From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
(whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).

Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option. The
motives of many of the powers that be of divide-and-rule (with
ordinary working and middle class people blaming each other for not
doing enough to reduce our carbon footprints), by-products for nuclear
weapons and the possible nightmare of allowing a terrorist attack on a
nuclear power station to justify a massive clampdown on our civil
liberties, will hopefully be overcome...


Solar power from Saharan sun could provide Europe's electricity, says
EU
· Huge £35bn supergrid would pool green sources
· Brown and Sarkozy back north African plan

Alok Jha, science correspondent
The Guardian, Wednesday July 23, 2008

A tiny rectangle superimposed on the vast expanse of the Sahara
captures the seductive appeal of the audacious plan to cut Europe's
carbon emissions by harnessing the fierce power of the desert sun.

Dwarfed by any of the north African nations, it represents an area
slightly smaller than Wales but scientists claimed yesterday it could
one day generate enough solar energy to supply all of Europe with
clean electricity.

Speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, Arnulf Jaeger-
Walden of the European commission's Institute for Energy, said it
would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the
Sahara and Middle East deserts to meet all of Europe's energy needs.

The scientists are calling for the creation of a series of huge solar
farms - producing electricity either through photovoltaic cells, or by
concentrating the sun's heat to boil water and drive turbines - as
part of a plan to share Europe's renewable energy resources across the
continent.

A new supergrid, transmitting electricity along high voltage direct
current cables would allow countries such as the UK and Denmark
ultimately to export wind energy at times of surplus supply, as well
as import from other green sources such as geothermal power in
Iceland.

Energy losses on DC lines are far lower than on the traditional AC
ones, which make transmission of energy over long distances
uneconomic.

The grid proposal, which has won political support from both Nicholas
Sarkozy and Gordon Brown, answers the perennial criticism that
renewable power will never be economic because the weather is not
sufficiently predictable. Its supporters argue that even if the wind
is not blowing hard enough in the North Sea, it will be blowing
somewhere else in Europe, or the sun will be shining on a solar farm
somewhere.

Scientists argue that harnessing the Sahara would be particularly
effective because the sunlight in this area is more intense: solar
photovoltaic (PV) panels in northern Africa could generate up to three
times the electricity compared with similar panels in northern Europe.

Much of the cost would come in developing the public grid networks of
connecting countries in the southern Mediterranean, which do not
currently have the spare capacity to carry the electricity that the
north African solar farms could generate. Even if high voltage cables
between North Africa and Italy would be built or the existing cable
between Morocco and Spain would be used, the infrastructure of the
transfer countries such as Italy and Spain or Greece or Turkey also
needs a major re-structuring, according to Jaeger-Walden.

Southern Mediterranean countries including Portugal and Spain have
already invested heavily in solar energy and Algeria has begun work on
a vast combined solar and natural gas plant which will begin producing
energy in 2010. Algeria aims to export 6,000 megawatts of solar-
generated power to Europe by 2020.

Scientists working on the project admit that it would take many years
and huge investment to generate enough solar energy from north Africa
to power Europe but envisage that by 2050 it could produce 100 GW,
more than the combined electricity output from all sources in the UK,
with an investment of around €450bn.

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK's chief scientist, welcomed the proposals:
"Assuming it's cost-effective, a largescale renewable energy grid is
just the kind of innovation we need if we're going to beat climate
change."

Jaeger-Walden also believes that scaling up solar PV by having large
solar farms could help bring its cost down for consumers. "The biggest
PV system at the moment is installed in Leipzig and the price of the
installation is €3.25 per watt," he said. "If we could realise that in
the Mediterranean, for example in southern Italy, this would
correspond to electricity prices in the range of 15 cents per kWh,
something below what the average consumer is paying."

The vision for the renewable energy grid comes as the commission's
joint research centre (JRC) published its strategic energy technology
plan, highlighting solar PV as one of eight technologies that need to
be championed for the short- to medium-term future.
"It recognises something extraordinary - if we don't put together
resources and findings across Europe and we let go the several sectors
of energy, we will never reach these targets," said Giovanni de Santi,
director of the JRC, also speaking in Barcelona.

The JRC plan includes fuel cells and hydrogen, clean coal, second
generation biofuels, nuclear fusion, wind, nuclear fission and smart
grids. De Santi said it was designed to help Europe to meet its
commitments to reduce overall energy consumption by 20% by 2020, while
reducing CO² emissions by 20% in the same time and increasing to 20%
the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources.


Backstory

High voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines are seen as the
most efficient way to move electricity over long distances without
incurring the losses experienced in alternating current (AC) power
lines. HVDC cables can carry more power for the same thickness of
cable compared with AC lines but are only suited to long distance
transmission as they require expensive devices to convert the
electricity, usually generated as AC, into DC. Modern HVDC cables can
keep energy losses down to around 3% per 1,000km. HVDC can also be
used to transfer electricity between different countries that might
use AC at differing frequencies. HVDC cables can also be used to
synchronise AC produced by renewable energy sources.



For discussion of global warming, including my views and articles from
the media, go to http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107.

--
Steve Wallis (Glasgow, Scotland)
For important/urgent communications, please email:
warcrysteve@yahoo.co.uk
Blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk
My pages at MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Good Intentions Network: http://www.goodintentionsnetwork.org
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for PR-based Socialism: http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
For discussion of the credit crunch, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=156
For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89

On Jul 23, 6:32 pm, Steve Wallis
 wrote:

> The grid proposal, which has won political support from both Nicholas
> Sarkozy and Gordon Brown,

Endorsement indeed!

> answers the perennial criticism that
> renewable power will never be economic because the weather is not
> sufficiently predictable. Its supporters argue that even if the wind
> is not blowing hard enough in the North Sea, it will be blowing
> somewhere else in Europe, or the sun will be shining on a solar farm
> somewhere.

This is perfectly true but think of the duplication involved.

The reality is that even in the Sahara the sun shines only 50% of the
year and even in the remaining 50% probably for 10-20% of the time it
is probably so low in the sky to be of only limited use. This will
mean extra conventional capacity being held in reserve. Critics to
this point of view always point out that this reserve exists anyway.
They are in confusion with the requirement to hold mainly "spinning
reserve" so as to ensure continuity of supply. That will be necessary
in addition.

Windmills, photovoltaics, solar furnaces will be fine so long as their
output can be stored in some way either through the production of
hydrogen or pumping water against gravity. However, as regards being a
primary source of electricity for the public supply either will be
expensive or precarious.  There is no way they can be neither.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT), Steve Wallis
 wrote:

>From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>(whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>
>Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option. The
>motives of many of the powers that be of divide-and-rule (with
>ordinary working and middle class people blaming each other for not
>doing enough to reduce our carbon footprints), by-products for nuclear
>weapons and the possible nightmare of allowing a terrorist attack on a
>nuclear power station to justify a massive clampdown on our civil
>liberties, will hopefully be overcome...

>Solar power from Saharan sun could provide Europe's electricity, says
>EU
>· Huge £35bn supergrid would pool green sources
>· Brown and Sarkozy back north African plan
>
>Alok Jha, science correspondent
>The Guardian, Wednesday July 23, 2008
>
>A tiny rectangle superimposed on the vast expanse of the Sahara
>captures the seductive appeal of the audacious plan to cut Europe's
>carbon emissions by harnessing the fierce power of the desert sun.
>
>Dwarfed by any of the north African nations, it represents an area
>slightly smaller than Wales but scientists claimed yesterday it could
>one day generate enough solar energy to supply all of Europe with
>clean electricity.
>
>Speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, Arnulf Jaeger-
>Walden of the European commission's Institute for Energy, said it
>would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the
>Sahara and Middle East deserts to meet all of Europe's energy needs.

it doesn't define 'capture'...nor are there figures for the alleged
     efficiency of the project...
further, i keep seeing people confusing electricity usage with energy
     usage....

an energy plant covering the size of wales (over 20,000 sq kms)
     is not 'tiny'....the first estimate i can find of the sahara at 9
     million sq kms...
covering the whole of wales is no a simple project

then there is sand and sandstorms....

the idea that such a generator would be formed as a single plant 
     looks unlikely to me...
then there are land lines....

it all looks rather vulnerable to me...i've seen these speculations
     over the last year and it is the security that interest me...
you could do a great deal of damage with a hammer and a few
      hours to spare...or by bringing down major lines....

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
 wrote:
> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>
> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.

Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
 wrote:

>On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
> wrote:
>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>
>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>
>Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.


