On 13 Apr 2022 at 11:36:05 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:25:43 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:00:16 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2022 21:30, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 12 Apr 2022 at 21:14:37 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or just grow quick growing crops.
>>>> Yeah, we have a million acres to spare for the crops, sure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> IT is staggering - as with remoaners - how little the advocates of
>>> renewable energy actually know or understand about what they are
>>> advocating.
>>
>> We'll see...
>>
>>> If you could grow biofuel
>>
>> We aren't talking about growing bio fuel, fool.
>>
>> We are discussing a SOURCE OF CARBON
>> when synthesising hydrocarbons using nuke.
>
> You were stupidly rabitting on about how hard it is to
> get carbon atoms out of the air or sea when in fact it
> is trivial to use plants to do that and use that as a
> source of carbon atoms if you want to synthesise
> hydrocarbons using nukes.

Ah, so we were talking about growing bio fuels.

--
27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross Berlin Wall.

"A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist regime is coercion, not equality."

Dan Hannan

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
><mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:42:49 PM UTC+1, wrights...@f2s.com wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> > We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
>>> > to the limitations.
>>> By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not prepared
>>> to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I must.
>
>> Your lifestyle and wealth is already in the process of being degraded in
>> a big way.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>> The only saving grace for you Bill is that you can blame Jeremy Corbyn.#
>>
>> The Fossil Fuel Roadshow and their +1ers are mob handed in this thread,
>> so I'm not going to respond to every poke.
>>
>> There are scientists, engineers and economists who are not in thrall to
>> the fossil fuel industry, working on developing and optimising
>> renewable energy systems.
>
>But can't get anything even remotely like as good a result that way as
>with nukes.
>
>> Are they doing so in the knowledge that it's impractical and bound to
>> fail?
>
>> No, they believe in what they're doing.
>
>They actually find that it provides a job.

So sticking with the destructive fossil fuel industy is done on the
basis that it provides a job.

>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>
>No, that they prefer to work than not work.
And protect their investment in shares.

>> You wouldn't believe this was possible reading the posts of the self
>> proclaimed professionals writing here .

On 13 Apr 2022 at 12:11:45 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>
>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.
>
> And protect their investment in shares.

I see you continue to have nothing constructive to say about where we might
all get our energy from. It's been pointed out to you why the various
hand-wavy schemes people put forward have SERIOUS disadvantages, which rule
them out for practical use.

To be of any use, any mooted scheme has not only to work, but work 7x24, and
at a reasonable cost to the consumer.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.

On 13 Apr 2022 11:21:12 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
wrote:

>On 13 Apr 2022 at 12:11:45 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>>
>>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.
>>
>> And protect their investment in shares.
>
>I see you continue to have nothing constructive to say about where we might
>all get our energy from. It's been pointed out to you why the various
>hand-wavy schemes people put forward have SERIOUS disadvantages, which rule
>them out for practical use.

What I find strange is the self proclaimed "intelligent" assessors of
the situation have to resort to so many stock phrases and Clichés to
make their point.

I've said several times already in this thread that I believe we
should use renewable energy to the greatest extent combined with
minimal use of nuclear energy.
Minimal use of nuclear energy because of Fukushima and Chernobyl to
name but two.

I realise that many people think "it can't happen here" because our
boffins are so smart.

>To be of any use, any mooted scheme has not only to work, but work 7x24, and
>at a reasonable cost to the consumer.

The biggest cost of fossil fuel is death and injury to life forms on
this planet. Not just in the future, it's happening now.

Nuclear energy used in a dangerous manner likewise.

Most industries have a destructive effect in some way. But fossil fuel
and nuclear used unsafely are too destructive and dangerous.
That's why billionaires are building bunkers in New Zealand, because
vested interest in the status quo is so hopelessly entrenched.
--

Mike

On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:

<snip>
>
> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>

I recently moved near the sea and rather innocently was surprised to see
just how much the tidal range varies. Here, a spring tide is about 5m
p-p whereas a neap is 1.5m p-p, according to the tide tables. That's a
big difference in available energy.

