The true cost of wind...

But all three: + have many more global sources of supply than uranium; + have more total global resources than uranium; + have indigenous supplies within the UK, especially coal and gas.

All these factors make all of them more reliable than uranium, and particularly the last one for coal and gas.

Climate change is unlikely to render either useless. As a country we are not well placed for solar energy, somewhat better for wind.

But that's beside the point. What I'm saying, and have been for a long time, is that if you want reliable baseload, in the UK that means coal, or gas from shale and/or coal.

Reply to
Java Jive
Loading thread data ...

This is at least the third time I've posted a calculation along these lines, but, as usual, the pro-nuclear lobby has 'forgotten' it again, and, as usual, is too lazy to do it's own sums:

formatting link

Last year 78,438 t U3O8 = 66,512 t U made 357 GWyr of electricity. That's 220 t U308 = 186 t U per GWyr. So for the 60 year lifetime of a reactor that's 220 * 60 = 13,200 t U3O8 per GW. If, roughly, you divide the entire current supply for ore until 2025, then that's

78,438 * 10 / 13,200 = approx 60 GW.

Hey! Enough to power the entire UK grid! Trouble is, it uses nearly all the world supply for the next ten years. I think both the supplier nations and their existing customers might have something to say against that!

Even just on quantities alone, it's an unrealistic scenario, but it get's worse. Ore and fuel are supplied under long-term contracts, and existing suppliers are not going to break their existing contracts to other nations. Secondly, all fuel purchased is accountable to the IAEA, and we would have to account for why we are suddenly buying up the entire world's supply. Thirdly, such behaviour will inevitably bring forward the very crisis of supply that you are trying to avoid.

It's crazy. Just forget it.

Reply to
Java Jive

Reply to
Java Jive

For f**k's sake, you are either trolling, or being wilfully blind, or something like that - like Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye, but to much less purpose and making a fool rather than a hero of yourself.

Let's try again:

formatting link

In the graph at the bottom of the page entitled "Reference Case Supply", where the red demand line crosses over the top of all supplies beyond about 2025, according to the graph legend, what does the blue area at the top of the stack of supplies represent? Then, when you've hoisted that in, take a look at what the two areas that lie underneath the blue area and are in different shades of yellow represent.

THE WNA'S FIGURES INCLUDE ALL CURRENT, PLANNED, AND PROSPECTIVE URANIUM MINE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN OF AT THIS TIME, YET NEVERTHELESS SHOW AN EXCESS OF DEMAND OVER SUPPLY FROM AROUND 2025!!!

Do you understand the problem now?

Meanwhile, there is plenty of coal, oil, and gas ....

Reply to
Java Jive

Not at all, I was just deliberately giving you a piece of your own medicine in return - utterly useless veiled vagueness. So, now that you know that I am aware of how you are trying to avoid saying anything substantial, I will hand you back to Jeremy Paxman:

Terry Fields, who claims personal senior academic status, are you or are you not claiming that: * The whole of climate science is fraudulent? * Some of climate science is fraudulent? * None of climate science is fraudulent?

Note that when I say 'is' I mean now, post climategate.

Then WHICH claims have note been proved, is it * All of them? * Some of them, if so which? * None of them?

Oh, and BTW, you're wr>

Reply to
Java Jive

Good, at last a definite statement of your beliefs. We seem to be getting somewhere. I will merely point out again before moving on that noone here is particularly defending the models, so one wonders why you're still trying to argue about them.

Two can play at silly buggers - I refer you to one of my trillion previous answers, all of which have answered all your points completely, it's just that, like you, I'm just not going to tell you to which particular one I'm referring.

We know that the Milankovitch ice age cycles are predominantly driven by radiative forcing as the Earth moves into, and subsequently out of, times of greatest irradiation. Thus, in the feedback loop of ... Temp -> CO2 -> Temp -> CO2 -> etc ... temperature tends to lead CO2 on both the up slope and the down slope. Hence both situations you describe can occur.

However, we are doing something different. By pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, we are kick-starting the feedback loop from the opposite side than normally occurs in Milankovitch cycles, hence the good correlation between CO2 and temperature in the BEST results. Hence also the validity of assuming causation - the same understood processes explain both the recent AGW and the ice-age cycles.

We'll just have to pass on that then.

It wasn't meant to be, what is it about "I'll pass on that for now!" don't you understand?

