The true cost of wind...

[Terry Fields]

Then why did you mention it?

Now well on the way:

"In 2012, ORNL researchers announced the successful development of a new absorbent material dubbed HiCap, which vastly outperforms previous best adsorbents, which perform surface retention of solid or gas molecules, atoms or ions. "We have shown that our adsorbents can extract five to seven times more uranium at uptake rates seven times faster than the world's best adsorbents," said Chris Janke, one of the inventors and a member of ORNL's Materials Science and Technology Division. HiCap also effectively removes toxic metals from water, according to results verified by researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory"

"Results were presented...at the fall meeting of the American Chemical Society in Philadelphia".

"In a direct comparison to the current state-of-the-art adsorbent, HiCap provides significantly higher uranium adsorption capacity, faster uptake and higher selectivity, according to test results. Specifically, HiCap's adsorption capacity is seven times higher (146 vs. 22 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent) in spiked solutions containing 6 parts per million of uranium at 20 degrees Celsius. In seawater, HiCap's adsorption capacity of 3.94 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent was more than five times higher than the world's best at 0.74 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent. The numbers for selectivity showed HiCap to be seven times higher"

Your Great Debunking Argument was crap as it was only based on a guess and backed up by a suggestion that an order of maginitude was required in its rebuttal. That order of magnitude is well on the way to being delivered, today.

I'm quoting facts - you aren't.

That argument just fell over.

"As I've mentioned before, I do have scientific training. Perhaps that's why I'm consistently able to out argue you. But then, that's not exactly difficult, is it? Your standard of argument below is about that of a five year old child or worse. In your case, it would be better by far to keep quiet and let everyone think you are fool, than to keep making such posts and thereby remove all shadow of doubt"

Permit me to laugh my socks off. You have no arguments worthy of the name.

Perhaps you should heed your own words, only substituting 'anti' for 'pro':

"If people were rational rather than pseudo-religious in their mindset, this subject would NEVER have been mentioned again after its first debunking, but this is what always happens in these debates, the anti-nuclear quasi-religion has taken over peoples' minds to the extent here that its adherents conveniently 'forget' those facts and calculations that don't support their quasi-religious beliefs".

Let me know when you publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

[Java Jive]

How many of your hits refer to druids in an archealogical or valid historical context rather than new-age hippy type druids? You don't know, and I don't know the answer to your question, neither do I care, because it's not worth counting, because science is not determined by voting.

My point was that global warming denialists should given no more credence by the BBC than latter day druids. You have not come up with an effective argument against that.

If that is being done, it is being done by politicians, not scientists.

I gave you a link to some, but you chose to ignore it.

You're seriously confused. The models are based on the findings of climate science, not the other way around. And I said that the models are not yet reliable enough to be useful, not that they were rubbish.

I've explained the general science behind global warming to you, specifically, before, and given you countless links to improve your knowledge and understanding of it. For example, see this post and the subthread beyond it, although it also spilled over into other threads

What is very noticeable is while you were asking questions about the science, a reasonable discussion was possible, but when you reverted to type - unsubstantiated denialism of a quasi-religious natures - it wasn't.

Again, the models are based on the findings of climate science, not the other way around.

[bert]

In message , Java Jive writes

Pot. Kettle, black springs to mind

[edgariredale]

I read bits of these discussions from time to time and it irritates me enormously to find Mr Jive top posting every time. To read the reply before the original seems quite mad. I just won't bother any more. Is that winning? I doubt it.

Edgar

[bert]

No no according to the likes of JJ it's not the model that's wrong it's the facts that don't fit the model that are the problem so change them or better still hide them. Just like the crap he talks about supplies of uranium

Here's an interesting link

80 years known recoverable supplies at today's cost price for use in conventional reactors.

It's an interesting site and gives lots of statistics on current and projected nuclear plant.

Here's a quote

From time to time concerns are raised that the known resources might be insufficient when judged as a multiple of present rate of use. But this is the Limits to Growth fallacy, a major intellectual blunder recycled from the 1970s, which takes no account of the very limited nature of the knowledge we have at any time of what is actually in the Earth's crust. Our knowledge of geology is such that we can be confident that identified resources of metal minerals are a small fraction of what is there. Factors affecting the supply of resources are discussed further and illustrated in the Appendix.

[bert]

I saw an episode of Newswatch recently on the BBC news channel in which it was put to the head of BBC news that a report from a right wing think-tank claimed that an analysis of BBC news showed that comment from right wing think tanks were accompanied by a health warning whereas comment from left leaning ones were passed without qualification.