--
Cheers
Clive

On 13/04/2022 13:00, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> The biggest cost of fossil fuel is death and injury to life forms on
> this planet. Not just in the future, it's happening now.
>
> Nuclear energy used in a dangerous manner likewise.

Proof by assertion
The guy is below moron level IQ.

Windfarms have killed more people than nuclear power has, and a lot more
birds and bats.

I bet he doesn't know how nearly all the life on this planet was killed
when cyanobacteria started releasing oxygen into the air.

It was the end for all but a few prokaryotes

And the end of a nice carbon dioxide rich atmosphere too. Not that it
was then any warmer than it is now by and large

I think Mike is suffering from an overdose of trust. He simply doesn't
know when he is being shitted on by the warming crowd.,

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 13/04/2022 13:38, Clive Arthur wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>>
>
> I recently moved near the sea and rather innocently was surprised to see
> just how much the tidal range varies.  Here, a spring tide is about 5m
> p-p whereas a neap is 1.5m p-p, according to the tide tables.  That's a
> big difference in available energy.
>
I dunno, there isn't much difference between 'not a lot' and 'sweet fuck
all', really...

The environmental impact of reducing tidal flows of course would be
massive and totally change the ecology and any industry based on it, of
tidal flow estuaries.
Typical greenCrap™. Destroy the planet in order to pretend to save the
planet.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 13/04/2022 13:00, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2022 11:21:12 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Apr 2022 at 12:11:45 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>>>
>>>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.
>>>
>>> And protect their investment in shares.
>>
>> I see you continue to have nothing constructive to say about where we might
>> all get our energy from. It's been pointed out to you why the various
>> hand-wavy schemes people put forward have SERIOUS disadvantages, which rule
>> them out for practical use.
>
> What I find strange is the self proclaimed "intelligent" assessors of
> the situation have to resort to so many stock phrases and Clichés to
> make their point.
>
> I've said several times already in this thread that I believe we
> should use renewable energy to the greatest extent combined with
> minimal use of nuclear energy.
> Minimal use of nuclear energy because of Fukushima and Chernobyl to
> name but two.

Chernobyl can be discounted. It involved a design that would never have
been licenced in the West, with known deficiencies, being operated for
an unauthorised test, with safety systems removed and continuing despite
not being in the specified operating "zone" for the test. There's not a
chance of one like that happening here. Never mind the training and
regulation of the workers here, you couldn't get anything disconnected
here without prior plans, discussion, approval by all disciplines,
multiple sign-off, agreed methods of work, inspection, etc.

More likely is a Fukushima type accident, but that was due to the
systems needing constant power, whereas modern designs are able to fail
into a safe state without external power and remain like that with
nothing more than passive cooling.

> I realise that many people think "it can't happen here" because our
> boffins are so smart.
>
>> To be of any use, any mooted scheme has not only to work, but work 7x24, and
>> at a reasonable cost to the consumer.
>
> The biggest cost of fossil fuel is death and injury to life forms on
> this planet. Not just in the future, it's happening now.
>
> Nuclear energy used in a dangerous manner likewise.

Civil nuclear power has killed from a few tens of people to 20,000
people (depending upon which source you use), over 45 years. Fossil
fuels are estimated to have killed 8 million people over a single year!

I think that we can live with the risks of nuclear power - especially
with much safer, passively cooled, modern designs.

> Most industries have a destructive effect in some way. But fossil fuel
> and nuclear used unsafely are too destructive and dangerous.
> That's why billionaires are building bunkers in New Zealand, because
> vested interest in the status quo is so hopelessly entrenched.

