Electric bicycles

On Mar 7, 9:37*pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 07/03/2012 07:24, Doug wrote:









On Mar 6, 6:12 pm, *wrote:
...
That report is not an opinion. It is a detailed study by specialists,
commissioned by HM Government to produce and independent and unbiased
report on what the limitations on renewable energy are. They go into
considerable detail and consider three different levels of growth of
renewable energy. They conclude that we could, using the high build
option, achieve 14.3GW installed capacity by 2020 and 20.1GW by 2030.
Note that is installed capacity and that the actual output of some
renewables, particularly wind, fall far short of the installed capacity.

I've even managed to find a link that works for you to read it yourself.
However, be warned, it contains facts.

www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46779.pdf

The report, dated 2008, though detailed neglects what can happen
beyond 2030.

For example

"Severn Barrage...Unlikely to go ahead within study timescales.

Most informed people hope it will never go ahead. It would cause huge
damage to the environment of the area and there are better ways to
harness the power of the tides.

By 'informed people' presumably you mean deniers like yourself who are
dismissive? Well at least you admit that tidal energy is a possibility
and of course it could be massive if the will was there to build them.

I am glad though that it virtually rules out biofuel.

Another omission is any mention of solar sources, such as the Sahara,

It mentions solar PV power. Desertec's plans would also be outside the
timescale of the study. That is apart from the fact that an independent
review would almost certainly conclude that they are very unlikely to
succeed with their plans. Indeed, Looking at their prospectus and the
problems they gloss over, I am inclined to wonder whether it might be no
more than an investment scam to fleece the credulous.

Same applies to the nuclear lobby.

and of course it only applies to the UK and neglects EU sources we
could tap into.

Probably because nobody in the EU is likely to have enough renewable
energy for their own use, much less enough to export.

Well they certainly have more renewables than us just now. As usual we
lag behind.

Given such omissions the usefulness of the report is rather limited
and short-sighted.

Whether you like it or not, that report is what the government will be
basing its policies on.

This government. What about the next one? Anyway they are almost
certainly motivated by the present economy drive and are applying it
to renewables like everything else..

The only person in denial here is you, in failing to recognise that
nuclear power is the best option. If renewable energy were better, that
is what I would be backing.

You are in denial about the need to avoid energy wastage and the
pollution from nuclear power stations.

If we have enough nuclear energy, there is no need to worry about
whether there is any wastage and, unlike you, I understand that nothing
is entirely risk free, so what is important is whether the risk is
significant. In the past 25 years, fewer than 70 people have died as a
result of radiation accidents.

Seriously wrong, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you from
several sources and which you repeatedly ignore. That's what denial
does.

In a good year, with a low incidence and
rapid treatment for everyone, bubonic plague will kill at least 150
people. That makes bubonic plague at least 50 times more dangerous than
radiation accidents, but how many people go around worrying about
catching bubonic plague; a disease that we know has the potential to
wipe out millions of people?

So now you are desperately trying to compare natural causes with man-
made causes of death?

Denial requires that there is a truth to deny, which there is not. You
grossly overstate the problems of using nuclear power and ignore the
fact that reducing energy is only necessary if you go for inefficient
generation methods, such as renewables.

You are ignoring consumption of electricity, where there is a very
great deal of wastage at present.

Which is irrelevant if we have plenty of power available.

So you are in favour of energy wastage?

You are also trying to downplay the
radioactive pollution from nuclear plants

The risk of that is so low that there is no need to downplay it.

Your denial seems to know no bounds. What about the several sources
which have been pointed out to you which clearly demonstrate that you
are wrong?

and that renewables are
virtually pollution free and are safe for the general population.

Any nuclear plants we build today would be just as safe for the general
population.

They probably said the same about all the others built and have
seriously polluted with radioactivity.

Fortunately the development of renewables is ongoing worldwide while
serious concerns are being voiced about nuclear power, following the
Fukushima disaster.

Only by those who don't understand that modern designs cannot suffer the
same failure that affected Fukushima. That particular flaw was designed
out, not long after the Fukushima plant was built.

Yeah sure! Modern nuclear power plants which haven't even been built
yet can survive earthquakes, floods, bombs, terrorist attacks and
mishandling, not!

Fukushima was an old design and that survived being hit by a massive
earthquake and a tsunami. What it could not survive was being cut off
from an electricity supply for more than eight hours. Modern designs do
not have even that vulnerability.

What? It hasn't survived and was/is in meltdown. Don't you read the
reports? Obviously not.

And what about all that nuclear waste that is still
sitting around all over the place already?

Irrelevant to whether we build new nuclear plants or not.

