The Stand- By demon

[The Natural Philosopher]

Me 2

[dcbwhaley]

The stored high level waste has to be cooled which uses energy for a very long time.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:02:30 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Above ground dry storage of spent fuel rods on-site is what groups like FoE advocate. It avoids generating the large quantities of radioactive liquid that reprocessing involves. It is also more likely that future generations will be aware of our legacy, unlike the out of sight out of mind approach the nuclear "industry" wants.

What the Westminster lot announced yesterday was the out of sight out of mind approach. This included offering bribes to the area(s) concerned, so as well as the cost of building and operating the place taxpayers will have to pay for the bribes as well

So much for the "cheap" electricity we have been told about for decades.

I also see that one of the hidden subsidies for the new "commercial" nuclear power station in Finland is still being investigated by the EU

[Tony Bryer]

Generally yes because there will probably be a lot more people waiting for the return leg. And a crew who have had their mandatory rest period.

If this isn't going to be the case some airlines will find a 'technical problem' which requires them to put the passengers on someone else's flight - cheaper than flying an almost empty plane out and back.

[Mary Fisher]

Yes, in January 2000 we came back to Leeds from Brussels on a brand new plane with no other passengers. We were given the full attention of the crew, Millennium chocolates galore, if only the flight had been longer we'd have been sick!

Mary

[David Hansen]

On 26 Oct 2006 06:08:32 -0700 someone who may be "dcbwhaley" wrote this:-

That depends on the form it is in.

If one is mad enough to reprocess spent fuel then this produces relatively large quantities of highly radioactive nitric acid. This is stored in the infamous tanks at Windscale where not only is it a great target for those wishing to cause wide scale contamination but it also needs energy intensive cooling in order to stop it boiling in the tank [1]. That means forced cooling of the tanks, with all the problems this entails.

However, turn the stuff into glass blocks and it can be cooled by natural convection, which is far better. Unfortunately the glass block lines have never operated at anything like design capacity and show no signs of doing so in the near future.

These problems are why reprocessing should be stopped at once.

[1] to consequences of it boiling in the tank would be similar to the Tomsk-7 explosion.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:55:03 +0100 someone who may be David Hansen wrote this:-

I forgot to add.

is a summary of the different sorts of waste.

[Bob Eager]

I remember reading an article. Practical Mechanics or Wireless World, I believe..

[Derek ^]

One of the ZETA team went to the same school (Wyther Park, Leeds) as I did, it was dutifully announced to us in assembly.

The project was totally off-beam, it turned out they hadn't been measuring what they thought they'd been measuring (Some resonance or other or events being counted muliple times, details are sparce), and what they claimed had been happening, hadn't been happening. :-(

Oh, and they didn't announce that in assembly either. :-(

Oddly enough the Science Museum website claims :

"The first successful experiments were carried out in August 1957"

sell my lecky meter on EBAY then and get in before the rush. ;-)

I have to say the British Establishment really takes the biscuit. It takes some brass neck to imply in 2001 in the midst of an energy shortage, that that the ZETA fusion project was successful in 1957.

DG

[Owain]

And the road network uses lots of energy for street lighting, and other secondary consumers such as hospitals, insurance offices, police, and all the other apparatus that supports car use in Britain, but which isn't directly paid for by the motorist and isn't counted in the cost or energy per mile.

Airliners also have quite high support requirements: airports, air traffic control, etc.

Trains are probably best, as a lot of railway stations are pretty basic. There's a secondary environmental benefit too in that railway lines are often corridors for wildlife.

Owain

[Andy Hall]

You're telling me.

So are the trains.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Bloody foxes in London.

[Frank Lee Speke-King]

But that's the whole point - no-one but no-one is asking the key question. It's like watching Jon Snow incisively demanding to know the wrong answer.

In not one single case on the global-warming, TV-standby-bashing, efficient-boiler, smaller car, better insulation debate is anyone asking what the calculated benefits will be with regard to the alleged problem - that is, what will be the predicted benefit of turning off our TVs? How much global warming will be prevented, measured in deg C?

This question is *never* posed.

One suspects that this whole hobgoblin is merely a device to tax people. What is the point of putting up the RFL of a Chelsea tractor? It will be used just as much; produce just as much CO2; the environment sees no benefit.

In any case, the effect of particles from the sun on the Earth's magnetic field is thought to be a far greater contributor to global warming, but the government can't levy a tax on the sun.

[Tony Bryer]

The argument is that it changes people's buying decisions, also what car makers produce. Certainly as far as company cars are concerned the evidence seems to be that CO2 is a significant factor in choosing what to buy - thus all the diesel BMWs and Audis.

What makes less sense is my Borough's much publicised decision to charge for residents parking permits according to CO2. This is really nothing more than a tax on not having a driveway.

[The Natural Philosopher]

So are motorways.

But your points are extremely valid.

Railways are the most efficient land based transport there is.

Roads get *huge* subsidies to keep them operational and built - railways do not.

For more examples of typical government disjuncted (opposite of joined up) thinkin see the new Richnond big car parking tax. Is it a taxe on energy used? No. Its a tax obcapital ownership. Electric carts are free..Why? because they pollute slightly *more* that's why. Electrical generation efficiencies make them end up using JUST as much carbon fuel.And getting rid of spent lead acid and nickel chemistry bartteries is almost as mucj of a nightmare as nuclear fuel.

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is because the current social climate is 'all science is bunk, God knows best, and qualitative thinking is easier than quantitative'

Precisely.

I am sure they will find a way..

[Peter Lynch]

Interestingly there is relatively little price elasticity[1] in petrol and by association car buying habits. I would expect that for someone paying 30-40k for a 4x4, another few hundred quid a year won't really be noticed. After all if you've got a multi- hundred thousand pound mortgage, it's equivalent to less than a quarter percent rate increase - that doesn't lead to much grumbling.

I would be slightly more sympathetic towards councils embarking on this cause if the extra revenue was actually spent on reducing CO2 (i.e. was hypothecated) rather than just going into the spending pot.

Pete

[1] price elasticity: the concept that as the price of a good is raised, the demand for it decreases. For petrol, demand is generally constant irrespective of price, see here.

[Frank Lee Speke-King]

All it will mean is that the cars will be exported to e.g. China and India, whose carbon emissions are such that the UK's is in the third most significant figure; that is, of unquantifiably small effect - and that's for the *whole*country*, not some minor subset of it.

It would only make sense if it applied to new purchases, rather than penalising people retrospectively.

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:37:55 +0100 someone who may be Frank Lee Speke-King wrote this:-

Nice try, but incorrect.

[Frank Lee Speke-King]

Well, I'm completely bowled over by the quality of your counter-argument.