Compact fluorescent lamps failing

[John Rumm]

Did you not "tune him out" a few posts earlier? If so why are you still reading?

[John]

Perhaps the most efficient is whatever is produced domestically.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:18:57 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm wrote this:-

According to the supplier of my electricity bills the current UK average figures are:

Coal 35.8% Gas 38.8% Nuclear 18.6% Renewables 4.7% Other 2.1%

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:24:09 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm wrote this:-

Tuning out is not a binary process.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:25:19 -0800 (PST) someone who may be [e-mail] wrote this:-

The ones in the enclosed fittings in my bathrooms have lasted for at least a decade. Even if they fail tonight ISTM that they are suited to such uses.

[Andy Hall]

So the simple and correct solution is to quadruple nuclear output - simple enough from where we are today; scale down coal and gas as this is done and ignore the rest as the irrelevance that it is.

[Adam Aglionby]

In fact thats a difficult to believe amount of gas burning for power generation isnt it?

Simple, but nuclear isn`t a domestic resoursce and ther is still a slight probelm with waste disposal, tipping down sea shore shafts being out of favour....

Adam

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:09:41 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Adam Aglionby wrote this:-

Indeed. There are no uranium mines in the UK.

When challenged the nuclear lobby say this is not a problem as (some of) it is mined in friendly countries. That is true but ignores the fact that Britannia was not able to guarantee transport even when she did aspire to rule the waves and is certainly not able to guarantee it now.

There is also the question of the price of uranium.

[Andy Hall]

Neither are any of the other viable options......

There isn't a problem at all, other than in the minds of a few naysayers. Energy production in whatever form has some kind of environmental impact.

[tinnews]

Now that last really is silly surely, whatever the cost of uranium (within the range of remotely possible prices) it's not going to significantly affect the price of the electricity generated.

[The Natural Philosopher]

refined uranium will be subject to demand pricing, and will be expensive.

However it is a much easier thing to stockpile and should not have the price volatility of oil etc.

[The Natural Philosopher]

When you look at THAT nuclear is far and away the winner.

Solar and wind require vast swathes of land area covered in technology.

Biofuel requires vast swathes of land covered in monoculture.

Fossil fuels cover the planet with vast swathes of Co2 and the sea with plankton.

Hydro electric and wave power mean enormous disruptions to river and tidal flows.

A nuclear power station is just a lump of concrete in a place no one goes to, by and large.

[David Hansen]

On 21 Nov 2007 09:06:54 GMT someone who may be [e-mail] wrote this:-

The price of uranium is going up as many countries say they want to build nuclear power stations. There is also not a vast swathe of easy to get at uranium in the world.

The rise in price will presumably mean that some more can be extracted than would be viable at current prices, but I doubt if this will magic the problem away.

Any government foolish enough to plan new nuclear power stations is condemning the public to high electricity prices in the future in much the same way as past nuclear programmes have condemned the public to high electricity prices.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yes, but more is being discovered all the time.

It isn;t a real problem.

The price that is charged for nuclear electriciy represents and enormous contingency for cleaning up the *possible* mess they *might* leave. The price charged for coal oil and gas has *no contingency whatsoever* for cleaning up the global mness they are *100% certainly leaving*.

If you added the cost of sequestering ALL the CO2 they produce in a form where it wouldn't escape for say 50,000 years, I can assure you that the price would be ten times what curret nuclear electricity is at.

The sheer hypocrisy of the anti-nuclear brigade is breathtaking.

Only in utter ignorance of the facts could anybody NOT build nuclear power stations.

Sadly, its always easier to go on faith, ideology and knee jerk than it is to assemble the facts and do the sums.

Nuclear is the best of a bad lot. Its not ideal, but its the best we have.

Its got the lowest environmental impact of all, and the easiest profile of fuel storage against supply disruption.

Its only expensive because it is forced to conform to standards that no other energy technology is forced to.

I would expect a program build 10-20 power stations to be announced in the new year.

[Adam Aglionby]

UK used to be a leader in wind turbine design and manufacture, Denmark is now. Clean coal burning and carbon sequestration, i.e. pumping it into undersea caverns, have some promise.

Dounreay the worlds most expensive crane grab game:

> There isn't a problem at all, other than in the minds of a few

Of course thats why search on "transfynydd nuclear decommissioning" brings up all of eight results, which is slightly worrying, not a whole lot of thinking gone into it apart from locking the doors.

There is no European or UK equivalent of Yucca Mountain:

would seem sensible before creating even more quantities of waste with a reverse Midas touch.

Adam

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:58:03 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

The SD Commission were certainly not in utter ignorance of the facts when they reported. It is all there for anyone to read at

and draw their own conclusions.

Some people may disagree with the conclusions the SD Commission reached, but nobody serious would claim that they were in utter ignorance of the facts. Loudly claiming something may impress journalists, party politicians and other easily led people, but they don't impress those with a little knowledge of the subject.

[tinnews]

Expensive yes, but still not a significant running cost for a nuclear power station. Has anyone got any actual figures for cost of uranium and consumption by power stations?

[tinnews]

Show me some figures of uranium costs versus consumption in power stations and I might be convinced.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Do the sums on how much counryside needs to be covered, and the capital cost, and what to do when the wind doesn't blow. Compare Demnarks population level:land area with England and laugh.

Complete waste of time.

As is 'carbon sequestration' - its another oil company funded distraction. like 'hydrogen fuel'

Perfectly sound solution.

Seal it up and let t cool down.

Yu are already creating huge amounts of CO2 waste. It cannot be sequestered easily. The technology does no exist Nuclear power statios do. Arguably plankton do the best job anyway, BUT if the sea temp rises and they die?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Inded. 'Might be, may be, no microgeneration' - its pretty easy to see where THEIR axe is being ground.

They have decided what the future should be, and are looking for way to prevent ate real answer emerging.

In thee first half dozen people I clicked on,only two physics people. and one of them is ex big oil..

Do really hink an ex teacher is actually in position to judge te cots and risk beefr o a complex engineering project?

If you do gawd help us. We will be back in the stone age before we can say 'green power'

I would. hers a couple of people in there who probaly DO know waht they ae doing, but t rest - well i the end iys al a question of where you put the balance of he ssues.

IF you don't *really* care about CO2, and you believe that somehow technology will fix carbon, and you believe that RadoiActivity Is DanGerous To Childrunnnah and you have been sold some green bollocks that has a vision of little hippy communes carefully emptying their shit into methane digesters to power their laptops, well nuclear is unnecesaary.

My point exactly.

>