It demonstrates how nuclear pollutes and for thousands of years to
come. New nuclear plants are still not immune from disasters or
attacks.

The problem at the moment is how to fill the gap
until renwables meet our needs.

Which will be never in the real world. We need lots of energy and we
need it soon, to replace the ageing infrastructure we have now. That
means new very large power stations. Nuclear is the best option for that.

No, less dangerous gas is the best option at present to fill the gap.
When did you last hear of thousands being killed by a gas-powered
station, as they have been by nuclear plants?

Gas plants kill around 4 people per TWh, as compared to 0.04 per TWh for
nuclear, or 0.004, excluding Chernobyl.

Your pro-nuclear source is in error and ignores thousands of
subsequent cancer deaths caused by widespread radiation.
...

Why are you still in denial about nuclear pollution despite the facts
presented to you?

All you have presented me with so far is anti-nuclear hysteria.

What about your pro-nuclear hysteria?

We can rule out nuclear because of its extreme radiation pollution
risks which is becoming more and more evident.

As I and others have pointed out to you repeatedly, your fears are
groundless. Nuclear power is the safest method of power generation by
far, even including Chernobyl, Fukushima, Windscale and Three Mile Island.

What others? At the moment it is only you who seem to be in denial.

Try reading some of the threads that appear from time to time. I am far
from the only person who has referred to the safety of nuclear power.

No we are aware of the pro-nuclear lobby. So what?

How do you account for the fact that Fukushima has caused such serious
concerns that there is a worldwide pause in nuclear power plant
construction?

I would not call 60 reactors being built in 14 countries, as at February
2012, a worldwide pause in construction.

Depends on how many that might have been built if Fukushima hadn't
happened.

"On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear
energy completely within 11 years."

Explain why you think that is?

Because the country has a massive green movement that is as badly
informed about nuclear power as you are.

Or, its green movement is better informed than you. See how easily you
dismiss a whole country as important as Germany. That is real denial
on your part.

Doug.

On 08/03/2012 08:01, Doug wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:37 pm, wrote:
On 07/03/2012 07:24, Doug wrote:
....
"Severn Barrage...Unlikely to go ahead within study timescales.

Most informed people hope it will never go ahead. It would cause huge
damage to the environment of the area and there are better ways to
harness the power of the tides.

By 'informed people' presumably you mean deniers like yourself who are
dismissive?

I mean anyone who has taken the trouble to find out what environmental
effects a barrage across the Severn would cause. It would devastate
several unique habitats.

Well at least you admit that tidal energy is a possibility
and of course it could be massive if the will was there to build them.

If you bothered to read my posts, you would be well aware that I am of
the view that, if we have to have any renewable energy, tidal flow is
the best option - reliable and predictable.

....
It mentions solar PV power. Desertec's plans would also be outside the
timescale of the study. That is apart from the fact that an independent
review would almost certainly conclude that they are very unlikely to
succeed with their plans. Indeed, Looking at their prospectus and the
problems they gloss over, I am inclined to wonder whether it might be no
more than an investment scam to fleece the credulous.

Same applies to the nuclear lobby.

So, who is offering a prospectus of investment in a new nuclear power
project, aimed at providing a significant proportion of Europe's power?
That sounds like the sort of thing I would like to invest in. However, I
would give their prospectus just as close a scrutiny as I have the
Desertec one and, if it left as many questions unanswered, I wouldn't
put any money into it.

The basic concept appears to be quite good, although the only other
large scale development of the technology did drive the company that
built the plants into bankruptcy. However, the plans they put forward
are the sort of thing that would daunt a conglomerate of nations. It all
sounds too good to be true, which usually means it is, and nobody is
likely to see any payback for decades. All of which would fit the
profile of a con. OTOH it could simply be a group of high-minded
idealists with an impractical idea. Either way, I doubt we will be
seeing the project come to fruition.

....
Given such omissions the usefulness of the report is rather limited
and short-sighted.

Whether you like it or not, that report is what the government will be
basing its policies on.

This government. What about the next one?

The report and its conclusions won't change. At most, a new government
might choose a different build level.

.....
If we have enough nuclear energy, there is no need to worry about
whether there is any wastage and, unlike you, I understand that nothing
is entirely risk free, so what is important is whether the risk is
significant. In the past 25 years, fewer than 70 people have died as a
result of radiation accidents.

Seriously wrong, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you from
several sources and which you repeatedly ignore.

I ignore them because none of them agree with the World Health
Organisation, whose whole purpose is to present health professionals
around the world with well-researched, independent and reliable facts
upon which to base decisions about public health. Come up with figures
from a similarly reputable and independent body and I will look at them.

