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.
>
>>> 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.

The issue is more around the risks related to the radioactive waste. And the
cost of mitigating those risks.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 12 Apr 2022 at 11:20:37 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/04/2022 09:26, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> The amount of personal insult and vitriol in this thread is indicative
>> of hysterical uncertainty.
>>
> No, it is indicative of a total loss of patience with uneducated morons
> who persist in turning hard facts into 'matters of opinion' that can be
> hand waved away.
>
> As you are not attempting to do. You cannot counter the facts, so you
> attempt to shift the argument to the sort of emotional arena which is
> all you know,
>
> Electricity does not run on emotion, it runs on hard physical chemical
> and engineering facts, 'nor all your piety, nor wit, shall lure it back
> to cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out a word of it'
>

You see, that's your problem right there: you primarily rely on personal
insults, backed only by the charge of 'fake news'.

>
>> I believe that renewable energy should be combined and maximised.
>
> I don't deal in beliefs. I deal in facts. The facts say that they only
> place for renewable energy is in a museum, and te best place dor tjhose
> who finaced it is in jail.
>

Well, there's another thing. People who know what they're talking about are
properly trained, qualified and peer reviewed. For example:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04553-z

They deal with science, not beliefs.

>
>> Safe and sensible nuclear reactors should fill the gaps, which means
>> avaricious tory politicians and greedy financiers should be kept out
>> of the mix as much as possible. Nationalisation is the answer to
>> that.
>>
> 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
>
> Do you deny the reality of this statement, that once you have built the
> nuclear plant to cover *all* your needs, because you cannot rely on
> renewables at *all*,, and you have outlawed gas or other fossil, there
> is *no point whatsoever* in having any intermittent renewable energy *at
> all.

You've already been reminded that even if the UK could sort out some decent
procurement involving reliable cartels (unlikely, on past form) it will take
at least 10 years before new nuclear will do anything. And unless the process
was nationalised (again, unlikely) doubts about waste, area blight, and
construction overheads (mainly environmental and financial) just slow things
up and if anything make things worse.

On renewables are 'worse' I wouldn't mind seeing your source. Preferably not
your 'calculation' again.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 13/04/2022 14:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:00:19 +0100, Mike Halmarack

>> 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.

Mike Halmarack has already tried to brush away the fact that there were
two one-week periods this winter ("...I don't remember it...") where the
wind didn't blow and solar output was minimal. Over those periods the
whole of the renewables programme provided 10% or less of the
electricity demand, and most of that was provided by the
highly-polluting biomass - wood chip imported expensively from Canada!

To cope with this, nuclear, gas, coal, OCGT and the interconnectors were
running flat out. Halmarack does not seem to grasp that it is precisely
this situation that has to be catered for, and that if the
infrastructure (more nuclear and gas) is built to supply it, then it
makes sense to use it - making the expensive and resource-intensive
renewables issue totally irrelevant. I'm sure that's what the
environmentalists are afraid of, should people find out and start to
demand changes.

Oh! And there aren't enough batteries around to make up the shortfall of
energy at those times.

--
Spike

On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
wrote:

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

Arm waving!

--
Chris

On 13/04/2022 20:23, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

Because I wish we had more of them, especially GPs, and because for all
the rewards that is a particularly stressful job.

I'd also like to see nurses and care sector staff rewarded better, of
course.

>
> 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 14 Apr 2022 at 09:15:08 BST, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/04/2022 14:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:00:19 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>
>>> 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.
>
> Mike Halmarack has already tried to brush away the fact that there were
> two one-week periods this winter ("...I don't remember it...") where the
> wind didn't blow and solar output was minimal. Over those periods the
> whole of the renewables programme provided 10% or less of the
> electricity demand, and most of that was provided by the
> highly-polluting biomass - wood chip imported expensively from Canada!
>
> To cope with this, nuclear, gas, coal, OCGT and the interconnectors were
> running flat out. Halmarack does not seem to grasp that it is precisely
> this situation that has to be catered for, and that if the
> infrastructure (more nuclear and gas) is built to supply it, then it
> makes sense to use it - making the expensive and resource-intensive
> renewables issue totally irrelevant. I'm sure that's what the
> environmentalists are afraid of, should people find out and start to
> demand changes.

I notice that as I type, this sunny Thursday morning, wind is producing a
massive 2.4% of our electricity, while over half our power is coming from gas.

> Oh! And there aren't enough batteries around to make up the shortfall of
> energy at those times.

Some 10 years ago there were these solar stations proposed for Australia -
producing 360MW IIRC, with molten salt as the heat store so they could operate
more or less continuously. They seemed to make sense, given that desert and
sun are two things they have plenty of. Anyone know why they seem not to have
gone ahead?

--
What you must understand is that, for today's left intellectuals, education is useful only to the extent that it endorses their prejudices. Beyond that, they refuse to go.

Roger Scruton

On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
wrote:

>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?

Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
amount of nuclear energy.

Posters here have said that where there have been previous nuclear
accidents, the same mistakes won't be made again, which is probably
true.
Future, as yet unforeseen, mistakes are another matter.

Even when nuclear reactors function as planned there is the problem of
nuclear waste.
The waste from the current level of nuclear reaction is not being
handled effectively and this threatens destructive damage in the
future. Increasing the level of mishandled nuclear waste should be
minimised

As nuclear power stations and nuclear powered military devices can be
shutdown as required, it should be possible to use them
intermittently.

As we speed down the smart motorways of modern life we need to take
care of the mess we're squirting out of our back ends.
--

Mike

On 14/04/2022 11:22, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2022 at 09:15:08 BST, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2022 14:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:00:19 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Mike Halmarack has already tried to brush away the fact that there were
>> two one-week periods this winter ("...I don't remember it...") where the
>> wind didn't blow and solar output was minimal. Over those periods the
>> whole of the renewables programme provided 10% or less of the
>> electricity demand, and most of that was provided by the
>> highly-polluting biomass - wood chip imported expensively from Canada!
>>
>> To cope with this, nuclear, gas, coal, OCGT and the interconnectors were
>> running flat out. Halmarack does not seem to grasp that it is precisely
>> this situation that has to be catered for, and that if the
>> infrastructure (more nuclear and gas) is built to supply it, then it
>> makes sense to use it - making the expensive and resource-intensive
>> renewables issue totally irrelevant. I'm sure that's what the
>> environmentalists are afraid of, should people find out and start to
>> demand changes.
>
> I notice that as I type, this sunny Thursday morning, wind is producing a
> massive 2.4% of our electricity, while over half our power is coming from gas.
>
>> Oh! And there aren't enough batteries around to make up the shortfall of
>> energy at those times.
>
> Some 10 years ago there were these solar stations proposed for Australia -
> producing 360MW IIRC, with molten salt as the heat store so they could operate
> more or less continuously. They seemed to make sense, given that desert and
> sun are two things they have plenty of. Anyone know why they seem not to have
> gone ahead?
>
One did operate in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower

a lot around, but no one has converted their grid to use them,
Presumably even with generous subsidies they were hopelessly uneconomic.

And that is really the point

Nuclear power is cost competeiive with [current] fossils - all the other
possibles are not.

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:35:20 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

>> That's why billionaires are building bunkers in New Zealand,
>
>No billionaire is doing anything like that.

https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building-bunkers-in-new-zealand-prepping-for-the-apocalypse/
--

Mike

On 14 Apr 2022 at 11:31:24 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
> amount of nuclear energy.

Meaning, as I pointed out before, that you build two power stations to get the
output of one.

> Posters here have said that where there have been previous nuclear
> accidents, the same mistakes won't be made again, which is probably
> true.
> Future, as yet unforeseen, mistakes are another matter.
>
> Even when nuclear reactors function as planned there is the problem of
> nuclear waste.
> The waste from the current level of nuclear reaction is not being
> handled effectively and this threatens destructive damage in the
> future. Increasing the level of mishandled nuclear waste should be
> minimised

Actually nuclear waste is being handled. If you'd listened to a "Life
Scientific" program on BBC R4 a few years ago, where the guest was Prof. Sue
Ion of Imperial College, you'd have heard her debunk this "nuclear waste
problem" myth. She said quite clearly that waste is being glassified and has
been for 20 years. What that gives you is stuff that can be stored underground
quite safely with no possibility of leaks. Newly removed fuel elements are
stored under water for 10 years before being treated, after which time they
are processed.

