Cycling UK Forum

[XAP]Bob wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 4:41pm Compare with the arguments from the tobacco lobbies in the 1950s, when they knew full well that cigarettes were carcinogenic.
https://exposetobacco.org/news/tobacco-industry-lies/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

That's a fascinating comparison with the tobacco industry and the renewable energy industry, Bob.

pwa wrote: 21 Jul 2024, 10:26pm

Jdsk wrote: 21 Jul 2024, 7:37pm "The government has said that there was an "error of law" in granting planning permission for the west Cumbria coal mine and has pulled its defence of the decision in forthcoming legal challenges."
https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/2444 ... -new-mine/

If I remember correctly, much of the justification for that new mine was the demand for coal from the Port Talbot steel works, but that has since stopped requiring coal......

Electric arc furnace by 2028. £750M from Tata Steel and £500M from UK public finances. 2,800 fewer jobs but I can't find how many employees that leaves...

Jonathan

[XAP]Bob wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 3:58pm ...
"Nuclear" is a word demonised by the media - which leads to things like the ridiculous renaming of "MRI" scanners... They are Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imagers, but the N word was apparently too scary for the public, despite them being far less risky than an X-Ray.
Which means that rather that teaching people that it isn't a scary word, but a word that describes anything dealing with the nucleus of an atom*, we've carried on marking it as "scary". (* yes other applications exist, but that feels like branching a little too far).

Dry stored waste can be sat on the ground quite happily for a very, very, long time - and of course still contain more than 90% of the energy available from the fuel (so could be reprocessed at any time... It takes up very little space, so there is no urgent need to do "fast" geological storage - we only ever want to do it once (in any location). That's why there are facilities being built, but not finished - there's just no rush.

I confess to being one of those biased against nuclear in part 'cos of the high cost our Gov. has agreed we'll pay and part having put major industrial control and monitoring systems in to nuclear refining and waste plants in UK. Refining OK but the waste ... not impressed atall.

That said it was some years ago and when the "glass storage" was being talked about like it was happening, except it wasn't. So I learnt a lot of mistrust in the industry and that has stayed with me.

I even joined Greenpeace as being a paid-up member was meant to be enough to fail the positive vetting prior to being allowed on-site. But it didn't in my case and 1st visit 1st thing they sit down snd ho through the Official Secrets Act with you in detail!
Ian

roubaixtuesday wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 4:30pm On the subject of long lived waste, I think the effective half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100,000 years

(It's sufficiently to define exactly because of the complexities of the carbon cycle)

Half-life?
It's pretty stable stuff?

It's not toxic either and has been around at least since the start of the Cambrian (explosion of life on earth time) when levels were up to 4000ppm.


Today's figure is 430 odd ppm, which is an increase of 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas.
Methane also a biggy.

CO2 is also an essential in photosynthesis and therefore all life on earth is dependent upon it (said my biology teacher).

I am dependent upon it for heating my home, I recycle it on a 15 to 50 year cycle.

Whereas Strontium, Caesium and other fission products are very toxic.
And you really don't want to ingest , inhale or have anything else to do with them.
They do have a half-life of around your quoted 100000 years.

I am not Donald Trump.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_ ... te_note-12

PDQ Mobile wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 9:25pm

roubaixtuesday wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 4:30pm On the subject of long lived waste, I think the effective half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100,000 years

(It's sufficiently to define exactly because of the complexities of the carbon cycle)

Half-life?
It's pretty stable stuff?

It's not toxic either and has been around at least since the start of the Cambrian (explosion of life on earth time) when levels were up to 4000ppm.


Today's figure is 430 odd ppm, which is an increase of 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas.
Methane also a biggy.

CO2 is also an essential in photosynthesis and therefore all life on earth is dependent upon it (said my biology teacher).

I am dependent upon it for heating my home, I recycle it on a 15 to 50 year cycle.

Whereas Strontium, Caesium and other fission products are very toxic.
And you really don't want to ingest , inhale or have anything else to do with them.
They do have a half-life of around your quoted 100000 years.

I am not Donald Trump.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_ ... te_note-12

The half life of caesium is 33 years, not 100,000.

You're out by a factor of 3000!

Facts do matter.

You might be Donald Trump after all?

PDQ Mobile wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 9:25pm ...
CO2 is also an essential in photosynthesis and therefore all life on earth is dependent upon it (said my biology teacher).
...

There are many groups of organisms that use alternatives to photosynthesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_ ... osynthesis

Jonathan

roubaixtuesday wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 10:42pm

PDQ Mobile wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 9:25pm

roubaixtuesday wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 4:30pm On the subject of long lived waste, I think the effective half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100,000 years

(It's sufficiently to define exactly because of the complexities of the carbon cycle)

Half-life?
It's pretty stable stuff?

It's not toxic either and has been around at least since the start of the Cambrian (explosion of life on earth time) when levels were up to 4000ppm.


Today's figure is 430 odd ppm, which is an increase of 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas.
Methane also a biggy.

CO2 is also an essential in photosynthesis and therefore all life on earth is dependent upon it (said my biology teacher).

I am dependent upon it for heating my home, I recycle it on a 15 to 50 year cycle.

Whereas Strontium, Caesium and other fission products are very toxic.
And you really don't want to ingest , inhale or have anything else to do with them.
They do have a half-life of around your quoted 100000 years.

I am not Donald Trump.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_ ... te_note-12

The half life of caesium is 33 years, not 100,000.

You're out by a factor of 3000!

Facts do matter.

You might be Donald Trump after all?

I am sure you are right because they are so unstable.
And so therefore so nasty.
Never gave it much thought.
It was nasty enough here to have to stop grazing sheep going into the food chain for decades.
......
But safe storage of spent nuclear waste generally is deemed to need to last roughly so long (100000 years) before it is considered ok is my understanding.
Do you agree with that?

The central point was about CO2.
Which I referenced.
And personally have less fear of contact with.

No comment about that?

I assure you I am not Donald Trump,

Looks like the grid upgrade will be using new pylons not undergrounding.
The new T pylons being erected here across the Somerset levels are not as tall nor as visibly intrusive as the old steel lattice towers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... id-upgrade

rjb wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 1:10pm Looks like the grid upgrade will be using new pylons not undergrounding.
The new T pylons being erected here across the Somerset levels are not as tall nor as visibly intrusive as the old steel lattice towers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... id-upgrade

The pylons they are proposing across Norfolk are massively larger than existing ones. Plus, rather than follow existing pylon routes they want carving out new sometimes running parallel just a few miles from existing routes.

And the Norfolk/Suffolk route is well suited to undersea cable but National Grid just don't want to consider it. Sea route will do far far less damage to our wildlife and environment but that's not a consideration for National Grid. Recently near me National Grid were doing some existing pylon work and setup a depot in rural countryside (no Planning Permission) and completely devastated the wildlife in the area and over 6 months after they left it's still not recovered.

National Grid are not good when it comes to considering the impact of their work. One village Parish Council got involved as National Grid were taking off people's wing mirrors and damaging vehicles as they drove through the village. They were asked to take the half-mile detour to avoid the village due to damage they were causing and "No".

Ian

rjb wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 1:10pm Looks like the grid upgrade will be using new pylons not undergrounding.
The new T pylons being erected here across the Somerset levels are not as tall nor as visibly intrusive as the old steel lattice towers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... id-upgrade

Better to do it now rather than retrospectively.

Locally we have a scheme to replace 10 pylons for visual "enhancement".
They have been there 60 odd years and one was replaced within the last 10 years for subsidence issues.
(The picture in the linked article shows the still not tidied up old footings)
The cost of the particular scheme is hard to find but it is part of a £500 million fund for such visual enhancement projects.

(How much did the Winter Fuel Payment cut save?)


The liked article is the only one I can find with any costings, it's a 2021 article.
The tunnelling work is now underway.
It's pretty massive.
Finishing date now set back to 2029.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53434502

Psamathe wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 1:34pm

rjb wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 1:10pm Looks like the grid upgrade will be using new pylons not undergrounding.
The new T pylons being erected here across the Somerset levels are not as tall nor as visibly intrusive as the old steel lattice towers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... id-upgrade

The pylons they are proposing across Norfolk are massively larger than existing ones. Plus, rather than follow existing pylon routes they want carving out new sometimes running parallel just a few miles from existing routes.

And the Norfolk/Suffolk route is well suited to undersea cable but National Grid just don't want to consider it. Sea route will do far far less damage to our wildlife and environment but that's not a consideration for National Grid. Recently near me National Grid were doing some existing pylon work and setup a depot in rural countryside (no Planning Permission) and completely devastated the wildlife in the area and over 6 months after they left it's still not recovered.

National Grid are not good when it comes to considering the impact of their work. One village Parish Council got involved as National Grid were taking off people's wing mirrors and damaging vehicles as they drove through the village. They were asked to take the half-mile detour to avoid the village due to damage they were causing and "No".

Ian

I did wonder if undersea routing is less favoured because it puts vital UK infrastructure where malign foreign powers (I won't say who, but, er,.... Putin) could easily sabotage it.

pwa wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 2:15pm

Psamathe wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 1:34pm

rjb wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 1:10pm Looks like the grid upgrade will be using new pylons not undergrounding.
The new T pylons being erected here across the Somerset levels are not as tall nor as visibly intrusive as the old steel lattice towers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... id-upgrade

The pylons they are proposing across Norfolk are massively larger than existing ones. Plus, rather than follow existing pylon routes they want carving out new sometimes running parallel just a few miles from existing routes.

And the Norfolk/Suffolk route is well suited to undersea cable but National Grid just don't want to consider it. Sea route will do far far less damage to our wildlife and environment but that's not a consideration for National Grid. Recently near me National Grid were doing some existing pylon work and setup a depot in rural countryside (no Planning Permission) and completely devastated the wildlife in the area and over 6 months after they left it's still not recovered.

National Grid are not good when it comes to considering the impact of their work. One village Parish Council got involved as National Grid were taking off people's wing mirrors and damaging vehicles as they drove through the village. They were asked to take the half-mile detour to avoid the village due to damage they were causing and "No".

Ian

I did wonder if undersea routing is less favoured because it puts vital UK infrastructure where malign foreign powers (I won't say who, but, er,.... Putin) could easily sabotage it.

Same would apply to putting our windfarms in the sea. The new lines are to take offshore wind to London so there will always be a section of offshore for Putin to interfere with.

Ian

Psamathe wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 4:53pm

pwa wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 2:15pm

Psamathe wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 1:34pm
The pylons they are proposing across Norfolk are massively larger than existing ones. Plus, rather than follow existing pylon routes they want carving out new sometimes running parallel just a few miles from existing routes.

And the Norfolk/Suffolk route is well suited to undersea cable but National Grid just don't want to consider it. Sea route will do far far less damage to our wildlife and environment but that's not a consideration for National Grid. Recently near me National Grid were doing some existing pylon work and setup a depot in rural countryside (no Planning Permission) and completely devastated the wildlife in the area and over 6 months after they left it's still not recovered.

National Grid are not good when it comes to considering the impact of their work. One village Parish Council got involved as National Grid were taking off people's wing mirrors and damaging vehicles as they drove through the village. They were asked to take the half-mile detour to avoid the village due to damage they were causing and "No".

Ian

I did wonder if undersea routing is less favoured because it puts vital UK infrastructure where malign foreign powers (I won't say who, but, er,.... Putin) could easily sabotage it.

Same would apply to putting our windfarms in the sea. The new lines are to take offshore wind to London so there will always be a section of offshore for Putin to interfere with.

Ian

Yes, that's true.

PDQ Mobile wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 11:07pm

I am sure you are right because they are so unstable.
And so therefore so nasty.
Never gave it much thought.

Ah, so it's bad if half lives are long, *and* if they're short. Make your mind up? I think that's having your cake and eating it.

Perhaps you're Boris Johnson?

roubaixtuesday wrote: 14 Sep 2024, 5:01pm

PDQ Mobile wrote: 13 Sep 2024, 11:07pm

I am sure you are right because they are so unstable.
And so therefore so nasty.
Never gave it much thought.

Ah, so it's bad if half lives are long, *and* if they're short. Make your mind up? I think that's having your cake and eating it.

Perhaps you're Boris Johnson?

You were correct to point out my silly and hasty error in half life of Ceasium.

An internet search of "half-life of CO2" produces very little however.
It is more akin to half -life of pharmaceuticals and other products.
Not really relevant in Bob's "define long term", for discussion was about nuclear waste.

A search for long term "nuclear waste storage" WILL reveal a period of around 100000 years.
It's almost unimaginable to conceive of something to last so long.
In suitable natural rock probably the only option possible.
Expensive endeavours.
..........

Caesium as a product of fission is nasty stuff.
It is readily absorbed into the food chain.
In spite of it's shortish half life any really serious contamination will render an area uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
(Wiki)

"Accumulation of caesium-137 in lakes has been a great concern after the Chernobyl disaster.[126][127] Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3.8 millicuries (140 MBq, 4.1 μg of caesium-137) per kilogram is lethal within three weeks;[128] smaller amounts may cause infertility and cancer.[129]"

From here:-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium#cite_note-128


I have already stated my view of it is coloured by past personal experience.
The thought of the land where one grows food so polluted, instills anger and fear.

I might be Percy Throwup.