....
In a good year, with a low incidence and
rapid treatment for everyone, bubonic plague will kill at least 150
people. That makes bubonic plague at least 50 times more dangerous than
radiation accidents, but how many people go around worrying about
catching bubonic plague; a disease that we know has the potential to
wipe out millions of people?

So now you are desperately trying to compare natural causes with man-
made causes of death?

I am making a point about relative risks. If you prefer, substitute
public transport buses for bubonic plague. Accurate figures for how many
people dies each year as a result of bus accidents are rather less easy
to quantify, as they are expressed in deaths per million passenger
kilometres and the number of passenger kilometres per year are not
readily available world wide. However, you are much more likely to die
as the result of a bus accident than as the result of a radiation accident.

....
You are ignoring consumption of electricity, where there is a very
great deal of wastage at present.

Which is irrelevant if we have plenty of power available.

So you are in favour of energy wastage?

That rather depends upon your definition of wastage, which I suspect is
not the same as mine.

You are also trying to downplay the
radioactive pollution from nuclear plants

The risk of that is so low that there is no need to downplay it.

Your denial seems to know no bounds. What about the several sources
which have been pointed out to you which clearly demonstrate that you
are wrong?

I would say that the sources I have looked at clearly show I am right.
Of course, if you believe the worst of the scare mongers, thenthe
situation probably does look a lot worse than it really is.

and that renewables are
virtually pollution free and are safe for the general population.

Any nuclear plants we build today would be just as safe for the general
population.

They probably said the same about all the others built and have
seriously polluted with radioactivity.

Nobody ever suggested that the RBMK-1000 design, used at Chernobyl, was
anything other than an accident waiting to happen. They were the only
plants built anywhere without a containment vessel. Three Mile Island
showed the difference that one piece of design made.

....
Fukushima was an old design and that survived being hit by a massive
earthquake and a tsunami. What it could not survive was being cut off
from an electricity supply for more than eight hours. Modern designs do
not have even that vulnerability.

What? It hasn't survived and was/is in meltdown. Don't you read the
reports? Obviously not.

I obviously read the reports in much greater detail than you.
The earthquake struck at 14:46. This initiated an automatic shut down of
the working reactors. It also disconnected the plant from the power grid.
The first tsunami struck at 15:27
A 14m tsunami struck at 15:46, knocking out the back-up generators and
washing their fuel tanks out to sea. At this stage, there has been no
leakage of radiation and there is no overheating of the cores. The plant
has survived being hit by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and a 14m tsunami.

If it had been a modern design, with passive cooling, that would have
been the end of the story. However, it required power to run the core
cooling systems and, with the reactors shut down, the plant disconnected
from the grid and the first two levels of backup disabled, the plant is
reduced to running on battery power, which eventually runs out and that
is when the cores started to overheat. As I said, what it could not
survive was being cut off from a power supply for more than eight hours.

....
And what about all that nuclear waste that is still
sitting around all over the place already?

Irrelevant to whether we build new nuclear plants or not.

It demonstrates how nuclear pollutes and for thousands of years to
come.

The waste is contained and stored, which is not pollution, and the
storage period for most waste is hundreds of years, not thousands. As
you should know by now, I am a great believer in recycling nuclear
waste, not storing it, which would reduce the amount produced from
around 95% to about 1%.

New nuclear plants are still not immune from disasters or
attacks.

Nothing is. However, as I have repeatedly pointed out, even including a
possible 4,000 deaths from Chernobyl, nuclear power is still several
times safer than anything else.

....
The problem at the moment is how to fill the gap
until renwables meet our needs.

Which will be never in the real world. We need lots of energy and we
need it soon, to replace the ageing infrastructure we have now. That
means new very large power stations. Nuclear is the best option for that.

No, less dangerous gas is the best option at present to fill the gap.
When did you last hear of thousands being killed by a gas-powered
station, as they have been by nuclear plants?

Gas plants kill around 4 people per TWh, as compared to 0.04 per TWh for
nuclear, or 0.004, excluding Chernobyl.

Your pro-nuclear source is in error and ignores thousands of
subsequent cancer deaths caused by widespread radiation.

The sources are fully traceable and include all known factors for all
forms of generation, including environmental effects and an estimated
4,000 early deaths as a result of Chernobyl. As for your mythical
cancers, it is well established that the cut-off point for solid cancers
that result from exposure to radiation is ten years. If they haven't
appeared by then, they are not going to.

....
How do you account for the fact that Fukushima has caused such serious
concerns that there is a worldwide pause in nuclear power plant
construction?

I would not call 60 reactors being built in 14 countries, as at February
2012, a worldwide pause in construction.