The tree-ring data was KNOWN to be bad because after 1960 it no longer agreed with MEASURED temperature, and therefore could NOT be used as a proxy for it. To include the series where it was known to be invalid would have been far worse science than what they actually did, not that I condone what they did. The question they faced was whether to exclude the entire series, or include the part believed to be good and exclude the part known to be bad. Personally, I think the former would have been preferable, but they chose the latter, with the result that we all know and deplore.

Yet again, you are arguing from the particular to the general. AFAIAA, the only part of the science that has been claimed to be settled is the particular part of it that says that the recent rapid warming was due to man's release of CO2, for which there is indeed very good evidence, as epitomised in the fit between CO2 and temperature in the BEST results. I am not aware that anyone here or elsewhere has tried to claim the general entirety of climate science is settled on that basis.

It makes sense to me, and I suspect most or all other people reading it. What is your problem with it? An exact and unambiguous reply only please.

Reply to
Java Jive

So we can safely conclude that, as usual, you don't have a substantive point, meanwhile, I'm still awaiting an answer to this self-contradiction:

YOU have previously claimed in the past to have senior academic status. YOU are blatantly anti-AGW. YOU gave the scenario reproduced again below which claimed that anyone who is anti-AGW doesn't get an academic job.

Reply to
Java Jive

Swap the roles around, and it's a perfect description of yourself, so what?

Garbage in, garbage out again.

Reply to
Java Jive

But where is your evidence that they were actually given the report in advance?

Well, unless you can point to some sort of actual evidence, this whole situation seem rather too woolly to draw conclusions from. I certainly wouldn't accept at face value any report from any organisation with an axe to grind. I have only your word that they were given the opportunity of seeing it in advance, and chose to slag it instead.

Incidentally, FTR, who was the presenter who did the claimed slagging, and who was the right winger?

Reply to
Java Jive

No it didn't, unless all the waste from the military programme was U - and in any case you never qualified the figures.

You must learn to write more clearly, and understand what is being said in the items you quote. The sloppy IPCC style won't do here.

Reply to
Terry Fields

I have never seen any substantive evidence for any significant levels of AGW. If that is being 'anti-AGW', then it's only in your BBC-limited view.

Tut tut. Sloppy reading again. Re-read the intro to the sketch.

Reply to
Terry Fields

Permit me to ROFL.

Reply to
Terry Fields

...is the wrong answer. Tim Streater has explained why in this mini-sub-thread.

There is no such thing as 'bad' data, unless there was in instrument malfunction or some error in data-reduction, neither of which is being claimed here.

Reply to
Terry Fields

Sloppy writing. You might mean 'majority of the scientific community working in the field', but even that may not be correct.

...and you still haven't 'got' it.

Reply to
Terry Fields

No, it isn't relevant.

You have made references to the desirablility of the supply of fuel for generating stations being indigenous because that is a secure supply. I am trying to determine the basis for this. So far you have said that many people believe this to be so, which is a mere ad populem argument, but haven't said that you yourself use it as that basis.

So I ask you specifically, is your underlying reason for the advancement of an indigenous fuel supply the secure delivery of electric power?

I'm now confused, as the argument seems to have shifted form one of fuel security to one of reliable base-load. The former might supply the latter, but which of these is the fundamental base of your argument?

Reply to
Terry Fields

I meant exactly what I wrote.

There is nothing to get.

Reply to
Java Jive

Tim Streater made no substantive relevant point.

It was 'bad' if it was to be used a proxy for temperature, when it clearly wasn't.

Reply to
Java Jive

The 'inconvenient truth' for you is that your last statement above has be shown to be wrong. The penultimate one is questionable too, but I'm happy to pass on that for the moment.

If a data series is being considered for use as a proxy for temperature, but then it turns actually not to track temperature, then that is 'bad' data for the purposes of tracking temperature.

Reply to
Java Jive

Coal *used* to be a secure, indigenous supply of fuel in the UK, until the politicians closed the mines in such a way as to prevent them being re-opened economically. The only sensible way to use it now is to gasify or burn it in situ.

Now we have to import it.

The same could have been said of gas until we used almost all of ours to replace the coal from the closed coal mines.

Now we have to import it.

We never had any significant reserves of nuclear fuel, so we've always had to import that, and most of it comes from politically stable countries who will probably be willing to sell it to us until it runs out in the remote future. The quote of 30 years reserves omits "At current cost and technology levels". In the same way, for the last half century at least oil and gas reserves have been given as about 30 years use.

Reply to
John Williamson

Reply to
Java Jive

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.