> As nuclear power stations and nuclear powered military devices can be
> shutdown as required, it should be possible to use them
> intermittently.

Even if we do that, we have one or another large expensive asset sitting doing
nothing for 100% of the time. Our wind fleet at the moment, for example,
producing (now) 2.5% of our electricity.

> As we speed down the smart motorways of modern life we need to take
> care of the mess we're squirting out of our back ends.

You speak for yourself.

--
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison."
Churchill: "If you were my wife, I'd drink it."

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:31:24 +0100, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
>amount of nuclear energy.
>
Once again you've avoided answering the question. When the wind
doesn't blow, as can happen for several days in winter when
electricity demand is high, once or twice a year, the minimal amount
of nuclear energy needed would be 100%. Do you not accept this, or is
that what you're reluctantly being forced to admit, without having the
courage to say it?

If you don't accept it, what other source of electricity do you
propose? And if there are enough nukes to power the whole country,
keep them running as base load. Yo-yo-ing nukes output up and down is
not a good way to run them. Properly operated, they last a lot longer
than renewables, which is a term better used to describe the wind
generators and solar panels themselves, meaning that every twenty
years or so the they have to be renewed.

--
Chris

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:32:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 14/04/2022 11:22, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2022 at 09:15:08 BST, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/04/2022 14:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:00:19 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Mike Halmarack has already tried to brush away the fact that there were
>>> two one-week periods this winter ("...I don't remember it...") where the
>>> wind didn't blow and solar output was minimal. Over those periods the
>>> whole of the renewables programme provided 10% or less of the
>>> electricity demand, and most of that was provided by the
>>> highly-polluting biomass - wood chip imported expensively from Canada!
>>>
>>> To cope with this, nuclear, gas, coal, OCGT and the interconnectors were
>>> running flat out. Halmarack does not seem to grasp that it is precisely
>>> this situation that has to be catered for, and that if the
>>> infrastructure (more nuclear and gas) is built to supply it, then it
>>> makes sense to use it - making the expensive and resource-intensive
>>> renewables issue totally irrelevant. I'm sure that's what the
>>> environmentalists are afraid of, should people find out and start to
>>> demand changes.
>>
>> I notice that as I type, this sunny Thursday morning, wind is producing a
>> massive 2.4% of our electricity, while over half our power is coming from gas.
>>
>>> Oh! And there aren't enough batteries around to make up the shortfall of
>>> energy at those times.
>>
>> Some 10 years ago there were these solar stations proposed for Australia -
>> producing 360MW IIRC, with molten salt as the heat store so they could operate
>> more or less continuously. They seemed to make sense, given that desert and
>> sun are two things they have plenty of. Anyone know why they seem not to have
>> gone ahead?
>>
>One did operate in the USA.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
>
>a lot around, but no one has converted their grid to use them,
>Presumably even with generous subsidies they were hopelessly uneconomic.
>
>And that is really the point
>
>Nuclear power is cost competeiive with [current] fossils - all the other
>possibles are not.

There were two solar furnaces in the US, Ivanpah and Crescent Dunes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

I've not read those articles recently, but IIRC they both failed to
meet the overly optimistic claims made by the developers to attract
finance, much of it from the US government, and they've both gone
bust. They were extremely damaging to the local bird life - if a bird
flew through the concentrated solar beam, it was barbecued turkey
before it hit the ground, leaving a trail of smoke.

There was something similar in Spain; not sure what happened to that,
but solar furnaces don't have a good record, so perhaps the one in Oz
never got started.

