German Companies Dump UK Nuclear

RWE and EON have pulled out of building new nuclear plants in the UK. (See Telegraph Here)

It is perhaps unsurprising as both companies have been financially crippled by the German decision to shut down their nuclear plants. Both companies are faced with a massive drop in income as their German plants languish. This is the income they were relying on for the next 20+ years to pay for the investment in UK nuclear. Essentially RWE and EON say they now lack the cash for the up front investment in the UK nuclear facilities.

They will also have to pay out for early decommissioning of their German plant. So while the Horison consortium is obliged to keeping to its Finnish commitments for nuclear plant
they have found that legally they can pull out of the large up front commitment in the UK with virtual impunity.

While it is easy to see their financial reasoning, this clearly leaves a big hole in power supply for the UK. It also perhaps shows the stupidity of allowing strategic industries to fall into the clutches of foreign companies. Especially when their commitment to the UK is essentially controlled by a foreign government. (This incidentally applies to all generation technology not just nuclear)

So, we live in interesting times.

Maybe the Horison consortium will be picked up by EDF or others. Again foreign companies controlling our strategic industries.

Then maybe we could simply not build the nuclear plants.

We desperately need reliable, dependable and dispatchable power generation. We have already wasted far too much time and money on unviable an ineffective energy daydreams.

If we were to walk way from these two proposed nuclear sites the most likely outcome is that we would have to adopt the German post nuclear strategy and build more coal plant. Maybe with the potential of the Lancashire shale gas field we could build more gas instead.

Either way we slide backwards.

For the last 20 years we have been living in a dreamworld where strategic industrial investment has been dictated by the technically illiterate, ideological bigotry and wishful thinking.

Instead of relying of foreign companies, who are in turn controlled by foreign governments, maybe it is time we took responsibility and did it for ourselves.

You know - Just for a change - and before it is too late.

U.S.S Prince of Wales?

The two Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, currently being built, were originally costed at £3.9 Billion. That was the proposed completion cost. There was a a potential small increase for the fitting of a catapult launching system if things went wrong with the JSF35 VSTOL aircraft.

The price is now £7 Billion and is likely to top out at £10 Billion. (Robert Peston Here)

That is a hell of alot of money for two new British ships. But it gets worse.

The Americans have consistently blocked access to aspects of the design of the (supposedly jointly designed) JSF F35 aircraft. These are the primary aircraft that these two carriers are supposed to operate.

It now appears that these carriers will also have an area for the sole use of US personnel, into which RN personnel will not be permitted. This on a supposedly UK sovereign ship. ( Telegraph Here )

Are these really going to be bona-fide British ships? Or are they really going to be mere proxies for the American navy. The current controversy over whether they will take the VSTOL version of the JSF35 or the conventionally launched version revolves around the fact that the USA will only operate the conventional variant.

It seems that the USA is quite keen to be able to deploy their own aircraft on these two British flagged carriers. Hence they are pushing hard to get the current VSTOL configuration changed.

There is also a possibility that the VSTOL version of the JSF35 will get cancelled under the feet of the RN. A situation reminiscent of the SkyBolt debacle in the early 60's.(Cabinet Papers Here)

There are a aspects of this I think we should all find really alarming.

1. Cost overrun. If you ordered a house extension for 30k and the end result was an extension costing 100K  you also found your neighbour had rights over occupancy would you be happy? Or would you call in the Fraud Squad?

2. National Sovereignty. However much the USA would like to have us as pet poodle, and however much certain sections o the UK administration love playing the lapdog, we really ensure that command and control of our national defence assets rests solely with the UK. We would be better off without either of these ships rather than merely being the "approved" operator for the real owner.

It would be an outrage if we ended up spending £10 billion simply to provide the USA with a diplomatic smoke screen so they can deploy their aircraft under the guise of the flag of convenience.

Of course an even bigger travesty would be that the owner of that flag of convenience would be us.

The Wind Industry and Rotten Onions

When I first started this blog I had no plans for it to be dominated by the energy debate. But so far, and by a long margin, my most prolific output has centred on the utter disgrace that is wind power.

It is worthwhile (at least for me) to see how this blog has got subsumed by the energy debate. Perhaps it may also be of interest to those who rather amusingly think I am in the pay of some grand conspiracy against wind.

I came at this as a wind turbine virgin.