Or those around Chernobyl.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:03:50 +0100, Paul C  wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>> wrote:
>>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>>> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>>> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>
>>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>
>>Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>
>
>Or those around Chernobyl.

even chernobyl was trivial by comparison with the ongoing
     filth put out by the fossil fuel industry....
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_disasters.php
and chernobyl was run by a disgraceful socialist disaster
     of a regime....it didn't even have reasonable containment

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:10:47 +0200, abelard 
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:03:50 +0100, Paul C  wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>> wrote:
>>>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>>>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>>>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>>>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>>>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>>> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>>>> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>>>> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>
>>>Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>
>>
>>Or those around Chernobyl.
>
>even chernobyl was trivial by comparison with the ongoing
>     filth put out by the fossil fuel industry....
>http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_disasters.php
>and chernobyl was run by a disgraceful socialist disaster
>     of a regime....it didn't even have reasonable containment

What was the excuse for Windscale 1957?

On 23 Jul, 20:03, Paul C  wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
> > wrote:
> >> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
> >> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
> >> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
> >> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
> >> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
> >> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
> >> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
> >> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
> >> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
> >> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
> >> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>
> >> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
> >> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>
> >Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>
> Or those around Chernobyl.

Chernobyl tells us that competently designed and maintained reactors
are dangerous how exactly?

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:12:14 +0100, Paul C  wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:10:47 +0200, abelard 
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:03:50 +0100, Paul C  wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>>>>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>>>>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>>>>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>>>>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>>>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>>>> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>>> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>>>>> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>>>>> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>>>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>>
>>>>Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.

>>>Or those around Chernobyl.
>>
>>even chernobyl was trivial by comparison with the ongoing
>>     filth put out by the fossil fuel industry....
>>http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_disasters.php
>>and chernobyl was run by a disgraceful socialist disaster
>>     of a regime....it didn't even have reasonable containment
>
>What was the excuse for Windscale 1957?

part of the 'excuse' is still no proven ill effects on anyone...

meanwhile the standards of safety required by the filthy
     fossil fuel industry, are vastly lower than those of the nuclear
     industry in the west...

i am very content that the standards in the nuclear industry remain
     high and even higher....but the attempted scare stories put about
     by idiots are simply ignorant misinformation...

comments about risk are utterly meaningless out of context with
     competing risks....
on that basis nuclear is probably even safer than windmills and
     solar power

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
 wrote:

>On 23 Jul, 20:03, Paul C  wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>> > wrote:
>> >> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>> >> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>> >> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>> >> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>> >> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>> >> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>> >> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>> >> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>> >> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>> >> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>> >> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>
>> >> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>> >> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>
>> >Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>
>> Or those around Chernobyl.
>
>Chernobyl tells us that competently designed and maintained reactors
>are dangerous how exactly?


It tells us nothing of the sort. It tells us that where humans are
involved, things go wrong.

Steve Wallis wrote:
> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).

Perhaps you just don't read the correct articles.
If you want to keep up sign up for the www.physorg.com newsletter.

As for putting Europe's energy into the hands of North Aficans - we 
would be mad.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

How risky. How dangerous. How hostile. How traitorous. How EU.

"Paul C"  wrote in message 
news:2o1f84hlcg9vgedqtjlft0einrqq9gs2j0@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>  wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jul, 20:03, Paul C  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  wrote:
>>> >On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> From today's Guardian 
>>> >> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>> >> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front 
>>> >> page.
>>> >> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power 
>>> >> (CSP)
>>> >> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central 
>>> >> tower
>>> >> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north 
>>> >> Africa."
>>> >> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>> >> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>> >> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>> >> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>>> >> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>>> >> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>
>>> >> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>> >> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>
>>> >Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>>
>>> Or those around Chernobyl.
>>
>>Chernobyl tells us that competently designed and maintained reactors
>>are dangerous how exactly?
>
>
> It tells us nothing of the sort. It tells us that where humans are
> involved, things go wrong.

That's a revelation.

But what's your point?

In article ,
abelard   wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:12:14 +0100, Paul C  wrote:
>>What was the excuse for Windscale 1957?
>part of the 'excuse' is still no proven ill effects on anyone...

	This hits a little close to home.  My father's job as a
transmission engineer took him to Windscale before, during and
after its construction, inc around the time of the fire.  Shortly
afterwards, he was diagnosed with leukaemia.  I have no reason to
suppose this was any more than a coincidence, but it didn't half
set the cat among the pigeons.  The medics were trawling through
his detailed movements with a fine-toothed comb for weeks to see
if there was any possibility of contamination.

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT), Steve Wallis
 wrote:

>From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>New Scientist for the last six months.

Six months?  What an idiot.

