TGO Winfarms?

Dave Fawthrop said:

Ouch! Real,engineers, as against academics, never try for a "1st class
job" they do the job well enough.

That's just semantics. To me, nuclear waste disposal done "well enough"
*is* a first class job. The module I did was taught by a very
experienced geophysicist with many years Real World experience working
for commercial companies. He didn't present us with conclusions, merely
facts from which we could draw our own.

Quoted message said:

The problem with that argument is background radiation. We and our
ancestors have dealt with cosmic rays, and granite rocks for billions of
years. Increasing the levels of radiation by a fraction of background is
IMO acceptable.

The problem with the above is it dismisses a lot of very important
issues such as erosion over thousands of years exposing incredibly toxic
material, water table movements over that time frame leaching said
incredibly toxic material, and excessive heat build up that a repository
can't handle, by only assuming a minor increase in background radiation
as the only problem. It's not that simple, by a long stretch.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

--

http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/1170117
"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave Fawthrop said:

Ouch! Real,engineers, as against academics, never try for a "1st class
job" they do the job well enough.

That's just semantics. To me, nuclear waste disposal done "well enough"
*is* a first class job. The module I did was taught by a very experienced
geophysicist with many years Real World experience working for commercial
companies. He didn't present us with conclusions, merely facts from which
we could draw our own.

Quoted message said:

The problem with that argument is background radiation. We and our
ancestors have dealt with cosmic rays, and granite rocks for billions of
years. Increasing the levels of radiation by a fraction of background
is
IMO acceptable.

The problem with the above is it dismisses a lot of very important issues
such as erosion over thousands of years exposing incredibly toxic
material, water table movements over that time frame leaching said
incredibly toxic material, and excessive heat build up that a repository
can't handle, by only assuming a minor increase in background radiation as
the only problem. It's not that simple, by a long stretch.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Hello,
Before moving to Gloucestershire I lived in Poole, Dorset. One of the sad
things was the drilling for oil programme there. The waste land of Purbeck
has been searched for oil. Numerous drilling platforms spoiling the natural
area. At one time drilling platforms were also in the bay in full view from
Bournemouth beach. I do not think however that the beach lovers were at all
affected by the view. However the vast areas of Scotland attract different
types of people and therein lies the 'problem'. I personally think that hill
walkers are a different breed. If these people like the remoteness so much,
why not simply opt out and emigrate? Australia has loads of empty space!
Nuclear is a great idea. I live 7 miles from a Nuclear Powere Station. It
does not bother me at all. I can actually see the Power Station from my
bedroom window. I have visited Cornwall a great deal and the Windfarms are
visible for miles. No worry really unless of course you are a bird. All
types of generating methods have good and bad points of course. All people
vary in opinion. Why though does the Editor of TGO which was the first point
of this thread seem intent on his own view with not a miniscule though for
life and its requirments for Electricity?
John.---bottom posted---no doubt to be assaulted with comments from persons
with some grudge against something I have done wrong this time?

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Rooney wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But they produce hardly anything. Nuclear is the way to go.

Quoted message said:

How much evidence that they're expensive, inefficient and produce some
very nasty by-products that nobody really has a good solution to getting
rid of (after 50 years of looking /very/ hard) do you actually *need*?

Why does nobody ever mention fusion reactors when talking about
nuclear power?
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm said:

Why does nobody ever mention fusion reactors when talking about
nuclear power?

Because people will persist in not quite solving the problems associated
with building a working one, I imagine... Unless you're thinking
indirect use of one, through solar power? ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Dave Fawthrop said:

The problem with that argument is background radiation. We and our
ancestors have dealt with cosmic rays, and granite rocks for billions of
years. Increasing the levels of radiation by a fraction of background is
IMO acceptable.

And, of course, the industry is heavily into recycling. The amount of
real *waste* is very small, and can be kept almost anywhere after
vitrification. It's one of those things that the anti-modern Green
lobby greatly exaggerate. It's being managed reasonably safely. All in
all it has a far better safety record than viable alternatives.

I've got no time for the tofu-eaters who are happy to take advantage
of all the amenities of modern life while trying their best to disrupt
other people's lives.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

Another group member wrote:

everything under the "--" signature separator *again*. The sort of
continual annoyance that can lead to people thinking it's a deliberate
troll...

But anyway, cutting and pasting from the original,

"However the vast areas of Scotland attract different types of people
and therein lies the 'problem'. I personally think that hill walkers are
a different breed. If these people like the remoteness so much, why not
simply opt out and emigrate? Australia has loads of empty space!"

