OT: Matt Ridley on energy

32 views
Skip to first unread message

newshound

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 4:39:01 PMSep 25
to
https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-root-of-the-energy-crisis/

A pretty good summary of what many of us here seem to think. But this is
spreading the word to Daily Mail readership.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 4:42:24 PMSep 25
to
Ridley was on GBnews. Very calm and measured - never attacked climate
change, just renewable energy.

People are beginning to take an interest - can tell by traffic to my site.

He has the answers



--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

Andy Burns

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 5:06:08 PMSep 25
to
Yep

Who has got fracking?
Who hasn't had a huge spike in gas prices?

<https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/5E3D/production/_120652142_gas_pricebytradingpoint_facet-nc.png>

Answers on a postcard ...

Chris Bacon

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 4:19:59 AMSep 26
to
On 25/09/2021 21:38, newshound wrote:
After waffling and talking bollocks for most of his article he saves
himself with:

"What would I do? Take a leaf out of Canada’s book and reform the
regulation of nuclear power so that it favours newer, cheaper and even
safer designs built in modular form on production lines"

Perhaps he hasn't heard of RR's "UK SMR".

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 6:08:03 AMSep 26
to
On 26/09/2021 09:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 09:19:56 +0100, Chris Bacon
> <chris....@maildrop.cc> wrote:
>
>> On 25/09/2021 21:38, newshound wrote:
>>> https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-root-of-the-energy-crisis/
>>>
>>> A pretty good summary of what many of us here seem to think. But this is
>>> spreading the word to Daily Mail readership.
>>
>> After waffling and talking bollocks for most of his article
>
> Care to be more specific?
>
Of course he won't care to be more specific. Its just generalised ad
hominens by a ClimateBeliever™ ArtStudent™ SubsidyScrounging™
PublicSector™ Leftycunt.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

Brian Gaff (Sofa)

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 7:33:57 AMSep 26
to
Unfortunately, his reading seems to depend on a lot of hindsight. The
problem of how to keep the lights on and reduce global climate change is
really a lot tougher than our current technologies can handle.
I would not condemn wind or solar but to throw all eggs in one basket is
never a good idea.
What happened to tidal and wave power?
Tidal seems to me to be one place we might be looking, and as said so does
nuclear modular systems, after all they build them for submarines, why not
local towns especially if near a source of water.


As an all electric home with a smart meter on a tariff from EDF which is
supposedly fixed for three years, how long will even big players like this
be able to offer these prices, certainly higher than some of the smaller
players but still apparently too low to make the company any money now the
cost of energy is much higher. Can you really blame Russia? Is it not
exactly what the Arab nations did in the past to get money for investing?
Until the world can effectively work together I suspect climate change will
still be an issue. We have the doouble issue of the world moving out of ice
age earth back to hot house earth and we cannot affect that but we are
effectively digging a hole to deep to climb out of by making it happen far
faster than it would normally. Sigh, what can I do? Not a lot.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"newshound" <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote in message
news:2Kidnf_0Z85-FdL8...@brightview.co.uk...

Roland Perry

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 8:07:14 AMSep 26
to
In message <siplr2$kbq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:33:54 on Sun, 26 Sep
2021, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)" <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:

> Tidal seems to me to be one place we might be looking

A problem with that is a "different flavour of environmentalist" because
it tends to upset wildlife. A bit like bird strikes on wind turbines,
but at sea level.
--
Roland Perry

Sn!pe

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 9:38:46 AMSep 26
to
Brian Gaff (Sofa) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> Until the world can effectively work together I suspect climate change will
> still be an issue. We have the doouble issue of the world moving out of ice
> age earth back to hot house earth and we cannot affect that but we are
> effectively digging a hole to deep to climb out of by making it happen far
> faster than it would normally. Sigh, what can I do? Not a lot.
> Brian

I agree. In my view we passed the tipping point decades ago
and the change is irreversible. What we have actually done is
trigger the change a little earlier than it might have been.

What we should really be doing is planning for inundation as
sea level rises. Most major cities are built along coastlines;
that is where the worst disruption will occur.

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 10:21:51 AMSep 26
to
Tidal is worse than solar and wind in terms of installation size and
environmental impact and just as bad in terms of intermittency.

People think that because its predictable its better. It isn't.

Take the usual bollocks about balancing west coast tidal with east coast
tidal. The east coast tidal range is less than one quarter of the west
coast so you need massive north sea installations and you need gigawatt
cables connecting them

So instead of just one installation you need four times the installation
size plus a gigawatt balancing cable.