A solar tower project was built in the United States in the 1970's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_One

> Perhaps this was due to a
>conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>(whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).

or perhaps it's because you're too stupid to understand anything.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:30:58 +0100, "Dr Quite" 
wrote:

>
>"Paul C"  wrote in message 
>news:2o1f84hlcg9vgedqtjlft0einrqq9gs2j0@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 Jul, 20:03, Paul C  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> >On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> From today's Guardian 
>>>> >> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>> >> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front 
>>>> >> page.
>>>> >> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power 
>>>> >> (CSP)
>>>> >> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central 
>>>> >> tower
>>>> >> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north 
>>>> >> Africa."
>>>> >> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>>> >> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>>> >> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>> >> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>>>> >> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>>>> >> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>
>>>> >> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>>> >> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>>
>>>> >Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>>>
>>>> Or those around Chernobyl.
>>>
>>>Chernobyl tells us that competently designed and maintained reactors
>>>are dangerous how exactly?
>>
>>
>> It tells us nothing of the sort. It tells us that where humans are
>> involved, things go wrong.
>
>That's a revelation.
>
>But what's your point? 
>
Doh!

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:52:19 +0000 (UTC), anw@cuboid.uk (Andy Walker)
wrote:

>In article ,
>abelard   wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:12:14 +0100, Paul C  wrote:
>>>What was the excuse for Windscale 1957?
>>part of the 'excuse' is still no proven ill effects on anyone...
>
>	This hits a little close to home.  My father's job as a
>transmission engineer took him to Windscale before, during and
>after its construction, inc around the time of the fire.  Shortly
>afterwards, he was diagnosed with leukaemia.  I have no reason to
>suppose this was any more than a coincidence, but it didn't half
>set the cat among the pigeons.  The medics were trawling through
>his detailed movements with a fine-toothed comb for weeks to see
>if there was any possibility of contamination.

i'm all for caution and investigation when there are any doubts.....

there is obviously some risk from radiation.....including from xrays,
     international air flights and walking in cornwall.....
but humans have lived with some of that since before they even 
     realised they weren't lizards.....

meanwhile the risks from filthy fossil fuels, let alone poverty
     are much worserer.....
but i expect you know all that....

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:52:19 +0000 (UTC), anw@cuboid.uk (Andy Walker)
> wrote:
> 
>> In article ,
>> abelard   wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:12:14 +0100, Paul C  wrote:
>>>> What was the excuse for Windscale 1957?
>>> part of the 'excuse' is still no proven ill effects on anyone...
>> 	This hits a little close to home.  My father's job as a
>> transmission engineer took him to Windscale before, during and
>> after its construction, inc around the time of the fire.  Shortly
>> afterwards, he was diagnosed with leukaemia.  I have no reason to
>> suppose this was any more than a coincidence, but it didn't half
>> set the cat among the pigeons.  The medics were trawling through
>> his detailed movements with a fine-toothed comb for weeks to see
>> if there was any possibility of contamination.
> 
> i'm all for caution and investigation when there are any doubts.....
> 
> there is obviously some risk from radiation.....including from xrays,
>      international air flights and walking in cornwall.....
> but humans have lived with some of that since before they even 
>      realised they weren't lizards.....
> 
> meanwhile the risks from filthy fossil fuels, let alone poverty
>      are much worserer.....
> but i expect you know all that....
> 
> regards
> 

A bit of radiation may well be good for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

"Radiation Hormesis is the controversial hypothesis that low level 
radiation has negative risk; that ionizing radiation at levels that 
occur in the natural environment may increase health by stimulating 
natural defense mechanisms. Radiation hormesis accepts that radiation 
above natural background levels has positive risk; that intense 
artificial radiation, for example, is toxic. The subject of radiation 
hormesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in 
recent years, perhaps because of its counter-intuitive properties. 
Opinion pieces on chemical and radiobiological hormesis appeared in the 
journals Nature[1] and Science[3] in 2003.

While most major studies have upheld the Linear no-threshold model (LNT) 
and rejected the existence of radiation hormesis in humans, according to 
the 2005 French Academy of Science-National Academy of Medicine's report 
concerning the effects of low level radiation (only they rejected LNT), 
40% of laboratory studies on cell cultures and animals have observed 
radiobiological hormesis - "its existence in the laboratory is beyond 
question and its mechanism of action appears well understood."[7] 
However, they cautioned that it is not yet known based on laboratory 
studies if radiation hormesis occurs in humans.[7]"


-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

"Paul C"  wrote in message 
news:q9ef84hdpnl6cl3o6t8suj5no7tfsgqjii@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:30:58 +0100, "Dr Quite" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul C"  wrote in message
>>news:2o1f84hlcg9vgedqtjlft0einrqq9gs2j0@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 23 Jul, 20:03, Paul C  wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> >On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >> From today's Guardian
>>>>> >> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>>> >> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front
>>>>> >> page.
>>>>> >> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power
>>>>> >> (CSP)
>>>>> >> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central
>>>>> >> tower
>>>>> >> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north
>>>>> >> Africa."
>>>>> >> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>>>> >> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>>>> >> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>>> >> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's 
>>>>> >> energy
>>>>> >> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global 
>>>>> >> warming
>>>>> >> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>>>> >> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or those around Chernobyl.
>>>>
>>>>Chernobyl tells us that competently designed and maintained reactors
>>>>are dangerous how exactly?
>>>
>>>
>>> It tells us nothing of the sort. It tells us that where humans are
>>> involved, things go wrong.
>>
>>That's a revelation.
>>
>>But what's your point?
>>
> Doh!

So you don't have one. Thanks for the clarification.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:12:37 +0100, "Dr Quite" 
wrote:

>
>"Paul C"  wrote in message 
>news:q9ef84hdpnl6cl3o6t8suj5no7tfsgqjii@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:30:58 +0100, "Dr Quite" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul C"  wrote in message
>>>news:2o1f84hlcg9vgedqtjlft0einrqq9gs2j0@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 23 Jul, 20:03, Paul C  wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> >On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >> From today's Guardian
>>>>>> >> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>>>> >> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front
>>>>>> >> page.
>>>>>> >> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power
>>>>>> >> (CSP)
>>>>>> >> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central
>>>>>> >> tower
>>>>>> >> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north
>>>>>> >> Africa."
>>>>>> >> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>>>>> >> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>>>>> >> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>>>> >> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's 
>>>>>> >> energy
>>>>>> >> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global 
>>>>>> >> warming
>>>>>> >> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>>>>> >> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or those around Chernobyl.
>>>>>
>>>>>Chernobyl tells us that competently designed and maintained reactors
>>>>>are dangerous how exactly?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It tells us nothing of the sort. It tells us that where humans are
>>>> involved, things go wrong.
>>>
>>>That's a revelation.
>>>
>>>But what's your point?
>>>
>> Doh!
>
>So you don't have one. Thanks for the clarification. 
>
I didn't think that I had to spell it out for you, but clearly I do.

The OP claimed that the failure of Chernobyl was proof that
competently designed and maintained reactors are not dangerous. It
does nothing of the sort. In the best designed and maintained plant
you cannot fully account for the idiocy of human beings.

Bloomberg 22 July
"About 74 kilograms (163 pounds) of uranium leaked two weeks ago from
a nuclear waste plant owned by Areva SA at the site behind her
mother's home in Bollene. Tests showed that the ground water was
contaminated even before the leak. On July 18, Paris-based Areva
announced a second case, saying uranium may have seeped out of a
broken pipe for years at a plant in Roman- sur-Isere, 100 kilometers
(62 miles) north of Bollene.

``Who knows, there may be nuclear waste under the house,'' said
Delmas, 23, who says she's concerned that she and her animals may be
susceptible to cancer.

The leaks are shaking French people's long-held faith in nuclear
safety in their country,"



BBC 24 July
About 100 staff at a nuclear plant in southern France have been
exposed to a low dose of radiation, power firm Electricite de France
(EDF) says.

They were "slightly contaminated" by radioactive particles that
escaped from a pipe at a reactor complex in Tricastin, an EDF
spokeswoman said.

The incident comes two weeks after a leak forced the temporary closure
of a reactor at the Tricastin facility.

Unenriched uranium had leaked into the water supply.

The authorities lifted a ban on fishing and water sports in two local
rivers on Tuesday.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700, Robert S wrote:

> On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>  wrote:
>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got New
>> Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a conspiracy
>> to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy problems
>> could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming (whether or
>> not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>
>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
> 
> Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.

ask the dead firemen in chernobyl... oh right... you cant... assume they 
say its not dangerous then.....

"Paul C"  wrote in message 
news:v1bg84h9edisk3jld2tfcp1diaiuh3nq2t@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:12:37 +0100, "Dr Quite" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul C"  wrote in message
>>news:q9ef84hdpnl6cl3o6t8suj5no7tfsgqjii@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:30:58 +0100, "Dr Quite" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Paul C"  wrote in message
>>>>news:2o1f84hlcg9vgedqtjlft0einrqq9gs2j0@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 23 Jul, 20:03, Paul C  wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> >On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> >> From today's Guardian
>>>>>>> >> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>>>>> >> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front
>>>>>>> >> page.
>>>>>>> >> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power
>>>>>>> >> (CSP)
>>>>>>> >> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central
>>>>>>> >> tower
>>>>>>> >> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north
>>>>>>> >> Africa."
>>>>>>> >> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of 
>>>>>>> >> before,
>>>>>>> >> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having 
>>>>>>> >> got
>>>>>>> >> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>>>>> >> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's
>>>>>>> >> energy
>>>>>>> >> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global
>>>>>>> >> warming
>>>>>>> >> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be 
>>>>>>> >> found,
>>>>>>> >> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or those around Chernobyl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Chernobyl tells us that competently designed and maintained reactors
>>>>>>are dangerous how exactly?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It tells us nothing of the sort. It tells us that where humans are
>>>>> involved, things go wrong.
>>>>
>>>>That's a revelation.
>>>>
>>>>But what's your point?
>>>>
>>> Doh!
>>
>>So you don't have one. Thanks for the clarification.
>>
> I didn't think that I had to spell it out for you, but clearly I do.
>
> The OP claimed that the failure of Chernobyl was proof that
> competently designed and maintained reactors are not dangerous.

Starting with a flat-out lie is unlikely to make me feel charitable to the 
rest of your post.

> It
> does nothing of the sort. In the best designed and maintained plant
> you cannot fully account for the idiocy of human beings.
>
> Bloomberg 22 July
> "About 74 kilograms (163 pounds) of uranium leaked two weeks ago from
> a nuclear waste plant owned by Areva SA at the site behind her
> mother's home in Bollene. Tests showed that the ground water was
> contaminated even before the leak. On July 18, Paris-based Areva
> announced a second case, saying uranium may have seeped out of a
> broken pipe for years at a plant in Roman- sur-Isere, 100 kilometers
> (62 miles) north of Bollene.

Looking beyond the use of emotive words like "contaminate" and "leak", what 
were the effects of these events?

In other words, some uranium got into the wrong place but so what?

>
> ``Who knows, there may be nuclear waste under the house,'' said
> Delmas, 23, who says she's concerned that she and her animals may be
> susceptible to cancer.
>
> The leaks are shaking French people's long-held faith in nuclear
> safety in their country,"
>
>
>
> BBC 24 July
> About 100 staff at a nuclear plant in southern France have been
> exposed to a low dose of radiation, power firm Electricite de France
> (EDF) says.

What level of radiation? Greater than the radiation we get every day just by 
getting out of bed? Less?

>
> They were "slightly contaminated" by radioactive particles that
> escaped from a pipe at a reactor complex in Tricastin, an EDF
> spokeswoman said.

How much is slightly contaminated? I had to go and look because you snipped 
the relevant part:

""Seventy of them show low traces of radioelements, below one 40th of the 
authorised limit," EDF said, adding that the incident would not affect 
people's health or the environment."

Less than one fortieth!

I have to repeat my question: Do you have a point?

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT), Steve Wallis
 wrote:

>Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,

We in the UK could do with a LOT more encouragement from the British
government to exploit solar energy. I have now proved to myself,
through a very simple system of copper plumbing tube painted matt
black and mounted in a box with a glass cover, that the heat from the
sun on a hot day in Lincolnshire, UK, is plenty sufficient to heat a
large amount of water to hotter than hand-hot, i.e. plenty hot enough
for washing and cleaning. And this is just one small unit in a
south-facing garden. Imagine how many units could be constructed with
government backing! We are literally wasting whole power stations'
worth of free energy from the sun every day, across the whole country.
Even in winter, if a solar water heater raised the temperature of the
incoming water only slightly, if that slightly warmed water were then
fed to the main house heating system, whether electricity, oil, gas or
solid fuel, we would be saving money.

MM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:56:02 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
 wrote:

>On Jul 23, 6:32 pm, Steve Wallis
> wrote:
>
>> The grid proposal, which has won political support from both Nicholas
>> Sarkozy and Gordon Brown,
>
>Endorsement indeed!
>
>> answers the perennial criticism that
>> renewable power will never be economic because the weather is not
>> sufficiently predictable. Its supporters argue that even if the wind
>> is not blowing hard enough in the North Sea, it will be blowing
>> somewhere else in Europe, or the sun will be shining on a solar farm
>> somewhere.
>
>This is perfectly true but think of the duplication involved.
>
>The reality is that even in the Sahara the sun shines only 50% of the
>year and even in the remaining 50% probably for 10-20% of the time it
>is probably so low in the sky to be of only limited use. This will
>mean extra conventional capacity being held in reserve. Critics to
>this point of view always point out that this reserve exists anyway.
>They are in confusion with the requirement to hold mainly "spinning
>reserve" so as to ensure continuity of supply. That will be necessary
>in addition.
>
>Windmills, photovoltaics, solar furnaces will be fine so long as their
>output can be stored in some way either through the production of
>hydrogen or pumping water against gravity. However, as regards being a
>primary source of electricity for the public supply either will be
>expensive or precarious.  There is no way they can be neither.