On 13 Apr 2022 at 13:00:19 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 13 Apr 2022 11:21:12 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Apr 2022 at 12:11:45 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>>>
>>>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.
>>>
>>> And protect their investment in shares.
>>
>> I see you continue to have nothing constructive to say about where we might
>> all get our energy from. It's been pointed out to you why the various
>> hand-wavy schemes people put forward have SERIOUS disadvantages, which rule
>> them out for practical use.
>
> What I find strange is the self proclaimed "intelligent" assessors of
> the situation have to resort to so many stock phrases and Clichés to
> make their point.
>
> I've said several times already in this thread that I believe we
> should use renewable energy to the greatest extent combined with
> minimal use of nuclear energy.
> Minimal use of nuclear energy because of Fukushima and Chernobyl to
> name but two.

I've already pointed out that no one died or was injured at Fukushima, and
less than 100 died at Chernobyl. And that the Soviets had to work very hard to
make even that happen. Meanwhile other industrial accidents occur and kill
people, and you seem sanguine about that.

People commenting here are, by and large, people with training or experience
in the field. TNP is an engineer, my degree is in Physics. So I understand how
reactors work.

> I realise that many people think "it can't happen here" because our
> boffins are so smart.

You seem to imagine that a reactor can just go pop, because it feels like it.
And what have "boffins", whatever you mean by that, to do with it?

A modern reactor, treated to exactly the same experience that the Fukushima
reactors had, would just sit there quietly after the incident and do nothing.

>> To be of any use, any mooted scheme has not only to work, but work 7x24, and
>> at a reasonable cost to the consumer.
>
> The biggest cost of fossil fuel is death and injury to life forms on
> this planet. Not just in the future, it's happening now.

Well we could all just stay in bed, I suppose.

> Nuclear energy used in a dangerous manner likewise.

Who is using nuclear energy in a dangerous manner?

--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:00:19 +0100, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 13 Apr 2022 11:21:12 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 13 Apr 2022 at 12:11:45 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>>>
>>>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.
>>>
>>> And protect their investment in shares.
>>
>>I see you continue to have nothing constructive to say about where we might
>>all get our energy from. It's been pointed out to you why the various
>>hand-wavy schemes people put forward have SERIOUS disadvantages, which rule
>>them out for practical use.
>
>What I find strange is the self proclaimed "intelligent" assessors of
>the situation have to resort to so many stock phrases and Clichés to
>make their point.
>
>I've said several times already in this thread that I believe we
>should use renewable energy to the greatest extent combined with
>minimal use of nuclear energy.
>Minimal use of nuclear energy because of Fukushima and Chernobyl to
>name but two.
>
What do you mean by 'minimal use of nuclear energy'? If the wind
doesn't blow for several days in winter, when there's precious little
sunshine for solar power, then the whole country would have to be
powered by nuclear energy, otherwise thousands, possibly tens of
thousands, of the elderly and vulnerable will die of cold
(incidentally, far more than have died as a result of even the worst
nuclear accident). That would mean building something like 30 Hinkley
Point C power stations. Having built them, you might as well use them,
they will be no less safe. Stop wasting money on duplicating the
generation capacity with unreliable systems. Spend it on social
infrastructure, the NHS, whatever, and the country will benefit.

--
Chris

On 13 Apr 2022 at 13:00:19 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 13 Apr 2022 11:21:12 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Apr 2022 at 12:11:45 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>>>
>>>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.
>>>
>>> And protect their investment in shares.
>>
>> I see you continue to have nothing constructive to say about where we might
>> all get our energy from. It's been pointed out to you why the various
>> hand-wavy schemes people put forward have SERIOUS disadvantages, which rule
>> them out for practical use.
>
> What I find strange is the self proclaimed "intelligent" assessors of
> the situation have to resort to so many stock phrases and Clichés to
> make their point.

Such as?

> I've said several times already in this thread that I believe we
> should use renewable energy to the greatest extent combined with
> minimal use of nuclear energy.

And we've pointed out the issues that renewables present, if you wish to
replace all our existing sources with them. You still haven't proposed any
system that, with renewables, can *reliably* replace our existing energy
supplies. People are not interested in unreliable ones.