I had not bothered investigating the pros and cons of wind farms. I had no reason to. Like most people I had blindly assumed that wind energy was a viable and sensible option. After all, why was so much money being thrown at it otherwise?

Checking out the ability of wind farms to actually generate useful energy had frankly, never occurred to me. I had certainly never heard of ROCs. I just took it as a given. Probably just like most of the population.

Then one day (2009) I was driving to work through East Stoke. The local radio reported on how Infinergy had modified their proposal for a wind farm at East Stoke from six to four turbines. Breathlessly the reported said this four turbine industrial complex would generate 9.2 MW. I guffawed. Seriously. I thought the reporter had left a nought off.

So that night I thought I would have a gentle poke at the mathematical illiteracy of the reporter in my new blog. Just to ensure I got it right I Googled what it should be. Good job I did!

The reporter had not left off a nought. In fact the reporter had reported the maximum output. An output that would hardly ever be achieved. We now know that the averaged output over a year would be about 20% or 1.8MW. Or less that 0.5 MW for each huge turbine. (It is actually considerably worse than that, but I won't go into that now)

To say I was shocked was an understatement.

Ever since then it has been like peeling the layers off a rotten onion. Each time I exposed another rancid layer, I thought that it could not get any worse. But each time I have been dis-proven.

On closer examination virtually every pro wind statement proved, at best to be optimistic. At worst an outright lie.

I have not blogged for a while basically because I've got bored with it. Particularly, blogging about the Wind Farm Scam is a bit like continually clearing up sewage, it gets tedious and unpleasant.

Hence the break.

But (as has been pointed out to me!) I need to get back into it. I literally have stuff backed up I need to post on. The wind industry is still awash with graft and greed.

Perhaps most depressing of all this is how the dogmatic quasi-religious followers of the carpet baggers blindly ignore the facts, while chanting out the propaganda spewed out by their well heeled idols. Maybe they don't actually lie, maybe they are so soaked in their dogma that (in their minds) 2 + 2 really does equal 5

I have been entertained by the childish accusations from the zealots of being in the pay of "the global conspiracy" (or whatever), but hardly ever get meaningful challenges to any of the data I present.

So, to my friends ( and detractors) - I have not given up, and I certainly have not gone away.

I am just having a breather from poking a virtual stick into the filthy self serving mess that is the wind industry.

FrackNation

Heres an opportunity to become an executive producer of a documentary (on a budget). Not only that it gives you the chance to bust a few myths about shale gas.

This proposed documentary on the realities of shale gas will not stop the misinformation and outright lies being propagated by its opponents.

But hey, it's a bloody good start. You can join the conspiracy HERE. (I'm in for $10.00)

Watch the trailer below (h/t to the The Filthy Engineer )

An Irish Lament

hat-tip to caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/

Why is Wind Power So Expensive?

Billothewisp is having trouble keeping up with this.

Today another devastating report on the hopelessness of wind power has been published.
 (Why is Wind Power So Expensive? - See Here ).

To be honest I have only managed to spend about an hour on it but it is very hard hitting. It actually questions some of my prepositions - and I oppose wind turbines!

This document has been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

I know some of my more disparaging readers will instantly dismiss this report because it is published by what is regarded as a right wing think-tank. But they need to look past the mere publisher and see who the author is. Namely one Professor Gordon Hughs.

So who the Hell is Gordon Hughs?

Here is his Bio:

Dr Gordon Hughes is a Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh where he teaches courses in the economics of natural Resources and Public economics. He was a senior adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank until 2001. He has advised governments on the design and implementation of environmental policies and was responsible for some of the World Bank’s most important environmental guidelines.

Not exactly an ignoramus then.

Professor Hughs is somebody, I would imagine, who really would not have to take his socks off to count above ten.

Somebody one would expect to have the highest integrity.

RenewablesUK have yet to pass judgement on Professor Gordon Hughs.

Of course, Gordon Hughs may be a crank, an axe murdering psychopath, or even in the pay of some fabulously dark international conspiracy to do something or the other.

I am sure RenewablesUK can come up with something derogatory. Just give them a few days.

But still, Professor Hughs is awfully good with figures.

What my turbinista loving readers should do before closing their minds and shutting out the (very) nasty truths expounded upon in this report, is do the dangerous thing - read the report.