I like the idea of a flywheel that is spun up once, on installation,
then kept spinning during daylight by means of solar energy. The
flywheel is then "tapped" for energy when the sun isn't shining.

Another approach: Use solar energy to pump water (in a closed system,
so that the same water is used over and over again) to a tank mounted
high above the ground, then use the power of the water to drive a
turbine when the sun isn't shining.

MM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
 wrote:

>On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
> wrote:
>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>
>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>
>Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.

In particular, ask the French nuclear industry workers who have
recently suffered low-level contamination.

MM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:12:14 +0100, Paul C  wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:10:47 +0200, abelard 
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:03:50 +0100, Paul C  wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>>>>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>>>>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>>>>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>>>>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>>>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>>>> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>>> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>>>>> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>>>>> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>>>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>>
>>>>Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>>
>>>
>>>Or those around Chernobyl.
>>
>>even chernobyl was trivial by comparison with the ongoing
>>     filth put out by the fossil fuel industry....
>>http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_disasters.php
>>and chernobyl was run by a disgraceful socialist disaster
>>     of a regime....it didn't even have reasonable containment
>
>What was the excuse for Windscale 1957?

Given that it's in Britain, probably cutting corners.

MM

"MM"  wrote in message 
news:3spg84pnoqhbl1v11jj0pkcsp18iulpf86@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>  wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>> wrote:
>>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>>> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>>> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>
>>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>
>>Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>
> In particular, ask the French nuclear industry workers who have
> recently suffered low-level contamination.

Less than one fortieth of the authorised limit.

MM wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:56:02 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 23, 6:32 pm, Steve Wallis
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The grid proposal, which has won political support from both Nicholas
>>> Sarkozy and Gordon Brown,
>> Endorsement indeed!
>>
>>> answers the perennial criticism that
>>> renewable power will never be economic because the weather is not
>>> sufficiently predictable. Its supporters argue that even if the wind
>>> is not blowing hard enough in the North Sea, it will be blowing
>>> somewhere else in Europe, or the sun will be shining on a solar farm
>>> somewhere.
>> This is perfectly true but think of the duplication involved.
>>
>> The reality is that even in the Sahara the sun shines only 50% of the
>> year and even in the remaining 50% probably for 10-20% of the time it
>> is probably so low in the sky to be of only limited use. This will
>> mean extra conventional capacity being held in reserve. Critics to
>> this point of view always point out that this reserve exists anyway.
>> They are in confusion with the requirement to hold mainly "spinning
>> reserve" so as to ensure continuity of supply. That will be necessary
>> in addition.
>>
>> Windmills, photovoltaics, solar furnaces will be fine so long as their
>> output can be stored in some way either through the production of
>> hydrogen or pumping water against gravity. However, as regards being a
>> primary source of electricity for the public supply either will be
>> expensive or precarious.  There is no way they can be neither.
> 
> I like the idea of a flywheel that is spun up once, on installation,
> then kept spinning during daylight by means of solar energy. The
> flywheel is then "tapped" for energy when the sun isn't shining.
> 
> Another approach: Use solar energy to pump water (in a closed system,
> so that the same water is used over and over again) to a tank mounted
> high above the ground, then use the power of the water to drive a
> turbine when the sun isn't shining.

Just use batteries.
They cost about $0.25 per Wh in bulk for solar/wind applications.
Lifetime around 15 years.
http://store.solar-electric.com/suprdecyba.html

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

MM wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:12:14 +0100, Paul C  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:10:47 +0200, abelard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:03:50 +0100, Paul C  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>>>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>>>>>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>>>>>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>>>>>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>>>>>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>>>>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>>>>> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>>>> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>>>>>> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>>>>>> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>>>>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>>> Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>>>
>>>> Or those around Chernobyl.
>>> even chernobyl was trivial by comparison with the ongoing
>>>     filth put out by the fossil fuel industry....
>>> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_disasters.php
>>> and chernobyl was run by a disgraceful socialist disaster
>>>     of a regime....it didn't even have reasonable containment
>> What was the excuse for Windscale 1957?
> 
> Given that it's in Britain, probably cutting corners.
> 
> MM

The Cold War seriously screwed several technologies. Nuclear power was 
one, and spaceflight another.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:25:34 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
 wrote:

>> Another approach: Use solar energy to pump water (in a closed system,
>> so that the same water is used over and over again) to a tank mounted
>> high above the ground, then use the power of the water to drive a
>> turbine when the sun isn't shining.