--
Chris

On 14 Apr 2022 at 12:09:09 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:31:24 +0100, Mike Halmarack
> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
>> amount of nuclear energy.
>>
> Once again you've avoided answering the question. When the wind
> doesn't blow, as can happen for several days in winter when
> electricity demand is high, once or twice a year, the minimal amount
> of nuclear energy needed would be 100%. Do you not accept this, or is
> that what you're reluctantly being forced to admit, without having the
> courage to say it?
>
> If you don't accept it, what other source of electricity do you
> propose? And if there are enough nukes to power the whole country,
> keep them running as base load. Yo-yo-ing nukes output up and down is
> not a good way to run them. Properly operated, they last a lot longer
> than renewables, which is a term better used to describe the wind
> generators and solar panels themselves, meaning that every twenty
> years or so the they have to be renewed.

Just to clarify: the wind/solar stuff has to be renewed every 20 years, not
the nukes. The latter last 50 years or so. The nukes need refuelling from time
to time, obvs, but that is minor.

--
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place." - Douglas Adams

On 14/04/2022 10:50, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2022 at 11:31:24 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
> wrote>> On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>> wrote:

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

>> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
>> amount of nuclear energy.

> Meaning, as I pointed out before, that you build two power stations to get the
> output of one.

In an earlier reply to Halmarack I demonstrated using real-world numbers
how adding windpower to a CCGT in order to make it 'greener' saved no
gas at all, for all that expenditure on the windfarm in terms of
concrete used, unrecyclable plastics, use of rare-earth elements and the
rest.

He never replied. I can only assume he Can't Do Sums, and believes
arm-waving will deal with all the 'problems'.

>> Posters here have said that where there have been previous nuclear
>> accidents, the same mistakes won't be made again, which is probably
>> true.

>> Future, as yet unforeseen, mistakes are another matter.

>> Even when nuclear reactors function as planned there is the problem of
>> nuclear waste.

>> The waste from the current level of nuclear reaction is not being
>> handled effectively and this threatens destructive damage in the
>> future. Increasing the level of mishandled nuclear waste should be
>> minimised

> Actually nuclear waste is being handled. If you'd listened to a "Life
> Scientific" program on BBC R4 a few years ago, where the guest was Prof. Sue
> Ion of Imperial College, you'd have heard her debunk this "nuclear waste
> problem" myth. She said quite clearly that waste is being glassified and has
> been for 20 years. What that gives you is stuff that can be stored underground
> quite safely with no possibility of leaks. Newly removed fuel elements are
> stored under water for 10 years before being treated, after which time they
> are processed.

>> As nuclear power stations and nuclear powered military devices can be
>> shutdown as required, it should be possible to use them
>> intermittently.

> Even if we do that, we have one or another large expensive asset sitting doing
> nothing for 100% of the time. Our wind fleet at the moment, for example,
> producing (now) 2.5% of our electricity.

>> As we speed down the smart motorways of modern life we need to take
>> care of the mess we're squirting out of our back ends.

> You speak for yourself.

Wind turbine blades are not recyclable, and go into landfill. These days
they are 70m long. What a waste.

--
Spike

On 14/04/2022 11:50, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2022 at 11:31:24 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
>> amount of nuclear energy.
>
> Meaning, as I pointed out before, that you build two power stations to get the
> output of one.
>
>> Posters here have said that where there have been previous nuclear
>> accidents, the same mistakes won't be made again, which is probably
>> true.
>> Future, as yet unforeseen, mistakes are another matter.
>>
>> Even when nuclear reactors function as planned there is the problem of
>> nuclear waste.
>> The waste from the current level of nuclear reaction is not being
>> handled effectively and this threatens destructive damage in the
>> future. Increasing the level of mishandled nuclear waste should be
>> minimised
>
> Actually nuclear waste is being handled. If you'd listened to a "Life
> Scientific" program on BBC R4 a few years ago, where the guest was Prof. Sue
> Ion of Imperial College, you'd have heard her debunk this "nuclear waste
> problem" myth. She said quite clearly that waste is being glassified and has
> been for 20 years. What that gives you is stuff that can be stored underground
> quite safely with no possibility of leaks. Newly removed fuel elements are
> stored under water for 10 years before being treated, after which time they
> are processed.