The above appears to assume that the only reason to preserve remote
areas is so that hillwalkers can enjoy them. This is not the case. I
think you should probably look into things like the work done with local
communities by bodies like the JMT in order to dispel this rather
foolish notion.
Furthermore, by just moving the problem of removal of wild land around
rather than tackling it you set yourself up for not being able to deal
with the final removal of wild lands /anywhere/ many years down the
line. It may be acceptable for you to push the problem aside where it
doesn't personally affect you, but I think that's a shortsighted option.

"Nuclear is a great idea."

It's a great /idea/, yes, but as implemented thus far unfortunately it
is expensive, inefficient and produces remarkably unpleasant by-products
which nobody has worked out how to satisfactorily deal with as yet.

"Why though does the Editor of TGO which was the first point
of this thread seem intent on his own view with not a miniscule though
for life and its requirments for Electricity?"

Because he cares deeply about the preservation of wild land, obviously.
And it can be preserved without life grinding to a halt because
there's no electricity as well, and it would be reasonably easy to do it
by making real efforts to use less power in the first place. Saying
"electricity is more important than wild land, therefore we won't bother
with wild land" strikes me as a ridiculous option when we can have
enough power /and/ wild land.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Rooney said:

And, of course, the industry is heavily into recycling. The amount of
real *waste* is very small, and can be kept almost anywhere after
vitrification. It's one of those things that the anti-modern Green
lobby greatly exaggerate.

It's not nearly as simple as you make out. Not all waste can be
vitrified, and vitrified waste is not completely safe in any case. It's
one of the things the nuclear lobby play down. If you think you just
put it through a factory, turn it all into wee glass beads and chuck it
down a hole then you really are fundamentally lacking a great deal of
knowledge.

Quoted message said:

It's being managed reasonably safely.

You didn't listen to the news item yesterday then, about no progress in
UK disposal arrangements some 7 years after the last efforts collapsed?

Quoted message said:

I've got no time for the tofu-eaters who are happy to take advantage
of all the amenities of modern life while trying their best to disrupt
other people's lives.

That pretty well demonstrates to anyone reading what you actually
*know*, and how much is uninformed reactionary bluster.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

Why? We all have the same rights and probably feelings. But why is it that
TGO only (more or less) focuses on Scotland? The Editor?

Its called bucking the trend....(see TV weather forecasts)

Besides, the title, what TGO stands for has to be a bit of a clue....
If you want the busy half of the island, Trail and Country Walker will
do the job.

Richard Webb

Following up to Peter Clinch

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

except ruining the landscape?

I assume you mean a power station to convert the above into electricity?

i was thinking of the collection apparatus, especially in the
context of our populations of waders and wildfowl. Many
environmentalists campaign against river dams nowadays, while
liking barrages!
--
Mike Reid
EXCLUSIVE Queen snapped at traffic lights with
naked girls in vehicle:-
"http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk/nakedqueen.htm"

Following up to Dave Fawthrop

Quoted message said:

I *know* that there are no really good places
| in the UK to store nuclear waste that fulfil all the criteria for doing
| a 1st class job.

Ouch! Real,engineers, as against academics, never try for a "1st class
job" they do the job well enough.

nuclear waste is an area where other than first class is not well
enough. I note Sellafield has had a big leak, they are designing
robots to clear it up.
--
Mike Reid
EXCLUSIVE Queen snapped at traffic lights with
naked girls in vehicle:-
"http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk/nakedqueen.htm"

Following up to Another group member

Quoted message said:

However the vast areas of Scotland attract different
types of people and therein lies the 'problem'. I personally think that hill
walkers are a different breed. If these people like the remoteness so much,
why not simply opt out and emigrate?

so you think, like right wing americans, that everyone who
doesn't agree with you should leave?
Anyone want a second troll vote? I say "yes".
--
Mike Reid
EXCLUSIVE Queen snapped at traffic lights with
naked girls in vehicle:-
"http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk/nakedqueen.htm"

Following up to Rooney

Quoted message said:

Increasing the levels of radiation by a fraction of background is

Quoted message said:

IMO acceptable.

And, of course, the industry is heavily into recycling. The amount of
real *waste* is very small, and can be kept almost anywhere after
vitrification.

OK, lets go back to nuclear and keep the waste in your fridge!
:-)
--
Mike Reid
EXCLUSIVE Queen snapped at traffic lights with
naked girls in vehicle:-
"http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk/nakedqueen.htm"

The Reids said:

i was thinking of the collection apparatus, especially in the
context of our populations of waders and wildfowl. Many
environmentalists campaign against river dams nowadays, while
liking barrages!