>Just use batteries.
>They cost about $0.25 per Wh in bulk for solar/wind applications.
>Lifetime around 15 years.
>http://store.solar-electric.com/suprdecyba.html

Unfortunatly it is impractical to use batteries to store very large
amounts of electricity. 

In order to store the amounts necessary to keep Europe supplied most
of the Sahara would have to be covered with gigantic skyscrapers full
of batteries.

Svenne

Svenne wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:25:34 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>  wrote:
> 
>>> Another approach: Use solar energy to pump water (in a closed system,
>>> so that the same water is used over and over again) to a tank mounted
>>> high above the ground, then use the power of the water to drive a
>>> turbine when the sun isn't shining.
> 
>> Just use batteries.
>> They cost about $0.25 per Wh in bulk for solar/wind applications.
>> Lifetime around 15 years.
>> http://store.solar-electric.com/suprdecyba.html
> 
> Unfortunatly it is impractical to use batteries to store very large
> amounts of electricity. 
> 
> In order to store the amounts necessary to keep Europe supplied most
> of the Sahara would have to be covered with gigantic skyscrapers full
> of batteries.

The Sahara can be used to run industry during the day.
Batteries are certainly viable in a domestic setting.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:45:46 +0100, "Dr Quite" 
wrote:

>
>"MM"  wrote in message 
>news:3spg84pnoqhbl1v11jj0pkcsp18iulpf86@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>> wrote:
>>>> From today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front page.
>>>> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power (CSP)
>>>> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central tower
>>>> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa."
>>>> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>>> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having got
>>>> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's energy
>>>> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global warming
>>>> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be found,
>>>> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>
>>>Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>
>> In particular, ask the French nuclear industry workers who have
>> recently suffered low-level contamination.
>
>Less than one fortieth of the authorised limit. 

But even "only" one fortieth is not something you'd like to find on
your cornflakes. So why at work?

MM

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:01:10 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:25:34 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>> Another approach: Use solar energy to pump water (in a closed system,
>>>> so that the same water is used over and over again) to a tank mounted
>>>> high above the ground, then use the power of the water to drive a
>>>> turbine when the sun isn't shining.
>> 
>>> Just use batteries.
>>> They cost about $0.25 per Wh in bulk for solar/wind applications.
>>> Lifetime around 15 years.
>>> http://store.solar-electric.com/suprdecyba.html
>> 
>> Unfortunatly it is impractical to use batteries to store very large
>> amounts of electricity. 
>> 
>> In order to store the amounts necessary to keep Europe supplied most
>> of the Sahara would have to be covered with gigantic skyscrapers full
>> of batteries.
>
>The Sahara can be used to run industry during the day.
>Batteries are certainly viable in a domestic setting.

Wouldn't the number of batteries needed in a domestic setting be
dangerous in some way? (Unlike a 6-tonne flywheel rotating at 2,000
rpm of course!!!)

MM

MM wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:01:10 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>  wrote:
> 
>> Svenne wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:25:34 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Another approach: Use solar energy to pump water (in a closed system,
>>>>> so that the same water is used over and over again) to a tank mounted
>>>>> high above the ground, then use the power of the water to drive a
>>>>> turbine when the sun isn't shining.
>>>> Just use batteries.
>>>> They cost about $0.25 per Wh in bulk for solar/wind applications.
>>>> Lifetime around 15 years.
>>>> http://store.solar-electric.com/suprdecyba.html
>>> Unfortunatly it is impractical to use batteries to store very large
>>> amounts of electricity. 
>>>
>>> In order to store the amounts necessary to keep Europe supplied most
>>> of the Sahara would have to be covered with gigantic skyscrapers full
>>> of batteries.
>> The Sahara can be used to run industry during the day.
>> Batteries are certainly viable in a domestic setting.
> 
> Wouldn't the number of batteries needed in a domestic setting be
> dangerous in some way? (Unlike a 6-tonne flywheel rotating at 2,000
> rpm of course!!!)

Probably if you stored them in your bedroom.
A cubic metre in a cabinet outside would be OK.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff