Do dimmer switches work with Low Energy Bulbs?

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:52:06 +0000, David Hansen

An external radiation hazard of that magnitude on a public beach I would find difficult to contemplate.

Futile to do hypothetical sums. If you can tell us where it happened we could investigate it, but radiation physicists are more commonly concerned with amounts a million or so times less. What is normally considered a hotspot is for instance where what otherwise would be a low level discharge into the sea gets concentrated in sands and muds which bind it like Fullers Earth.
Derek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:08:57 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Adam

And over time. I gather they have given up providing estimated completion dates for the one in Finland.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:52:06 +0000, David Hansen

It would probably have been more honest of us if we'd given up providing estimated completion dates for most (all ?) of our large engineering projects such as the M74 extension, and it's usually the Greens who are the chief offenders although the trade unions also rate. (Viz the Isle of Grain power station).
Derek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:23:56 -0700 (PDT), Adam Aglionby

Which isotopes and in which direction did the wind carry them and how far ?

Ditto politicians, ditto trade union leaders, and ditto activists,
Ditto everybody where kudos, money and/or effort is involved. A bit of trivial corner cutting with the paperwork on a commercial contract.
Exactly the same happened to us. A German company supplied hundreds of calibration certificates for detectors they sold us. Somebody at BNFL held a sample of them up to the light together and noticed they were absolutely identical. The German company apologised but said said we on behalf of BNFL had pressed them for a low price and a fast delivery
That sort of thing has gone on as long as tinkers have been selling horses, and a salesman will promiss the world on a golden plate to get an order.

Derek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Adam Aglionby wrote:

it was always primarily a research and weapons reactor reactor AFAIK, as was dounreay

No, they are not central They are very peripheral, since no one will ever build a reactor that way ever again.

No, they both leaked more than is currently acceptable, and more than any modern reactor does.
Neither has killed anyone ever. Nor is likely to.
The sites I do have concern over, were Windscale, but that's long gone, and sellafield reprocessing, which is not well run. But they havent killed anyone either.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:07:53 +0000, Derek Geldard wrote:

More wind farms?
;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:58:49 -0500, Jules

Spelled out in wind turbines ? That would be a thought to conjur with.
More seriously has anybody noticed that steady numbers of these things having been built for a few years running now, their appearance usually as seen from the motorways is getting more and more intrusive, and I assume we are not there yet by a * very * long chalk.
Derek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:31:33 +0000, Derek Geldard

Apparently we have "achieved" a total installed capacity of 4 GW this year, including 1 GW installed in the last 12 months.
The projected total capacity for wind generated electricity is in the region of 35 GW, so we are about 11% there. Only 89% to go. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce wrote:

oh no. that's *capacity*. In reality it only GENERATES about 30% on average. So make that 10GW at best. 97% to go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:32:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

I agree that what is generated is a surprisingly small proportion of their nominal capacity, but the two figures I quoted were defined on a similar basis, so we are only 11% there, with another 89% to go.
Perhaps it is worth pointing out that most of the future capacity will be built off our coasts. It therefore won't have the same visual impact as the wind farms that have already been built, mostly on land.
Of course it will be a lot more effective at spoiling our coastal views. :-(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce wrote:

Not really.Not if you want to be totally free of oil.
Thyat mens replacing gas, gheating oil, petrol diesel and everything.
About a 3:1 scale up.

Depends if you like looking out to sea.
If its built off shore it will be twice as exepsnive twice as unreliable and cost twice as much to maintain, of course.

And shipping and our early warning radar system and nicely vulnerable to vandalism and terrorism.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:48:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

I'm talking about what is planned, rather than what is sloshing about in your tiny mind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Derek Geldard wrote:

100 nuclear power stations = 100,000 windmills, each one occupying the land area of a nuclear power station more or less.
Thats the basic maths for a totally fossil free britain.
about 40% of all the land area doing renewable energy farms, competing with all the other land uses like wilderness, ssi's housing. agriculture, etc etc. Probably employing at least a million people to keep running.
Or 100 concrete block scattered round the coast the size of a couple of football pitches. Run by maybe 30,000 skilled people.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29 Oct,

A windmill will occupy less than the amount of land in square yards that a nuclear site occupies in acres. It takes little land to plant a pole.
--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you'd be happy to live right next to one, below the whirring blades? Id you did you might wake up one morning with a rather severe haircut.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net wrote:

Yes, but you cant stack them all in the same bit of land.
They all need access roads to them.
They all need wires going to them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They all need blowing up.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:52:05 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Inflatable wind turbines - whatever next? Of course they'd probably use all the power they generated just in keeping themselves inflated - but shhh, it's green tech, so it *must* be good ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Thats because we can`t mine uranium in the U.K. currently rely on Australia and South Africa, if only there was somewher closer, somewhere we have to fight a war against terror to in reality protect interests in strip of uranium ore, somewhere like Afghanistan,

It dosen`t buy energy independence or security, nuclear is a fossil fuel that we do not have natively, clean burning coal technology looks like something we would be well placed to become a world player in, something we arent in wind or nuclear.
Cheers Adam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:31:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

Why on earth should it take 10 people to keep 1 turbine running? They are remarkably maintenance-free. It is more likely to take 1 person per 10 turbines.

Among those 30,000 people, what is the likelihood that a handful of them will display the same lack of judgment and disregard for risk that was demonstrated at Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island?
Almost a certainty.
Those who consider nuclear power as a "no-brainer" solution to our energy needs probably have no brain. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.