On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:24:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But there was strong, or at least loud, opposition to nuclear power
then,
peaking after Three Mile Island when Livingstone declared London a 'nuclear-free zone', in defiance of reality and English grammar.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:36:06 +0100, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:24:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But there was strong, or at least loud, opposition to nuclear power
then,
peaking after Three Mile Island when Livingstone declared London a
'nuclear-free zone', in defiance of reality and English grammar.
No amount of dishonesty can change the safety record or nuclear power.
More people die annually building non nuclear power stations than in the >entire history of civil nuclear power.
50 years late, but better late than never.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >small-modular-nuclear-reactors
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:24:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
But there was strong, or at least loud, opposition to nuclear power
then, peaking after Three Mile Island when Livingstone declared London a 'nuclear-free zone', in defiance of reality and English grammar.
Still, at least we didn't chuck out all the existing reactors, as
Germany later did.
On 11/06/2025 in message <102c73p$1v2rb$6@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >>small-modular-nuclear-reactors
We need to get them down to the size of walnuts as envisaged by Isaac
Asimov in his Foundation series.
In article <20250611163606.6934239b@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>,
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:24:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
But there was strong, or at least loud, opposition to nuclear power
then, peaking after Three Mile Island when Livingstone declared
London a 'nuclear-free zone', in defiance of reality and English
grammar.
Still, at least we didn't chuck out all the existing reactors, as
Germany later did.
They were worried about a tsunami (as in Japan).
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:14:00 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/06/2025 in message <102c73p$1v2rb$6@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
We need to get them down to the size of walnuts as envisaged by Isaac
Asimov in his Foundation series.
Is that a materials and engineering challenge ?
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- small-modular-nuclear-reactors
On 11/06/2025 17:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:14:00 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/06/2025 in message <102c73p$1v2rb$6@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >>>>small-modular-nuclear-reactors
We need to get them down to the size of walnuts as envisaged by Isaac >>>Asimov in his Foundation series.
Is that a materials and engineering challenge ?
Are walnuts a recognised unit of measurement in nuclear engineering?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:36:06 +0100, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:24:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But there was strong, or at least loud, opposition to nuclear power
then,
peaking after Three Mile Island when Livingstone declared London a
'nuclear-free zone', in defiance of reality and English grammar.
No amount of dishonesty can change the safety record or nuclear power.
More people die annually building non nuclear power stations than in the
entire history of civil nuclear power.
I had one of those nuisance callers demanding to know what kind of
heating system I had. I insisted it was nuclear with the reactor in
the basement. The caller terminated the call and never called again.
On 11/06/2025 17:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:14:00 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/06/2025 in message <102c73p$1v2rb$6@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
We need to get them down to the size of walnuts as envisaged by Isaac
Asimov in his Foundation series.
Is that a materials and engineering challenge ?
Are walnuts a recognised unit of measurement in nuclear engineering?
On Wed, 11 Jun 25 17:15:01 UTC
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <20250611163606.6934239b@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>,
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:24:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
But there was strong, or at least loud, opposition to nuclear power
then, peaking after Three Mile Island when Livingstone declared
London a 'nuclear-free zone', in defiance of reality and English
grammar.
Still, at least we didn't chuck out all the existing reactors, as
Germany later did.
They were worried about a tsunami (as in Japan).
Fairly rare in the waters around Germany, but not impossible if
something really nasty happened to Iceland.
I think overall, had the will been there, something could have been
done to improve on what must always have been a design factor. It is
always impossible to design for 'the worst case', you do have to stop somewhere. I feel that the shutdown was more about public opinion than
about reality.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:14:00 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:More a physics. I guess pure plutonium 239 or pure U235 might go
On 11/06/2025 in message <102c73p$1v2rb$6@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
We need to get them down to the size of walnuts as envisaged by Isaac
Asimov in his Foundation series.
Is that a materials and engineering challenge ?
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- small-modular-nuclear-reactors
On Wed, 6/11/2025 3:12 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 11/06/2025 17:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:14:00 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/06/2025 in message <102c73p$1v2rb$6@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >>>>> small-modular-nuclear-reactors
We need to get them down to the size of walnuts as envisaged by Isaac
Asimov in his Foundation series.
Is that a materials and engineering challenge ?
Are walnuts a recognised unit of measurement in nuclear engineering?
Here's yer walnut :-) At least now you know what not to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass
plutonium-238 87.7 9.04–10.07kg 9.5–9.9cm
As to the upper limits of what you can construct,
if the radiation level is high enough, it kills the
electronics in the cleanup robot. So you have no equipment
for observation. That's one of the problems they
had at Fukushima, was the first robot having electronics
failures when they were trying to inspect the basement
for signs of piled up fuel rods and such. You could drive the
robot into the basement, but it might not come back.
You are generally encouraged not to melt the fuel
or the jacket that contains your fuel. The jacket will
degrade anyway, and the jacket can swell as it ages.
I think reactor operators today, have the ability to
guess how long it would take, for a fuel rod to get
stuck in the core. There should be sufficient clearance
so you can get it back out again.
Our reactors here, have a fueling robot that travels
above the core, and loads fresh material. And then, the
motors and such on that robot, are made to withstand whatever
the flux level that is coming from the core. I've never
seen any informative articles about how that works, or
what kind of margins are involved on the robot continuing
to work. The robot presumably is just a tower crane, and
the camera in the core is located some distance back.
It's not anything silly like R2D2 as a robot. It's just
a remote operator, so a human doesn't have to stand on
top of the core.
We'll need room for our fission waste and our
fusion waste (spent walls).
On 11/06/2025 18:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:They have exhausted every other alternative.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Only nuclear is left
On Wed, 6/11/2025 1:27 PM, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Our SMR project has just kicked off. Delivery date of
online power, 2030. They've made a tiny hole in the ground :-)
You know, that high tech stuff, the hole. All important
that hole. (I don't know if that's a legit picture or not,
looks kinda fake.)
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/what-is-the-budget-for-canadas-first-smr-project
Nary a detail about the 300 megawatt unit itself,
what steps it has had to go through, to be "ready to ship".
It might not be physically realized at the moment. I don't know
if there is a prototype at the moment, making power.
One thing I don't understand about the picture, is where
is the turbine hall ? I've been for a tour of an under-construction
reactor, and stood in the turbine hall, and that sucker is huge.
And that would have been at approx 1GW level.
Paul
Nuclear does appear to be the cost of renewables - at the moment, until storage can be sorted. But it's an astonishingly expensive backstop that might
not be needed medium term.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy - retrofit for example.
On 11 Jun 2025 at 22:39:12 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:They have exhausted every other alternative.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Only nuclear is left
Nuclear does appear to be the cost of renewables - at the moment, until storage can be sorted. But it's an astonishingly expensive backstop that might
not be needed medium term.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy - retrofit for example.
The reason houses in the UK are not insulated is because it wasn't
economic. It might be economic to insulate new builds,
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:20:29 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The reason houses in the UK are not insulated is because it wasn't
economic. It might be economic to insulate new builds,
Nothing in any of the new builds I've seen these past 20 years has led me
to believe they will be there in 100 years.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:20:29 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The reason houses in the UK are not insulated is because it wasn't
economic. It might be economic to insulate new builds,
Nothing in any of the new builds I've seen these past 20 years has led me
to believe they will be there in 100 years.
On 6/12/25 05:57, RJH wrote:
On 11 Jun 2025 at 22:39:12 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:They have exhausted every other alternative.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >>>>> small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Only nuclear is left
Nuclear does appear to be the cost of renewables - at the moment, until
storage can be sorted. But it's an astonishingly expensive backstop that might
not be needed medium term.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy -
retrofit for example.
You are hand waving.
How much money do you think we could save consuming less energy. Where
would the savings be made. Quantify them. Retrofitting houses for heat savings is very expensive. There isn't that much energy to be saved.
The reason houses in the UK are not insulated is because it wasn't
economic.
It might be economic to insulate new builds, but it isn't
economic to retrofit houses. It is actually quite easy to do the sums,
look at all the insulation methods for your house. See how much they
cost. See how much energy they save. Calculate payback time at current
energy prices.
My total heating bill has never been that high, even if I saved
everything, insulation measures would have a very long payback time (if
they were economic at all)
If insulation worked, people would already have done it. It only works
if energy is much more expensive.
Nuclear works. It could be done cheaply.
It has already been done in
France economically, producing cheaper electricity prices. We buy
electricity from France.
The current "cost" of renewables is gas as a backup, something for which
no solution is in sight. For this reason, Wind and Solar have built in
CO2 emissions. They are not a net zero solution.
On 12/06/2025 09:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:20:29 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The reason houses in the UK are not insulated is because it wasn't
economic. It might be economic to insulate new builds,
Nothing in any of the new builds I've seen these past 20 years has led
me to believe they will be there in 100 years.
I think some at least will be.
The building regs. ensure reasonable quality - better than many houses
of the past that are no longer with us.
A friend in the heritage industry reminded me 'the old houses that are
with us today are the better built ones'
Ones I have seen being built have good foundations, generally good
raised concrete floors and a brick skin mostly. They will probably do a hundred years.
I can only give you ballpark figures, but taking a Victorian terrace, decent insulation and ASHP - say £30,000. Saving about 70% of total gas consumption,
so maybe half national gas consumption.
If you give me more accurate idea of your home I'll do you a more accurate estimate.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy - retrofit for example.
On 12/06/2025 09:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 09:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:20:29 +0100, Pancho wrote:I think some at least will be.
The reason houses in the UK are not insulated is because it wasn't
economic. It might be economic to insulate new builds,
Nothing in any of the new builds I've seen these past 20 years has
led me
to believe they will be there in 100 years.
The building regs. ensure reasonable quality - better than many houses
of the past that are no longer with us.
A friend in the heritage industry reminded me 'the old houses that are
with us today are the better built ones'
Ones I have seen being built have good foundations, generally good
raised concrete floors and a brick skin mostly. They will probably do
a hundred years.
We also have still have very many poorly build houses from 50 to 100
years ago. 25% of UK housing stock was build over 100 years ago.
Although most of these properties have been modernised and have had improvements in insulation most would still fall well below modern
standards for energy use, and not cheap or practical to gain much more improvement.
On 12/06/2025 05:57, RJH wrote:
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy -
retrofit for example.
But with 75% of UK households switching from gas to electricity for
heating and our whole transport infrastructure switching from fossil
fuel to electric driven vehicles any "retro" scheme is likely to end up
with the country still consuming more electricity, not less.
On 12/06/2025 09:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:20:29 +0100, Pancho wrote:I think some at least will be.
The reason houses in the UK are not insulated is because it wasn't
economic. It might be economic to insulate new builds,
Nothing in any of the new builds I've seen these past 20 years has led me
to believe they will be there in 100 years.
The building regs. ensure reasonable quality - better than many houses
of the past that are no longer with us.
A friend in the heritage industry reminded me 'the old houses that are
with us today are the better built ones'
Ones I have seen being built have good foundations, generally good
raised concrete floors and a brick skin mostly. They will probably do a hundred years.
On 11 Jun 2025 at 22:39:12 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:They have exhausted every other alternative.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Only nuclear is left
Nuclear does appear to be the cost of renewables - at the moment,
until storage can be sorted. But it's an astonishingly expensive
backstop that might not be needed medium term.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less
energy - retrofit for example.
On 12 Jun 2025 at 07:20:29 BST, Pancho wrote:
On 6/12/25 05:57, RJH wrote:
On 11 Jun 2025 at 22:39:12 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:They have exhausted every other alternative.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >>>>>> small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Only nuclear is left
Nuclear does appear to be the cost of renewables - at the moment, until
storage can be sorted. But it's an astonishingly expensive backstop that might
not be needed medium term.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy - >>> retrofit for example.
You are hand waving.
How much money do you think we could save consuming less energy. Where
would the savings be made. Quantify them. Retrofitting houses for heat
savings is very expensive. There isn't that much energy to be saved.
I can only give you ballpark figures, but taking a Victorian terrace, decent insulation and ASHP - say £30,000. Saving about 70% of total gas consumption,
so maybe half national gas consumption.
We also have still have very many poorly build houses from 50 to 100
years ago. 25% of UK housing stock was build over 100 years ago.
Although most of these properties have been modernised and have had >>improvements in insulation most would still fall well below modern >>standards for energy use, and not cheap or practical to gain much more >>improvement.
Yep. All those victorian terraces with no off street parking and outside >toilets replaced by a lean to kitchen and bog - really need tearing down.
But no one ever will.
Yep. All those victorian terraces with no off street parking and outside toilets replaced by a lean to kitchen and bog - really need tearing down.
But no one ever will.
On 12/06/2025 in message <102ecs9$2l3qp$4@dont-email.me> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We also have still have very many poorly build houses from 50 to 100
years ago. 25% of UK housing stock was build over 100 years ago.
Although most of these properties have been modernised and have had
improvements in insulation most would still fall well below modern
standards for energy use, and not cheap or practical to gain much
more improvement.
Yep. All those victorian terraces with no off street parking and
outside toilets replaced by a lean to kitchen and bog - really need
tearing down.
But no one ever will.
And many modern houses are built with insufficient parking space,
building tomorrow's slums today.
On 12/06/2025 09:54, RJH wrote:
On 12 Jun 2025 at 07:20:29 BST, Pancho wrote:
On 6/12/25 05:57, RJH wrote:
On 11 Jun 2025 at 22:39:12 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:They have exhausted every other alternative.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >>>>>>> small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Only nuclear is left
Nuclear does appear to be the cost of renewables - at the moment, until >>>> storage can be sorted. But it's an astonishingly expensive backstop that might
not be needed medium term.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy - >>>> retrofit for example.
You are hand waving.
How much money do you think we could save consuming less energy. Where
would the savings be made. Quantify them. Retrofitting houses for heat
savings is very expensive. There isn't that much energy to be saved.
I can only give you ballpark figures, but taking a Victorian terrace, decent >> insulation and ASHP - say £30,000. Saving about 70% of total gas consumption,
so maybe half national gas consumption.
So assuming a high gas consumption of 18,000 kWh, that means an up-front
cost of £30K
(plus interest, either paid on a loan or lost on savings),
while saving around £750 per year, so taking 40 years to pay for itself? Then of course electricity is far more expensive than gas, wiping out
any savings at all. No wonder people aren't doing it!
On 12/06/2025 05:57, RJH wrote:
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy -
retrofit for example.
But with 75% of UK households switching from gas to electricity for
heating and our whole transport infrastructure switching from fossil
fuel to electric driven vehicles any "retro" scheme is likely to end up
with the country still consuming more electricity, not less.
On 12/06/2025 09:54, RJH wrote:
I can only give you ballpark figures, but taking a Victorian terrace, decent >> insulation and ASHP - say £30,000. Saving about 70% of total gas consumption,
so maybe half national gas consumption.
If you give me more accurate idea of your home I'll do you a more accurate >> estimate.
Victorian terrace, stone built solid walls, lime mortar, slate roof.
Cellar at front, yorkstone floor; ground floor back room yorkstone floor.
2 ground floor rooms with gas fires in fireplaces, none upstairs.
Double glazed sash windows, roughly 1.5m high 0.9m wide in main rooms.
Attic rooms with dwarf walls and 100mm rafters between ceiling and roof.
All rooms roughly 4m square.
Strangely, the EPC does not suggest adding roof insulation.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 04:57:05 -0000 (UTC)
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 11 Jun 2025 at 22:39:12 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:They have exhausted every other alternative.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >>>>> small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Only nuclear is left
Nuclear does appear to be the cost of renewables - at the moment,
until storage can be sorted. But it's an astonishingly expensive
backstop that might not be needed medium term.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less
energy - retrofit for example.
So what do the people who want gigantic AI data centres (i.e. the
government) do? Nobody anywhere in the world is suggesting they use too
much energy to exist.
No. As I said (and you snipped/maybe didn't read), in essence the process is going to need subsidy. That subsidy could come from, amongst other places, money spent on nuclear.
As I said, the economic return is one of many reasons. Witness the Decent Homes programme (which was much more than insulation/heating) - free to the million+ eligible, but nothing approaching 100% takeup. IME about 70% - I don't think the actual figure is known.
What is interesting to me is how little households appear to care about waste,
fewer still environmental impact. And the economic arguments always tend to centre on worst case and incorrect assumptions. Ho hum.
On 12 Jun 2025 at 11:58:54 BST, alan_m wrote:
On 12/06/2025 05:57, RJH wrote:
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy - >>> retrofit for example.
But with 75% of UK households switching from gas to electricity for
heating and our whole transport infrastructure switching from fossil
fuel to electric driven vehicles any "retro" scheme is likely to end up
with the country still consuming more electricity, not less.
Maybe a better way to think about retrofit is less energy consumption - not the source of the energy.
But yes, electricity generation will need to increase.It must, as if we lose fossil, nuclear is all we have left that
On 12/06/2025 13:56, RJH wrote:
No. As I said (and you snipped/maybe didn't read), in essence the process is >> going to need subsidy. That subsidy could come from, amongst other places, >> money spent on nuclear.
Or could come from the subsidies given to renewables.
How much green
stealth tax is included in our energy bills?
Now assume no future nuclear because all that money is going on other subsidies. What is going to provide the back-up for when the wind
doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine and, as the data shows, is a
regular occurrence during the year?
As I said, the economic return is one of many reasons. Witness the Decent
Homes programme (which was much more than insulation/heating) - free to the >> million+ eligible, but nothing approaching 100% takeup. IME about 70% - I
don't think the actual figure is known.
But a lot of that money is not about reducing energy consumption. It
about bringing up sub-standard buildings to a MINIMUM acceptable
standards including kitchens, bathrooms, structural damage and to
minimise overcrowding. The funds haven't necessarily been provided to
bring up the building to the maximum standard available. Possibly too
high a cost for the latter.
What is interesting to me is how little households appear to care about waste,
fewer still environmental impact. And the economic arguments always tend to >> centre on worst case and incorrect assumptions. Ho hum.
Or just experience of the real world rather than an airy fairy utopian
world.
On 12/06/2025 14:01, RJH wrote:
On 12 Jun 2025 at 11:58:54 BST, alan_m wrote:But once that's all done, you are still left with broadly similar energy consumption
On 12/06/2025 05:57, RJH wrote:
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy - >>>> retrofit for example.
But with 75% of UK households switching from gas to electricity for
heating and our whole transport infrastructure switching from fossil
fuel to electric driven vehicles any "retro" scheme is likely to end up
with the country still consuming more electricity, not less.
Maybe a better way to think about retrofit is less energy consumption - not >> the source of the energy.
That wind and solar cannot satisfy.
But yes, electricity generation will need to increase.It must, as if we lose fossil, nuclear is all we have left that
actually works. And apart from ships, that means reactors driving steam turbines and asynchronous generators
On 12 Jun 2025 at 17:26:57 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 14:01, RJH wrote:
On 12 Jun 2025 at 11:58:54 BST, alan_m wrote:But once that's all done, you are still left with broadly similar energy
On 12/06/2025 05:57, RJH wrote:
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy - >>>>> retrofit for example.
But with 75% of UK households switching from gas to electricity for
heating and our whole transport infrastructure switching from fossil
fuel to electric driven vehicles any "retro" scheme is likely to end up >>>> with the country still consuming more electricity, not less.
Maybe a better way to think about retrofit is less energy consumption - not >>> the source of the energy.
consumption
That wind and solar cannot satisfy.
At the moment. But capacity is increasing daily, at less cost. I don't know the actual figures/projections. Just that as at now, energy consumption in homes is just less than services and industry combined, and just behind transport.
In my little book something more needs to be done. And it can be done.
But yes, electricity generation will need to increase.It must, as if we lose fossil, nuclear is all we have left that
actually works. And apart from ships, that means reactors driving steam
turbines and asynchronous generators
'Nuclear is all we have that works'? Okey-dokey.
On 12/06/2025 18:00, RJH wrote:
On 12 Jun 2025 at 17:26:57 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Yes. I know you *believe* in renewable energy.
On 12/06/2025 14:01, RJH wrote:
On 12 Jun 2025 at 11:58:54 BST, alan_m wrote:But once that's all done, you are still left with broadly similar energy >>> consumption
On 12/06/2025 05:57, RJH wrote:
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less energy - >>>>>> retrofit for example.
But with 75% of UK households switching from gas to electricity for
heating and our whole transport infrastructure switching from fossil >>>>> fuel to electric driven vehicles any "retro" scheme is likely to end up >>>>> with the country still consuming more electricity, not less.
Maybe a better way to think about retrofit is less energy consumption - not
the source of the energy.
That wind and solar cannot satisfy.
At the moment. But capacity is increasing daily, at less cost. I don't know >> the actual figures/projections. Just that as at now, energy consumption in >> homes is just less than services and industry combined, and just behind
transport.
In my little book something more needs to be done. And it can be done.
But yes, electricity generation will need to increase.It must, as if we lose fossil, nuclear is all we have left that
actually works. And apart from ships, that means reactors driving steam
turbines and asynchronous generators
'Nuclear is all we have that works'? Okey-dokey.
Unfortunately as a trained electrical engineer I don't do 'belief', I do Sums.
Sadly there are no trained engineers apart from Kathryn Porter making it through to government since David Mackay died mysteriously of bowel cancer.
I pointed out her report, which explains all if you read it. I assume
you didnt bother. Or my own paper.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:36:06 +0100, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:24:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But there was strong, or at least loud, opposition to nuclear power
then,
peaking after Three Mile Island when Livingstone declared London a
'nuclear-free zone', in defiance of reality and English grammar.
No amount of dishonesty can change the safety record or nuclear power.
More people die annually building non nuclear power stations than in the entire history of civil nuclear power.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- small-modular-nuclear-reactors
On 2025-06-11, Jethro_uk wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
To be fair, the technology now (for extracting uranium from seawater
as well as for the reactors) is a lot better than it was 50 years ago.
I have skim-read it. Do you really want me to call on the figures you circulated in your pdf? You*still* stand by them, and the 3 basic premises on which your essay stands?
I'll take a look at the Porter report, thanks. Missed it earlier.
On 13/06/2025 06:57, RJH wrote:
I have skim-read it. Do you really want me to call on the figures you
circulated in your pdf? You*still* stand by them, and the 3 basic premises on
which your essay stands?
I'll take a look at the Porter report, thanks. Missed it earlier.
You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind
and solar work.
I did some sums BTW, and my conclusion was that *given* a decent storage system - and I have no idea what it might be - wind is a better solution
that solar. It doesn't turn off for 16 hours each and every day in the
middle of winter just when we really need the power.
In the absence of a storage system capable of running the country for a
day we need to burn something. And my preference would be uranium.
On 13/06/2025 06:57, RJH wrote:
I have skim-read it. Do you really want me to call on the figures you
circulated in your pdf? You*still* stand by them, and the 3 basic premises on
which your essay stands?
I'll take a look at the Porter report, thanks. Missed it earlier.
You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind
and solar work.
I did some sums BTW, and my conclusion was that *given* a decent storage system - and I have no idea what it might be - wind is a better solution
that solar. It doesn't turn off for 16 hours each and every day in the
middle of winter just when we really need the power.
In the absence of a storage system capable of running the country for a
day we need to burn something. And my preference would be uranium.
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/06/2025 06:57, RJH wrote:
I have skim-read it. Do you really want me to call on the figures you
circulated in your pdf? You*still* stand by them, and the 3 basic premises on
which your essay stands?
I'll take a look at the Porter report, thanks. Missed it earlier.
You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind
and solar work.
I did some sums BTW, and my conclusion was that *given* a decent storage
system - and I have no idea what it might be - wind is a better solution
that solar. It doesn't turn off for 16 hours each and every day in the
middle of winter just when we really need the power.
Wind might not turn off for 16 hours a day in winter, but it can, and has, essentially turned off for up to 14 days at a time, sometimes referred to
as a Dunkelflaute. Gas has to step in and supply the missing ~4TWh in that time, and sometimes another Dunkelflaute turns up a few days later.
Covering that shortfall is an enormous storage requirement.
In the absence of a storage system capable of running the country for a
day we need to burn something. And my preference would be uranium.
Exactly. But as TNP points out, if you’re going to do that, you might as well throw away the wind turbines and have cheap reliable electricity generation from nuclear all the time.
On 13 Jun 2025 at 21:45:21 BST, Vir Campestris wrote:Like me?
On 13/06/2025 06:57, RJH wrote:
I have skim-read it. Do you really want me to call on the figures you
circulated in your pdf? You*still* stand by them, and the 3 basic premises on
which your essay stands?
I'll take a look at the Porter report, thanks. Missed it earlier.
You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind
and solar work.
I'm no expert - I rely on the figures of others far more qualified.
I did some sums BTW, and my conclusion was that *given* a decent storage
system - and I have no idea what it might be - wind is a better solution
that solar. It doesn't turn off for 16 hours each and every day in the
middle of winter just when we really need the power.
In the absence of a storage system capable of running the country for a
day we need to burn something. And my preference would be uranium.
Indeed - most people are coming to that conclusion, government included.
On 13 Jun 2025 at 22:39:03 BST, Spike wrote:
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/06/2025 06:57, RJH wrote:
I have skim-read it. Do you really want me to call on the figures you
circulated in your pdf? You*still* stand by them, and the 3 basic premises on
which your essay stands?
I'll take a look at the Porter report, thanks. Missed it earlier.
You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind
and solar work.
I did some sums BTW, and my conclusion was that *given* a decent storage >>> system - and I have no idea what it might be - wind is a better solution >>> that solar. It doesn't turn off for 16 hours each and every day in the
middle of winter just when we really need the power.
Wind might not turn off for 16 hours a day in winter, but it can, and has, >> essentially turned off for up to 14 days at a time, sometimes referred to
as a Dunkelflaute. Gas has to step in and supply the missing ~4TWh in that >> time, and sometimes another Dunkelflaute turns up a few days later.
Covering that shortfall is an enormous storage requirement.
In the absence of a storage system capable of running the country for a
day we need to burn something. And my preference would be uranium.
Exactly. But as TNP points out, if you’re going to do that, you might as >> well throw away the wind turbines and have cheap reliable electricity
generation from nuclear all the time.
This is where there's a sums dispute - nuclear *is* more expensive than renewables. That's why I asked whether he stood by figures and premises presented. I understand that there are many out there that think that nuclear ought to be cheaper. But the fact remains that it isn't. Two things:
1. Renewables are cheaper per kWh than nuclear - at least according to AI*. Overall system costs narrow the advantage, but the advantage remains.
2. Until storage can be arranged, renewables only work in the real world with sufficient backup. And that backup, at least according to current policy, is nuclear.
--
* Based on current data, renewables are generally cheaper than nuclear energy per kWh. The cost comparison shows significant differences:
CSIRO found the cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors by 2040 would be about $145-$238 per MWh, compared to $22-$53 for solar, and $45-$78 for wind CSIRO confirms nuclear fantasy would cost twice as much as renewables
| Climate Council. This translates to nuclear costing roughly 14.5-23.8 cents per kWh versus 2.2-5.3 cents for solar and 4.5-7.8 cents for wind.
Other sources confirm this pattern.They are all paid for by renewables lobby orgainsations.
wind is around $40 per megawatt-hour, while nuclear plants average around $175
(Nuclear Wasted: Why the Cost of Nuclear Energy is Misunderstood – Mackinac Center), making nuclear more than four times as expensive. However, the cost of nuclear energy generation in the U.S. has been decreasing over the years and was below 31 U.S. dollars per megawatt-hour in 2022 Nuclear energy cost U.S. 2022 | Statista for existing plants.
The key distinction is between new nuclear construction (which is very expensive) and operating existing nuclear plants (which can be more competitive). New nuclear projects face extremely high capital costs, with capital costs for nuclear power plants ranging between 8,475 and 13,925 U.S. dollars per kilowatt U.S. energy capital costs by source 2024 as of 2023.
However, the comparison isn't entirely straightforward because nuclear provides baseload power 24/7, while solar and wind are intermittent. Grid-level system costs for intermittent renewables are large ($8-$50/MWh) but
nuclear system costs are $1-3/MWh Economics of Nuclear Power - World Nuclear Association, meaning additional costs for grid stability and storage must be considered when comparing renewables to nuclear.
For new construction today, renewables are clearly cheaper per kWh, but the total system costs including storage and grid modifications can narrow this gap somewhat.
(Claude AI)
On 13 Jun 2025 at 22:39:03 BST, Spike wrote:
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/06/2025 06:57, RJH wrote:
I have skim-read it. Do you really want me to call on the figures you
circulated in your pdf? You*still* stand by them, and the 3 basic premises on
which your essay stands?
I'll take a look at the Porter report, thanks. Missed it earlier.
You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind
and solar work.
I did some sums BTW, and my conclusion was that *given* a decent storage >>> system - and I have no idea what it might be - wind is a better solution >>> that solar. It doesn't turn off for 16 hours each and every day in the
middle of winter just when we really need the power.
Wind might not turn off for 16 hours a day in winter, but it can, and has, >> essentially turned off for up to 14 days at a time, sometimes referred to
as a Dunkelflaute. Gas has to step in and supply the missing ~4TWh in that >> time, and sometimes another Dunkelflaute turns up a few days later.
Covering that shortfall is an enormous storage requirement.
In the absence of a storage system capable of running the country for a
day we need to burn something. And my preference would be uranium.
Exactly. But as TNP points out, if you’re going to do that, you might as >> well throw away the wind turbines and have cheap reliable electricity
generation from nuclear all the time.
This is where there's a sums dispute - nuclear *is* more expensive than renewables. That's why I asked whether he stood by figures and premises presented. I understand that there are many out there that think that nuclear ought to be cheaper. But the fact remains that it isn't. Two things:
1. Renewables are cheaper per kWh than nuclear - at least according to AI*. Overall system costs narrow the advantage, but the advantage remains.
2. Until storage can be arranged, renewables only work in the real world with sufficient backup. And that backup, at least according to current policy, is nuclear.
--
* Based on current data, renewables are generally cheaper than nuclear energy per kWh. The cost comparison shows significant differences:
CSIRO found the cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors by 2040 would be about $145-$238 per MWh, compared to $22-$53 for solar, and $45-$78 for wind CSIRO confirms nuclear fantasy would cost twice as much as renewables
| Climate Council. This translates to nuclear costing roughly 14.5-23.8 cents per kWh versus 2.2-5.3 cents for solar and 4.5-7.8 cents for wind.
Other sources confirm this pattern. Lazard found that utility-scale solar and wind is around $40 per megawatt-hour, while nuclear plants average around $175
(Nuclear Wasted: Why the Cost of Nuclear Energy is Misunderstood – Mackinac Center), making nuclear more than four times as expensive. However, the cost of nuclear energy generation in the U.S. has been decreasing over the years and was below 31 U.S. dollars per megawatt-hour in 2022 Nuclear energy cost U.S. 2022 | Statista for existing plants.
The key distinction is between new nuclear construction (which is very expensive) and operating existing nuclear plants (which can be more competitive). New nuclear projects face extremely high capital costs, with capital costs for nuclear power plants ranging between 8,475 and 13,925 U.S. dollars per kilowatt U.S. energy capital costs by source 2024 as of 2023.
However, the comparison isn't entirely straightforward because nuclear provides baseload power 24/7, while solar and wind are intermittent. Grid-level system costs for intermittent renewables are large ($8-$50/MWh) but
nuclear system costs are $1-3/MWh Economics of Nuclear Power - World Nuclear Association, meaning additional costs for grid stability and storage must be considered when comparing renewables to nuclear.
For new construction today, renewables are clearly cheaper per kWh, but the total system costs including storage and grid modifications can narrow this gap somewhat.
(Claude AI)
Like me?You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind
and solar work.
I'm no expert - I rely on the figures of others far more qualified.
I don't think so.
You rely on figures that tell you what you want to hear
Like Putin, or Trump.
On 14 Jun 2025 at 10:22:25 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Like me?You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind >>>> and solar work.
I'm no expert - I rely on the figures of others far more qualified.
I don't think so.
I can hardly take your figures at even face value. The last figures you provided with something approaching a source are over 10 years' old. Things have moved on.
I did give you the opportunity to confirm that your essay was effectively current but you decided against.
You rely on figures that tell you what you want to hear
Like Putin, or Trump.
When have I cited one of that lot?
On 14/06/2025 18:45, RJH wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 at 10:22:25 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:I diont think you will fid that te price of cionmcrete, and carnes used
Like me?You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind >>>>> and solar work.
I'm no expert - I rely on the figures of others far more qualified.
I don't think so.
I can hardly take your figures at even face value. The last figures you
provided with something approaching a source are over 10 years' old. Things >> have moved on.
in building wind turbines have gone downm
I did give you the opportunity to confirm that your essay was effectively
current but you decided against.