Depends on how many that might have been built if Fukushima hadn't
happened.

It would have been 60 reactors in 14 countries. None were delayed as a
result of the accident, although a lot of designers did look very
carefully at whether there were any lessons that could be learned from
Fukushima.


"On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear
energy completely within 11 years."

Explain why you think that is?

Because the country has a massive green movement that is as badly
informed about nuclear power as you are.

Or, its green movement is better informed than you. See how easily you
dismiss a whole country as important as Germany. That is real denial
on your part.

I don't dismiss a country, but I do think that the green movement has
completely lost the plot. When it started, it was about making better
use of limited resources and showing industry how that would benefit it.
I even spoke on that myself. Now it appears to be about forcing an
alternative life style that nobody else wants on the rest of the population.

Colin Bignell

On Mar 11, 9:22*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 08/03/2012 08:01, Doug wrote:

On Mar 7, 9:37 pm, *wrote:
On 07/03/2012 07:24, Doug wrote:
...
"Severn Barrage...Unlikely to go ahead within study timescales.

Most informed people hope it will never go ahead. It would cause huge
damage to the environment of the area and there are better ways to
harness the power of the tides.

By 'informed people' presumably you mean deniers like yourself who are
dismissive?

I mean anyone who has taken the trouble to find out what environmental
effects a barrage across the Severn would cause. It would devastate
several unique habitats.

Yes humans do usually do that, such as when they build even more roads
for your car to use.

Well at least you admit that tidal energy is a possibility
and of course it could be massive if the will was there to build them.

If you bothered to read my posts, you would be well aware that I am of
the view that, if we have to have any renewable energy, tidal flow is
the best option - reliable and predictable.

That is good to know that you are not totally dismissive of
renewables, which poses the question what are you on about here then?
...

It mentions solar PV power. Desertec's plans would also be outside the
timescale of the study. That is apart from the fact that an independent
review would almost certainly conclude that they are very unlikely to
succeed with their plans. Indeed, Looking at their prospectus and the
problems they gloss over, I am inclined to wonder whether it might be no
more than an investment scam to fleece the credulous.

Same applies to the nuclear lobby.

So, who is offering a prospectus of investment in a new nuclear power
project, aimed at providing a significant proportion of Europe's power?
That sounds like the sort of thing I would like to invest in. However, I
would give their prospectus just as close a scrutiny as I have the
Desertec one and, if it left as many questions unanswered, I wouldn't
put any money into it.

The basic concept appears to be quite good, although the only other
large scale development of the technology did drive the company that
built the plants into bankruptcy. However, the plans they put forward
are the sort of thing that would daunt a conglomerate of nations. It all
sounds too good to be true, which usually means it is, and nobody is
likely to see any payback for decades. All of which would fit the
profile of a con. OTOH it could simply be a group of high-minded
idealists with an impractical idea. Either way, I doubt we will be
seeing the project come to fruition.

That would be a pity.
...

Given such omissions the usefulness of the report is rather limited
and short-sighted.

Whether you like it or not, that report is what the government will be
basing its policies on.

This government. What about the next one?

The report and its conclusions won't change. At most, a new government
might choose a different build level.

Yes a change of government doesn't usually mean a change of anything
else much.
....

If we have enough nuclear energy, there is no need to worry about
whether there is any wastage and, unlike you, I understand that nothing
is entirely risk free, so what is important is whether the risk is
significant. In the past 25 years, fewer than 70 people have died as a
result of radiation accidents.

Seriously wrong, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you from
several sources and which you repeatedly ignore.

I ignore them because none of them agree with the World Health
Organisation, whose whole purpose is to present health professionals
around the world with well-researched, independent and reliable facts
upon which to base decisions about public health. Come up with figures
from a similarly reputable and independent body and I will look at them.

The WHO doesn't seem to agree with you.

http://www.who.int/hac/crises/jpn/en/index.html
...

In a good year, with a low incidence and
rapid treatment for everyone, bubonic plague will kill at least 150
people. That makes bubonic plague at least 50 times more dangerous than
radiation accidents, but how many people go around worrying about
catching bubonic plague; a disease that we know has the potential to
wipe out millions of people?

So now you are desperately trying to compare natural causes with man-
made causes of death?

I am making a point about relative risks. If you prefer, substitute
public transport buses for bubonic plague. Accurate figures for how many
people dies each year as a result of bus accidents are rather less easy
to quantify, as they are expressed in deaths per million passenger
kilometres and the number of passenger kilometres per year are not
readily available world wide. However, you are much more likely to die
as the result of a bus accident than as the result of a radiation accident.