OT: National Grid

[The Wanderer]

You still seem unable to differentiate between being rude and being impolite.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:28:00 GMT someone who may be Roger wrote this:-

You didn't post a fact, you posted an opinion. I disagree with that opinion and hence believe it is not true.

Incorrect. To be an insult it would need to be addressed at you directly, rather than a general comment. Had I said, "you stupid idiot", that would have been an insult.

For the moment you may have the last word on this matter, if you wish. I am not going to be distracted from the issue under discussion for long by such attacks. People have tried that before.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:27:13 GMT someone who may be Roger wrote this:-

If one doesn't include repaying the capital costs of building them and decommissioning them then nuclear generated electricity can seem cheap, for the reason you outline. However, it is worth remembering that the CEGB got in to nuclear power stations as part of the nuclear weapons programme, not to reduce electricity prices. This was revealed when the privatisers started the privatisation process and discovered some of the true costs of nuclear stations. Before the rather fictitious distinction between civil and military use was introduced spent fuel from Magnox power stations was turned into plutonium for nuclear weapons at Windscale.

Incorrect. For many years nuclear plants down south were given support via the NFFO. There were equivalents in this country. That was a mechanism designed by the privatisers.

If you are referring to the Climate Change Levy then I do agree that there is currently an anomaly about this.

At what was claimed to be an equitable price, but it was in fact a higher price than they could obtain electricity from via their own or other resources. Hence the court case in 2001/2002, which was settled out of court. According to rumours Scottish Power's payments to British Energy were cut from about 60 million pounds a year to about 20 million pounds a year.

By the way the proportions were 25.1% Scottish Hydro Electric and

74.9% Scottish Power. They had to pay for this electricity even if they did not want it.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

Age discrimination is illegal now, unless practised by the government.

Bullshit.

Fair assumption to make as you will insist on banging on about it.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

Once you have an asset it is the marginal cost of using it that is important.

Apparently NFFOs were originally intended to regulate the price the state owned nuclear industry received for electricity although the NFPA (and other government sources) are remarkably coy about any help given given elsewhere than to the so called renewables. There was certainly no such assistance around at the time BE went to the wall.

You take heed of rumours!

The could export it just like the French do with their surplus power.

[AJH]

I agree your point that the early power stations amounted to a hidden increase to an already barely affordable defence spending (which along with war debt repayments probably delayed economic growth and hampered competition with German and Asian economies) but my understanding is that there was an actual distinction between running one for weapons material, which was only necessary because the americans did not reciprocate early "gifts" of scientific intelligence in the manhattan project (and the cavity magnetron but that's another story) and expelled british scientists from the project after the war, and electricity production.

So the brits went their own way and operated magnox reactors to produce weapons material differently from those dedicated to electricity, as a direct result of lack of knowledge about how moderators became stressed when operated in the "military" mode we had a radiation release at windscale. No remotely comparable core problems have been attributed to magnox reactors optimised for producing electricity, yet this accident seems to have dealt a death blow to british designs.

I remain troubled by the prospect of nuclear proliferation but not concerned about my personal safety arising directly from UK generation of nuclear energy, especially as more modern designs will be safer. I would not currently support nuclear energy as philosophically I don't like hiding unsolved problems under the carpet for future generations to resolve unnecessarily. Childless friends do not see things this way and I'm not desperately unhappy I am in the minority over this.

AJH

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:07:58 +0000 someone who may be AJH wrote this:-

The main threat to our personal safety from generation of electricity from uranium is the same now as it was in the 1970s, except that the threat has become more dire. These are the waste tanks at Windscale, full of highly radioactive nitric acid, which must be constantly cooled. If they are not cooled then they may explode. The Tomsk-7 explosion (though that was a chemical explosion) shows what happens when a waste tank explodes. Fortunately not too many people live in the countryside of Siberia, otherwise the Tomsk-7 explosion would be more well known.

A little of the waste tank situation came to larger attention in

the relevant bits of which are

"And the Cumbrian complex's crisis is compounded by an excoriating report which shows that its facilities for handling nuclear waste are a shambles and that its safety procedures for preventing accidents ? which could kill hundreds of thousands of Britons ? are "not fully adequate". [snip]

"The stinging report, by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, reveals the extent of the mess. After reprocessing, highly dangerous radioactive liquid waste is concentrated through evaporation and stored above ground in 21 giant steel tanks before being "vitrified" ? bound into glass for disposal. But the report shows that every stage of this process is in crisis.