Her response was - well what you've got to remember is that this is a report from a right wing think tank. The irony was lot on both her and the interviewer

[bert]

In message , Java Jive writes

I'll repeat the quote I've posted elsewhere to the world nuclear web site. From time to time concerns are raised that the known resources might be insufficient when judged as a multiple of present rate of use. But this is the Limits to Growth fallacy, a major intellectual blunder recycled from the 1970s, which takes no account of the very limited nature of the knowledge we have at any time of what is actually in the Earth's crust. Our knowledge of geology is such that we can be confident that identified resources of metal minerals are a small fraction of what is there. Factors affecting the supply of resources are discussed further and illustrated in the Appendix.

[bert]

In message , harryagain writes

Actually to liken JJ to the flat earth society is an insult - to the flat earth society. They don't argue that the earth is flat but they challenge all the conventional wisdoms that abound in the pseudo-science that those like global warming fuckwits promulgate.

[bert]

In message , Java Jive writes

I suggest you go and read a bit more of their website you top posting f****it.

[harryagain]

You are one of the fuckwits. On the same plane as this lot.

[harryagain]

Holes are not self maintaining.. You are in cloud cuckooland

[Java Jive]

Climate science as a whole.

That is because it is very difficult to model in detail natural processes that have so many inputs, but the difficulties with the modelling process doesn't invalidate the rest of climate science.

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

You're missing the point, as so many others do ...

The point is NOT the total reserves, AFAIAA noone is questioning those, but DEMAND relative to SUPPLY, that is, the rate of consumption versus the rate of extraction. If you examine the data again which I've already linked so many times, you'll see that the WNA itself predicts that demand will outstrip supply somewhere around 2025. THAT is the point.

Electricity supply is generally considered to be of paramount strategic importance, and we in Britain don't have indigenous reserves of nuclear fissile fuel, so, if, as they do, the WNA's own figures show a likely shortfall within the lifecycle of any projected new nuclear build, that means we can't rely on nuclear fission as a strategic supply of power. By contrast we can rely on carbon-based generation as a strategic supply of power, because of the many different sources in the world, and the indigenous resources we have in the UK.

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

Because, as you commonly do, it states assertions and beliefs as though they are facts, and include no substantiating evidence.

I can't speak for Blair. I am perfectly willing to face unwelcome facts. The problem is, and what makes these discussions so tedious, is that you rarely if ever give any.

It will never be entirely unbiased, that is not possible, but it is at least the least biased, most reliable, source of news that we have. You, by contrast, are very obviously biased.

I note that you still give no link in support of this claim.

Again, no link.

[Java Jive]

Which is exactly what you'd expect such a person to say, but if it had been a left-wing think tank representative, the claim of bias would have been in the opposite direction.

Well, noone is trying to claim they're perfect, they're certainly not, but they're equally certainly the best thing we've got by quite a long way, and this is supported by a poll whose results are given in the Impartiality documents I've linked elsewhere (if and when I can check it's got to the servers yet).

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

Or rather, the opposite !-)

[Java Jive]

Because offshore gas, oil, and wind don't work by cages suspended in the water, this process does. This gives it properties that are irrelevant to gas, oil, and wind.

I note that yet again you don't actually give a link ... but at least the quote allowed me to find it easily.

So let's do a calculation on that:

325tYC/GWyr means that we would need 325000000/3.94 kg of adsorbent material, 82,487,310 kg, or about 82,500 tonnes; we are told only that it works seven times faster than the world's other best adsorbants, but that doesn't give us a direct timescale to work with, however to allow for that, we can try dividing the above figure by 7 to get some sort of ball-park. So that's about 12,000 tonnes.

"Scientists then remove the adsorbents from the water and the metals are readily extracted using a simple acid elution method. The adsorbent can then be regenerated and reused after being conditioned with potassium hydroxide."

So this 12,000 tonnes has to be physically removed from the water, it's much heavier now because it's full of water, treated to remove the uranium, treated to recondition it, and then placed back in the water again.

And how much energy, including carbon based energy, will be consumed in creating this vast tonnage, transporting it, deploying it, making all the chemicals, extracting the uranium, etc, etc? Has anyone even calculated it?

And how expensive is this going to be, remembering that even with currently very low spot price of U3O8 the cost of new nuclear is already on a par with onshore wind? The price at the moment is dominated by the cost of the nuclear plant, but this would add a huge slice of costs on top of that would seriously increase the cost of fuel in the balance.

And no way could we do it in the 10 years assured supply of nuclear fissile fuel that the WNA's figures tell us is all that we can be certain of.

This is beginning to sound as bad or worse than the admittedly difficult process of carbon capture, and you've been scathing enough of that in the past. Why, when it's nuclear, do you suddenly lose all critical faculty?

But, as others before hand, you haven't worked out their implications.

No. It just demolished you again.

Yet, I've just out argued you again. Strange that, isn't it?