Not only is it being handled, but the stockpiles of old waste from the
earlier nuclear programmes (often dirty as it was a crash programme to
support the military rather than/as well as the civil programmes) are
being cleared up too.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:08:26 +0000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
wrote:

>On 14/04/2022 10:50, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2022 at 11:31:24 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>> wrote>> On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> Now: how d'ye propose to deal with that? Our solution is lots more nuclear.
>>>> What's yours?
>
>>> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
>>> amount of nuclear energy.
>
>> Meaning, as I pointed out before, that you build two power stations to get the
>> output of one.
>
>In an earlier reply to Halmarack I demonstrated using real-world numbers
>how adding windpower to a CCGT in order to make it 'greener' saved no
>gas at all, for all that expenditure on the windfarm in terms of
>concrete used, unrecyclable plastics, use of rare-earth elements and the
>rest.
I'm not a windpower specialist, which isn't a real problem according
to you, as they know not what they do.

>He never replied. I can only assume he Can't Do Sums,

I'm not the greatest at sums I must admit, which excludes me from
having any opinion on the subject by your assessment.

>and believes arm-waving will deal with all the 'problems'.

At least that will give my hand a rest.

>>> Posters here have said that where there have been previous nuclear
>>> accidents, the same mistakes won't be made again, which is probably
>>> true.
>
>>> Future, as yet unforeseen, mistakes are another matter.
>
>>> Even when nuclear reactors function as planned there is the problem of
>>> nuclear waste.
>
>>> The waste from the current level of nuclear reaction is not being
>>> handled effectively and this threatens destructive damage in the
>>> future. Increasing the level of mishandled nuclear waste should be
>>> minimised
>
>> Actually nuclear waste is being handled. If you'd listened to a "Life
>> Scientific" program on BBC R4 a few years ago, where the guest was Prof. Sue
>> Ion of Imperial College, you'd have heard her debunk this "nuclear waste
>> problem" myth. She said quite clearly that waste is being glassified and has
>> been for 20 years. What that gives you is stuff that can be stored underground
>> quite safely with no possibility of leaks. Newly removed fuel elements are
>> stored under water for 10 years before being treated, after which time they
>> are processed.
>
>>> As nuclear power stations and nuclear powered military devices can be
>>> shutdown as required, it should be possible to use them
>>> intermittently.
>
>> Even if we do that, we have one or another large expensive asset sitting doing
>> nothing for 100% of the time. Our wind fleet at the moment, for example,
>> producing (now) 2.5% of our electricity.
>
>>> As we speed down the smart motorways of modern life we need to take
>>> care of the mess we're squirting out of our back ends.
>
>> You speak for yourself.
>
>Wind turbine blades are not recyclable, and go into landfill. These days
>they are 70m long. What a waste.
--

Mike

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:56:02 +0100, Steve Walker
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

>> Actually nuclear waste is being handled. If you'd listened to a "Life
>> Scientific" program on BBC R4 a few years ago, where the guest was Prof. Sue
>> Ion of Imperial College, you'd have heard her debunk this "nuclear waste
>> problem" myth. She said quite clearly that waste is being glassified and has
>> been for 20 years. What that gives you is stuff that can be stored underground
>> quite safely with no possibility of leaks. Newly removed fuel elements are
>> stored under water for 10 years before being treated, after which time they
>> are processed.
>
>Not only is it being handled, but the stockpiles of old waste from the
>earlier nuclear programmes (often dirty as it was a crash programme to
>support the military rather than/as well as the civil programmes) are
>being cleared up too.

Prof. Sue Ion of Imperial College obviously didn't convince the
authors of the articles below.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/qa-dealing-with-britains-nuclear-waste/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/28/push-for-new-uk-nuclear-plants-lacks-facility-for-toxic-waste-say-experts

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2313277-the-uks-nuclear-waste-and-the-geological-solution/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/10/uk-energy-strategys-nuclear-dangers-and-glaring-omissions

https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/radwaste/history-of-nuclear-waste-disposal-proposals-in-britain/

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/nuclear-power-in-the-uk/

https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/nuclear-waste-27-7-21/

https://inews.co.uk/news/nuclear-power-plant-plans-uk-could-run-out-room-radioactive-waste-1563015

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4407421.stm
--

Mike

On 14 Apr 2022 at 13:58:13 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:08:26 +0000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
> wrote:

>> He never replied. I can only assume he Can't Do Sums,
>
> I'm not the greatest at sums I must admit, which excludes me from
> having any opinion on the subject by your assessment.