Look at the figures presented. Read the explanations of the technologies. Go through the the explanations of the subidies and how debilitating they are.

Maybe, you could go onto reading the the four independent reports I outlined in my last post ( See Here ). But, hey, one report would be a start.

So have a good (or maybe a very unpleasant) read. At the very least owe it to your community to give it a fair hearing.

Feel free to recommend back a contrary report for me to read. Though actually, you may well find I have read it already.  I really do try to address this issue from a position of informed opinion rather than from simply one side. But please feel free to recommend away.

You never know - maybe you can influence me.

Of course, if you are fair minded, then there is also the chance that I may influence you.

Wind Power - Another Damning Report

RenewablesUK and the government have really thrown their toys out of the pram over the latest energy report by the AF Mercados engineering consultancy.  (  Title: Powerful Targets - Link Here* )

The original version of the report was originally due to be published by KPMG last year. Consequently it held a very high profile. But contents of the report were so explosive KPMG bottled out. The report was suppressed at the last moment.

According to KPMG this had nothing to do with any pressure from the government, RenewablesUK or their many wind farm clients. They said the report was so complex it was open to misinterpretation. Hmmm - thats believable (not).

The engineering firm who did the research for KPMG has decided to publish anyway.

According to the government and RenewablesUK (the wind industry trade body), AF Mercados produced a simplistic and shoddy report.

Bearing in mind AF Mercados is a large and highly respected international firm of consulting engineers - obviously with enough status to be hired by KPMG, that hardly seems likely does it?

Of course, if this was the only report detailing the absurd squandering of resources that epitomise wind power then we all may be forgiven for treating the report sceptically.

But this is very far from the first report.

Go back a few weeks. There was a damning report by Civitas ( Title: Electricity Costs. the Folly of Wind Power - Link Here.)  RenewablesUK, obviously lacking any reasoned defence of their position, blamed the report on "Cranks"

Then there was the report by Stuart Young Consulting for the environmental group the John Muir Trust (roughly a Scottish equivalent of the CPRE). ( Title: Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation - Link Here.) Scottish Renewables announced they had no confidence in the Stuart Young figures (no surprise there then)

Previous to these there was a report by Royal Academy of Engineers (Title: The Cost Of Generating Electricity - Link Here) which detailed the horrific cost associated with wind power compared to other generation techniques. It looks like the wind sector ignored this damning report completely and simply hoped it would go away.

Four separate and detailed reports by four independent and highly respected bodies.

Each independant report presents a damning vision of current government policy. Each report displays how hopelessly ineffective and how unaffordable wind turbines are.

They all display the wind industry as an industry gripped by a gold rush. An industry squandering our money and resources on what is little more than a fashion statement.

Have a good read.

-------
* if this link to the AF Consult document (hosted on "businessgreen") mysteriouly breaks, drop me a note and I'll make my copy available directly
------

Raspberry Pi

A great little SBC (single board computer) has been launched. It has had a long an arduos gestation lasting several years, but this little SBC  is a magnificent achievement. It has been designed and developed in Cambridge by the Raspberry Pi foundation.

See Here
RS Components Here
Farnell Here

You can get one for £25. (that's right - twenty five quid)

 So what? You may say. What is so special about just "another" computer. Believe me, this little SBC is far from being just another pile of electronics. It promises to revolutionise both the teaching and implementation of electronics/computing in our schools, colleges and industry.

You will be seeing it in schools within a year and then in home brewed products shortly afterwards. Where better to start than with the educational market? But that is merely the tip of the ice burg. Believe me this is not just a load of hype. This thing will fly.

But great as this is there is one downside that needs debating.

The talented and creative folk who created this breakthrough wanted to build the initial boards in this country. Good for them. But they couldn't.

The main reason?

The brick wall to getting these things made here revolved around the price of components.

 If they were built and fully assembled in China then there would be no import Tax when bringing them into this country.

But if they were built here, then the components would have been subject to import tax on entry and so would have pushed up the price of the finished boards to a much higher and unsustainable price.

 A case of tax breaks for the Chinese at the expense of UK industry.

 What a shame.

 But even so, this is a great achievement full of promise for the future.

I haven't been able to get one yet - they are sold out (grrrrr)

Bad Engineering and Premature Technology

Taken from "The Times" (letters to the Editor) today.....