You might start by looking at the gridwatch website
(http://www.gridwatch.org.uk) which will tell you how much power we are using,
and where it comes from. From previous posts, you seem to think that "the wind
is always blowing somewhere" and that periods of extended calm caused by
blocking high pressure over Europe, combined with low sunlight, all happening
in Winter just when demand is at its greatest, are rare to non-existent. Well,
they happen at least a couple of times every winter. At such times, wind is
low everywhere and contributes 1% of demand if you're lucky.

Now: how d'ye propose to deal with that? Our solution is lots more nuclear.
What's yours?

--
HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks. Dave. DAVE!

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:38:25 +0100, Clive Arthur
<clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>>
>
>I recently moved near the sea and rather innocently was surprised to see
>just how much the tidal range varies. Here, a spring tide is about 5m
>p-p whereas a neap is 1.5m p-p, according to the tide tables. That's a
>big difference in available energy.

La Rance in Brittany was until recently the biggest tidal power
station in the world. It has a paltry capacity of 240MW. It generates
540GWh per year, or at an average rate of 61.6MW, a capacity factor of
about 25%*. And as I said, that was until recently the biggest in the
world!

Hinkley Point C will have a capacity of 3,200MW, some thirteen times
the size of La Rance, and will probably have a capacity factor up
around 85%. It's not difficult to see why there's so little tidal
power being developed around the world. There are very few suitable
sites; what there are don't have the capability to produce much
electricity, and the capacity factor is unremarkable due to
intermittency and the sort of point you make.

* https://tinyurl.com/yzhk5qhb or
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/La_Rance_Tidal_Power_Plant_40_year_operation_feedback.pdf

--
Chris

On 13/04/2022 12:02, Andy Burns wrote:
> newshound wrote:
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=3lpbsv
>>
>> That's a handy site, nice bit of design and functionality too. Not in
>> any way to denigrate Gridwatch.
>
> It doesn't report as frequently as gridwatch though, e.g. the 10 minutes
> disruption at 10pm over the weekend clearly showed up on gridwatch, but
> not at all on drax insights.
>
All based on the half hour data I guess. Horses for courses.

On 12 Apr 2022 at 15:04:34 BST, Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 11/04/2022 19:31, alan_m wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 17:43, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>
>>> If it happens and I don't remember when it last did, adapt.
>>
>> Go to the grid watch site and look at the monthly graph to see how well
>> wind has done. You may notice 8 consecutive days with wind producing
>> practically nothing.
>>
>> https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
>
> A better site is the Drax electric Insights :-
>
> https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=3lpbsv
>
> You can select all or none of the sources of power and plot your
> own graphs

I think they both have their strengths.

This article in particular I found interesting as it analyses the effect of
recent wind lulls. Fans of wind, please read:

https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/q1-2021/when-the-wind-goes-gas-fills-in-the-gap/

--
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."

D M Procida, UCSM

Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> Chernobyl can be discounted. It involved a design that would never have
> been licenced in the West, with known deficiencies, being operated for
> an unauthorised test, with safety systems removed and continuing despite
> not being in the specified operating "zone" for the test. There's not a
> chance of one like that happening here. Never mind the training and
> regulation of the workers here, you couldn't get anything disconnected
> here without prior plans, discussion, approval by all disciplines,
> multiple sign-off, agreed methods of work, inspection, etc.
>
Still killed very few people.

> More likely is a Fukushima type accident, but that was due to the
> systems needing constant power, whereas modern designs are able to fail
> into a safe state without external power and remain like that with
> nothing more than passive cooling.
>
One death actually attributable to the power station itself I think.

--
Chris Green
·

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:10:25 +1000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> On 13 Apr 2022 at 11:25:43 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:00:16 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2022 21:30, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 12 Apr 2022 at 21:14:37 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Or just grow quick growing crops.
>
>>>> Yeah, we have a million acres to spare for the crops, sure.
>>>
>>> IT is staggering - as with remoaners - how little the advocates of
>>> renewable energy actually know or understand about what they are
>>> advocating.
>>
>> We'll see...
>>
>>> If you could grow biofuel
>>
>> We aren't talking about growing bio fuel, fool.
>
> Funny, I could have sworn you said, upthread: "Or just grow quick growing
> crops."
>
> Ooh look, it's even quoted above.

But not for biofuels, as a source of carbon atoms after
the turnip stupidly claimed that there is no viable way
to get carbon atoms from the air or sea. That is bullshit.

> Biofuel works for the Brazilians, overlooking that their land area is
> over 3
> million sq miles (UK is less that 100,000 sq miles), and population
> around
> three times UK.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Even you should have noticed that the UK imports wood
chips and stupidly burns them to generate electricity.

The other obvious approach for the UK is to have lots more
nukes, use electricity to heat houses using heat pumps or even
just resistive heating and use natural gas as a transport fuel.
That tech has been around for decades now.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:11:04 +1000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> On 13 Apr 2022 at 11:36:05 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:25:43 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:00:16 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/04/2022 21:30, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> On 12 Apr 2022 at 21:14:37 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or just grow quick growing crops.
>>>>> Yeah, we have a million acres to spare for the crops, sure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IT is staggering - as with remoaners - how little the advocates of
>>>> renewable energy actually know or understand about what they are
>>>> advocating.
>>>
>>> We'll see...
>>>
>>>> If you could grow biofuel
>>>
>>> We aren't talking about growing bio fuel, fool.
>>>
>>> We are discussing a SOURCE OF CARBON
>>> when synthesising hydrocarbons using nuke.
>>
>> You were stupidly rabbiting on about how hard it is to
>> get carbon atoms out of the air or sea when in fact it
>> is trivial to use plants to do that and use that as a
>> source of carbon atoms if you want to synthesise
>> hydrocarbons using nukes.
>
> Ah, so we were talking about growing bio fuels.

Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:11:45 +1000, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:42:49 PM UTC+1, wrights...@f2s.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>> > We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then
>>>> adapt
>>>> > to the limitations.
>>>> By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not
>>>> prepared
>>>> to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I must.
>>
>>> Your lifestyle and wealth is already in the process of being degraded
>>> in
>>> a big way.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> The only saving grace for you Bill is that you can blame Jeremy
>>> Corbyn.#
>>>
>>> The Fossil Fuel Roadshow and their +1ers are mob handed in this thread,
>>> so I'm not going to respond to every poke.
>>>
>>> There are scientists, engineers and economists who are not in thrall to
>>> the fossil fuel industry, working on developing and optimising
>>> renewable energy systems.
>>
>> But can't get anything even remotely like as good a result that way as
>> with nukes.
>>
>>> Are they doing so in the knowledge that it's impractical and bound to
>>> fail?
>>
>>> No, they believe in what they're doing.
>>
>> They actually find that it provides a job.
>
> So sticking with the destructive fossil fuel industy

That's bullshit.

> is done on the basis that it provides a job.

No, nukes provide even more jobs and are
vastly better for electricity generation.

And walking instead of using a vehicle provides
far fewer jobs, just for those who make shoes,
which still use fossils to make the shoes from.

>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>
>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.

> And protect their investment in shares.

Most of them don't have any investment in shares.

>>> You wouldn't believe this was possible reading the posts of the self
>>> proclaimed professionals writing here .

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:00:19 +1000, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 Apr 2022 11:21:12 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Apr 2022 at 12:11:45 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>>>
>>>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.
>>>
>>> And protect their investment in shares.
>>
>> I see you continue to have nothing constructive to say about where we
>> might
>> all get our energy from. It's been pointed out to you why the various
>> hand-wavy schemes people put forward have SERIOUS disadvantages, which
>> rule
>> them out for practical use.
>
> What I find strange is the self proclaimed "intelligent" assessors of
> the situation have to resort to so many stock phrases and Clichés to
> make their point.

Or course you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

> I've said several times already in this thread that I believe we
> should use renewable energy to the greatest extent combined with
> minimal use of nuclear energy.

Makes a lot more sense to use nukes exclusively and not
waste any money on renewables and stop fucking over
the environment with all those windmills which can never
produce anything like enough power to supply the demand
of the country.