No you didn't
My god, You don't even understand English...You rely on figures that tell you what you want to hear
Like Putin, or Trump.
When have I cited one of that lot?
On 15 Jun 2025 at 00:31:19 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/06/2025 18:45, RJH wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 at 10:22:25 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind >>>>>> and solar work.
I'm no expert - I rely on the figures of others far more qualified.
Like me? I don't think so.
I can hardly take your figures at even face value. The last figures you
provided with something approaching a source are over 10 years' old. Things >>> have moved on.
I don’t think you will find that the price of concrete, and carnes used
in building wind turbines have gone down.
Er . . .
I did give you the opportunity to confirm that your essay was effectively >>> current but you decided against.
No you didn't
Reply to you in this thread 12 Jun 2025 at 18:09:02 BST
My god, You don't even understand English...You rely on figures that tell you what you want to hear
Like Putin, or Trump.
When have I cited one of that lot?
OK, lack of full stop notwithstanding. Yes, I do. But as a reflex I always try
to take on board the antithesis, counter etc.
And huge variables that you and many others discount or ignore include pollution, environmental/social/political impact, uncritical consumption
of finite resources, and waste. Just because they're difficult to measure doesn't
mean they don't exist.
If you don’t agree with these estimates, please feel free to research
your
own.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 00:31:19 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/06/2025 18:45, RJH wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 at 10:22:25 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind >>>>>>> and solar work.
I'm no expert - I rely on the figures of others far more qualified.
Like me? I don't think so.
I can hardly take your figures at even face value. The last figures you >>>> provided with something approaching a source are over 10 years' old. Things
have moved on.
I don’t think you will find that the price of concrete, and carnes used >>> in building wind turbines have gone down.
Er . . .
I did give you the opportunity to confirm that your essay was effectively >>>> current but you decided against.
No you didn't
Reply to you in this thread 12 Jun 2025 at 18:09:02 BST
My god, You don't even understand English...You rely on figures that tell you what you want to hear
Like Putin, or Trump.
When have I cited one of that lot?
OK, lack of full stop notwithstanding. Yes, I do. But as a reflex I always try
to take on board the antithesis, counter etc.
And huge variables that you and many others discount or ignore include
pollution, environmental/social/political impact, uncritical consumption
of finite resources, and waste. Just because they're difficult to measure
doesn't
mean they don't exist.
As you speak of pollution, environmental/social/political impact,
uncritical consumption of finite resources, and waste, note that a large
wind turbine blade (around 60-80 meters long) may contain several tons of carbon fiber. Estimates suggest that carbon fiber can make up about 30-50%
of the blade's weight.
The matrix resin, often an epoxy or polyester, is used to bind the carbon fibers together. The resin content can also vary, but it generally constitutes about 20-30% of the total weight of the blade.
The disposal of such wind turbine blades poses challenges due to these composite materials, which are not easily recyclable. Many go to landfill
or are incinerated.
And a large turbine can use up to 1500 cubic metres of unrecyclable
concrete, at 2.5 tons per cubic metre. Imagine how much concrete goes into the UK’s wind turbine fleet - it has been estimated at 11 million cubic metres, or 27.5 million tons, for the 30GW fleet, or almost a million tons per GW. And that’s referring to the plated capacity; taking into account the poor availability of wind power, Hinckley C is more economical on such unrecyclable concrete, in addition providing clean, reliable electricity
for far longer than the erratic wind turbine fleet will.
If you don’t agree with these estimates, please feel free to research your own.
On 15/06/2025 in message <mb7h4cFqgkjU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
If you don’t agree with these estimates, please feel free to research your own.
I saw a photo once of the amount of steel that goes into the foundations
of these things, astonishing.
And huge variables that you and many others discount or ignore include >pollution, environmental/social/political impact, uncritical consumption of >finite resources, and waste. Just because they're difficult to measure doesn't >mean they don't exist.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 10:12:44 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 00:31:19 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/06/2025 18:45, RJH wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 at 10:22:25 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind >>>>>>>> and solar work.
I'm no expert - I rely on the figures of others far more qualified.
Like me? I don't think so.
I can hardly take your figures at even face value. The last figures you >>>>> provided with something approaching a source are over 10 years' old. Things
have moved on.
I don’t think you will find that the price of concrete, and carnes used >>>> in building wind turbines have gone down.
Er . . .
I did give you the opportunity to confirm that your essay was effectively >>>>> current but you decided against.
No you didn't
Reply to you in this thread 12 Jun 2025 at 18:09:02 BST
My god, You don't even understand English...You rely on figures that tell you what you want to hear
Like Putin, or Trump.
When have I cited one of that lot?
OK, lack of full stop notwithstanding. Yes, I do. But as a reflex I always try
to take on board the antithesis, counter etc.
And huge variables that you and many others discount or ignore include
pollution, environmental/social/political impact, uncritical consumption >>> of finite resources, and waste. Just because they're difficult to measure >>> doesn't
mean they don't exist.
As you speak of pollution, environmental/social/political impact,
uncritical consumption of finite resources, and waste, note that a large
wind turbine blade (around 60-80 meters long) may contain several tons of
carbon fiber. Estimates suggest that carbon fiber can make up about 30-50% >> of the blade's weight.
The matrix resin, often an epoxy or polyester, is used to bind the carbon
fibers together. The resin content can also vary, but it generally
constitutes about 20-30% of the total weight of the blade.
The disposal of such wind turbine blades poses challenges due to these
composite materials, which are not easily recyclable. Many go to landfill
or are incinerated.
And a large turbine can use up to 1500 cubic metres of unrecyclable
concrete, at 2.5 tons per cubic metre. Imagine how much concrete goes into >> the UK’s wind turbine fleet - it has been estimated at 11 million cubic
metres, or 27.5 million tons, for the 30GW fleet, or almost a million tons >> per GW. And that’s referring to the plated capacity; taking into account >> the poor availability of wind power, Hinckley C is more economical on such >> unrecyclable concrete, in addition providing clean, reliable electricity
for far longer than the erratic wind turbine fleet will.
If you don’t agree with these estimates, please feel free to research your >> own.
I don't disagree - but I don't know where you get your figures from, and there
is no analysis. You go straigh tfrom description to critique. So it's difficult to know one way of the other.
How about: 'amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar'.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/
Agree or disagree?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/
Agree or disagree?
I couldn’t help noticing two things about that report, that an uncritical reader might not have noticed.
Firstly, there is a mention of concrete, right at the start, and it is referred to thereafter only in passing. Is there any reason that concrete’s contributions, the millions of tons of which went into the UK’s wind turbine fleet, appears to have been minimised? Note that environmentalists have complained about the environmental impact of Hinckley C’s use of concrete, which is dwarfed by that of the wind turbine fleet.
Secondly, note the following. Quote: Citing data from the likes of National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Vestas, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, and Bernstein estimates, Venkateswaran determined that the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint of wind turbines are steel, aluminum and the epoxy resins that hold pieces together — with the steel tower making up 30% of the carbon impact, the concrete foundation 17% and the carbon fiber and fiberglass blades 12%. Unquote.
They do not seem to be impartial sources from which to draw data. The 17% figure for the 3500 tons of concrete seems laughable, given the environmentalists’ concern over Hinckley C.
It could be that they have used a footprint figure for concrete, having ignored that of the cement used in its manufacture. Otherwise, the
footprints of steel and concrete are roughly similar, and there’s very much more concrete than steel used for wind turbine construction. Ergo, the 17% figure for concrete quoted in the report appears to be fanciful.
On 2025-06-11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:36:06 +0100, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:24:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But there was strong, or at least loud, opposition to nuclear power
then,
peaking after Three Mile Island when Livingstone declared London a
'nuclear-free zone', in defiance of reality and English grammar.
No amount of dishonesty can change the safety record or nuclear power.
More people die annually building non nuclear power stations than in the
entire history of civil nuclear power.
Then add the pollution from burning coal.
In article <102e3m7$2j2nn$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 09:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:20:29 +0100, Pancho wrote:I think some at least will be.
The reason houses in the UK are not insulated is because it wasn't
economic. It might be economic to insulate new builds,
Nothing in any of the new builds I've seen these past 20 years has led
me to believe they will be there in 100 years.
The building regs. ensure reasonable quality - better than many houses
of the past that are no longer with us.
A friend in the heritage industry reminded me 'the old houses that are
with us today are the better built ones'
Ones I have seen being built have good foundations, generally good
raised concrete floors and a brick skin mostly. They will probably do a
hundred years.
This house was built in 1911 with shallow foundatioms and suspended floors. It's still standing.
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
On 12/06/2025 09:54, RJH wrote:
On 12 Jun 2025 at 07:20:29 BST, Pancho wrote:
On 6/12/25 05:57, RJH wrote:
On 11 Jun 2025 at 22:39:12 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:They have exhausted every other alternative.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >>>>>>> small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Only nuclear is left
Nuclear does appear to be the cost of renewables - at the moment, until >>>> storage can be sorted. But it's an astonishingly expensive backstop
that might
not be needed medium term.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less
energy -
retrofit for example.
You are hand waving.
How much money do you think we could save consuming less energy. Where
would the savings be made. Quantify them. Retrofitting houses for heat
savings is very expensive. There isn't that much energy to be saved.
I can only give you ballpark figures, but taking a Victorian terrace,
decent
insulation and ASHP - say £30,000. Saving about 70% of total gas
consumption,
so maybe half national gas consumption.
Then of course electricity is far more expensive than gas,
On 11/06/2025 17:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:14:00 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/06/2025 in message <102c73p$1v2rb$6@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build-
small-modular-nuclear-reactors
We need to get them down to the size of walnuts as envisaged by Isaac
Asimov in his Foundation series.
Is that a materials and engineering challenge ?
Are walnuts a recognised unit of measurement in nuclear engineering?
On 12 Jun 2025 at 16:27:22 BST, alan_m wrote:
On 12/06/2025 13:56, RJH wrote:
No. As I said (and you snipped/maybe didn't read), in essence the process is
going to need subsidy. That subsidy could come from, amongst other places, >>> money spent on nuclear.
Or could come from the subsidies given to renewables.
Yes, could do. O rtake some from nuclear.
On 12/06/2025 12:46, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 04:57:05 -0000 (UTC)A long time ago now a study was done to see what the cost of
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 11 Jun 2025 at 22:39:12 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 11/06/2025 16:24, Jethro_uk wrote:They have exhausted every other alternative.
50 years late, but better late than never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-to-build- >>>>>> small-modular-nuclear-reactors
Same old, same old.
I'll believe it when there's more than just hot air.
Only nuclear is left
Nuclear does appear to be the cost of renewables - at the moment,
until storage can be sorted. But it's an astonishingly expensive
backstop that might not be needed medium term.
I'd prefer to see the bulk of the money spent on consuming less
energy - retrofit for example.
So what do the people who want gigantic AI data centres (i.e. the
government) do? Nobody anywhere in the world is suggesting they use too
much energy to exist.
decarbonisation would be.
Energy efficiency actually saved money but once the low hanging fruit
had been picked that was it.
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/cocu07.pdf
If you examine it, nuclear was cost neutral. It replaced carbon based generation at similar cost. This is true cost, of course stripped of subsidies and what not.
Low penetration wind was much higher in cost. Solar and high penetration
wind were simply not considered to be viable *at all*.
The problem with insulation is that once you have it, what else can you do?
On 12/06/2025 09:54, RJH wrote:
I can only give you ballpark figures, but taking a Victorian terrace, decent >> insulation and ASHP - say £30,000. Saving about 70% of total gas consumption,
so maybe half national gas consumption.
If you give me more accurate idea of your home I'll do you a more accurate >> estimate.
Victorian terrace, stone built solid walls, lime mortar, slate roof.
Cellar at front, yorkstone floor; ground floor back room yorkstone floor.
2 ground floor rooms with gas fires in fireplaces, none upstairs.
Double glazed sash windows, roughly 1.5m high 0.9m wide in main rooms.
Attic rooms with dwarf walls and 100mm rafters between ceiling and roof.
All rooms roughly 4m square.
Strangely, the EPC does not suggest adding roof insulation.
On 12/06/2025 17:51, RJH wrote:
On 12 Jun 2025 at 16:27:22 BST, alan_m wrote:
On 12/06/2025 13:56, RJH wrote:
No. As I said (and you snipped/maybe didn't read), in essence the
process is going to need subsidy. That subsidy could come from,
amongst other places, money spent on nuclear.
Or could come from the subsidies given to renewables.
Yes, could do. O rtake some from nuclear.
Or stop handing out 'disability benefits' and free motability
cars to people who are lying about their condition.
* Based on current data, renewables are generally cheaper than nuclear energy per kWh. The cost comparison shows significant differences:
On 12 Jun 2025 at 11:31:07 BST, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/06/2025 09:54, RJH wrote:
I can only give you ballpark figures, but taking a Victorian terrace, decent
insulation and ASHP - say £30,000. Saving about 70% of total gas consumption,
so maybe half national gas consumption.
If you give me more accurate idea of your home I'll do you a more accurate >>> estimate.
Victorian terrace, stone built solid walls, lime mortar, slate roof.
Cellar at front, yorkstone floor; ground floor back room yorkstone floor.
