The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
A view on the safety of commercial nuclear power: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/s...
">
Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident.
<"
">
Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident.
<"
hidetheelephants said:
Gary C said:
Your wrong.
Sadly, very very wrong.
Could you point me at some literature? Sadly, very very wrong.
On a vaguely related note last week I talked to a chap who works for a multinational pump maker; he's running a quite lucrative research contract for the US DoE/national lab system developing pumps for molten salts.
https://www.lep.co.uk/news/worker-fell-to-death-in...
They are fairly safe places to work, but are still very large industrial plants, some buildings are over 40 years old.
V8 Fettler said:
A view on the safety of commercial nuclear power: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/s...
"Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."
By comparison how many people have been chopped-up by the blades on a wind turbine?"Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."
Quoting numbers of people who died whilst falling down the stairs at a particular site isn't very relevant as that's just the luck of the draw and you could fall on any site, anywhere.
HairyPoppins said:
V8 Fettler said:
A view on the safety of commercial nuclear power: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/s...
"Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."
By comparison how many people have been chopped-up by the blades on a wind turbine?"Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."
Why not ask how many humans have been chopped up by radiator fans in car accidents - because like the above it's a silly question.
Construction site accidents occur on all manner of sites, it's not a nuclear issue.
Try windymill blades with birds of prey and bats.
turbobloke said:
Curious question, given that humans can't fly - looks like trolling.
This from the man who's trolling almost the entire scientific community with his views on CC. 
turbobloke said:
Why not ask how many humans have been chopped up by radiator fans in car accidents - because like the above it's a silly question.
Try windymill blades with birds of prey and bats.
Try coal mines with actual humans. Try Oil Rigs with birds, fish, mammals and humans. Try windymill blades with birds of prey and bats.
HairyPoppins said:
Try coal mines with actual humans. Try Oil Rigs with birds, fish, mammals and humans.
But coal mines and oil rigs do useful things for the benefit of many. Eco-crucifixes merely destabilise the national grid, kill birds and bats purely so some landowners can farm tax payer's money. On the balance of cost/benefit (including all benefits and all actual costs - not ones invented in climate models that bare no relation to reality) why in Gaia's name do we allow these monstrosities. 
HairyPoppins said:
By comparison how many people have been chopped-up by the blades on a wind turbine?
Quoting numbers of people who died whilst falling down the stairs at a particular site isn't very relevant as that's just the luck of the draw and you could fall on any site, anywhere.
It was very relevant when it happened to us.Quoting numbers of people who died whilst falling down the stairs at a particular site isn't very relevant as that's just the luck of the draw and you could fall on any site, anywhere.
The saddest day I have ever had at work.
Gary C said:
HairyPoppins said:
By comparison how many people have been chopped-up by the blades on a wind turbine?
Quoting numbers of people who died whilst falling down the stairs at a particular site isn't very relevant as that's just the luck of the draw and you could fall on any site, anywhere.
It was very relevant when it happened to us.Quoting numbers of people who died whilst falling down the stairs at a particular site isn't very relevant as that's just the luck of the draw and you could fall on any site, anywhere.
The saddest day I have ever had at work.
However for religiously blinkered wind advocates, any diversion will do however crass.
turbobloke said:
Gary C said:
HairyPoppins said:
By comparison how many people have been chopped-up by the blades on a wind turbine?
Quoting numbers of people who died whilst falling down the stairs at a particular site isn't very relevant as that's just the luck of the draw and you could fall on any site, anywhere.
It was very relevant when it happened to us.Quoting numbers of people who died whilst falling down the stairs at a particular site isn't very relevant as that's just the luck of the draw and you could fall on any site, anywhere.
The saddest day I have ever had at work.
However for religiously blinkered wind advocates, any diversion will do however crass.
Gary C said:
turbobloke said:
Gary C said:
HairyPoppins said:
By comparison how many people have been chopped-up by the blades on a wind turbine?
Quoting numbers of people who died whilst falling down the stairs at a particular site isn't very relevant as that's just the luck of the draw and you could fall on any site, anywhere.
It was very relevant when it happened to us.Quoting numbers of people who died whilst falling down the stairs at a particular site isn't very relevant as that's just the luck of the draw and you could fall on any site, anywhere.
The saddest day I have ever had at work.
However for religiously blinkered wind advocates, any diversion will do however crass.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You are bang out of order TB.
Once again you derailed a useful interesting thread with misdirection from the core subject and reason it was started already.
Read back a page or two all and see the charade that has been played out by you and your crowd. Zero actual input. Just barracking.
I too have lost good men on construction projects. Not wind. It hangs on with you for years.
It's a form of trolling and he's excellent at it. Not least because he's the first to call out others for it.Once again you derailed a useful interesting thread with misdirection from the core subject and reason it was started already.
Read back a page or two all and see the charade that has been played out by you and your crowd. Zero actual input. Just barracking.
I too have lost good men on construction projects. Not wind. It hangs on with you for years.
Now blame transfer gets added to the white elephant fairytales.
All I've done in recent pages is respond to dreck and trolling. Sure, don't feed etc but sometimes it's feeding time and sometimes it isn't.
It's not about me or rolando or anyone else; it's about costly, pointless and useless renewables, while laughing at the dogma offered in defence.
Renewables cannot work (quote, RE<C), intermittency cannot be solved by storage as EROEI gets 'fatally' worse. A total waste of taxpayers' money (particularly subsidies) beyond the occasional vanity project.
When reality is pointed out, personal angle name-calling or other tantrum behaviour results from renewables advocates. Exactly as per the actions of the British Wind Energy Association towards individuals who wrote letters to newspapers opposing wind power - attack them personally "we know where you live" (because addresses/locations are printed with letters).
Such stand-over thuggery is par for the course.
All I've done in recent pages is respond to dreck and trolling. Sure, don't feed etc but sometimes it's feeding time and sometimes it isn't.
It's not about me or rolando or anyone else; it's about costly, pointless and useless renewables, while laughing at the dogma offered in defence.
Renewables cannot work (quote, RE<C), intermittency cannot be solved by storage as EROEI gets 'fatally' worse. A total waste of taxpayers' money (particularly subsidies) beyond the occasional vanity project.
When reality is pointed out, personal angle name-calling or other tantrum behaviour results from renewables advocates. Exactly as per the actions of the British Wind Energy Association towards individuals who wrote letters to newspapers opposing wind power - attack them personally "we know where you live" (because addresses/locations are printed with letters).
Such stand-over thuggery is par for the course.
It occurred to me that it's been pretty cold & still the last few days, so I had a look at Gridwatch to see how the grid was holding up. I was a bit surprised - Wind is still putting out 8.2GW (though falling over the last few mins), Nuclear is down to 6.2GW and the coal stations seem to be running flat out at 9.5GW. Demand is 48.8GW - this is at 1710 today.
Had a quick look at the Met Office wind map (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/wind-map/ ) which suggested that windspeeds are fairly low at the moment & will remain low into next week. It's apparently going to warm up early next week, so we might not get the cold & no wind demonstration that I'd hoped to see. The National Grid winter outlook suggests that the year's max demand will probably be next week or the week after as well.
Does anyone know of a way to see if the grid are sending out capacity warnings to their big customers?
Had a quick look at the Met Office wind map (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/wind-map/ ) which suggested that windspeeds are fairly low at the moment & will remain low into next week. It's apparently going to warm up early next week, so we might not get the cold & no wind demonstration that I'd hoped to see. The National Grid winter outlook suggests that the year's max demand will probably be next week or the week after as well.
Does anyone know of a way to see if the grid are sending out capacity warnings to their big customers?
alangla said:
It occurred to me that it's been pretty cold & still the last few days, so I had a look at Gridwatch to see how the grid was holding up. I was a bit surprised - Wind is still putting out 8.2GW (though falling over the last few mins), Nuclear is down to 6.2GW and the coal stations seem to be running flat out at 9.5GW. Demand is 48.8GW - this is at 1710 today.
Had a quick look at the Met Office wind map (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/wind-map/ ) which suggested that windspeeds are fairly low at the moment & will remain low into next week. It's apparently going to warm up early next week, so we might not get the cold & no wind demonstration that I'd hoped to see. The National Grid winter outlook suggests that the year's max demand will probably be next week or the week after as well.
Does anyone know of a way to see if the grid are sending out capacity warnings to their big customers?
https://gbcmn.nationalgrid.co.uk/Had a quick look at the Met Office wind map (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/wind-map/ ) which suggested that windspeeds are fairly low at the moment & will remain low into next week. It's apparently going to warm up early next week, so we might not get the cold & no wind demonstration that I'd hoped to see. The National Grid winter outlook suggests that the year's max demand will probably be next week or the week after as well.
Does anyone know of a way to see if the grid are sending out capacity warnings to their big customers?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff