On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 12:29:06 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
wrote:

>So far we have been lucky with the nuclear industry, IMO.

But elsewhere in this thread you have been quick to list all the
things that have gone wrong. So have we been lucky or unlucky

Without nuclear, where are you going to get all the clean green
electricity the modern world needs? It's the only game in town
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On 18/12/2021 15:52, Champ wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 12:29:06 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> So far we have been lucky with the nuclear industry, IMO.
>
> But elsewhere in this thread you have been quick to list all the
> things that have gone wrong. So have we been lucky or unlucky
>
> Without nuclear, where are you going to get all the clean green
> electricity the modern world needs? It's the only game in town

"Energy or Extinction"

--
Moto Morini 2C/375, Moto Morini 2C/350
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
1937 Sunbeam Model 14 250 Sports
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 10:52:38 AM UTC-5, Champ wrote:

> Without nuclear, where are you going to get all the clean green
> electricity the modern world needs? It's the only game in town

From the sun.

Boots wrote:

> On 15/12/2021 20:13 Mike Fleming penned these words:
> > On 14/12/2021 23:49, Boots wrote:
> > >
> >> No piped gas, comes in 12kg bottles that arrive on the back of a
> small >> motorcycle a Honda cub or clone of and live under the
> worktop Can't see any >> electric taking off big time when a lot of
> the cooking is in a Wok.
> >
> > You can get electric woks.
>
> Trying to convince a mainly ethnic Chinese customer base. Slim chance
> of that, wok hei is important and despite the claims of electric hob
> vendors everyone I know, every kopitam wants gas flames approaching
> welding temperatures.

Complete with foot operated afterburner?

--
Geoff

On 18/12/2021 20:29 YTC#1 penned these words:
> On 17/12/2021 12:33, Boots wrote:
>> On 17/12/2021 18:18 YTC#1 penned these words:
>>> But one of the issues with radiation is that it can be an issue many
>>> years after exposure.
>>
>> President Carter was highly radiated as a 28 year old in the navy, he's now 96.
>>
>
> Interesting.
>
> He also now has melanoma in his brain and liver :-)

He's damn near 100, hope he makes it to the ton and still works with his charity
projects.

>
> It does point, once again, to how a disaster caused by human error has
> been avoided by some poor bastards putting themselves at risk.
>
> So far we have been lucky with the nuclear industry, IMO. This could be
> because no one currently employs Homer Simpson and people are somewhat
> more vigelant.

There really is no alternative for green baseload energy. Certainly don't need
all the power from nuclear but 25 - 40 % for sure.

> Let's hope it stays that way.

The list of disasters from fossil fuels far outweighs the nuclear industry

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

On 19/12/2021 07:02 geoffC penned these words:
> Boots wrote:
>
>> On 15/12/2021 20:13 Mike Fleming penned these words:
>>> On 14/12/2021 23:49, Boots wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No piped gas, comes in 12kg bottles that arrive on the back of a
>> small >> motorcycle a Honda cub or clone of and live under the
>> worktop Can't see any >> electric taking off big time when a lot of
>> the cooking is in a Wok.
>>>
>>> You can get electric woks.
>>
>> Trying to convince a mainly ethnic Chinese customer base. Slim chance
>> of that, wok hei is important and despite the claims of electric hob
>> vendors everyone I know, every kopitam wants gas flames approaching
>> welding temperatures.
>
> Complete with foot operated afterburner?
>
Not noticed those, the few old timers that cook on charcoal generally have a fan
to get it hotter but they're rare now >99% are gas.

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

On 18/12/2021 14:37, Stephen Packer wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 December 2021 at 11:28:22 UTC, Champ wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:15:27 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2021 19:42, Champ wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:31:57 +0000, YTC#1 <b...@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> AFAICS, nuclear power is ok except for earthquakes (which is more of a
>>>>>> problem anywhere on the Pacific Ocean coast,) and the waste, which lasts
>>>>
>>>>> How easily everyone seems to forget Chenobyl.
>>>>
>>>> Which killed a handful of people
>>
>>> Apart from the cloud that meant Welsh sheep from certain areas could not
>>> be eaten for many many years.
>> Precautionary only
>>> And an entire town being made uninhabitable.
>> An industrial town that primarily existed because of the reactor.
>> And, you know the wildlife there is thriving, with zero evidence of
>> deformities or other radiation effects?
>
> Quite a large industrial town and several surrounding villages
> covering around 2500 ^2 km.
> Sobering to actually see it (as I did in 'before times').
>
> I don't think it's accurate to say 'zero evidence of radiation effects'.
> Some see things, others don't.
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X17309347
>

A classic case of confirmation bias going on here?
We all read/see what we want to.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 18/12/2021 15:26, Pete Fisher wrote:
> On 18/12/2021 11:28, Champ wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:15:27 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/12/2021 19:42, Champ wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:31:57 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> AFAICS, nuclear power is ok except for earthquakes (which is more
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>> problem anywhere on the Pacific Ocean coast,) and the waste, which
>>>>>> lasts
>>>>
>>>>> How easily everyone seems to forget Chenobyl.
>>>>
>>>> Which killed a handful of people
>>
>>> Apart from the cloud that meant Welsh sheep from certain areas could not
>>> be eaten for many many years.
>>
>> Precautionary only
>>
>>> And an entire town being made uninhabitable.
>> An industrial town that primarily existed because of the reactor.
>> And, you know the wildlife there is thriving, with zero evidence of
>> deformities or other radiation effects?
>>
>>> Then tehre were 5000 thyroid cancers
>> Estimated
>>
>>> and 350,000 people needing evacuation.
>> Temporarily
>>
>>> It is not a matter of if, but when :-)
>>
>> Agreed.  Our perspectives obviously differ.  Radiation is a natural
>> phenomenon - if you live in a granite built cottage in Cornwall, you
>> risk factor is significantly higher than living near Sellafield or a
>> reactor.  And the public health impacts of everything else humans have
>> done to the planet outweigh nuclear by many many orders of magnitude
>
>
> But,but, nobody has mentioned 'The China Syndrome".
> Memorable mainly for Jane Fonda but reinforcing the fact that all these
> potentially hazardous sites may rely ultimately on the quality of a few
> welds and the quality control regime for checking them.
>
> I *think* I trust EDF more than some others in this list, but who knows
> when 'big energy' are involved.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_in_the_nuclear_sector
>
>

Skoda works, that means some interesting car power plants.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 18/12/2021 15:52, Champ wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 12:29:06 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> So far we have been lucky with the nuclear industry, IMO.
>
> But elsewhere in this thread you have been quick to list all the
> things that have gone wrong. So have we been lucky or unlucky
>
> Without nuclear, where are you going to get all the clean green
> electricity the modern world needs? It's the only game in town
>

Nah, that is solatire.

There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
investment will be needed (unfortunately).

Nuclear was seen as the salvation, and a lot has been invested in that
to the detrement of others. We are on the verge of eradicating coal
(UK), so progress can be made.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 18/12/2021 15:52, Champ wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 12:29:06 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> So far we have been lucky with the nuclear industry, IMO.
>
> But elsewhere in this thread you have been quick to list all the
> things that have gone wrong. So have we been lucky or unlucky
>

Depends which side your bread is buttered.

I'd say, as above, we have been lucky.
Just because I listed things (probably not all) that have goe wrong,
that does not imply being unlucky.

Googling for stuff pulls up some interesting USSR ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

"The true number of fatalities remains uncertain because
radiation-induced cancer is very often clinically indistinguishable from
any other cancer, and its incidence rate can be measured only through
epidemiological studies. One book claims that "in 1992, a study
conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health
Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the
preceding 32 years as a result of the accident".

The people living around Kyshtym couldbe classed as "unlucky" :-)

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>
> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
> investment will be needed (unfortunately).

Good luck with that. "Renewables" managed an amazing 6.8% of UK demand
today. Wind and solar don't work so well in fog, it turns out.

--
WUN

On 19/12/2021 18:39, WUN wrote:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>
>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>
> Good luck with that. "Renewables" managed an amazing 6.8% of UK demand
> today. Wind and solar don't work so well in fog, it turns out.
>

And man cannot fly.

Good job not everyone is a naysayer.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:16:09 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 19/12/2021 18:39, WUN wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>
>>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>>
>> Good luck with that. "Renewables" managed an amazing 6.8% of UK demand
>> today. Wind and solar don't work so well in fog, it turns out.

>Good job not everyone is a naysayer.

Good job some people try to retain a grasp on reality.

You exhibit a blind optimism about the future of energy production,
but refuse to address those who point out obstacles; obstacles which
are real and will need to be overcome to achieve your vision. Simply
ignoring them and insulting those folk who remind you about them
doesn't magic them away.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

On 20/12/2021 10:18, Ace wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:16:09 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/12/2021 18:39, WUN wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>>>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>>>
>>> Good luck with that. "Renewables" managed an amazing 6.8% of UK demand
>>> today. Wind and solar don't work so well in fog, it turns out.
>
>> Good job not everyone is a naysayer.
>
> Good job some people try to retain a grasp on reality.
>
> You exhibit a blind optimism about the future of energy production,
> but refuse to address those who point out obstacles; obstacles which
> are real and will need to be overcome to achieve your vision. Simply
> ignoring them and insulting those folk who remind you about them
> doesn't magic them away.

I'm not ignoring them, or insulting them (other than normal UKRM type
responses) (unless you feel the naysayer was too far?)

I'm actually reading stuff found due to comments, and then throwing in
other opinions or examples.

If people just sat back and accepted the status quo we would get
nowhere, I actually tried to stay off the subject as we had been here
before.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 20/12/2021 10:18, Ace wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:16:09 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/12/2021 18:39, WUN wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>>>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>>>
>>> Good luck with that. "Renewables" managed an amazing 6.8% of UK demand
>>> today. Wind and solar don't work so well in fog, it turns out.
>
>> Good job not everyone is a naysayer.
>
> Good job some people try to retain a grasp on reality.
>
> You exhibit a blind optimism about the future of energy production,
> but refuse to address those who point out obstacles; obstacles which
> are real and will need to be overcome to achieve your vision. Simply
> ignoring them and insulting those folk who remind you about them
> doesn't magic them away.
>
Going off on a tangent - but an important and relevant one.
The point is that regardless of how power is made, there are too many
people using too much of it.
Actually that is two tangents...
Discuss
:-)
C

--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

On 20/12/2021 12:18, ChrisND @UKRM wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 10:18, Ace wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:16:09 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/12/2021 18:39, WUN wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>>>>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with that. "Renewables" managed an amazing 6.8% of UK demand
>>>> today. Wind and solar don't work so well in fog, it turns out.
>>
>>> Good job not everyone is a naysayer.
>>
>> Good job some people try to retain a grasp on reality.
>>
>> You exhibit a blind optimism about the future of energy production,
>> but refuse to address those who point out obstacles; obstacles which
>> are real and will need to be overcome to achieve your vision. Simply
>> ignoring them and insulting those folk who remind you about them
>> doesn't magic them away.
>>
> Going off on a tangent - but an important and relevant one.
> The point is that regardless of how power is made, there are too many
> people using too much of it.
> Actually that is two tangents...
> Discuss
> :-)
> C
>

I can't disagree with that one/two, but we are all (surely) guilty here.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:17:07 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 18/12/2021 15:52, Champ wrote:

>> Without nuclear, where are you going to get all the clean green
>> electricity the modern world needs? It's the only game in town

>There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>investment will be needed (unfortunately).

There a was a serious academic UN report at somepoint in the last 10
years, for which my memory and google-fu fail me, which basically said
that renewables will *never* meet 100% of human energy needs
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On 19/12/2021 18:39, WUN wrote:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>
>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>
> Good luck with that. "Renewables" managed an amazing 6.8% of UK demand
> today. Wind and solar don't work so well in fog, it turns out.
>

Even worse today:

British electricity mix at 3pm on 20th Dec 2021

Nuclear 14.2% Gas 57.7% Coal 5.6%
Wind 2.9% Solar 0.2% Hydro 1.9%
Biomass 6.9% Import 8.3% Storage 1.3% Other 1.1%

On 20/12/2021 17:19, Champ wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:17:07 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/12/2021 15:52, Champ wrote:
>
>>> Without nuclear, where are you going to get all the clean green
>>> electricity the modern world needs? It's the only game in town
>
>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>
> There a was a serious academic UN report at somepoint in the last 10
> years, for which my memory and google-fu fail me, which basically said
> that renewables will *never* meet 100% of human energy needs

Ok, I agree it is every unlikely to get to 100% (I don't think I said it
would, did I?).

I've found this,
https://www.greenamerica.org/green-economy-work/could-world-be-powered-fully-renewable-sources
, which seems to think 88% is achieveable.

Although the research seemed to betrying to say it 100% was achieveable.

(No, I have not read the full report :-) )

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:17:07 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>On 18/12/2021 15:52, Champ wrote:
>
>>> Without nuclear, where are you going to get all the clean green
>>> electricity the modern world needs? It's the only game in town
>
>>There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>>investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>
> There a was a serious academic UN report at somepoint in the last 10
> years, for which my memory and google-fu fail me, which basically said
> that renewables will *never* meet 100% of human energy needs

It's certainly not because there isn't enough available renewable
energy to tap. There will be sufficient solar energy until the Sun
runs out of fuel.

Have a peek at https://irena.org and
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/

A casual glance at some of their content didn't turn up anything
saying that we'll never get to 100% renewable energy. But that could
be because they're suppressing it...

Problems generally tend to point to their own solution/resolution. And
the worse they get, the more obvious the solution becomes.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

On 20/12/2021 12:18, ChrisND @UKRM wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 10:18, Ace wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:16:09 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/12/2021 18:39, WUN wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>>>>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with that. "Renewables" managed an amazing 6.8% of UK demand
>>>> today. Wind and solar don't work so well in fog, it turns out.
>>
>>> Good job not everyone is a naysayer.
>>
>> Good job some people try to retain a grasp on reality.
>>
>> You exhibit a blind optimism about the future of energy production,
>> but refuse to address those who point out obstacles; obstacles which
>> are real and will need to be overcome to achieve your vision. Simply
>> ignoring them and insulting those folk who remind you about them
>> doesn't magic them away.
>>
> Going off on a tangent - but an important and relevant one.
> The point is that regardless of how power is made, there are too many
> people using too much of it.
> Actually that is two tangents...
> Discuss

Well, on the subject of pointing out obstacles... there may well be too
many people using too much but there's nothing that can reasonably be
done about that in the same time frame as global warming. The world is
heading for a stable population of 10bn. That *could* come down to 5bn
but realistically would need at least 500 years if it is to be done via
a consensus.

In the meantime, however, there is global warming to worry about and
that has to be solved in a way that allows for a global population of 10bn.

It was pointed out recently that the amount the UK is spending on
renewables subsidy would buy a new nuclear power station every 2 years
so I suggest we should start doing that.

On a slight tangent, I was amused by the Rolls Royce proposal for small
modular reactors: seems like they propose to address the "not in my
back-yard" problem by ensuring that everyone has one in their back yard.

PS: if 15 miles away counts as "back-yard" then I already have one in my
back yard.

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On 21/12/2021 01:39 Mark Olson penned these words:
> Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:17:07 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/12/2021 15:52, Champ wrote:
>>
>>>> Without nuclear, where are you going to get all the clean green
>>>> electricity the modern world needs? It's the only game in town
>>
>>> There are always options, wind/wave & solar (for example), time and
>>> investment will be needed (unfortunately).
>>
>> There a was a serious academic UN report at somepoint in the last 10
>> years, for which my memory and google-fu fail me, which basically said
>> that renewables will *never* meet 100% of human energy needs
>
> It's certainly not because there isn't enough available renewable
> energy to tap. There will be sufficient solar energy until the Sun
> runs out of fuel.

There's a scheme to generate power in Morocco and pipe it into Europe but the
the cables required are hideously expensive. It's also not panels as they lose
efficiency as the temperature goes up. IIRC Germany has already bailed out, can
generate more from panels in the Fatherland and way way cheaper. Ergo, after
generation there's political issues and then cost/efficiency ones. Again IIRC
Orkney generates way more power than it needs from wind and ends up dumping it.
There's no economical way to get the excess the few miles to the mainland.

>
> Have a peek at https://irena.org and
> https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/
>
> A casual glance at some of their content didn't turn up anything
> saying that we'll never get to 100% renewable energy. But that could
> be because they're suppressing it...
>
> Problems generally tend to point to their own solution/resolution. And
> the worse they get, the more obvious the solution becomes.
>

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

Boots <news@millhouse-communications.co.uk> wrote:

> There's a scheme to generate power in Morocco and pipe it into Europe but the
> the cables required are hideously expensive. It's also not panels as they lose
> efficiency as the temperature goes up. IIRC Germany has already bailed out, can
> generate more from panels in the Fatherland and way way cheaper. Ergo, after
> generation there's political issues and then cost/efficiency ones. Again IIRC
> Orkney generates way more power than it needs from wind and ends up dumping it.
> There's no economical way to get the excess the few miles to the mainland.

Obviously a systematic approach is necessary... Don't place excess
generating capacity in places where the energy can't be economically
transported to where the demand is. That's first order planning,
not something that should come as a surprise to anyone.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

On 20/12/2021 22:15, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>
> It was pointed out recently that the amount the UK is spending on
> renewables subsidy would buy a new nuclear power station every 2 years
> so I suggest we should start doing that.

How many Hinkley Point Cs would it build?

There's also the minor point that just getting round to building them
can take decades, let alone the actual construction.

I do agree that we need more nuclear generation capacity, but there
seems to be a determination to build it as slowly and expensively as
possible.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 22:15:28 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
<07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:

>On a slight tangent, I was amused by the Rolls Royce proposal for small
>modular reactors: seems like they propose to address the "not in my
>back-yard" problem by ensuring that everyone has one in their back yard.

Reminds me of (and I think I've mentioned this before) the "Derby, a
nuclear-free zone" signposts erected by the city council in the early
1980s. I used to drive past one on the A52 at Spondon on my way in
from Long Eaton to the RR offices at Moor Lane.

Via Raynesway, the base of RR Nuclear and RR&A, who shared a small
experimental nuclear Reactor...

To this day I wonder of the council genuinely didn't know about it, or
if it was simply that no-one wanted the politicians to know.

--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/