Switch off at the socket?

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:27:49 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Or as happened in the sub-prime mortgage market in the US lending
more than the asset was ever going to be worth. That was the root
cause of the problem and the house of cards has collapsed when
these,
effectively unsecured, loans became bad what 2, 3 years ago.

More than it was ever going to be worth - in how long?

The time period isn't particularly relevant, the fact the loan is for
more than the asset value is bad and nothing more than a gamble. You
can't know if some one is going to default in 1 month, 1 year, 10
years or never.

And remember this was the sub-prime market, loaning money to people
who didn't have much income and/or poor credit histories. A much
higher risk of default from the outset.

The time period _is_ relevant: if the lender thinks the value of the
asset will have increased by enough to cover the admin. costs (less what
the poor schmuck has actually managed to pay) by the time they sell the
repossessed asset, then they think they were covered. So lending more
than it's worth _now_ isn't as mad as it sounds - _if_ you think it's on
a steady upward rise in value.

Not that I condone such activity! IMO, falling property prices are, of
themselves, a good thing, even though I own one and would thus lose
(out) [but then I favoured the poll tax as fairer, though I'd have been
far worse off under it]; it's just the effect on the general economy
that makes them (falling property prices) less desirable. And that's
(endlessly) debatable, too.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

(Remember, of course, that all elements are radioactive, and have a half
life. It's just that most have such long half lives that we don't
normally _consider_ them radioactive.)

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

That is, for there being no completely stable isotopes?

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In message , Richard Tobin
writes:
In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

(Remember, of course, that all elements are radioactive, and have a half
life. It's just that most have such long half lives that we don't
normally _consider_ them radioactive.)

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

That is, for there being no completely stable isotopes?

-- Richard

Hmm, I thought I had, but on further investigation, it seems I'm
probably wrong - though I would argue that "stable" is not the same as
"has never been seen to decay".

A couple of interesting sites - where I find iron has either 8 or 28
isotopes, 4 declared "stable" and the 4 having half-lives ranging from
8.2h to 3x10^5 yrs - a

http://www.periodictable.com/
(http://www.periodictable.com/Elements/026/data.html)

and

http://www.rsc.org/chemsoc/visualele...rtable_fla.htm
(http://www.rsc.org/chemsoc/visualele...iron_data.html)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:07:12 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


Wind power is intermittent. You can't call on it when demand needs it.

I continue to fail to see why that keeps being presented as a reason not
to use it when it _is_ there. Yes, you need 100% (or almost 100%)
alternative capacity for when the wind isn't blowing, so anyone who
_relies_ on wind is just plain daft

It's largely a matter of economics...

If you build a conventional power station you expect to get a return on
your investment based on running your generators for, plucking a figure
out of the air, 80% of the time.

If you're building backup for a wind turbine then that 80% will drop
dramatically. If it doesn't then there is no point in using wind in the
first place. But then that means it'll take much longer before the
building the backup becomes a profitable exercise. It may even get to the
point where you don't earn all your outlay back in the lifetime of the
backup itself and the only way for the backup generator to make a profit
is to essentially have it subsidised by the taxpayer.

You can have any mix of power you like... as long as you're prepared to
accept & pay for the results.

BW

In message ,
Bambleweeny57 writes:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:07:12 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


Wind power is intermittent. You can't call on it when demand needs it.

I continue to fail to see why that keeps being presented as a reason not
to use it when it _is_ there. Yes, you need 100% (or almost 100%)
alternative capacity for when the wind isn't blowing, so anyone who
_relies_ on wind is just plain daft

It's largely a matter of economics...

If you build a conventional power station you expect to get a return on
your investment based on running your generators for, plucking a figure
out of the air, 80% of the time.

If you're building backup for a wind turbine then that 80% will drop
dramatically. If it doesn't then there is no point in using wind in the
first place. But then that means it'll take much longer before the
building the backup becomes a profitable exercise. It may even get to the
point where you don't earn all your outlay back in the lifetime of the
backup itself and the only way for the backup generator to make a profit
is to essentially have it subsidised by the taxpayer.

I see where you're going, and will have to admit that _for a cold start_
(no capacity of any sort), you _might_ have a point (though see below).

However, we're not starting from a zero point - we already _have_ the
"backup" capacity. Granted, lots of it is coming to the end of its life,
especially nuclear (with the standards as currently enforced, anyway)
....

You can have any mix of power you like... as long as you're prepared to
accept & pay for the results.
[]
Indeed. (All power is free - you just have to pay someone to get at it -
such as dig it up.) But I still suspect that - for the amount where it
is likely to be generating for a significant proportion of the time,
which for the UK is likely to be a small amount of the total consumption
- it _is_ worth building at least _some_ windmills (and that "some"
equates to "more than we have so far"). At present levels of
consumption, I'd be surprised if it ever represents a significant
percentage of the whole, but I don't think that's a reason to not build
_any_. (And, strangely, the perfectly valid point that backup capacity
has to be available is _helped_ by the smallness of the proportion: you
_won't_ have _lots_ of capacity sitting idle, since the wind isn't going
to provide a _lot_ of the capacity anyway, unlike say in Denmark.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:46:30 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:



I see where you're going, and will have to admit that _for a cold start_
(no capacity of any sort), you _might_ have a point (though see below).

However, we're not starting from a zero point - we already _have_ the
"backup" capacity. Granted, lots of it is coming to the end of its life,
especially nuclear (with the standards as currently enforced, anyway)
Yes, we already have backup capacity but its already "spoken for" by a
combination of variations in load and redundant capacity to cover for
maintenance and failure. Shaving a few points off that backup capacity
just increases the scope for large scale, systematic failure.


You can have any mix of power you like... as long as you're prepared to
accept & pay for the results.
[]
Indeed. (All power is free - you just have to pay someone to get at it -
such as dig it up.) But I still suspect that - for the amount where it
is likely to be generating for a significant proportion of the time,
which for the UK is likely to be a small amount of the total consumption
- it _is_ worth building at least _some_ windmills (and that "some"
equates to "more than we have so far"). At present levels of
consumption, I'd be surprised if it ever represents a significant
percentage of the whole, but I don't think that's a reason to not build
_any_.
If it never represents a significant percentage of the whole it's only
ever going to be a distraction from the real issue of how we cater for
our energy need for the next 50 years.

(And, strangely, the perfectly valid point that backup capacity
has to be available is _helped_ by the smallness of the proportion: you
_won't_ have _lots_ of capacity sitting idle, since the wind isn't going
to provide a _lot_ of the capacity anyway, unlike say in Denmark.)

Denmark uses about 20% wind generation capacity in "in country" power.
However, it is connected to the continental European grid so it has
access to a massive source/sink to counter the variability of wind.

BW

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:46:30 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


I see where you're going, and will have to admit that _for a cold start_
(no capacity of any sort), you _might_ have a point (though see below).

However, we're not starting from a zero point - we already _have_ the
"backup" capacity. Granted, lots of it is coming to the end of its life,
especially nuclear (with the standards as currently enforced, anyway)
Yes, we already have backup capacity but its already "spoken for" by a
combination of variations in load and redundant capacity to cover for
maintenance and failure. Shaving a few points off that backup capacity
just increases the scope for large scale, systematic failure.


You can have any mix of power you like... as long as you're prepared to
accept & pay for the results.
[]
Indeed. (All power is free - you just have to pay someone to get at it -
such as dig it up.) But I still suspect that - for the amount where it
is likely to be generating for a significant proportion of the time,
which for the UK is likely to be a small amount of the total consumption
- it _is_ worth building at least _some_ windmills (and that "some"
equates to "more than we have so far"). At present levels of
consumption, I'd be surprised if it ever represents a significant
percentage of the whole, but I don't think that's a reason to not build
_any_.
If it never represents a significant percentage of the whole it's only
ever going to be a distraction from the real issue of how we cater for
our energy need for the next 50 years.

(And, strangely, the perfectly valid point that backup capacity
has to be available is _helped_ by the smallness of the proportion: you
_won't_ have _lots_ of capacity sitting idle, since the wind isn't going
to provide a _lot_ of the capacity anyway, unlike say in Denmark.)

Denmark uses about 20% wind generation capacity in "in country" power.
However, it is connected to the continental European grid so it has
access to a massive source/sink to counter the variability of wind.


for which it pays through the nose, and generates MORE carbon as a result.
BW

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:02:01 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:03:15 +0100, Derek Geldard wrote:

Not true, in fact. All radioactive isotopes decay according to their
half lives. When they're gone, they're gone.

"Half life", the period of time it takes for half of the orginal
substance to have decayed. After that time it's another equal period
for the next half to decay, still leaving you with 1/4 of the orginal
amount.

However it doesn't take many half lives for activity to decay to a
level lower than the natural background, whence it will become
undetectable - and it will still keep on decaying.

In the medical isotope industry it is reckoned that all radiactivity
may be taken to have ceased after 6 half lives. If the half life is 6
hours (TC99m) then effectively it's all gone after 36 hours and a big
dose can safely be injected into a patient for a radionuclide scan.
After 10 half lives the activity is down to about 0.5 per million of
what you started with.

If it's 12,000 years it will be rather longer, but decay it will.

An isotope also has a bilogical half life which is the rate that it
would be eliminated from the body by normal bodily functions.

Of course it depends on the substance how long the half life is, they
vary from seconds to thousands of years but most are fairly short and
the level of radiation decreases over time as well. The nature of the
radiation is important as well, alpha particles are easyly stopped
for example.

Common misconception, along with "If an isotope has a long half life
it's not very radioactive", -erm no 1 millicurie is 1 millicurie .

NB. if high energy Alpha emitting isotopes are absorbed into the body
they do tremendous damage at the cellular level because alpha
particles are electrically charged and lose all their energy over a
very short distance (hence the low penetrating capability). The most
damage is caused when a speck of alpha emitting material lodges in the
body and goes on year in year out irradiating the same tiny volume of
body tissue, cell damage leading to cancer is very likely.

This has been a discussion of "Internal contamination" hazards and the
conclusion is that humans beings should be segregated absolutely from
high level waste, Not all isotopes are dangerous and not all waste is
high level. Low level waste can be such items as disposable
laboratory gloves, aprons and overshoes and represents no hazard
whatsoever.

The green****ologists choose to confabulate internal contamination
hazards with external irradiation hazards and geting lethal doses from
the detonation of atomic weapons or criticality accidents, one or two
of which occurred in early experiments around the time of WW2 to
create the first nuclear chain reactions.


This cannot be said for some of the very unpleasant carcinogenic and
teratogenic not to say just plain poisonous chemicals in toxic wastes.

Aye, that just sit more or less for ever.
AFAIAA not one single person has died in the UK from a civil nuclear
accident. - in all time - period.

And plenty have been killed in the production of coal, oil and gas.

Coal power stations release far more radioactivity than Nuclear plant.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "[email protected]"
writes:
[]
ROI is not critical if its to fight GW.
What is critical is that it saves CO2.
Wind power saves little, if any, CO2 over its expected life.
There is no issue with wind power, it just doesn't do what is required as
a solution to GW.

By CO2, you can only - in this context - mean energy.

Are you seriously saying that a windmill generates less energy in its
working life than is used in total to create, maintain, and (arguably)
decommission it?

Well they quote lifetimes of about 30 years and payback periods of about 20
years, but that assumes they work as quoted.
The actual production of existing wind generators appears to be somewhat
less than ideal.

Then there is the minor issue of backup for calm days and its associated
CO2, unless you have suddenly decided that power cuts are acceptable.
I believe that the power system is being reworked ATM to ensure the power
cuts only affect those that don't vote labour, but I may be mistaken. ;-)


If so (and it is possible), then the fact needs wider circulation. (Though
I'd want to see pretty foolproof proof.)

It also makes me wonder why people are building them; OK, subsidies and so
on, but it suggests there would never be sufficient ROI - and business
just doesn't work like that.

ROI is cash, not CO2.
If you factor in grants, rising fuel prices, etc. you can make a business
case for building them.
It does not mean that they save any CO2 over their lifetime.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:09:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:43:33 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

Uranium for instance can be safely kept in a cardboard box under the bed.

And breathing in the radon gas is not a hazard?

You also forget that aside from the radioactive hazards of uranium,
it is a toxic metal.

Only in the same way lead is - i. e. if you eat it. I don't think many
people will be doing so. (For a start, it's a lot harder than lead.)

OK, Plutonium then.

Derek