Takes the cost completely out of the cost of a single tidal station,
which is what people will quote you.And several times the cost of a far
less environmentally destructive and lower carbon nuclear power station




--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 10:22:47 AMSep 26
to
On 26/09/2021 13:55, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2021 at 12:33:54 BST, "Brian Gaff \ <Sofa\)"
> <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> What happened to tidal and wave power?
>
> These continue to be unviable for all the same reasons as existed the last
> time we discussed it here. Intermittent, and if you build others to even out
> the flow you're just building two stations to get the output of one.
>
Connected by a fucking long and expensive cable


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 10:38:28 AMSep 26
to
On 26/09/2021 14:38, Sn!pe wrote:
> Brian Gaff (Sofa) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>> Until the world can effectively work together I suspect climate change will
>> still be an issue. We have the doouble issue of the world moving out of ice
>> age earth back to hot house earth and we cannot affect that but we are
>> effectively digging a hole to deep to climb out of by making it happen far
>> faster than it would normally. Sigh, what can I do? Not a lot.
>> Brian
>
> I agree. In my view we passed the tipping point decades ago
> and the change is irreversible. What we have actually done is
> trigger the change a little earlier than it might have been.
>

Indeed. we left te little ice age 100 years ago, and te change was
irreversible, because we never caused it in the first place.
We are now heading back into a prolonged multidecadal cool period
according to many climate scientists - the real ones who actually look
at the data.

> What we should really be doing is planning for inundation as
> sea level rises. Most major cities are built along coastlines;
> that is where the worst disruption will occur.
>
What we should be doing is not worrying about sea level rises which have
been steady at 3mm a year for 500 years, but planning fior cold wet
winters,.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

Chris Bacon

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 12:09:56 PMSep 26
to
On 26/09/2021 15:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> We are now heading back into a prolonged multidecadal cool period
> according to many climate scientists - the real ones who actually look
> at the data.

How extremely interesting. Which of the many, by the way?

SH

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 1:55:18 PMSep 26
to
On 26/09/2021 15:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/09/2021 13:55, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Sep 2021 at 12:33:54 BST, "Brian Gaff \ <Sofa\)"
>> <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> What happened to tidal and wave power?
>>
>> These continue to be unviable for all the same reasons as existed the
>> last
>> time we discussed it here. Intermittent, and if you build others to
>> even out
>> the flow you're just building two stations to get the output of one.
>>
> Connected by a fucking long and expensive cable
>
>

how about this one, a 2,400 mile long cable :-)

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10028423/Former-Tesco-boss-Sir-Dave-Lewis-run-undersea-power-line-firm.html

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 3:16:54 PMSep 26
to
Brian Gaff (Sofa) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote

> Unfortunately, his reading seems to depend on a lot of hindsight. The
> problem of how to keep the lights on and reduce global climate change is
> really a lot tougher than our current technologies can handle.

Nope, nukes do that fine.

> I would not condemn wind or solar but to throw all eggs in one basket is
> never a good idea.

It works fine with nukes.

> What happened to tidal and wave power?

Never going to be viable.

> Tidal seems to me to be one place we might be looking,

Nope, we know that there aren't enough viable sites
for that and that they fuck the environment even more
comprehensively than any of the other renewables.

> and as said so does nuclear modular systems, after all they build them for
> submarines, why not local towns especially if near a source of water.

Because its easy to ensure that some arsehole
doesn’t interfere with the sub nuke. Much
harder with nuke modular systems and much
less likely that the voters will buy a nuke at
the end of their street.

> As an all electric home with a smart meter on a tariff from EDF which is
> supposedly fixed for three years, how long will even big players like
> this be able to offer these prices, certainly higher than some of the
> smaller players but still apparently too low to make the company any money
> now the cost of energy is much higher. Can you really blame Russia? Is it
> not exactly what the Arab nations did in the past to get money for
> investing?
> Until the world can effectively work together I suspect climate change
> will still be an issue. We have the doouble issue of the world moving out
> of ice age earth back to hot house earth and we cannot affect that but we
> are effectively digging a hole to deep to climb out of by making it
> happen far faster than it would normally.

I think its all mindless bullshit. The world did fine in the roman warm
period
and england was much better off climate wise in that time. No reason why
it can't work even better now that we have much better technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

> Sigh, what can I do? Not a lot.

You can top yourself and help that way :-(

Peeler

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 3:32:47 PMSep 26
to
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 05:16:48 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Hawk addressing the obnoxious senile Australian pest:
"I'm willing to bet you scream your own name when jacking off."
MID: <s78tjv$14d$2...@dont-email.me>

newshound

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 5:19:46 PMSep 26
to
On 26/09/2021 12:33, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Unfortunately, his reading seems to depend on a lot of hindsight.

Very unfair, he has been saying much of this for a *long* time.

newshound

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 5:33:29 PMSep 26
to
On 26/09/2021 20:16, Rod Speed wrote:

>> and as said so does nuclear modular systems, after all they build them
>> for submarines, why not local towns especially if near a source of water.
>
> Because its easy to ensure that some arsehole
> doesn’t interfere with the sub nuke. Much
> harder with nuke modular systems and much
> less likely that the voters will buy a nuke at
> the end of their street.
>

I think this is a rather pessimistic view, but some might be amused by a
true story. During the last UK miners' strike, when the lights stayed on
partly because of nuclear power, and even more because the CEGB had
built up huge coal stocks in anticipation (the strike hardly came as a
surprise), the miners' "pickets" at Oldbury Nuclear Power station parked
their caravan or whatever on top of a manhole cover in the approach
road, just outside the site boundary. Once they realised, this caused
the site management considerable nervousness because, had an
enterprising miner lifted the cover and closed the valve underneath, it
would have isolated the towns mains supply to the station, forcing it to
come offline immediately. While not an actual threat to the station, it
could well have stressed the supplies to Bristol and would have been
something of a public relations coup. I think you can reasonably assume
that this particular stable door has been closed.

Pancho

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 5:35:11 PMSep 26
to
On 26/09/2021 12:33, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Unfortunately, his reading seems to depend on a lot of hindsight. The
> problem of how to keep the lights on and reduce global climate change is
> really a lot tougher than our current technologies can handle.

Why? We could build nuclear power stations. France even did it economically.

The problem seems to be politics, not technology.

I really do doubt Ridley's opinion on anything. when he says something like:

"Do everything to encourage fusion, the almost infinitely productive
technology that looks ready to go by 2040."

He is just just spouting a different lot of nonsense. I think we are
more likely to see a super conductor grid from the Sahara before we see
economic fusion, (I'm not holding my breath).


newshound

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 6:34:53 PMSep 26
to
On 26/09/2021 22:35, Pancho wrote:
> On 26/09/2021 12:33, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> Unfortunately, his reading seems to depend on  a lot of hindsight. The
>> problem of how to keep the lights on and reduce global climate change is
>> really a lot tougher than our current technologies can handle.
>
> Why? We could build nuclear power stations. France even did it
> economically.
>
> The problem seems to be politics, not technology.

Yes.
>
> I really do doubt Ridley's opinion on anything. when he says something
> like:
>
> "Do everything to encourage fusion, the almost infinitely productive
> technology that looks ready to go by 2040."

Why? Do you think we should shut down all fusion research? I don't see
any prospect that it will be "ready to go by 2040" although there are
lots of optimistic media stories, presumably from press releases by
academics and commercial organisations. The UK has been at the
fore-front in fusion research since the mid 1950's.

>
> He is just just spouting a different lot of nonsense. I think we are
> more likely to see a super conductor grid from the Sahara before we see
> economic fusion, (I'm not holding my breath).
>

I'm inclined to agree about the fusion statement. But I don't think that
is any reason to dismiss Ridley's comments about net zero, heat pumps,
more windmills, magic battery farms, banning coal and new coal mines,
importing wood for Drax, fracking, shutting gas storage, green levies,
price caps, and endless indecision on nuclear.

72y33

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 12:00:46 AMSep 27
to
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote
> Chris Hogg <m...@privacy.net> wrote

>> Then there is/was TuNur, planning to build solar furnaces and store
>> the heat as molten salt, so it can be recovered during the night and
>> provide a continuous feed of electricity(2). Solar furnaces don't have
>> a good track record, Ivanpah and Crescent Dunes in the US come to mind
>> (3) but I think there was another one in Spain that was in
>> difficulties, but I can't recall the name.
>
> As I recall, the Strines were going to do this, on the grounds that they
> have
> a lot of useless desert and a lot of sun. Each installation was going to
> produce 300MW continuous, as I recall and you just duplicate. Not sure
> what
> happened to that plan,

It was never anything more than more greeny bullshit.

this was proposed some years ago but I've never heard
> any more about it.


Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 12:03:33 AMSep 27
to
newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> and as said so does nuclear modular systems, after all they build them
>>> for submarines, why not local towns especially if near a source of
>>> water.

>> Because its easy to ensure that some arsehole
>> doesn’t interfere with the sub nuke. Much
>> harder with nuke modular systems and much
>> less likely that the voters will buy a nuke at
>> the end of their street.

> I think this is a rather pessimistic view,

I don’t given 9/11

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 12:14:04 AMSep 27
to
newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
> Pancho wrote
>> Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote

>>> Unfortunately, his reading seems to depend on a lot of hindsight. The
>>> problem of how to keep the lights on and reduce global climate change is
>>> really a lot tougher than our current technologies can handle.

>> Why? We could build nuclear power stations. France even did it
>> economically.

>> The problem seems to be politics, not technology.

> Yes.

>> I really do doubt Ridley's opinion on anything. when he says something
>> like:

>> "Do everything to encourage fusion, the almost infinitely productive
>> technology that looks ready to go by 2040."

> Why?

Because that timescale is silly for commercially viable fusion.

> Do you think we should shut down all fusion research?

No, but that’s a different question.

> I don't see any prospect that it will be "ready to go by 2040"

Me too.

> although there are lots of optimistic media stories, presumably from press
> releases by academics and commercial organisations. The UK has been at the
> fore-front in fusion research since the mid 1950's.

But with no suggestion of it being commercially viable any time soon.

>> He is just just spouting a different lot of nonsense. I think we are more
>> likely to see a super conductor grid from the Sahara before we see
>> economic fusion, (I'm not holding my breath).

> I'm inclined to agree about the fusion statement. But I don't think that
> is any reason to dismiss Ridley's comments about net zero, heat pumps,
> more windmills, magic battery farms, banning coal and new coal mines,
> importing wood for Drax, fracking, shutting gas storage, green levies,
> price caps, and endless indecision on nuclear.

Trouble is that with that silly claim about fusion, you do have to wonder
about his other claims.

Peeler

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:43:48 AMSep 27
to
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:00:38 +1000, 72y33, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jt...@mid.individual.net>

Peeler

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:44:22 AMSep 27
to

Peeler

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:45:16 AMSep 27
to
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:13:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rodent Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total bollocks most of it."
MID: <pj2b07$1rvs$2...@gioia.aioe.org>

newshound

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:36:01 AMSep 27
to
On 27/09/2021 05:03, Rod Speed wrote:
> newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> and as said so does nuclear modular systems, after all they build
>>>> them for submarines, why not local towns especially if near a source
>>>> of water.
>
>>> Because its easy to ensure that some arsehole
>>> doesn’t interfere with the sub nuke. Much
>>> harder with nuke modular systems and much
>>> less likely that the voters will buy a nuke at
>>> the end of their street.
>
>> I think this is a rather pessimistic view,
>
> I don’t given 9/11
>

Then you are obviously not aware of the trials in the 1970's and 80's
simulating impacts of fast jets on concrete structures and fuel
transport flasks. Easy enough to take a site off-line by targeting the
switchgear and transformers, costly to repair if you take out the
turbine hall. Worst case impact on the reactors, nil.

newshound

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:37:03 AMSep 27
to
On 27/09/2021 05:13, Rod Speed wrote:

>
>> I'm inclined to agree about the fusion statement. But I don't think
>> that is any reason to dismiss Ridley's comments about net zero, heat
>> pumps, more windmills, magic battery farms, banning coal and new coal
>> mines, importing wood for Drax, fracking, shutting gas storage, green
>> levies, price caps, and endless indecision on nuclear.
>
> Trouble is that with that silly claim about fusion, you do have to
> wonder about his other claims.

You don't think they stand up?

Unknown

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:50:00 AMSep 27
to
It happens that The Natural Philosopher formulated :
> Ridley was on GBnews. Very calm and measured - never attacked climate change,
> just renewable energy.
>
> People are beginning to take an interest - can tell by traffic to my site.
>
> He has the answers

He talks some sense.

Unknown

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:51:43 AMSep 27
to
The Natural Philosopher was thinking very hard :
> Of course he won't care to be more specific. Its just generalised ad hominens
> by a ClimateBeliever™ ArtStudent™ SubsidyScrounging™ PublicSector™ Leftycunt.

Yep, not part of the real world..

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 8:41:55 AMSep 27
to
Yes. see lots of interesting discussion on WUWT today.

What is happening is that its not the climate change narrative capturing
public imagination - its the cost and failure of renewable energy to
deliver that is.

And once *people* demand that politicians 'do something' about it, they
will.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:26:04 PMSep 27
to
newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> and as said so does nuclear modular systems, after all they build them
>>>>> for submarines, why not local towns especially if near a source of
>>>>> water.

>>>> Because its easy to ensure that some arsehole
>>>> doesn’t interfere with the sub nuke. Much
>>>> harder with nuke modular systems and much
>>>> less likely that the voters will buy a nuke at
>>>> the end of their street.
>>
>>> I think this is a rather pessimistic view,
>>
>> I don’t given 9/11

> Then you are obviously not aware of the trials in the 1970's and 80's
> simulating impacts of fast jets on concrete structures and fuel transport
> flasks.

I didn’t mean using planes with nuke modular systems,
I meant using vehicles stuffed with explosives like was
done by McVeigh and with the Dar es Salaam and Nairobi
US embassy bombings. Attacks using commercial aircraft
is very unlikely now post 9/11 but its not so easy to avoid
vehicles stuffed with explosives.

> Easy enough to take a site off-line by targeting the switchgear and
> transformers,

Yes, but that doesn’t produce the local hysteria that would
result with a nuke modular system being blown up.

> costly to repair if you take out the turbine hall.

> Worst case impact on the reactors, nil.

Don’t buy that.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:28:29 PMSep 27
to
newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
More likely to be overstated like with his claim about how soon fusion will
be commercially viable.

Peeler

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:48:36 PMSep 27
to
On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 05:25:57 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest trollshit unread>

--

Peeler

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:49:10 PMSep 27
to
On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 05:28:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from you boring them
to death."
MID: <gfkt3m...@mid.individual.net>

Vir Campestris

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 5:02:42 PMSep 27
to
On 26/09/2021 15:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
> Tidal is worse than solar and wind in terms of installation size and
> environmental impact and just as bad in terms of intermittency.
>
> People think that because its predictable its better. It isn't.
>
> Take the usual bollocks about balancing west coast tidal with east coast
> tidal. The east coast tidal range is less than one quarter of the west
> coast so you need massive north sea installations and you need gigawatt
> cables connecting them
>
> So instead of just one installation you need four times the installation
> size plus a gigawatt balancing cable.
>
> Takes the cost completely out of the cost of a single tidal station,
> which is what people will quote you.And several times the cost of a far
> less environmentally destructive  and lower carbon nuclear power station

High tide in Morecambe Bay is at 03:22 tonight; at Cardiff, low is at
04:48. The slack water times are a long way apart, and a station at each
location would produce power 24/7.

Unlike wave power, which is just as weather dependent as wind.

The problem is that there aren't many sites as big as Morecambe Bay and
the Bristol Channel, you need a big fat connector between them, and the
environmental damage would be huge.

https://northerntidalpowergateways.co.uk/about/

says the Morecambe/Duddon project would produce 2% of the UK's power.

So we need 50 of those...

I wonder - does anyone do a nuclear only tariff?

Andy

Pancho

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 5:42:09 PMSep 27
to
On 26/09/2021 23:34, newshound wrote:

> Why? Do you think we should shut down all fusion research? I don't see
> any prospect that it will be "ready to go by 2040" although there are
> lots of optimistic media stories, presumably from press releases by
> academics and commercial organisations. The UK has been at the
> fore-front in fusion research since the mid 1950's.
>

I think fusion research is good. Just as I thin the Large Hadron
Collider at CERN is good. I'm not going to expect either to generate
power in the immediate future. They are research projects.

>>
>> He is just just spouting a different lot of nonsense. I think we are
>> more likely to see a super conductor grid from the Sahara before we
>> see economic fusion, (I'm not holding my breath).
>>
>
> I'm inclined to agree about the fusion statement. But I don't think that
> is any reason to dismiss Ridley's comments about net zero, heat pumps,
> more windmills, magic battery farms, banning coal and new coal mines,
> importing wood for Drax, fracking, shutting gas storage, green levies,
> price caps, and endless indecision on nuclear.
>

Ridley may be right. However I want to read experts in national
publications, not some halfwit randomly picking technical opinions.

I really am not into celebrities presenting policy solutions. Ridley is
like Greta Thunderbug in his opinions are not well formed. The
difference is that Greta is very photogenic.

Chris Bacon

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 6:40:16 PMSep 27
to
On 27/09/2021 22:42, Pancho wrote:
> Ridley is
> like Greta Thunderbug in his opinions are not well formed. The
> difference is that Greta is very photogenic.

You goddam pinko commie prevert.

newshound

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 7:08:08 PMSep 27
to
On 27/09/2021 20:25, Rod Speed wrote:
> newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>> and as said so does nuclear modular systems, after all they build
>>>>>> them for submarines, why not local towns especially if near a
>>>>>> source of water.
>
>>>>> Because its easy to ensure that some arsehole
>>>>> doesn’t interfere with the sub nuke. Much
>>>>> harder with nuke modular systems and much
>>>>> less likely that the voters will buy a nuke at
>>>>> the end of their street.
>>>
>>>> I think this is a rather pessimistic view,
>>>
>>> I don’t given 9/11
>
>> Then you are obviously not aware of the trials in the 1970's and 80's
>> simulating impacts of fast jets on concrete structures and fuel
>> transport flasks.
>
> I didn’t mean using planes with nuke modular systems,
> I meant using vehicles stuffed with explosives like was
> done by McVeigh and with the Dar es Salaam and Nairobi
> US embassy bombings. Attacks using commercial aircraft
> is very unlikely now post 9/11 but its not so easy to avoid
> vehicles stuffed with explosives.

Curiously enough, the security people have thought of that. And in any
case a McVeigh or Embassy sized bomb would barely scratch even the
secondary containment of modern plant at 50 metres, let alone the stuff
that matters inside. The shock would just trip the reactors via the
seismic sensors.