2 ground floor rooms with gas fires in fireplaces, none upstairs.
Double glazed sash windows, roughly 1.5m high 0.9m wide in main rooms.
Attic rooms with dwarf walls and 100mm rafters between ceiling and roof.
All rooms roughly 4m square.
Strangely, the EPC does not suggest adding roof insulation.
Ballpark:
Huge caveats though - not least my expertise/ability to give an accurate figure in any event. Others:
You'd need a retrofit assessment - sounds as though your home would have particular requirements, especially around the floors, walls and heritage considerations;
MHEV is something I think is important - it doesn't always feature in retrofit
assessments, claiming they take into account porosity/breathability. Considerable ingenuity needed to retrofit. And see 'Disruption';
Subsidy - might be 100% (ECO4), might be nothing;
30% Uplift - certain costs have come down since these figures, but labour certainly hasn't. And I've seen project proposals that top £100k - so it's all
a lot of educated guesses;
Disruption - biblical.
You could get a quote, but herein lies a problem IMHO. It's takes a lot of time, experience, and skill to assess a home properly. I got a quote of about £1000 from a company I trust for my own home. About 3 times that for project management, contractor selection, and a customised programme. I thought that was pretty good for the time needed.
I'm slowly building up my knowledge but retrofitting older homes is a minefield, especially if you/me/your contractor doesn't know what they're doing. The previous owner had a go at my home and it'll probably end up costing more to undo the problems than it would to have done it properly in the first place.
*https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cost-assumptions-what-do es-it-cost-to-retrofit-homes
On 14/06/2025 08:31, RJH wrote:
* Based on current data, renewables are generally cheaper than nuclear energy
per kWh. The cost comparison shows significant differences:
Cost per kilowatt-hour isn't a good measure for intermittent sources.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 17:56:48 BST, RJH wrote:
On 12 Jun 2025 at 11:31:07 BST, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/06/2025 09:54, RJH wrote:
I can only give you ballpark figures, but taking a Victorian terrace, decent
insulation and ASHP - say £30,000. Saving about 70% of total gas consumption,
so maybe half national gas consumption.
If you give me more accurate idea of your home I'll do you a more accurate >>>> estimate.
Victorian terrace, stone built solid walls, lime mortar, slate roof.
Cellar at front, yorkstone floor; ground floor back room yorkstone floor. >>> 2 ground floor rooms with gas fires in fireplaces, none upstairs.
Double glazed sash windows, roughly 1.5m high 0.9m wide in main rooms.
Attic rooms with dwarf walls and 100mm rafters between ceiling and roof. >>> All rooms roughly 4m square.
Strangely, the EPC does not suggest adding roof insulation.
Ballpark:
Huge caveats though - not least my expertise/ability to give an accurate
figure in any event. Others:
You'd need a retrofit assessment - sounds as though your home would have
particular requirements, especially around the floors, walls and heritage
considerations;
MHEV is something I think is important - it doesn't always feature in retrofit
assessments, claiming they take into account porosity/breathability.
Considerable ingenuity needed to retrofit. And see 'Disruption';
Subsidy - might be 100% (ECO4), might be nothing;
30% Uplift - certain costs have come down since these figures, but labour
certainly hasn't. And I've seen project proposals that top £100k - so it's all
a lot of educated guesses;
Disruption - biblical.
You could get a quote, but herein lies a problem IMHO. It's takes a lot of >> time, experience, and skill to assess a home properly. I got a quote of about
£1000 from a company I trust for my own home. About 3 times that for project
management, contractor selection, and a customised programme. I thought that >> was pretty good for the time needed.
I'm slowly building up my knowledge but retrofitting older homes is a
minefield, especially if you/me/your contractor doesn't know what they're
doing. The previous owner had a go at my home and it'll probably end up
costing more to undo the problems than it would to have done it properly in >> the first place.
*https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cost-assumptions-what-do
es-it-cost-to-retrofit-homes
Oops :-)
On 13/06/2025 11:35, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-06-11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:36:06 +0100, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:24:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But there was strong, or at least loud, opposition to nuclear power
then,
peaking after Three Mile Island when Livingstone declared London a
'nuclear-free zone', in defiance of reality and English grammar.
No amount of dishonesty can change the safety record or nuclear power.
More people die annually building non nuclear power stations than in the >>> entire history of civil nuclear power.
Then add the pollution from burning coal.
But it did keep the moss and algae in check, and made for wonderful
displays of roses without black-spot in the 50's and 60's :-)
On 14/06/2025 08:31, RJH wrote:
* Based on current data, renewables are generally cheaper than nuclear energy
per kWh. The cost comparison shows significant differences:
Cost per kilowatt-hour isn't a good measure for intermittent sources.
Take a hydroelectric plant. It will generate power whenever you want,
subject to enough water. Conveniently there tends to be more water
around in winter when we need the power.
Then compare that to a solar panel. It generates power when it feels
like it, regardless of demand. It tends to generate power in summer more
than winter.
The maximum load on the grid tends to be at teatime, especially in
winter when lots of people get home from work, turn on the heating and
start cooking dinner.
How many solar panels would it take to supply that peak? (Hint: It's dark)
That power from a solar panel is far less useful than the power from a
hydro plant.
Andy
On 14/06/2025 08:31, RJH wrote:
* Based on current data, renewables are generally cheaper than nuclear energy
per kWh. The cost comparison shows significant differences:
Cost per kilowatt-hour isn't a good measure for intermittent sources.
Take a hydroelectric plant. It will generate power whenever you want,
subject to enough water. Conveniently there tends to be more water
around in winter when we need the power.
Then compare that to a solar panel. It generates power when it feels
like it, regardless of demand. It tends to generate power in summer more
than winter.
The maximum load on the grid tends to be at teatime, especially in
winter when lots of people get home from work, turn on the heating and
start cooking dinner.
How many solar panels would it take to supply that peak? (Hint: It's dark)
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 08:31, RJH wrote:
* Based on current data, renewables are generally cheaper than nuclear energy
per kWh. The cost comparison shows significant differences:
Cost per kilowatt-hour isn't a good measure for intermittent sources.
Take a hydroelectric plant. It will generate power whenever you want,
subject to enough water. Conveniently there tends to be more water
around in winter when we need the power.
Then compare that to a solar panel. It generates power when it feels
like it, regardless of demand. It tends to generate power in summer more
than winter.
The maximum load on the grid tends to be at teatime, especially in
winter when lots of people get home from work, turn on the heating and
start cooking dinner.
How many solar panels would it take to supply that peak? (Hint: It's dark)
You might have noticed that lots of companies that supply solar panels ALSO sell home batteries.
In the summer months we never draw from the grid at peak rate, only at our
7p off-peak rate.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 00:08:23 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,718 |
