy and reduce CO2
> >output. Strangely though, many argue against nuclear maybe because CO2
> >isn't really their target, it's capitalism.
> >
> >Bob.

> Its fear of them going BANG!

In the mind of the general public, yes. But in the mind of engineers it is
"what we didn't expect", or as SuperMac put it: "Events, dear boy, events!"

e.g. The first gens didn't assume someone might *deliberately* fly a 747
into one at full speed for 'terror' reasons. But they now have to worry
about that, and if we need to shut or massively modify older stations.

e.g. Fukashima. They were confident it was safe... oops.

Then in 'third world' countries and ones with poor governments we get
examples like... Chenobyl.

How many of the 'flat pack' Fisson stations would you be happy to see
scatterred around, say, Africa? Would they even contain a 747-strike?

And aren't those subs still at Faslane awaiting 'decomissioning'... ?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <h$pLRNMIdClhFwQ0@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

> Lets forget Hinckley and the large reactors these are the new small
> modular ones that can be factory built such as Rolls Royce have now got
> the support to make them as have other firms in the USA even bill gates
> is behind the idea, suppose their all wrong;?.

Yes, they may well be. Bill Gates doesn't seem to me to me a particularly
good 'expert' to wave in this topic TBH. Yes, he has become a billionaire,
but that is from being a canny ruthless businessman, not an engineer or
nuclear scientist. His MO has been to follow the money, crush opposition,
then give away what he doesn't need so he can feel better about it and buy
a nicer obit.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sn07ot$oo0$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> He pointed out that not only do the windmills need a hell of a
> > lot of cement because they have to have massive foundations to
> > withstand the lateral forces from the wind, their construction
> > releases large amounts of CO2 that had been trapped in the peat. Wow!
> > That man was disappeared mighty quick! Can't fault that Anita for her
> > reflexes!

> That assumes that all wind-turbines are installed in peaty areas;
> obviously quite a lot of them are, but by no means all, and any
> disturbance to the surrounding peat is only temporary, it will recover.

Some reliable figures to back up the 'concern' about peat and cement here
might be useful given that the argument tries to compare the 'one off'
coats (release) of building and use with the 'long term' effect of having
wind turbine that doesn't generate CO2 per kWh during its operating life.

But on the face of it, it does look a bit like comparing apples with chalk.

And of course, you may not need 'masses of cement' if you can insert rods
down into the rock below peat/soil as a foundation. So any comparison like
the above needs to take into account the real technology employed as we
learn to do things in better ways than the past.

I've increasingly noticed that many of the arguments 'against' windpower,
etc tend to use backward-looking 'justifications' that may not apply when
the generators are actually build in improved forms in the future.

BTW a comment on "when the wind doesn't blow" prompted me to look up the
Crown data and generate this map.

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png

It indicates the official/legal area over which Scotland can under
international law deploy and use wind/wave/tidal flow power. in essence
similar to that for the oil/gas extraction. It is around 8x the size of
Scotland. And a lot of it is in places where, erm, the wind does tend to
blow. Also lots of wave power and tidal flows, etc.

Being old enough, I recall people saying 50 years ago that the North Sea
was far too rough and we'd never be able to build structures that would
make North Sea oil/gas extraction a commercial proposition. Erm...
Injuneers plus money then showed they were wrong. And as a 'Lifer' IEEE
member I've already seen projects that look to harvesting wind/wave/etc
power in pretty demanding offshore situations. Hence this looks promising
to me. Just a question of getting old backward-looking farts out of the way
or have them wake up! :-)

Given that the UK gives a *130%* tax break to companies for their
explorations for fossil in the NS I suspect switching that to the above
might prompt some serious engineering.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sn292l$k30$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The good thing about the current crop of low wind high pressure systems
> whilst we are short of gas is to illustrate to the non scientific
> decision makers that wind turbines cannot be our only source of power.

Yes. we also need solar, hydro, etc, as well.

Not put all our ergs in one gasket. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <598cb44761bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
> decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone back
> to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought with it
> a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors much
> safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that failed due
> to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that self cooling
> can be designed in now.

....and that failure was because of a tidal wave that didn't fit what the
designers assumed would occur, etc.

And 'learning' by such accidents means taking any design and bulding very
slowly. It typically takes the order of a decade to design and build a new
'nuclear' station. Add in commissioning (bug fixing), etc, and it tends to
take multiple decades. ... erm, or dear, that gets expensive and may take
too long.

....and then the hazard you didn't allow for manifests.

Whereas wind power is expanding rapidly and the cost per kWh is falling as
this happens. NOW. It is already a good commercial proposition, and getting
better. From our POV the multiple owners of wind farms also then compete,
helping push down prices.

Personally I prefer that to heavily subsidised fission stations from non-UK
sources.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <k0e8pg5v6d1jbth1va890d46m1he31agrb@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9
<reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> One correspondent considers the mighty Thames, with its 20 million tons
> of water rising and falling up to 23ft twice a day with the tide, and
> reflects that this makes a vast amount of energy available. That is less
> than half a ton of water per person dropping about seven metres twice a
> day. The energy there is seven ton-metres (7,000 joules) per day, or
> well under one tenth of a watt.

> Engineers can more usefully concentrate on building nuclear, wind and
> solar installations, which can be made large enough to supply our needs.

He seems to assume we'd only build one power station using just one tidal
mass. However the reality is that it makes sense to have "some of all the
above". i.e. *some* tidal power sources, *some* hydro, *some* wind power,
"some* solar, etc, in a mix that optimises what's available to what we
need. No one source is going to fix the need.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <sn292l$k30$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The good thing about the current crop of low wind high pressure systems
>> whilst we are short of gas is to illustrate to the non scientific
>> decision makers that wind turbines cannot be our only source of power.
>
> Yes. we also need solar, hydro, etc, as well.
>
> Not put all our ergs in one gasket. :-)
>
> Jim
>

There’s probably an awful lot more we can do to cut consumption. New houses
being built near me are still pretty shoddy in respect of energy needs.
There’s vast numbers of commercial buildings that appear to put little
effort into energy saving.

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <598cb44761bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
>> decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone back
>> to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought with it
>> a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors much
>> safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that failed due
>> to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that self cooling
>> can be designed in now.
>
> ...and that failure was because of a tidal wave that didn't fit what the
> designers assumed would occur, etc.
>
> And 'learning' by such accidents means taking any design and bulding very
> slowly. It typically takes the order of a decade to design and build a new
> 'nuclear' station. Add in commissioning (bug fixing), etc, and it tends to
> take multiple decades. ... erm, or dear, that gets expensive and may take
> too long.
>
> ...and then the hazard you didn't allow for manifests.
>
> Whereas wind power is expanding rapidly and the cost per kWh is falling as
> this happens. NOW. It is already a good commercial proposition, and getting
> better. From our POV the multiple owners of wind farms also then compete,
> helping push down prices.
>
> Personally I prefer that to heavily subsidised fission stations from non-UK
> sources.
>
> Jim
>

Someone had better get a squirt on with the wind turbines then. In very
rough terms UK electricity production accounts for only a third of our
energy use. Transport, industrial processes and heating are the other two
thirds and are largely fossil fuel powered. If they are going to become
electricity powered we need a massive deployment of new generating
capacity. That doesn’t seem to be happening.