While SMRs have less massive containment, their intrinsically safe
design (no post trip forced cooling required, contrast Fukushima) means
they are also such less sensitive to disruption of the site infrastructure.
>
>> Easy enough to take a site off-line by targeting the switchgear and
>> transformers,
>
> Yes, but that doesn’t produce the local hysteria that would
> result with a nuke modular system being blown up.
>
>> costly to repair if you take out the turbine hall.
>
>> Worst case impact on the reactors, nil.
>
> Don’t buy that.

I guess I have been up close to more nuclear installations than you have.

newshound

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 7:18:06 PMSep 27
to
On 27/09/2021 22:42, Pancho wrote:

>> I'm inclined to agree about the fusion statement. But I don't think
>> that is any reason to dismiss Ridley's comments about net zero, heat
>> pumps, more windmills, magic battery farms, banning coal and new coal
>> mines, importing wood for Drax, fracking, shutting gas storage, green
>> levies, price caps, and endless indecision on nuclear.
>>
>
> Ridley may be right. However I want to read experts in national
> publications, not some halfwit randomly picking technical opinions.
>
> I really am not into celebrities presenting policy solutions. Ridley is
> like Greta Thunderbug in his opinions are not well formed. The
> difference is that Greta is very photogenic.
>

You can't put Ridley and Thunberg in the same category. Ridley makes
detailed, specific comments on the range of issues that I listed above.
And he's neither a halfwit nor a celebrity, he's a respected scientist
and writer who welcomes challenge.

Thunberg just spouts emotional platitudes.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 2:33:16 AMSep 28
to
Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote
I recon she is ugly myself.


Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 2:43:27 AMSep 28
to
Its far from clear that that is true of nuke modular systems.

The shock would just trip the reactors via the
> seismic sensors.

> While SMRs have less massive containment, their intrinsically safe design
> (no post trip forced cooling required, contrast Fukushima) means they are
> also such less sensitive to disruption of the site infrastructure.

Again, its far from clear that that is true of nuke modular systems.

>>> Easy enough to take a site off-line by targeting the switchgear and
>>> transformers,
>>
>> Yes, but that doesn’t produce the local hysteria that would
>> result with a nuke modular system being blown up.
>>
>>> costly to repair if you take out the turbine hall.
>>
>>> Worst case impact on the reactors, nil.
>>
>> Don’t buy that.
>
> I guess I have been up close to more nuclear installations than you have.

But you haven't been with nuke modular systems.

Pancho

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 3:56:31 AMSep 28
to
Ridley was chairman of Northern Rock in the run up to its catastrophic
failure, which caused him to resign. He presumably only got the job in
the first place because his dad was a viscount.

His scientific bona fides are zoology. His Phd was in the "mating system
of the common pheasant".

The man is a fuckwit. If he hadn't been born a viscount, he would be a
road sweeper.

> Thunberg just spouts emotional platitudes.

But she is pretty.

Pancho

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 3:58:11 AMSep 28
to
Come on... you'd like to shag her too... you're just in denial.

Peeler

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 4:24:20 AMSep 28
to
On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 16:43:18 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID: <g4ihla...@mid.individual.net>

Peeler

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 4:29:07 AMSep 28
to
On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 16:33:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH cretin's latest trollshit unread>


--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <62dcaae57b421e2b...@haph.org>

Tim Lamb

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 5:15:26 AMSep 28
to
In message <sitbhe$qmf$1...@dont-email.me>, Vir Campestris
<vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> writes
Suppose all those who aren't frightened of nuclear power were willing to
pay 1d over the average rate in exchange for an assured supply. How much
would that raise? Surely paying for our own infrastructure is better
than relying on EDF etc.
--
Tim Lamb

Chris Bacon

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 5:17:07 AMSep 28
to
On 28/09/2021 08:56, Pancho wrote:
> Ridley (...) is a fuckwit. If he hadn't been born a viscount, he would be a
> road sweeper.

I don't think he's a fuckwit, but he's certainly a canting waffler.
Someone posted a link to one of his wafflings, which I looked at, and it
was horrendous, apart fromn a mention of nuclear power being a good thing.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 5:25:18 AMSep 28
to
Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote
> newshound wrote
Nope, fucking ugly imo.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 9:08:16 AMSep 28
to
No, I assumed EDF would but even they have 'gone green' and thrown wind
and solar in as well


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 9:12:49 AMSep 28
to
On 27/09/2021 22:42, Pancho wrote:
> On 26/09/2021 23:34, newshound wrote:
>
>> Why? Do you think we should shut down all fusion research? I don't see
>> any prospect that it will be "ready to go by 2040" although there are
>> lots of optimistic media stories, presumably from press releases by
>> academics and commercial organisations. The UK has been at the
>> fore-front in fusion research since the mid 1950's.
>>
>
> I think fusion research is good. Just as I thin the Large Hadron
> Collider at CERN is good. I'm not going to expect either to generate
> power in the immediate future. They are research projects.
>
>>>
>>> He is just just spouting a different lot of nonsense. I think we are
>>> more likely to see a super conductor grid from the Sahara before we
>>> see economic fusion, (I'm not holding my breath).
>>>
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree about the fusion statement. But I don't think
>> that is any reason to dismiss Ridley's comments about net zero, heat
>> pumps, more windmills, magic battery farms, banning coal and new coal
>> mines, importing wood for Drax, fracking, shutting gas storage, green
>> levies, price caps, and endless indecision on nuclear.
>>
>
> Ridley may be right. However I want to read experts in national
> publications, not some halfwit randomly picking technical opinions.
>
"Ridley attended Eton College from 1970 to 1975, and then went on to
Magdalen College, Oxford, to study zoology.[1] Obtaining a BA degree
with first class honours,"

> I really am not into celebrities presenting policy solutions. Ridley is
> like Greta Thunderbug in his opinions are not well formed. The
> difference is that Greta is very photogenic.
>
The difference is that Greta is an ugly thick cunt who doesn't even go
to school.
Riddley doiesnt have opinions, he has facts and rational analysis. Greta
has popoinins based on zero facts and zero rational analysis

Ridley is at least someone who can Do Sums and Understand Basic Physics.
If you think the thunderbox is attractive, and its all a matter of
opinion, god help you. And the rest of us if you have a vote.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 9:13:52 AMSep 28
to
On 28/09/2021 00:18, newshound wrote:
But Pancho votes on emotional platitudes. He doesnt DO rational thinking
and facts

He is an ArtStudent™ par excellence.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 9:15:29 AMSep 28
to
Jesus H Christ.

She'd probably urinate half way through and then crap herself.
And then accuse you of rape.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 9:19:03 AMSep 28
to
On 27/09/2021 22:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 22:02:38 +0100, Vir Campestris
> <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> says the Morecambe/Duddon project would produce 2% of the UK's power.
>>
> Intermittently, just like the Swansea Bay project, which has been
> dumped. This will go the same way.
>
A far better solution would be to pump all teh water out of loch ness
into the sea, and then let it back in again. Enough storage for many
days. Would totally destroy the Loch Ness area of course, but if there
was a monster there we would probably find it, and what's a bit of total
environmental destruction against aSaving The Planet For Our Chilldrunna!

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 9:24:52 AMSep 28
to
On 28/09/2021 00:08, newshound wrote:
> Curiously enough, the security people have thought of that. And in any
> case a McVeigh or Embassy sized bomb would barely scratch even the
> secondary containment of modern plant at 50 metres, let alone the stuff
> that matters inside. The shock would just trip the reactors via the
> seismic sensors.
>

Anythung that penetrated the secondary containment and the primary
containment would spread the core around so much that it would all stop
reactions PDQ.

And do far more damage than the radioactivity would,

> While SMRs have less massive containment, their intrinsically safe
> design (no post trip forced cooling required, contrast Fukushima) means
> they are also such less sensitive to disruption of the site infrastructure.

And in some versions they are deep underground, as well

>>
>>> Easy enough to take a site off-line by targeting the switchgear and
>>> transformers,
>>
>> Yes, but that doesn’t produce the local hysteria that would
>> result with a nuke modular system being blown up.
>>
>>> costly to repair if you take out the turbine hall.
>>
>>> Worst case impact on the reactors, nil.
>>
>> Don’t buy that.
>
> I guess I have been up close to more nuclear installations than you have.

+1.
The point being that the most dangerous thing in a reactor is really
I-131, and if the local populatin get iodine pills promptly and are
evacuated promptly that is pretty much the worst than can happen, except
to people literally inside the reactor halls - who would be blown to
bits anyway by something that managed to penetrated the containment


--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 9:27:15 AMSep 28
to
What would work is if every household that wanted nuclear electricity
raised about £3000, then they would be entitled to electricity at 5p a
unit for life.

Given the ridiculous sums people pay for solar panels and electric cars,
its an idea that should have legs.



--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

Peeler

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 10:35:05 AMSep 28
to
On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 19:25:08 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <XnsA97071CF43...@85.214.115.223>

Pancho

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 3:35:28 PMSep 28
to
On 28/09/2021 19:46, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2021 at 22:42:35 BST, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26/09/2021 23:34, newshound wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Do you think we should shut down all fusion research? I don't see
>>> any prospect that it will be "ready to go by 2040" although there are
>>> lots of optimistic media stories, presumably from press releases by
>>> academics and commercial organisations. The UK has been at the
>>> fore-front in fusion research since the mid 1950's.
>>
>> I think fusion research is good. Just as I thin the Large Hadron
>> Collider at CERN is good. I'm not going to expect either to generate
>> power in the immediate future. They are research projects.
>
> The LHC is not a research project for power generation.
>

I never suggested it was.

I suppose in a round about way you are trying to suggest that the
current fusion research is about power generation? If so can you point
to the fusion experimental reactor that is involved in electrical power
generation.

The current research is all about proving fusion can be
achieved/sustained. Researching basic physics as opposed to researching
power stations.


>> I really am not into celebrities presenting policy solutions. Ridley is
>> like Greta Thunderbug in his opinions are not well formed. The
>> difference is that Greta is very photogenic.
>
> No she isn't.
>
A million and one photos suggests many people think she is.

Pancho

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 3:40:14 PMSep 28
to
On 28/09/2021 14:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> But Pancho votes on emotional platitudes. He doesnt DO rational thinking
> and facts
>
> He is an ArtStudent™ par excellence.
>
>

Ah, I see Ridley is a Global Warming Sceptic, I hadn't realised when I
spotted he was talking nonsense.

Vir Campestris

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 4:56:20 PMSep 28
to
On 27/09/2021 22:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
> The slack waters at the two sites approximately coincide. High tides
> at Swansea coincide with low tides at Morecambe, and vice-versa. It
> wouldn't work. Tidal generators would both be idle at the same time.

I'm sure I checked on them before. But anyway they are too small to help.

Andy

Pancho

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 2:26:27 AMSep 29
to
On 28/09/2021 22:01, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2021 at 20:35:54 BST, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28/09/2021 19:46, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 27 Sep 2021 at 22:42:35 BST, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/09/2021 23:34, newshound wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why? Do you think we should shut down all fusion research? I don't see
>>>>> any prospect that it will be "ready to go by 2040" although there are
>>>>> lots of optimistic media stories, presumably from press releases by
>>>>> academics and commercial organisations. The UK has been at the
>>>>> fore-front in fusion research since the mid 1950's.
>>>>
>>>> I think fusion research is good. Just as I thin the Large Hadron
>>>> Collider at CERN is good. I'm not going to expect either to generate
>>>> power in the immediate future. They are research projects.
>>>
>>> The LHC is not a research project for power generation.
>>>
>>
>> I never suggested it was.
>
> You implied it, by saying you didn't expect the LHC to generate power in the
> immediate future. Possibly in a later future, therefore.
>
I'm unfamiliar with the rules of logic that enable you to make such an
inference. Could you elaborate upon how your therefore was arrived at?

You know... what rules of logic were applied, or what other deductive
system was used...

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 4:57:07 AMSep 29
to
On 28/09/2021 19:46, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2021 at 22:42:35 BST, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26/09/2021 23:34, newshound wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Do you think we should shut down all fusion research? I don't see
>>> any prospect that it will be "ready to go by 2040" although there are
>>> lots of optimistic media stories, presumably from press releases by
>>> academics and commercial organisations. The UK has been at the
>>> fore-front in fusion research since the mid 1950's.
>>
>> I think fusion research is good. Just as I thin the Large Hadron
>> Collider at CERN is good. I'm not going to expect either to generate
>> power in the immediate future. They are research projects.
>
> The LHC is not a research project for power generation.
>
>> I really am not into celebrities presenting policy solutions. Ridley is
>> like Greta Thunderbug in his opinions are not well formed. The
>> difference is that Greta is very photogenic.
>
> No she isn't.
>
Id rather fuck a dead sheep.
At least it has stopped bleating


--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 4:58:05 AMSep 29
to
On 28/09/2021 20:35, Pancho wrote:
> On 28/09/2021 19:46, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 27 Sep 2021 at 22:42:35 BST, Pancho

>
>>> I really am not into celebrities presenting policy solutions. Ridley is
>>> like Greta Thunderbug in his opinions are not well formed. The
>>> difference is that Greta is very photogenic.
>>
>> No she isn't.
>>
> A million and one photos suggests many people think she is.

No, they suggest that she has had a million and one photos taken of her.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 4:58:45 AMSep 29
to
On 28/09/2021 21:43, Absurd Burd wrote:
> Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I really am not into celebrities presenting policy solutions. Ridley is
>>>> like Greta Thunderbug in his opinions are not well formed. The
>>>> difference is that Greta is very photogenic.
>>>
>>> No she isn't.
>>>
>> A million and one photos suggests many people think she is.
>
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ogb8tozrofwsjx/gettyimages-1192856196.jpg>
>
Looks like right side brain damage to me

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 5:11:08 AMSep 29