|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > December 2006 > The scam of rooftop windpower generation
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The scam of rooftop windpower generation
|
|
| Eeyore 2006-12-08, 5:25 pm |
| I was pleased to discover the link below on a *repectable* home windpower site
about the curent scam in the UK promoting rooftop windpower generation no doubt
targeted at well-meaning townies who'd like to see themselves as 'green'.
For my own part, I'd been amazed to see that one of the most prominent
manufacturers of this kit ( now being sold in a well-known DIY chain ) shows
average windspeed figures at 25 metre elevation to promote their product despite
saying they can't install it any higher than your roof !
http://www.scoraigwind.com/rooftop.html
" Rooftop wind turbines are a load of nonsense
Anyone who has experience in the industry knows that wind turbines require
substantial quantities of wind to produce power. There may be strong gusts and
turbulence around buildings but only a small amount of power is available in
such locations.
There are a number of manufacturers of rooftop wind turbines. They have sprung
up to meet popular demand. There is no evidence that their products can deliver
what they claim. Here are some of the web sites.
http://www.renewabledevices.com/swift/specification.htm
http://windsave.com/
http://www.d400.co.uk/
http://www.buildingmountedturbines.com/
http://www.gual-industrie.com/
The manufacturers of rooftop wind turbines invariably make quite unrealistic
claims, and present a very strong marketing rather than engineering
image............."
Graham
| |
| Rolf Martens 2006-12-09, 9:25 am |
| In article <4579F0C5.4A6DB95@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>I was pleased to discover the link below on a *repectable* home windpower site
>about the curent scam in the UK promoting rooftop windpower generation no
doubt
>targeted at well-meaning townies who'd like to see themselves as 'green'.
>
>For my own part, I'd been amazed to see that one of the most prominent
>manufacturers of this kit ( now being sold in a well-known DIY chain ) shows
>average windspeed figures at 25 metre elevation to promote their product
despite
>saying they can't install it any higher than your roof !
>
>http://www.scoraigwind.com/rooftop.html
>
>" Rooftop wind turbines are a load of nonsense
>Anyone who has experience in the industry knows that wind turbines require
>substantial quantities of wind to produce power. There may be strong gusts
and
>turbulence around buildings but only a small amount of power is available in
>such locations.
>
>There are a number of manufacturers of rooftop wind turbines. They have
sprung
>up to meet popular demand. There is no evidence that their products can
deliver
>what they claim. Here are some of the web sites.
>http://www.renewabledevices.com/swift/specification.htm
>http://windsave.com/
>http://www.d400.co.uk/
>http://www.buildingmountedturbines.com/
>http://www.gual-industrie.com/
>
>The manufacturers of rooftop wind turbines invariably make quite unrealistic
>claims, and present a very strong marketing rather than engineering
>image............."
>
>
>Graham
No doubt you're right. The entire windmill propaganda is for
reactionary political reasons, in order to make some people
think there's something wrong with the really efficient energy
sources - nuclear power plants, above all, and also oil etc.
Rolf M.
| |
|
|
"Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote in message
news:PHveh.25877$E02.10586@newsb.telia.net...
> In article <4579F0C5.4A6DB95@hotmail.com>,
> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
> doubt
> despite
> and
> sprung
> deliver
>
>
> No doubt you're right. The entire windmill propaganda is for
> reactionary political reasons, in order to make some people
> think there's something wrong with the really efficient energy
> sources - nuclear power plants, above all, and also oil etc.
> Rolf M.
....................................................
Yep a scam just like chasing the wind for the cash you have spent.
There is only one type that may pay and that is the Helical which generates
when the wind comes in all direction up down sideways.
Suburbs are useless for wind generation, only
Heat pumps are sound in town.
People contemplating spending the £1600 would be better off put in extra
insulation, upto 12 inchs is good.
>
| |
| Dave Gower 2006-12-09, 9:25 am |
|
"Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote
>... The entire windmill propaganda is for
> reactionary political reasons, in order to make some people
> think there's something wrong with the really efficient energy
> sources - nuclear power plants, above all, and also oil etc.
While there are limitations to wind power, this blanket condemnation
overstates the negatives. In very good sites, with large and advanced
turbines it is a commercially viable proposition. And it can also be a
practical energy source in remote locations, especially if reliable solar
energy is not available.
One promising form of wind power that is getting a more serious look now is
wave power.
I do agree, however, that nuclear needs to be considered more seriously.
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are examples of how not to do nuclear, but
there are much better designs. And the waste problem can be managed.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-12-09, 9:25 am |
| Dave Gower wrote:
....
> I do agree, however, that nuclear needs to be considered more seriously.
Since this is posted to alt.energy.homepower, does this mean that
you are advocating home nuclear reactors? Just how dangerous would
it be to have a couple kW nuclear reactor in your garage? More to
the point, how much red tape would be required? People go nuts just
with the minute amount of radioactive material found in fire alarms.
I can just imagine how insane people would get with enough isotopes
to power their house.
Anthony
| |
|
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> I can just imagine how insane people would get with enough isotopes
> to power their house.
===============================================
Well, how much would it take? Lets say we want 1KW from a Radiation
Thermal Generator like on the deep space probes... bunch of
thermocouples in series stuck down in something hot.... How big would
it be? How hot? How heavy? How expensive? Would it ever pay off at 24
KW-hr a day?
| |
| Ian Stirling 2006-12-09, 1:25 pm |
| In sci.energy Dave Gower <davegow.removethis.@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> "Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote
>
>
> While there are limitations to wind power, this blanket condemnation
> overstates the negatives. In very good sites, with large and advanced
> turbines it is a commercially viable proposition. And it can also be a
> practical energy source in remote locations, especially if reliable solar
> energy is not available.
Most rooftop wind turbines - the one being referred to in the original
thread has IIRC a 10 year claimed lifespan, 1Kw peak generation, and
3 year warranty, and will require solid couple of years running at maximum
output before it pays back - are a joke.