> Minimal use of nuclear energy because of Fukushima and Chernobyl to
> name but two.

Makes more sense to do the nukes properly so you don't get either result..

Thats what France has done and it has worked very well indeed for them.

> I realise that many people think "it can't happen here" because our
> boffins are so smart.

It hasn't happened in western europe because western europe
has had enough of a clue to do the nukes properly. Same with
the USA.

>> To be of any use, any mooted scheme has not only to work, but work
>> 7x24, and
>> at a reasonable cost to the consumer.
>
> The biggest cost of fossil fuel is death and injury to life forms on
> this planet. Not just in the future, it's happening now.

Just as true of renewables.

> Nuclear energy used in a dangerous manner likewise.

France proves that it is perfectly possible to use it safely.

> Most industries have a destructive effect in some way.

Depends on how you define destructive. Agriculture
mostly doesn't given that it feeds us humans and even
produces better animals and plants by breeding too.

> But fossil fuel
> and nuclear used unsafely are too destructive and dangerous.

France proves that that is a lie with nukes.

> That's why billionaires are building bunkers in New Zealand,

No billionaire is doing anything like that.

> because vested interest in the status quo is so hopelessly entrenched..

Just as true of the vested interest in renewables.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:22:34 +1000, Steve Walker
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 13/04/2022 13:00, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2022 11:21:12 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Apr 2022 at 12:11:45 BST, Mike Halmarack
>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>>>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.
>>>>
>>>> And protect their investment in shares.
>>>
>>> I see you continue to have nothing constructive to say about where we
>>> might
>>> all get our energy from. It's been pointed out to you why the various
>>> hand-wavy schemes people put forward have SERIOUS disadvantages, which
>>> rule
>>> them out for practical use.
>> What I find strange is the self proclaimed "intelligent" assessors of
>> the situation have to resort to so many stock phrases and Clichés to
>> make their point.
>> I've said several times already in this thread that I believe we
>> should use renewable energy to the greatest extent combined with
>> minimal use of nuclear energy.
>> Minimal use of nuclear energy because of Fukushima and Chernobyl to
>> name but two.
>
> Chernobyl can be discounted. It involved a design that would never have
> been licenced in the West, with known deficiencies, being operated for
> an unauthorised test, with safety systems removed and continuing despite
> not being in the specified operating "zone" for the test. There's not a
> chance of one like that happening here. Never mind the training and
> regulation of the workers here, you couldn't get anything disconnected
> here without prior plans, discussion, approval by all disciplines,
> multiple sign-off, agreed methods of work, inspection, etc.

> More likely is a Fukushima type accident,

No, the UK doesn't get tsunamis and it is trivial to site the
auxiliary power generation so that isn't swamped anyway.

> but that was due to the systems needing constant power, whereas modern
> designs are able to fail into a safe state without external power and
> remain like that with nothing more than passive cooling.
>
>> I realise that many people think "it can't happen here" because our
>> boffins are so smart.
>>
>>> To be of any use, any mooted scheme has not only to work, but work
>>> 7x24, and
>>> at a reasonable cost to the consumer.
>> The biggest cost of fossil fuel is death and injury to life forms on
>> this planet. Not just in the future, it's happening now.
>> Nuclear energy used in a dangerous manner likewise.
>
> Civil nuclear power has killed from a few tens of people to 20,000
> people (depending upon which source you use), over 45 years. Fossil
> fuels are estimated to have killed 8 million people over a single year!

The relevant number would be how many renewables
have killed, because that is what he wants to use.

> I think that we can live with the risks of nuclear power - especially
> with much safer, passively cooled, modern designs.

And France proves that.

>> Most industries have a destructive effect in some way. But fossil fuel
>> and nuclear used unsafely are too destructive and dangerous.
>> That's why billionaires are building bunkers in New Zealand, because
>> vested interest in the status quo is so hopelessly entrenched.

On 13/04/2022 12:11, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> So sticking with the destructive fossil fuel industy is done on the
> basis that it provides a job.
>
> And protect their investment in shares.