There is (or at least I would think there is) quite a lot of potential
for using tidal streams outwith river estuaries. But I don't want
people to think that covers All The Possible Answers: it's certainly
worth more looking into, is what I'm really getting at. Same goes for
wave power, and offshore wind.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message <[email hidden]>

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
Clark <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Uhm... so you are opposed to windfarms, but not to building of
mountain railways, funiculars and gondolas? Could you explain why you
find the later acceptable, but not the former?

Why should I explain to a prat with your opinions?

My reason for asking is that you have been critical of me, and demanded
an explanation for why I am concerned about the environmental issues
that impact on mountain areas such as Scotland and Snowdonia. I
did you the courtesy of answering your questions and accusations and I
think I have provided a set of arguments that are entirely consistent
with a personal stance on conservation issues. What I was wondering was
whether your opinions were based on anything more than superficial
reasoning along the lines of getting personal pleasure from riding up a
mountain on a train, but not from viewing a windfarm? It is interesting
that rather than having an answer, for what I think is a reasonable
question, you have taken to the final refuge of throwing personal
insults.

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In message <[email hidden]>

Rooney said:

W. D. Grey said:

That's one fact you've got right ! - Well nearly ! it's not "likely to"
but WILL !

The cleanest method by far, but importantly the most powerful, is the
nuclear option.

I disagree, in the first instance the cleanest option is to reduce the
requirements for energy production. If homes were constructed, or
modified, in a more energy efficient way, and if businesses reduced
their energy requirements, then you could start by shutting down the
dirtiest power stations.

A problem with nuclear that is often overlooked, probably in defference
to the more emotive issues such as the potential for accidents and waste
disposal, is the total energy costs of construction and of
decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

Similar issues apply to things like televisions and computers, where the
energy involved in construction and destruction is as significant as the
energy they consume when they are used. Thus a critical issue becomes
how long is their useful life.

Quoted message said:

If all the woolly liberals hadn't been brainwashed by those Green
crackpots (who are now interrupting production of Land Rovers

I thought they were interrupting the production of Range Rovers that do
only 12 miles to the gallon. The largest number of Range Rovers
registered in the UK are registered in the vehicle licensing district of
Chelsea.

Quoted message said:

as part of their deluded quest to impose their lunatic fringe views on
the majority - they don't accept democracy

You mean as compared to a democratic system where only a small
percentage of the votes determines a large majority in parliament, and
where the odds are stacked in terms of allowing one of only two possible
outcomes at each election?

Quoted message said:

) we'd have gone over long ago.

I wouldn't rule out a full and proper consideration of nuclear as one
possible alternative fuel. But it isn't without costs in terms of
environmental impact and pollution (and I'm including construction and
decommissioning costs in my consideration), and as I said before a
better approach is to reconsider how much energy we waste, before
considering how much extra we should produce.

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:15:46 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Not all waste can be
| vitrified, and vitrified waste is not completely safe in any case.

Nothing at all is completely safe. We kill 10 people per day in the UK on
the roads. I compare all risks to 10 people per day.

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
On any Usenet newsgroup, *truth* is defined by the person or
group who shout longest and loudest.
It is not related to any reality. :-(

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

think you should probably look into things like the work done with local
communities by bodies like the JMT in order to dispel this rather
foolish notion.

Like opening the funicular railway and cafe at the top of Cairngorm.
.......... Great guardians of our wild spaces this bunch are!

The Reids said:

Following up to Rooney

Quoted message said:

Increasing the levels of radiation by a fraction of background is

Quoted message said:

IMO acceptable.

And, of course, the industry is heavily into recycling. The amount of
real *waste* is very small, and can be kept almost anywhere after
vitrification.

OK, lets go back to nuclear and keep the waste in your fridge!
:-)

There's not much space, what with the Stella and stuff! There was some
nuclear powered Belgian beer, but I drank it.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:08:51 +0100, Mike Clark <[email hidden]> wrote:

| But

Nuclear

| it isn't without costs in terms of
| environmental impact and pollution (and I'm including construction and
| decommissioning costs in my consideration), and as I said before a
| better approach is to reconsider how much energy we waste, before
| considering how much extra we should produce.

Neither is coal, oil, solar, wind, wave, or any other energy producing
system.

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
On any Usenet newsgroup, *truth* is defined by the person or
group who shout longest and loudest.
It is not related to any reality. :-(

Dave Fawthrop said:

Nothing at all is completely safe. We kill 10 people per day in the UK on
the roads. I compare all risks to 10 people per day.

Indeed, nothing is completely safe, though people may get the wrong idea
about how safe things are if throwaway comments like Rooney's get taken
as in some way based on useful knowledge of the issues.

If nuclear waste does cause a problem it is likely to be in chronic
health cases, potentially over the /very/ long term, which are rather
difficult to easily compare to 10 acute fatalities.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/