The fraction of the above that will ever pay back I suspect needs to be
measured in permil, not percent.
| |
| Eeyore 2006-12-09, 1:25 pm |
|
danny wrote:
> People contemplating spending the £1600 would be better off put in extra
> insulation, upto 12 inchs is good.
Absolutely spot on and it wouldn't cost £1600 either.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2006-12-09, 1:25 pm |
|
Dave Gower wrote:
> "Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote
>
>
> While there are limitations to wind power, this blanket condemnation
> overstates the negatives. In very good sites, with large and advanced
> turbines it is a commercially viable proposition. And it can also be a
> practical energy source in remote locations, especially if reliable solar
> energy is not available.
My objection is about the scam of selling baby turbines to fit on the wall of
your house in an urban location.
This will always be a total waste of money.
Graham
| |
| Dave Gower 2006-12-09, 5:25 pm |
|
"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote
> Most rooftop wind turbines - the one being referred to in the original
> thread has IIRC a 10 year claimed lifespan, 1Kw peak generation, and
> 3 year warranty, and will require solid couple of years running at maximum
> output before it pays back - are a joke.
I am not disputing that, which is why I made reference to remote locations
where there may be less alternative sources. But Rolf was expanding it "all
wind", which was the essence my rebuttal.
| |
| Dave Gower 2006-12-09, 5:25 pm |
|
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote
> Since this is posted to alt.energy.homepower, does this mean that
> you are advocating home nuclear reactors?
I didn't select the cross-posts, and am not going to try to eliminate them.
Rolf changed the topic to global energy, so complain to him.
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-12-09, 5:25 pm |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in
<vcCdnV8bv_Z2JOfYnZ2dnUVZ_rqhnZ2d@magma.ca>, "Dave Gower" wrote:
> "Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote
>
>
> While there are limitations to wind power, this blanket
> condemnation overstates the negatives. In very good sites,
> with large and advanced turbines it is a commercially viable
> proposition. And it can also be a practical energy source in
> remote locations, especially if reliable solar energy is not
> available.
>
> One promising form of wind power that is getting a more serious
> look now is wave power.
>
> I do agree, however, that nuclear needs to be considered more
> seriously. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are examples of
> how not to do nuclear, but there are much better designs. And
> the waste problem can be managed.
What needs to be considered more seriously is the simple fact
that there has to be limits put on the amount of energy an
individual can use. And that includes hiring someone else to use
energy on the individual's behalf, which is what happens when
you buy something manufactured (etc.) and transported to your
location.
End-user energy consumption is but a part of the picture.
There is simply NO WAY that people can continue using more
and more energy _and_ for more and more people to join the
supermaterialistic Middle Class of the world.
A Middle Class family now consumes at least 10X the energy
of a Middle Class person of 50 years ago, and that figure
continues to rise with more and more hi-technology becoming
a part of everyday life.
The economy can't grow forever on a finite planet.
There isn't a technological fix here. All more technology
does is exacerbate the problem. And all of the alternative
energy 'solutions' are worse than the original problem.
There are so many illusions in this area.
Take the amount of energy expended to _create_ a working
nuclear power plant (starting with mining and processing and
transportation of the raw materials).
How long before it produces enough energy to make up for that?
No, dollars and cents do not accurately reflect the energy
involved because there are way too many games played in that
arena.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...ival/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...unix/index.html
| |
| Mauried 2006-12-09, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:57:26 GMT, Alan Connor <i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid>
wrote:
>On alt.energy.homepower, in
><vcCdnV8bv_Z2JOfYnZ2dnUVZ_rqhnZ2d@magma.ca>, "Dave Gower" wrote:
>
>
>What needs to be considered more seriously is the simple fact
>that there has to be limits put on the amount of energy an
>individual can use. And that includes hiring someone else to use
>energy on the individual's behalf, which is what happens when
>you buy something manufactured (etc.) and transported to your
>location.
>
>End-user energy consumption is but a part of the picture.
>
>There is simply NO WAY that people can continue using more
>and more energy _and_ for more and more people to join the
>supermaterialistic Middle Class of the world.
>
>A Middle Class family now consumes at least 10X the energy
>of a Middle Class person of 50 years ago, and that figure
>continues to rise with more and more hi-technology becoming
>a part of everyday life.
>
>The economy can't grow forever on a finite planet.
>
>There isn't a technological fix here. All more technology
>does is exacerbate the problem. And all of the alternative
>energy 'solutions' are worse than the original problem.
>
>There are so many illusions in this area.
>
>Take the amount of energy expended to _create_ a working
>nuclear power plant (starting with mining and processing and
>transportation of the raw materials).
>
>How long before it produces enough energy to make up for that?
>
>No, dollars and cents do not accurately reflect the energy
>involved because there are way too many games played in that
>arena.
>
>
>Alan
>
>--
>http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
>http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...ival/index.html
>http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...unix/index.html
Wouldnt it make more sense then to start reducing the number of end
users, rather than imposing limits on what an ever increasing number
of end users can use.
Seems this is something that no one wants to address.
| |
| Ian Stirling 2006-12-09, 8:25 pm |
| In alt.energy.renewable Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> danny wrote:
>
>
> Absolutely spot on and it wouldn't cost ?1600 either.
Upgrading loft insulation is probably of rather debatable payback, if
it's got a few inches already.
Going from 6-12" halves the U value from 0.26 to 0.13.
For a 100m^2 roof, and a 10C average difference, that's a saving of
130W. (neglecting labour to put it in, assuming it's possible).
Assuming gas at current prices, that's a payback of over 10 years.
In many cases, there are better investments you can make - for example,
in my case, a new fridge/freezer unit would pay back in 5.
I'm actually at the moment adding 100mm of rockwool to my walls, as
they were uninsulated. This is a large job, and will pay back in some
2-3 years.
200mm would make the rooms even smaller, and better performing
insulation would mean it wouldn't get done at all, as it won't pay back
within a reasonable period.
(quality foam insulation 10cm thick would have tripled the cost.)
First you start with a spreadsheet, and calculate the amount of heat
going out of your walls/ceiling/floor/windows/gaps.
Then work out cost/benefit for all of these.
Single glazed windows - for example, unless the rest of the property is
well insulated are rarely a major source of heat loss.
And double glazing is comparatively expensive, compared to some other
options.
| |
|
| In article <457b44da.874812@news.tpg.com.au>, mauried@tpg.com.au
says...
> Wouldnt it make more sense then to start reducing the number of end
> users, rather than imposing limits on what an ever increasing number
> of end users can use.
I fully agree.
I should get electricity, but by nearest neighbours should be
turned off.
They are wankers, anyway.
--
Want Freebies?
http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/
Check The Free Stuff List
| |
| Ian Stirling 2006-12-09, 8:25 pm |
| In alt.energy.renewable Alan Connor <i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
> What needs to be considered more seriously is the simple fact
> that there has to be limits put on the amount of energy an
> individual can use. And that includes hiring someone else to use
> energy on the individual's behalf, which is what happens when
> you buy something manufactured (etc.) and transported to your
> location.
<snip>
> There are so many illusions in this area.
>
> Take the amount of energy expended to _create_ a working
> nuclear power plant (starting with mining and processing and
> transportation of the raw materials).
>
> How long before it produces enough energy to make up for that?
Now, explain why you can't figure out the maximum energy used to create
a nuclear plant by doing the simple sum cost / price per Kwh of the cheapest
form of energy.
>
> No, dollars and cents do not accurately reflect the energy
> involved because there are way too many games played in that
> arena.
>
>
> Alan
>
| |
|
|
Alan Connor FGA wrote:
> Thanks for your kookfart, Beavis.
>
> --
> <article not downloaded:
>
> Info about "Alan Connor"
>
> Alan "The Usenet Beavis" Connor is a good friend of Bigfoot:
> http://tinyurl.com/23r3f
>
> A couple of years ago he was kidnapped and raped by Xena,
> the Warrior Princess: http://tinyurl.com/2gjcy
>
> Beavis believes that the MSBlast virus of yesteryear was explicitly
> targeting him, for some inexplicable reason: http://tinyurl.com/ifrt
>
> Beavis belongs to a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/2hhdx
> Beavis's life in a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/24jqm
> Beavis knows all about network security: http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6
> And he's also a search engine expert: http://tinyurl.com/9pjnt
>
>
> <1164724734.389844@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net>
> "But if you must know, Alans' name is Bruce Burhans, and he lives in
> Bellingham WA. To his hippie friends he calls himself "Tom Littlefoot"
> **Google Tom Littlefoot, Bruce Burhans and "Wildwood"**.
>
> Bruce has some serious mental problems and spends a lot of time as an
> in-patient at the big mental hospital in Bellingham, when he's not
> hospitalized, he posts to usenet. In every group he posts to he comes off as
> some sort of expert in the subject at hand, and when anyone disagrees (and
> they will, he sees to that) he starts in on his trollery.
>
> Again, Bruce is a true Professional Usenet Troll. It is his entertainment
> and it's what he lives for."
That's all very well. I know nothing of the poster. What he has posted
though is not implausible, or even radically less arguable than most
things one sees on usenet.
He may well have "serious mental problems" or live for trolling. On
this occasion, what he has posted seems a reasonable position to
advance, albeit I don't agree with his Malthusian conclusion.
Fran
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-12-10, 3:25 am |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in <457b44da.874812@news.tpg.com.au>,
"Mauried" wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:57:26 GMT, Alan Connor
> <i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wouldnt it make more sense then to start reducing the number
> of end users, rather than imposing limits on what an ever
> increasing number of end users can use. Seems this is
> something that no one wants to address.
That's because an economy like this _has_ to keep growing or it
starts dying.
Ask any economist. That's why the annual growth figures figure
prominently in yearly economic reports.
And it can't keep growing if the population is fixed at a
certain level, or worse, is reduced.
It takes something like a 1/2-dozen under-class people (most
of them in "undeveloped" or "developing" nations) to support
a single lower-class person and about a 1/2-dozen lower-class
people to support a single middle-class person.
You can't consume more than you produce unless someone is
producing more than they consume...
Don't hold me to those figures. I am illustrating a
valid concept, that of the pyramid-of-exploitation
that _is_ capitalism/socialism/communism (any
trading/merchantile/specialized economy)
Why do you think that population control is not pursued actively
by the "developed nations" in the "undeveloped" world (or
anywhere, for that matter)?
Hell, Mother Teresa in the slums of India refused to teach them
birth control, an obvious necessity if they were to ever have
better lives.
And where does the Catholic Church get its incredible wealth?
From the exploitation of its donors. Of the very sort of people
she was supposedly helping.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...ival/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...unix/index.html
| |
|
| Being an old timer I can remember when people used your same exact
argument for AC electricity, Natural Gas piped into the home , etc.
With proper design, it will be safe. It may take a few casualties to
get all the bugs worked out, but it will come.
I won't be around but every home will have self-contained power one of
these days, it's a logical concept.
About wind, anyone who has walked under the huge wind generators along
the Dutch coast knows wind power is great if you have the wind. I
remember one particular Christmas Eve leaving my ship at the terminal
Maas Vleckt, and walking under that row of HUGE wind generators to a
little restaurant for a Christmas meal. These huge generators
stretched all along the coast as far as the eye could see. The power
being generated was awesome, you could hear it surging in the lines,
and not a sound, nothing except an occasional slight "whish". I have
seen wind farms in California and many other places around the world,
even in the Mediterranean, Canada, Japan, etc. There is one in the
Straits of Gibraltar. Personally I think they are ugly, but if they
were shaped like the old Dutch windmills I wouldn't mind... he he..
I would love to have a home nuclear reactor, so I could tell my local
utility to suck eggs... They rape the public by buying the public
service regulators and their shareholders are comfortable knowing they
will never have a loss except in very rare circumstances. Their
officers have private apartments in London, Paris and Honolulu and
they fly around in plush corporate jets. After Katrina, the CEO got a
HUGE bonus (he called it obscene) and us customers got HUGE "enerfy
surcharge" to pay for utility's incompetence (even though natural gas
went down over $3, there was an almost 100% "fuel surcharge". The
whole system is corrupt from the White House to the dog house.
(rant over)
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:09:13 GMT, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>Dave Gower wrote:
>...
>
>Since this is posted to alt.energy.homepower, does this mean that
>you are advocating home nuclear reactors? Just how dangerous would
>it be to have a couple kW nuclear reactor in your garage? More to
>the point, how much red tape would be required? People go nuts just
>with the minute amount of radioactive material found in fire alarms.
>I can just imagine how insane people would get with enough isotopes
>to power their house.
>
>Anthony
| |
|
| It is very interesting to read your comments on roof-mounted micro wind
turbines and also the information on the website you linked to.
I am a protection engineer for a Distribution Network Operator in the UK
and part of my work is the approval of generation interconnections with
our network, up to 33kV. I have spoken to a number of very reputable
installers and designers of small scale embedded generation equipment
and they all say exactly the same thing about these roof-mounted devices.
I have to say too, regrettably, that some of the companies
selling/installing roof-mounted devices have a pretty poor regard for
statutory regulations and industry standards in my experience. They
certainly don't do themselves or their customers any favours by behaving
in such an unprofessional manner.
On a positive note, for every purveyor of snake-oil, there are at least
two very good companies looking after their (and our) customers!
I hope it won't be long before the media get their heads round the idea
that a roof-mounted wind turbine for every home is not the panacea for
climate change they currently think it is. There are plenty of other
ways to play your part in conserving energy.
regards
Craig
Eeyore wrote:
> I was pleased to discover the link below on a *repectable* home windpower site
> about the curent scam in the UK promoting rooftop windpower generation no doubt
> targeted at well-meaning townies who'd like to see themselves as 'green'.
>
> For my own part, I'd been amazed to see that one of the most prominent
> manufacturers of this kit ( now being sold in a well-known DIY chain ) shows
> average windspeed figures at 25 metre elevation to promote their product despite
> saying they can't install it any higher than your roof !
>
> http://www.scoraigwind.com/rooftop.html
>
> " Rooftop wind turbines are a load of nonsense
> Anyone who has experience in the industry knows that wind turbines require
> substantial quantities of wind to produce power. There may be strong gusts and
> turbulence around buildings but only a small amount of power is available in
> such locations.
>
> There are a number of manufacturers of rooftop wind turbines. They have sprung
> up to meet popular demand. There is no evidence that their products can deliver
> what they claim. Here are some of the web sites.
> http://www.renewabledevices.com/swift/specification.htm
> http://windsave.com/
> http://www.d400.co.uk/
> http://www.buildingmountedturbines.com/
> http://www.gual-industrie.com/
>
> The manufacturers of rooftop wind turbines invariably make quite unrealistic
> claims, and present a very strong marketing rather than engineering
> image............."
>
>
> Graham
>
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-12-10, 8:25 pm |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in
<457b5f40$0$8719$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, "Ian
Stirling" wrote:
> In alt.energy.renewable Alan Connor <i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid>
>wrote: <snip>
>
>
><snip>
>
>
> Now, explain why you can't figure out the maximum energy used
> to create a nuclear plant by doing the simple sum cost / price
> per Kwh of the cheapest form of energy.
Are you _serious_?
Energy is measured in units like BTUs, not dollars and cents.
Have you never heard of _subsidies_, out-front and hidden?
Direct and indirect? Of exploitation? Theft? Fraud?
You can buy something at a "discount store" for X dollars, but it
took no less energy to mine/process/manufacture/transport than
the same item at another store across town costing twice as much.
So let's start with the energy needed to mine/process/manufacture
/fuel the heavy equipment needed to clear the site for that
nuclear power plant.
It will take months. Perhaps 1/20 the service lifespan of that
heavy equipment.
And the energy needed to feed and otherwise provide the things
consumed by the workers involved.
Shall we start with the steel? 3 part iron ore, 10 parts coke
(made from coal) and 1 part crushed limestone. And a coking
plant. And a smelter.
Oh. There'll need to be a road made to the site, too.
And how about all the water needed to cool it? How is that
going to happen? A dam? Concrete production is _very_ energy
intensive. Going to need a lot of it, too, and not just for
a possible dam.
Banking and energy are two _very_ different subjects.
Nuclear power plants are _massively_ subsidized everywhere they
exist.
The cost of electricity from them in _no_ way reflects the
energy efficiency of the operation.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...ival/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...unix/index.html
| |
| Eeyore 2006-12-10, 8:25 pm |
|
Craig wrote:
> It is very interesting to read your comments on roof-mounted micro wind
> turbines and also the information on the website you linked to.
>
> I am a protection engineer for a Distribution Network Operator in the UK
> and part of my work is the approval of generation interconnections with
> our network, up to 33kV. I have spoken to a number of very reputable
> installers and designers of small scale embedded generation equipment
> and they all say exactly the same thing about these roof-mounted devices.
It's hard to deny the science !
> I have to say too, regrettably, that some of the companies
> selling/installing roof-mounted devices have a pretty poor regard for
> statutory regulations and industry standards in my experience. They
> certainly don't do themselves or their customers any favours by behaving
> in such an unprofessional manner.
>
> On a positive note, for every purveyor of snake-oil, there are at least
> two very good companies looking after their (and our) customers!
>
> I hope it won't be long before the media get their heads round the idea
> that a roof-mounted wind turbine for every home is not the panacea for
> climate change they currently think it is.
It's such an easy idea to sell though, like all the 'PC' nonsense that's floating
around in all manner of areas.
> There are plenty of other ways to play your part in conserving energy.
My own feeling is that a real push for better insulated homes would achieve far, far
more. And so so quickly.
Suppose you want to fit more insulation. There are supposedly some grants still
available but the paperwork is absurdly complicated, yet the government subsidy is
already built-in to these absurdy 'hi-tech solutions' like roof windpower that really
do no good at all.
The dice are firmly loaded in favour of the charlatans.
Graham
[color=darkred]
> regards
> Craig
>
> Eeyore wrote:
| |
| Ian Stirling 2006-12-10, 8:25 pm |
| In alt.energy.renewable Alan Connor <i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid> wrote:
> On alt.energy.homepower, in
> <457b5f40$0$8719$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, "Ian
> Stirling" wrote:
>
>
> Are you _serious_?
Yes.
>
> Energy is measured in units like BTUs, not dollars and cents.
Right.
You can't directly convert, as you don't know the fuel used.
However, you can work out a maximum energy use, by assuming it was the
cheapest available fuel.
> Have you never heard of _subsidies_, out-front and hidden?
> Direct and indirect? Of exploitation? Theft? Fraud?
Of course.
> So let's start with the energy needed to mine/process/manufacture
> /fuel the heavy equipment needed to clear the site for that
> nuclear power plant.
>
> It will take months. Perhaps 1/20 the service lifespan of that
> heavy equipment.
Which, as the mine operator is in the buisness of operating a mine, not
supporting the nuclear industry, he will perform the job at market
rates.
If he's paid a million dollars (including any subsidy), the absolute
maximum amount of energy he can use is a million dollars / $.02/Kwh
= 50 Gwh - assuming that that's the cheapest world energy
source.
> And the energy needed to feed and otherwise provide the things
> consumed by the workers involved.
A worker paid $10K cannot use more than $10K worth of energy.
Do you agree this is true?
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-12-10, 8:25 pm |
| Wow! Have you considered medication for this?
"cbx" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:tu1on25us6a1ohufg3l2ucs04ab46i0r9r@4ax.com...
> Being an old timer I can remember when people used your same exact
> argument for AC electricity, Natural Gas piped into the home , etc.
> With proper design, it will be safe. It may take a few casualties
> to
> get all the bugs worked out, but it will come.
>
> I won't be around but every home will have self-contained power one
> of
> these days, it's a logical concept.
>
> About wind, anyone who has walked under the huge wind generators
> along
> the Dutch coast knows wind power is great if you have the wind. I
> remember one particular Christmas Eve leaving my ship at the
> terminal
> Maas Vleckt, and walking under that row of HUGE wind generators to a
> little restaurant for a Christmas meal. These huge generators
> stretched all along the coast as far as the eye could see. The power
> being generated was awesome, you could hear it surging in the lines,
> and not a sound, nothing except an occasional slight "whish". I
> have
> seen wind farms in California and many other places around the
> world,
> even in the Mediterranean, Canada, Japan, etc. There is one in the
> Straits of Gibraltar. Personally I think they are ugly, but if they
> were shaped like the old Dutch windmills I wouldn't mind... he he..
>
> I would love to have a home nuclear reactor, so I could tell my
> local
> utility to suck eggs... They rape the public by buying the public
> service regulators and their shareholders are comfortable knowing
> they
> will never have a loss except in very rare circumstances. Their
> officers have private apartments in London, Paris and Honolulu and
> they fly around in plush corporate jets. After Katrina, the CEO got
> a
> HUGE bonus (he called it obscene) and us customers got HUGE "enerfy
> surcharge" to pay for utility's incompetence (even though natural
> gas
> went down over $3, there was an almost 100% "fuel surcharge". The
> whole system is corrupt from the White House to the dog house.
>
> (rant over)
>
>
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:09:13 GMT, Anthony Matonak
> <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-12-10, 9:25 pm |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in
<457cb0a6$0$8732$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, "Ian
Stirling" wrote:
> In alt.energy.renewable Alan Connor <i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Right. You can't directly convert, as you don't know the fuel
> used.
That's ridiculous.
The process of making a nuclear power plant begins with mining
and processing and manufacturing all of its components AND
everything needed to do _that_. (that portion of the service life
of anything manufactured devoted to making those components)
And delivering them to the site. From all over the world.
You don't know what fuels were involved because you have never
tried to find out because you don't _want_ to know.
You don't want to take an honest look at the true energy
efficiency of the overall project.
You want to make calculations that are very complex into
something simple and self-serving.
And grossly inaccurate.
Assuming that the end-user costs reflects the true energy
efficiency of the overall project is naive beyond belief.
Can you chew gum and walk at the same time?
<snip>
Alan
| |
| Rolf Martens 2006-12-11, 9:25 am |
| In article <vcCdnV8bv_Z2JOfYnZ2dnUVZ_rqhnZ2d@magma.ca>,
davegow.removethis.@magma.ca says...
>
>
>
>"Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote
>
>
>While there are limitations to wind power, this blanket condemnation
>overstates the negatives. In very good sites, with large and advanced
>turbines it is a commercially viable proposition. And it can also be a
>practical energy source in remote locations, especially if reliable solar
>energy is not available.
>
>One promising form of wind power that is getting a more serious look now is
>wave power.
>
>I do agree, however, that nuclear needs to be considered more seriously.
>Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are examples of how not to do nuclear, but
>there are much better designs. And the waste problem can be managed.
>
I still maintain: Windmills will remain inefficient and expensive,
since there is so little energy per cubic unit in moving air. They are
being subsidized for propaganda reasons. Even in far-away regions, in
the long run power lines coupled to nuclear power plants are much
better. The Chernobyl and TMI were not due to wrong constructions
but to manipulations, in both cases - extreme manifstations
of the anti-nuclear-energy and anti-industry campaigns.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-12-11, 1:26 pm |
| cbx wrote:
> Being an old timer I can remember when people used your same exact
> argument for AC electricity, Natural Gas piped into the home , etc.
> With proper design, it will be safe. It may take a few casualties to
> get all the bugs worked out, but it will come.
>
> I won't be around but every home will have self-contained power one of
> these days, it's a logical concept.
I'm not so sure. People die every year from accidents with stoves, furnaces
and electrical wiring, but that isn't politically as bad as anything to do
with nuclear.
>
> About wind, anyone who has walked under the huge wind generators along
> the Dutch coast knows wind power is great if you have the wind.
And while I'll agree that - in general - rooftop windpower is a bad idea, I
get reasonable payback from my Air-X mounted to my (detached) garage roof.
If the wind's out of the North or North-west, turbulence from the house is
a real problem, but wind out of the South or South-west (the prevailing
direction) is completely free of obstruction for a few thousand miles (Nova
Scotia coast). One of these days I'll get the turbine up another 30' and
really get the most out of it, but the trade-off in ease of maintenance and
cost of cable keeps me from making that jump.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-12-11, 1:26 pm |
| Ian Stirling wrote:
> In alt.energy.renewable Alan Connor <i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid> wrote:
>
> Now, explain why you can't figure out the maximum energy used to create
> a nuclear plant by doing the simple sum cost / price per Kwh of the
> cheapest form of energy.
>
Sure you can work out the real cost, but afaict nobody really _has_ done
that yet.
Cost of Building + cost of subsidies + cost of waste-disposal = ?
In fact, if all of those were taken into account, the number you really want
is not cost / price per Kwh, it's simply the price per Kwh. The Kwh rate
for nuclear power is lower than it should be because of the subsidies and
the still-unknown costs of waste disposal.
Which is not to say that I'm anti-nuclear. I think that if the nuclear
generating companies really had to pay for permanent disposal of waste, and
got no subsidies (or at least no more than the fossil fuel industry) they'd
still be the low-cost provider, but that's just my opinion.
--
derek
| |
|
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:457CAFD0.E3E59BE4@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Craig wrote:
>
>
> It's hard to deny the science !
>
>
>
> It's such an easy idea to sell though, like all the 'PC' nonsense that's
> floating
> around in all manner of areas.
>
>
>
> My own feeling is that a real push for better insulated homes would
> achieve far, far
> more. And so so quickly.
>
> Suppose you want to fit more insulation. There are supposedly some grants
> still
> available but the paperwork is absurdly complicated, yet the government
> subsidy is
> already built-in to these absurdy 'hi-tech solutions' like roof windpower
> that really
> do no good at all.
>
> The dice are firmly loaded in favour of the charlatans.
>
> Graham
>
>
Be very carefull who you get the advice from, only there is a great deal of
spin in them turbines.
Consisider even in a great spot with max generating winds you cannot expect
more than 35% of any day to get generating wind speeds.
A dwelling would probably not so advantagously sited, think more along the
15% - 20% generating time.
An helical will do better in awkward spots but at a bigger price tag for a
sound design.
Put your cash into insulation especially that first 150 mm, 300 mm still
gives a good saving, clad the north facing wall and insulate upto 100 mm. do
the lot if it is feasible, and can look good.
This is where modern semi underground design is good, built into an hill
side.
Straw houses 450 mm of insulated walls, much under utilised.[color=darkred]
>
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-12-11, 1:26 pm |
|
"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:457b4b5b$0$8712$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> I'm actually at the moment adding 100mm of rockwool to my walls, as
> they were uninsulated. This is a large job, and will pay back in some
> 2-3 years.
You're only doing that NOW? We did ours donkey's years ago. It wasn't a
large job and the difference was perceptible immediately.
>
> Single glazed windows - for example, unless the rest of the property is
> well insulated are rarely a major source of heat loss.
But they are a source of discomfort which makes people turn up the heat.
> And double glazing is comparatively expensive, compared to some other
> options.
Depends how you do it. We did ours ourselves, fitting factory made to
measure dg panes into existing wooden frames. The best of all worlds,
inexpensive, no ugly plastic, no cutting down of light ingress because of
wide frames and instant comfort.
Mary
>
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-12-11, 1:26 pm |
|
"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis.@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:vcCdnV8bv_Z2JOfYnZ2dnUVZ_rqhnZ2d@magma.ca...
>
> "Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote
>
>
> While there are limitations to wind power, this blanket condemnation
> overstates the negatives. In very good sites, with large and advanced
> turbines it is a commercially viable proposition. And it can also be a
> practical energy source in remote locations, especially if reliable solar
> energy is not available.
Yes. Good installers will tell city dwellers that, we were.
>
> One promising form of wind power that is getting a more serious look now
> is wave power.
>
> I do agree, however, that nuclear needs to be considered more seriously.
> Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are examples of how not to do nuclear, but
> there are much better designs. And the waste problem can be managed.
Yes, but Three Mile Island isn't a good 'bad' example. Nobody died as a
result of that leak.
Far more people have died and are dying as a result of coal mining and
probably even oil excavation.
I support nuclear but that doesn't mean that I as an individual have no part
to play in the scheme of things.
Mary
>
>
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-12-11, 1:26 pm |
|
<usenet2006@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fe4f12c1578c7ab98989e@nntp.aioe.org...
> In article <457b44da.874812@news.tpg.com.au>, mauried@tpg.com.au
> says...
>
>
>
> I fully agree.
>
> I should get electricity, but by nearest neighbours should be
> turned off.
>
> They are wankers, anyway.
Don't they turn off the light to do that?
>
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-12-11, 1:26 pm |
|
"Craig" <craigwatson_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:fI-dnXtbRIp3D-HYnZ2dnUVZ8qeknZ2d@bt.com...
>
> On a positive note, for every purveyor of snake-oil, there are at least
> two very good companies looking after their (and our) customers!
There might even be three - we had one!
>
> I hope it won't be long before the media get their heads round the idea
> that a roof-mounted wind turbine for every home is not the panacea for
> climate change they currently think it is. There are plenty of other ways
> to play your part in conserving energy.
Yes, and I think we should, but many seem opposed to it :-(
>
> regards
> Craig
>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-12-11, 1:26 pm |
| Mary Fisher wrote:
>
> "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:457b4b5b$0$8712$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
I love rockwool - very difficult to get in Nova Scotia, though.[color=darkred]
LOL. What a fine example of different building techniques in the UK &
Canada. Here single glazed windows are almost always a major source of
heat loss.[color=darkred]
>
> But they are a source of discomfort which makes people turn up the heat.
>
>
> Depends how you do it. We did ours ourselves, fitting factory made to
> measure dg panes into existing wooden frames. The best of all worlds,
> inexpensive, no ugly plastic, no cutting down of light ingress because of
> wide frames and instant comfort.
Yes, we've done that very cheaply too. Actually buying single panes of
glass here is just not done. I don't know if I could get it from the local
hardware store, but it's a custom order from a glass shop.
--
derek
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-12-11, 5:25 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:b3l054-fjh.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>
>
> I love rockwool - very difficult to get in Nova Scotia, though.
It's provided by the installers here :-)
>
> LOL. What a fine example of different building techniques in the UK &
> Canada. Here single glazed windows are almost always a major source of
> heat loss.
They are here too but the official line is that they're not. I have no idea
why that's said.
>
> Yes, we've done that very cheaply too. Actually buying single panes of
> glass here is just not done. I don't know if I could get it from the
> local
> hardware store, but it's a custom order from a glass shop.
There are other uses for glass though ... recently we've bought single glass
for the greenhouse, picture framing, shelf lining ... there must be other
applications.
Mary
> --
> derek
| |
| Ian Stirling 2006-12-12, 1:25 pm |
| In alt.energy.renewable Mary Fisher <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:457b4b5b$0$8712$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> You're only doing that NOW? We did ours donkey's years ago. It wasn't a
> large job and the difference was perceptible immediately.
If only.
Unfortunately, it's quite a large job.
I am not 100% fit, or close to it, and it involves removing all of the
existing plasterboard, without really adequate room to put the existing
room contents, removing the battens that the plasterboard attaches to,
making new fixings for new battens, angle-grinding off the edges of the
windows, so there is enough space for foam insulation (60cm deep
windows, otherwise it'd be a huge heat leak) attaching the fixings
to the stone, putting a layer of thin sticks on these against the wall,
attaching mesh so that there is an air gap between the stone and the
rockwool, pushing the rockwool over the fixings so that it's against the
wall, attaching the battening, fixing the plasterboard to the battening,
and making good.
Not to mention a complete rewire at the same time, and all of the little
jobs that needed done at some point, which logically is at this time.
And I'm on a severe budget, so the simple quick solutions are often out
of my price range.
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-12-12, 1:25 pm |
|
"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:457ed0e8$0$8748$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> In alt.energy.renewable Mary Fisher <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> If only.
> Unfortunately, it's quite a large job.
I think I must have misunderstood. You're not having your cavity walls
filled, sorry. That really is NOT a large job.
>
>
> Not to mention a complete rewire at the same time, and all of the little
> jobs that needed done at some point, which logically is at this time.
Those 'little jobs' can double the time and more than double the mess. I
vowed I'd never have re-wiring done again :-(
>
> And I'm on a severe budget, so the simple quick solutions are often out
> of my price range.
Aye, I'm glad I have Spouse ...
Mary
>
>
| |
| Ian Stirling 2006-12-12, 1:25 pm |
| In alt.energy.renewable Mary Fisher <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:457ed0e8$0$8748$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> I think I must have misunderstood. You're not having your cavity walls
> filled, sorry. That really is NOT a large job.
Yeah.
I considered the half-way step of foil papering the inside of the
plasterboard, re-skimming, and pouring in insulation.
Unfortunately, that's not quite as simple as it seemed either.
I then looked at the prices, and found that the payback for the full job
was around 3 winters, so it's well worth doing.
>
> Those 'little jobs' can double the time and more than double the mess. I
> vowed I'd never have re-wiring done again :-(
I don't think so.
Angle grinding off 60cm*10cm*60cm of brick, while accidentally having
the extractor fan going backwards really produces quite a lot of mess 
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-12-12, 8:25 pm |
| Mary Fisher wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:b3l054-fjh.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> It's provided by the installers here :-)
I talked to an executive at one of the big building supply companies and he
explained that he could ship twice as much Fiberglass insulation for the
same price as rockwool (it compresses better) and the shipping costs were
just too high from the nearest manufacturer (about 2000km).
>
> They are here too but the official line is that they're not. I have no
> idea why that's said.
Well, they're not that big a deal when, as I understand it, there's still a
lot of uninsulated homes in the UK. Once you have decent insulation in the
walls - and air flow barriers - then single glazed windows are a big deal.
> There are other uses for glass though ... recently we've bought single
> glass for the greenhouse, picture framing, shelf lining ... there must be
> other applications.
There are - but I swear it's easier to get sealed double-glazed units at any
size than a single pane of glass around here.
--
derek
| |
| Robert McCall 2006-12-13, 3:25 am |
| Pro nuclear..?? I must be in the 1950's. Umm.... maybe you forgot, there
is one important thing VERY wrong with nuclear power. Nuclear power looks
good on paper.. the science behind it idolizes it.. it appeals to our
techno-ego's... who can resist..?!! But life is about balances. Where
there's pro, there's con. And when I think con, I think of Hanford,
Washington. I'm downwind from there (and eventually everyone else is
too)... and sometimes I don't sleep too well at night.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/nuke27.shtml
"Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote
> The entire windmill propaganda is for
> reactionary political reasons, in order to make some people
> think there's something wrong with the really efficient energy
> sources - nuclear power plants, above all, and also oil etc.
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-12-13, 9:25 am |
|
"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:457edfe4$0$8733$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> I don't think so.
> Angle grinding off 60cm*10cm*60cm of brick, while accidentally having
> the extractor fan going backwards really produces quite a lot of mess
:-)
We've decided, in our dotage, that when we do anything from now on it will
be permanent, it will have to see us out. I'm fed up of living on a building
site/plumbers' warehouse/decorators' showroom.
Nothing fashionable, everything easily livable-with - but it has to work as
well. So far it's working. We only have three bedrooms, the dining room, the
hall, stairs and landing, paving the garden paths and terrace, re-roofing
the big shed - then we can sit back and enjoy.
Or enjoy the long rest in our boxes :-)
Mary
>
| |
| Ian Stirling 2006-12-13, 9:25 am |
| In alt.energy.renewable Mary Fisher <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:457edfe4$0$8733$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> :-)
>
> We've decided, in our dotage, that when we do anything from now on it will
> be permanent, it will have to see us out. I'm fed up of living on a building
> site/plumbers' warehouse/decorators' showroom.
Though considerably younger, I'm heading the same way.
For example, I'm considering leading the gable, to fix that for the long
term, rather than re-rendering.
At the moment being annoyed at the price of lead roofing material, and
wondering if scrappies have suitable non-antimony contaminated lead, to
do the lead sheet casting thing.
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-12-13, 1:25 pm |
|
"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45800698$0$8715$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> In alt.energy.renewable Mary Fisher <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Though considerably younger, I'm heading the same way.
> For example, I'm considering leading the gable, to fix that for the long
> term, rather than re-rendering.
Oh bugger! I'd forgotten the flaunching :-( And some pointing on the ridge
tiles ...
>
> At the moment being annoyed at the price of lead roofing material, and
> wondering if scrappies have suitable non-antimony contaminated lead, to
> do the lead sheet casting thing.
You'd probably have to catch 'em quick ...
Mary
| |
| HeyBub 2006-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| Robert McCall wrote:
> Pro nuclear..?? I must be in the 1950's. Umm.... maybe you forgot,
> there is one important thing VERY wrong with nuclear power. Nuclear
> power looks good on paper.. the science behind it idolizes it.. it
> appeals to our techno-ego's... who can resist..?!! But life is
> about balances. Where there's pro, there's con. And when I think
> con, I think of Hanford, Washington. I'm downwind from there (and
> eventually everyone else is too)... and sometimes I don't sleep too
> well at night.
That's because your fear is irrational. The most dangerous form of power
generation that we know of is hydroelectric. Dams don't fail often, but when
they do...
I say "that we know of" because we don't even know the NAMES of all the
stuff that comes out of the stack of a coal-fired power plant.
As for radiation, there are three and only three problems associated with
radiation: Radiation posioning, cancer, and genetic mutation. With radiation
posioning, you either get over it or you die. We know more about cancer than
almost any other disease. There has never been a case of a genetically
mutated fetus being born. The problems, then, with nuclear power are known
and manageable.
You speak of balances. If you are willing to accept the death rate
associated with the mining of coal to power electric plants and if the death
rate attributable to nuclear power can be shown to be far, far less, would
you then accept nuclear power as acceptable?
No, I didn't think so.
| |
| Robert McCall 2006-12-18, 3:25 am |
| "HeyBub" wrote:
> There has never been a case of a genetically mutated fetus being born.
Google "chernobyl mutations".
>The problems, then, with nuclear power are known and manageable.
"Bury and forget" is not managing.
> You speak of balances. If you are willing to accept the death rate
> associated with the mining of coal to power electric plants and if the
> death rate attributable to nuclear power can be shown to be far, far less,
> would you then accept nuclear power as acceptable?
>
> No, I didn't think so.
Nope, I wouldn't. Read this: ". . . the number of children and
grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or
with poison in their lungs might seem statistically small to some, in
comparison with natural health hazards, but this is not a natural health
hazard--and it is not a statistical issue. The loss of even one human life,
or the malformation of even one baby--who may be born long after we are
gone--should be of concern to us all. Our children and grandchildren are not
merely statistics toward which we can be indifferent."
-- President Kennedy, June, 1963
| |
| Eeyore 2006-12-18, 3:25 am |
|
Robert McCall wrote:
> "HeyBub" wrote:
>
> Google "chernobyl mutations".
I saw a documentary about Prypiat ( the town that housed the Chernobyl workers )
recently.
Apparently the local wildlife is thriving and there's no evidence of mutations.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2006-12-18, 3:25 am |
|
Robert McCall wrote:
> "HeyBub" wrote:
>
> Google "chernobyl mutations".
>
>
> "Bury and forget" is not managing.
>
>
> Nope, I wouldn't. Read this: ". . . the number of children and
> grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or
> with poison in their lungs might seem statistically small to some, in
> comparison with natural health hazards, but this is not a natural health
> hazard--and it is not a statistical issue. The loss of even one human life,
> or the malformation of even one baby--who may be born long after we are
> gone--should be of concern to us all. Our children and grandchildren are not
> merely statistics toward which we can be indifferent."
How many ppls lives are blighted by coal fired power generation ?
Graham
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-12-18, 1:25 pm |
| HeyBub wrote:
> That's because your fear is irrational. The most dangerous form of power
> generation that we know of is hydroelectric. Dams don't fail often, but
> when they do...
>
> I say "that we know of" because we don't even know the NAMES of all the
> stuff that comes out of the stack of a coal-fired power plant.
>
> As for radiation, there are three and only three problems associated with
> radiation: Radiation posioning, cancer, and genetic mutation. With
> radiation posioning, you either get over it or you die. We know more about
> cancer than almost any other disease. There has never been a case of a
> genetically mutated fetus being born.
You mean, as above, "that we know of". Genetic mutations happen _all_ the
time, but first you need to look for them, then you need to know what
caused them and you're probably right that nobody ever proved a that
mutation was caused by nuclear power plants.
> The problems, then, with nuclear
> power are known and manageable.
The problems are known and _probably_ manageable. If only someone would
step up to the plate and accept responsibility for managing the waste...
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-12-18, 1:25 pm |
| Eeyore wrote:
> Robert McCall wrote:
>
>
> I saw a documentary about Prypiat ( the town that housed the Chernobyl
> workers ) recently.
>
> Apparently the local wildlife is thriving and there's no evidence of
> mutations.
And it's not to be expected either. Almost all serious mutations will
result in aborted fetuses, or babies born seriously enough deformed that
they are killed or abandoned to die. The wildlife thrives because there is
very little competition from humans (though there is some "wild" human life
in the red zone, too).
--
derek
|
|
|
|
|