"Two of the three evaporators have been shut due to safety problems, and there are continuing "difficulties" with vitrification. But the most alarming issue is the failure of equipment needed to cool the waste, which could, at worst, lead to an explosion, scattering radioactivity across much of the country. Studies suggest that for every tank that exploded 210,000 people would die from cancer.

"The report also reveals "poor housekeeping standards" in the waste stores, that vital safety inspections are "not fully effective", and it condemns "lack of focus" on "emergency arrangements and fire safety"."

[Bob Martin]

Standard BBC and newspaper practice - haven't you noticed?

[AJH]

As I said David, I am concerted about the hazard but given the current wealth of our economy I believe it need not be a current high risk.

I haven't sufficient knowledge to make a judgement but believe the risk has been made worse by the decision to reprocess, again this may well have been, initially, a result of a military program.

We've strayed too far from the initial post, which may have been relevant to diy, in that the duty to maintain frequency may be masking a good feedback mechanism which the website that was referenced suggests is a way of controlling peaks in demand.

AJH

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:40:53 GMT someone who may be Bob Martin wrote this:-

Incorrect. For example refers throughout the article to "Paul Burrell" and "Mr Burrell". It is true that the headline does refer to "Burrell", but that is a headline.

Next contestant please.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:56:36 +0000 someone who may be AJH wrote this:-

Even the regulators are worried that the risk is currently high. Their reports are at . The risk has been high for at least a decade, probably more. The risk is high partly because the consequences of a failure are so bad.

In their reports they talk of "strategically significant concerns" about the evaporators, translated into English that means things are dire. section 2.5.1. Note that the evaporators are not quite the storage tanks, but they are the stage before the tanks. Note also that the regulators say things have improved a bit recently.

"Reprocessing" was certainly a story put about from say the 1970s. Partly this was to cover up their real activities. Partly this was an example of what happens when one creates a large military industrial complex. The complex seeks to protect its existence by inventing work for itself.

The malign influence of the "reprocessing" lobby affected nuclear electricity generation until privatisation. Since then electricity generators have asked what they get for the large amounts of money they pay to prop up this process. They now largely agree with the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth that the place to store spent fuel is above ground at the power station, though for very different reasons.

Having hopefully stopped putting more crap in, that still leaves the question of what to do with the environmental disaster and organisational mess at Windscale. Sadly it can't be wished away. It will remain a monument to the stupidity of party politicians and officials for a very long time, even if we manage to get rid of it without killing large numbers of people.

Mr Eisenhower had wise words to say on military industrial complexes

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence

-- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

That's thread dfrift.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It isn't. Times have moved on from power stations whose raison d'etre was producing weapons grade material for weapons.

I guess you would rather have lived in Bhopal?

Good. Its nice to know they *have* safety standards, unlike windmills with can explode without (much) warning.

Utter bollocks.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:14:04 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Nice try. However, there are safety standards for wind turbines.

Please indicate where and when a wind turbine has exploded. A real explosion, rather than some hype. There have been a few fires in nacelles, which are best left to burn themselves out, but that is rather different to an explosion.

Ah, proof by assertion.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well how about 'castrophic disintegration' then as happened to the two in Denmark?

I am sure a hurtling turbine blade is just as deadly as a microgram of plutonium, if it hits you in the head..if only..

I must have learnt it from you and the stuff you keep citing.

Wishful thinking doesn't change how engineering and money works, Dave.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

I can't trace any study that supports the contention that "for every tank that exploded 210,000 people would die from cancer."

Not saying they aren't there, only that they don't have a high profile, and I await a citation.

You only need to look at Chernobyl to see that the green tendency will go to almost any lengths to discredit nuclear safety. Back in 2005 the WHO was claiming an eventual total of 4000 excess radiation deaths from the incident and the greenies that 500,000 had already died. Neither are going to be right but one side of the fence tends to look carefully at the data and the other side tends to use figures that support their argument. Brent Spar anyone.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No one has calculated the deaths from inhaling carbon fibre shards coming of disintegrating windmill baldes either ;-)

Let alone deaths from hypothermia when you get a total power cut as 3/4 of the windmills get becalmed.

Anyone can predict unlikely scenarios and challenge people to refute them.

The fact is its hard to say that more than half a dozen people have died prematurely as a result of the UK nuclear industry.

Whereas I venture to suggest that the ACTUAL figures in farming ie. biofuel), mining and the gas and oil industry are far far higher.