And pay out massive dividends to private *pension* funds, which
you will almost certainly see arriving in your bank account
every month, even if you are clueless as to where the money is
coming from.

Unless you have a public service pension, in which case the
(private sector) taxpayer is almost certainly funding your retirement.

Your measly 6%, 3% or 0% contribution definately isn't finding it.

PS The top 1% of taxpayers paid 29% of all the income tax
collected by HM treasury last year, and many of them were Non-Doms too.

On 12/04/2022 17:05, newshound wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 15:33, Andrew wrote:
>
>>
>> The GP  situation is complex. After being given a massive pay increase
>> by NuLab in 2003/4 the effect on their NHS final salary pension was to
>> push them up to, and over Gordon Browns pensions Lifetime allowance.
>>
>> Ditto hospital consultants. There are penalties for doing this, like a
>> potential 55% tax on the excess. These penalties apply to *everyone*.
>> If my SIPP exceeds £1,073,000 I have to pay that tax, even if I managed
>> to get it up to that amount by virtue of clever or lucky investments
>> and *not* because my employer/client made huge contributions as part of
>> 'salary'.
>>
>> The GP OTOH (even though self employed !) just watches the largesse of
>> his taxpayer-funded pension roll in at zero investment risk to him, and
>> is so annoyed at the tax implicatins that he/she retires then early, and
>> then works as a locum for a couple of days a week.
>>
>> His replacement is almost certainly a part-time female with kids, who
>> froths at length on the GP website about 'work life balance'
>> (translation: I come in 2 days a week and probably only see patients
>> for half of one of those days). This is why a GP appointment is like
>> gold dust these days.
>>
>> Also add on 12 million pensioners, 560,000 over age 85 who are now
>> highly dependent on modern medicine to keep them alive. Naturally all
>> this needs constant assessment and 'review', which occupies a huge
>> amount of a GPs time.
>>
>>
>>
> It's seemed to me in recent years that these were behind some of the
> current NHS problems. I'm happy that Brown's tax and pensions policies
> were well-intentioned, but unforseen consequences and all that.
> Personally, I'd have no problem giving both GPs and Hospital Consultants
> some better tax breaks, given that they are extremely stressful jobs, as
> well as being highly necessary in a civilised society.
>

Why should they get tax breaks that I don't ?. It costs £250,000 to
train a doctor in the UK, far more than £45,000 'tuition' fees. Then
a lot more in post grad training.

I and other private sector tax payers pay this and if I had £2 million
in my SIPP I would have to pay £550,000 tax on it, so to end up with
a £2 million pension I would need £2.5+ million. Fat chance.

The baby boomers who went into medicine paid *nothing* and
are now at the top of their incremental scales and immune from the
2011 pension changes. These are the ones walking off with pensions
that would need £2 million to buy with an annuity. And forget the
'stressful' life, a colleague is married to a hospital paediatrician
but she *never* sees any patients. All she does is write reports for
social services, and that's it, stressful my arse.

She will collect (or has already collected) her £2 million pension.

GP's are self employed yet still full members of the NHS superannuation
scheme ! (*). Cry on that self-employed plumber (who is paying for it).

They can boost their 'income' with a raft of box-ticking procedures like
giving advice of weight loss or smoking.

This boosts their practice and their income and their pension then goes
up exponentially.

One GP in East London managed to get his income up to over £300,000
by taking 'advantage' of these fiddles.

He then retired with a gigantic tax-free lump sum and pension. It was
reported in the Guardian about 10 years ago.

(*) meanwhile, nurses employed by GP practices are *not* members of the
NHS superannuation scheme, because they are not 'employed' by the NHS.
Odd isn't it ?.

> That said, the BMA has also done a pretty good job of controlling entry
> to the profession, as did the dockers and print workers in the 50's and
> 60's. I suspect that a more "centrally planned" approach that put more
> paramedics and well-trained nurses in the front line might also be more
> cost-effective. I'd be more than happy to have my minor complaints and
> ailments filtered by a good nurse.

There used to be only one or two token females every year at the
start of the academic year amongst the chaps who were frequently
selected on the basis of how they could boost the Medical Schools
rugby, cricket or rowing teams. Barts and the London both guilty
of this because of the annual rivalry between the two medical
schools rugby teams.

Now 50% of the annual intake are female.

On 13/04/2022 17:26, Chris Green wrote:
> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Chernobyl can be discounted. It involved a design that would never have
>> been licenced in the West, with known deficiencies, being operated for
>> an unauthorised test, with safety systems removed and continuing despite
>> not being in the specified operating "zone" for the test. There's not a
>> chance of one like that happening here. Never mind the training and
>> regulation of the workers here, you couldn't get anything disconnected
>> here without prior plans, discussion, approval by all disciplines,
>> multiple sign-off, agreed methods of work, inspection, etc.
>>
> Still killed very few people.

Expected to reach a total of around 4000 over the years.

>> More likely is a Fukushima type accident, but that was due to the
>> systems needing constant power, whereas modern designs are able to fail
>> into a safe state without external power and remain like that with
>> nothing more than passive cooling.
>>
> One death actually attributable to the power station itself I think.

A couple of hundred deaths due to the necessary evacuation of the area.

It all pales into insignificance compared to the fossil fuel related
deaths though and is low enough not to be a major concern amidst all the
other reasons for deaths.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 06:16:35 +1000, Steve Walker
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 13/04/2022 17:26, Chris Green wrote:
>> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chernobyl can be discounted. It involved a design that would never have
>>> been licenced in the West, with known deficiencies, being operated for
>>> an unauthorised test, with safety systems removed and continuing
>>> despite
>>> not being in the specified operating "zone" for the test. There's not a
>>> chance of one like that happening here. Never mind the training and
>>> regulation of the workers here, you couldn't get anything disconnected
>>> here without prior plans, discussion, approval by all disciplines,
>>> multiple sign-off, agreed methods of work, inspection, etc.
>>>
>> Still killed very few people.
>
> Expected to reach a total of around 4000 over the years.

And it remains to be seen if that happens.

>>> More likely is a Fukushima type accident, but that was due to the
>>> systems needing constant power, whereas modern designs are able to fail
>>> into a safe state without external power and remain like that with
>>> nothing more than passive cooling.
>>>
>> One death actually attributable to the power station itself I think.
>
> A couple of hundred deaths due to the necessary evacuation of the area.

The evacuation was not in fact necessary.

> It all pales into insignificance compared to the fossil fuel related
> deaths though and is low enough not to be a major concern amidst all the
> other reasons for deaths.

What matters is the deaths with the renewables he wants to see used
instead.

Not at all clear what that is.

On 13 Apr 2022 at 21:16:35 BST, Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 13/04/2022 17:26, Chris Green wrote:
>> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chernobyl can be discounted. It involved a design that would never have
>>> been licenced in the West, with known deficiencies, being operated for
>>> an unauthorised test, with safety systems removed and continuing despite
>>> not being in the specified operating "zone" for the test. There's not a
>>> chance of one like that happening here. Never mind the training and
>>> regulation of the workers here, you couldn't get anything disconnected
>>> here without prior plans, discussion, approval by all disciplines,
>>> multiple sign-off, agreed methods of work, inspection, etc.
>>>
>> Still killed very few people.
>
> Expected to reach a total of around 4000 over the years.

Only because the Sovs wouldnt accept or distribute the iodine packages.

>>> More likely is a Fukushima type accident, but that was due to the
>>> systems needing constant power, whereas modern designs are able to fail
>>> into a safe state without external power and remain like that with
>>> nothing more than passive cooling.
>>>
>> One death actually attributable to the power station itself I think.
>
> A couple of hundred deaths due to the necessary evacuation of the area.

Unnecessary evacuation.

> It all pales into insignificance compared to the fossil fuel related
> deaths though and is low enough not to be a major concern amidst all the
> other reasons for deaths.

--
What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you use it?
To whom are you accountable?
How do we get rid of you?

Tony Benn