Any fool can have an opinion. What we are interested in is costed viable
solutions that work.

Beware of belling the cat, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_Cat
and look at the section entitled "Synopsis and Idiomatic Use"

--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On 14/04/2022 11:31, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
> amount of nuclear energy.
>
> Posters here have said that where there have been previous nuclear
> accidents, the same mistakes won't be made again, which is probably
> true.
> Future, as yet unforeseen, mistakes are another matter.

Oh gawd, here we go with the 'precautionary principle , hand wavey
'possibilities' and the rest

>
> Even when nuclear reactors function as planned there is the problem of
> nuclear waste.
> The waste from the current level of nuclear reaction is not being
> handled effectively and this threatens destructive damage in the
> future. Increasing the level of mishandled nuclear waste should be
> minimised
>
> As nuclear power stations and nuclear powered military devices can be
> shutdown as required, it should be possible to use them
> intermittently.

We could, but why would we need to? they simply need to be throttled
back a bit if demand drops.

>
> As we speed down the smart motorways of modern life we need to take
> care of the mess we're squirting out of our back ends.

--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 14 Apr 2022 at 14:07:40 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:56:02 +0100, Steve Walker
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Actually nuclear waste is being handled. If you'd listened to a "Life
>>> Scientific" program on BBC R4 a few years ago, where the guest was Prof. Sue
>>> Ion of Imperial College, you'd have heard her debunk this "nuclear waste
>>> problem" myth. She said quite clearly that waste is being glassified and has
>>> been for 20 years. What that gives you is stuff that can be stored underground
>>> quite safely with no possibility of leaks. Newly removed fuel elements are
>>> stored under water for 10 years before being treated, after which time they
>>> are processed.
>>
>> Not only is it being handled, but the stockpiles of old waste from the
>> earlier nuclear programmes (often dirty as it was a crash programme to
>> support the military rather than/as well as the civil programmes) are
>> being cleared up too.
>
>
> Prof. Sue Ion of Imperial College obviously didn't convince the
> authors of the articles below.
>
> https://www.theengineer.co.uk/qa-dealing-with-britains-nuclear-waste/
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/28/push-for-new-uk-nuclear-plants-lacks-facility-for-toxic-waste-say-experts
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2313277-the-uks-nuclear-waste-and-the-geological-solution/
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/10/uk-energy-strategys-nuclear-dangers-and-glaring-omissions
>
> https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/radwaste/history-of-nuclear-waste-disposal-proposals-in-britain/
>
> https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/nuclear-power-in-the-uk/
>
> https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/nuclear-waste-27-7-21/
>
> https://inews.co.uk/news/nuclear-power-plant-plans-uk-could-run-out-room-radioactive-waste-1563015
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4407421.stm

These barely mention vitrification at all.

--
"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

On 14/04/2022 14:07, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:56:02 +0100, Steve Walker
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Actually nuclear waste is being handled. If you'd listened to a "Life
>>> Scientific" program on BBC R4 a few years ago, where the guest was Prof. Sue
>>> Ion of Imperial College, you'd have heard her debunk this "nuclear waste
>>> problem" myth. She said quite clearly that waste is being glassified and has
>>> been for 20 years. What that gives you is stuff that can be stored underground
>>> quite safely with no possibility of leaks. Newly removed fuel elements are
>>> stored under water for 10 years before being treated, after which time they
>>> are processed.
>>
>> Not only is it being handled, but the stockpiles of old waste from the
>> earlier nuclear programmes (often dirty as it was a crash programme to
>> support the military rather than/as well as the civil programmes) are
>> being cleared up too.
>
>
> Prof. Sue Ion of Imperial College obviously didn't convince the
> authors of the articles below.
>
> https://www.theengineer.co.uk/qa-dealing-with-britains-nuclear-waste/
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/28/push-for-new-uk-nuclear-plants-lacks-facility-for-toxic-waste-say-experts
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2313277-the-uks-nuclear-waste-and-the-geological-solution/
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/10/uk-energy-strategys-nuclear-dangers-and-glaring-omissions
>
> https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/radwaste/history-of-nuclear-waste-disposal-proposals-in-britain/
>
> https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/nuclear-power-in-the-uk/
>
> https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/nuclear-waste-27-7-21/
>
> https://inews.co.uk/news/nuclear-power-plant-plans-uk-could-run-out-room-radioactive-waste-1563015
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4407421.stm

