Peak wind (nothing to do with diet)

Well, a bit, yes. At 9/11, the Data Centre we were using in NY turned on the diesels. So far so good. After 30 mins they cut out - filters blocked from all the dust and no spares. They managed to keep them clean and continued, but after 36 hours ran out of diesel. Getting a refill was then a problem with the area being under marshal law, but they managed that, too.

Too bad our main and backup fibres in NY were supplied by Deutche Telekom (sp?) which had routed all their fibres through the basement at WTC, oops.

Reply to
Tim Streater
Loading thread data ...

What's the relevance of this? The fact is it is *abundantly* available from friendly nations.

Waffle, waffle.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Our power is actually very good, the 33 kV line comes from Penrith (or at least that is the way it's heading I haven't traced it past the decent from Hartside). There is an 11 kV backup line, and when we are on that the UPS complains at intervals as the voltage regulation is not as good and will go out of tolerance(*).

The last couple of outages have been notified ones for line maintenace and tree cutting. The last unscheduled one was for 36 hrs after an ice storm brought down a lot of lines and snapped poles. If our power goes it's either only off for a second or two until the auto-recloser tries again or several hours if the recloser goes into lockout after trying to reconnect more than 3 times in a minute (or something like that).

Nor me even when the volts were down to about 130 after the ice storm.

Not these days too many computers for the appointments system, patient records etc...

Our local cottage hospital (24/7 Minor Injuries Unit) has a genset, not very big but it has one.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

I suggest that you examine the data more closely, then, if you can, wipe the red off your face. HINT: The direction of the arrows is significant.

If it's any help, I have previously calculated in a recent thread only a few weeks ago that the amount of gas that we import through Belgium and Netherlands from elsewhere further east cannot be greater than 2% of our annual consumption. This means that 98% of our current consumption comes from ourselves, Norway, Holland, or Belgium.

That's your straw man for you.

It wouldn't be, but it's not the correct figure.

It seems that my ability with figures is rather better than yours.

No, because I knew you were fixated on oil and gas imports which you incorrectly believed came from places like Russia, because it's another myth that is frequently bandied about in this group. It would be nice to think that having now disproved it twice it will die, but I know sure as hell that in a month or less I'll be answering the same misinformation with the same facts all over again, because that's what has always happened in the past.

It's called 'bias', you see, it ignores facts.

You're miss>

... was quite simply WRONG!

No, you redo your maths.

That's the way bias works, facts don't matter to those whose opinions are already committed, so they keep on peddling the same myths.

It actually can't be refuted because it is the World Nuclear Association's own data. All you have to understand is the graph at the bottom of that page, and that the solid red line representing the middle (most likely) level of demand crosses above the top of the shaded area representing supply somewhere around 2024/5. If demand is high, it may be earlier, if demand is low, it may be later, but around

2024/5 is the most likely date.

This is no calculation of mine, or even interpretation of mine, it's the WNA's own graph based upon the WNA's own figures. Are you calling them wrong, or even liars?

Reply to
Java Jive

What a load of garbage.

"Imports of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) have grown substantially over the last few years. In 2011 these imports accounted for almost half of the UK?s total commercial imports of gas, up from around a third in 2010."

Reply to
polygonum

No, it's absolutely correct. I note that noone challenged it at the time, and you do not support your assertions with anything credible.

Which is completely compatible with what I wrote above.

Reply to
Java Jive

I've explained the relevance in my reply to MBQ.

Go and read the WNA link given in my reply MBQ.

Reply to
Java Jive

Apologies and belay that, I see what you're saying now. I was only looking at gaseous gas imports. Nevertheless, things aren't so very different:

98% of 98bcm = 96bcm coming from 'nice' countries, which is 82% of total including LNG, actually rather more because some of the LNG also comes from 'nice' countries.

So my argument that nuclear has a greater probability of coming from a 'nice' country being a straw man still stands.

formatting link

Kazakhstan 36% Africa 17% Canada 17% Australia 11% Etc.

Reply to
Java Jive

Indeed. Try reading it yourself. Read the legend as well. The UK uses

98bcm and imports 25 from Norway. I don't count 1/4 as "the vast majority".

Look at the doc again. The arrow clearly shows over 8bcn (8%) from the Netherlands

Read the doc again. 18% is LNG from outwth the EU.

That's your inability to interpret the data.

Read the doc that you linked to.

On the other habd it isn't the correct figure as it is 3 years out of date. We are, and will continue to be, ever more dependent upon imported gas from dodgy nations due to the well publicised retirement of older generating plant.

Read, and take time to understand the doc you linked to.

Where do you think the LNG (18% in 2010) comes from? Not Russia, but I never mentioned Russia.

It lives because you are wrong.

It's you peddling the misinformation.

It's called innumeracy when YOU cannot interpret a simple diagram.

Fuck it, I can't be bothered with the rest.

We all now know every recent post from JJ is full of hot air.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

FFS it's in the doc you linked to. LNG imports were 18% in 2010. They are even higher now.

MBQ

It is totally incompatible. LNG is now 50% of imports. We cannot therefor import our "vast majority" of gas form Norway [your statement].

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

And you were still wrong. Still only 25% of our gas was imported from Norway.

We all now know every recent post from JJ is full of gas.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

Irrelevant. Uranium is abundantly available from friendly nations, or the sea. It will last for centuries if processed and re-processed appropriately.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

As currently are carbon-based fuels, so again that's a false argument.

Jeez! Here we go again ...

formatting link

"I called the uranium in the ocean ?recoverable? but this is a bit inaccurate ? most ocean waters are quite inaccessible, and the ocean conveyor belt rolls round only once every 1000 years or so; and no-one has yet demonstrated uranium-extraction from seawater on an industrial scale."

formatting link

"The proposal that such uranium-extraction facilities should be created is thus similar in scale to proposals such as ?every person should have 10 m2 of solar panels? and ?every person should have a one-ton car and a dedicated parking place for it.? A large investment, yes, but not absurdly off scale."

Except for the UK it is absurd, because of our high population density combined with our energy-intensive lifestyles. To supply the entire current UK electricity demand by fission of uranium extracted from seawater would likely require a length of cages that would more than surround the entire coastline of mainland Britain!

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.