Nothing would convince that lot of Putin's Poodles

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

On 14/04/2022 12:09, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:31:24 +0100, Mike Halmarack
> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
>> amount of nuclear energy.
>>
> Once again you've avoided answering the question. When the wind
> doesn't blow, as can happen for several days in winter when
> electricity demand is high, once or twice a year, the minimal amount
> of nuclear energy needed would be 100%. Do you not accept this, or is
> that what you're reluctantly being forced to admit, without having the
> courage to say it?
>
Why not use of nuclear to the greatest possible extent with the minimal
amount of renewable energy, which turns out to be as far as wind and
solar go, none whatsoever.
Once you have a nuclear industry, building stations, running them,
processing waste and recycling it, it makes sense to make the most of it.
Then there is no point on having any windmills or solar panels at all.
They just add cost an unreliability reduce stability and put extra
stress on the nuclear plant.

The fact is that renewable energy of the intermittent kind has been and
continues to be the West's greatest ever mistake.

And no one wants to admit it, hence the two faced approach of renewables
and nuclear, which is nonsense.

> If you don't accept it, what other source of electricity do you
> propose? And if there are enough nukes to power the whole country,
> keep them running as base load. Yo-yo-ing nukes output up and down is
> not a good way to run them. Properly operated, they last a lot longer
> than renewables, which is a term better used to describe the wind
> generators and solar panels themselves, meaning that every twenty
> years or so the they have to be renewed.
>
The first thing that occurred to me when I looked at the grid from the
perspective of a grid operator, is that its bad enough having demand go
up and down day to night, summer to winter, without adding renewable
energy to it which simply makes the fluctuations conventional power
stations have to deal with ten times to a 100 times worse.

Which is why Energiewende has made Germany's electricity grid the most
carbon intensive in Europe.

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

On 14/04/2022 12:20, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2022 at 12:09:09 BST, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:31:24 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
>>> amount of nuclear energy.
>>>
>> Once again you've avoided answering the question. When the wind
>> doesn't blow, as can happen for several days in winter when
>> electricity demand is high, once or twice a year, the minimal amount
>> of nuclear energy needed would be 100%. Do you not accept this, or is
>> that what you're reluctantly being forced to admit, without having the
>> courage to say it?
>>
>> If you don't accept it, what other source of electricity do you
>> propose? And if there are enough nukes to power the whole country,
>> keep them running as base load. Yo-yo-ing nukes output up and down is
>> not a good way to run them. Properly operated, they last a lot longer
>> than renewables, which is a term better used to describe the wind
>> generators and solar panels themselves, meaning that every twenty
>> years or so the they have to be renewed.
>
> Just to clarify: the wind/solar stuff has to be renewed every 20 years, not
> the nukes. The latter last 50 years or so. The nukes need refuelling from time
> to time, obvs, but that is minor.
>
Current nukes are expected to last 60 years. Most windmills are BER at
12-15 years.

Oddly enough running stuff on balanced shafts supported at both ends in
a constant temperature dry machine hall with overhead cranes built in
for servicing and fuel removal, makes kit last longer and cost less to
fix than stuffing it on a pole, with a cantilevered bearing in the
North Sea. And servicing it by helicopter.
Everywhere you look, wind and solar are a disaster,.

--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:18:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> The best brains available don't always get their way.
>>
>Tell me about it. In a democracy its the most low IQ ignorant useless
>uneducated total ArtStudents™ that get their way.

Some of you "facts" are a lot less realistic than some of my beliefs.
--

Mike

On 13/04/2022 12:11, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> So sticking with the destructive fossil fuel industry

Destructive? It took us from 17th century poverty to 21st century wealth.

Bill