[quote]
I am most worried by the billions of pounds being misinvested and lost as a consequence.

Look out to sea at the end of 2015 and see how many windmills are not turning and you will get my point: there are already 14,000 abandoned windmills onshore in the US.

Premature technology deployment is thoroughly bad engineering, and my taxes are subsidising it against my will and professional judgement.

Professor Michael Kelly 
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge
[unquote]


That just about says it all really.

The Ghost of Winfrith

Today it is hard to believe that just outside Winfrith, a small village in Dorset, there used to be one of the most dynamic and technologically advanced locations in the world. All there is now is a fading building, some rusty sidings and a halting and occasional de-commissioning exercise.

The decommisioning is run by RSRL, or to give it it's full name - Research Sites Restoration Ltd - See Here. The old Winfrith site is set among trees and is well back from the road. Today most drive past without even noticing it.

Winfrith was a nuclear  research facility but it never held a large reactor. The largest was a mere tiddler with a maximum power rating of 63 MW.

Even though this was designed specifically for research purposes it still provided a useful, regular and reliable output to the grid of 50MW.

While it was in operation, Winfrith was serviced by many small companies all based in the surrounding area. These companies were in turn serviced by other small companies providing everything from stainless steel to sandwiches.

Today the remains of the once dynamic industrial site between Winfrith and Wool, now renamed Dorset Green, is a mere shadow of its former self. Most of the jobs, along with the carbon free power generation from the Winfrith reactor are long gone.

It is interesting to compare the effectiveness of the 60 year old Winfrith research reactor to recent plans for so called "renewable" energy in Dorset.

Last year the Dorset Energy Group were bragging about a "reasonable scenario" of building 180 2MW turbines in Dorset. Frustratingly for the zealots in the DEG this number has evidently now been trimmed down, or at least obfuscated so not to frighten the locals.

Let's say the 100 turbines would now be their dream target.

We know that in 2010 the wind turbine capacity factor for the South West was a measly 17.7% (the lowest in the country). But let us round it up and say that these turbines would be over 10% better than their peers elsewhere in the South West.

That gives us a capacity factor of about 20%.

So the output of these 100 turbines would actually amount to 100 x 0.2 x 2 = 40MW.

These turbines would bring very few jobs and no technologically based business park. Virtually nothing would be added to the local economy. The only real local gains would be made by the already rich land owners who, to be fair, would make a killing.

These 100 turbines would utterly ruin the ancient county of Dorset. Every village would be blighted. Every viewpoint would be polluted.

All for 40MW.

Reduce the number of turbines and you also reduce the already ridiculously poor power output. So they get even more ineffective. Though collectively somewhat less ugly.

Now compare that to the old Winfrith site that provided many good jobs and singlehandedly provided the power equivalent to 120 huge wind turbines. Remember also that the tiny Winfrith reactor also provided consistent on-demand output unlike the intermittent and unpredictable wind turbine output.

Most of the people who designed Winfrith have not only retired but many have now died of old age. Yet 60 odd years ago they produced plentiful carbon free electricity that was, at the time, generated by the very leading edge of technology.

If you really wanted to reduce carbon emissions from coal and gas plant then even the old Winfrith research reactor would be a step forward from the wind turbine fiasco.

But today far more effective nuclear technology is available. Exciting new developments with MSR or LFTR technology promise massively plentiful yet utterly safe and secure power generation.

The next generation nuclear reactors will be developed by dynamic establishments - like Winfrith used to be.

Unfortunately Winfrith will no longer be one of them.

ROC and Roll Rip-offs

The ROC is the veiled subsidy paid to wind turbine operators. Every MW/hr generated by a turbine operator gains the turbine operator a ROC certificate. This certificate is then sold to fossil fuel generators. These fossil fuel generators are forced to buy these certificates or they have to pay a fine.

At the end of the day, due to the ROC, an on-shore turbine operator gets paid about double for the electricity produced. An off-shore operator gets paid triple.

If we ever managed to produce 20% of our power by wind it would account for at least 50% of the wholesale cost.

The naive political theory behind these massive subsidies is that they were supposed to kick start a whole new industry. This industry would then magically develop ever more effective and reliable wind turbines. (Oh Boy - do they need to be more effective and reliable!)

Unfortunately the truth is very far from the hype.

As the fairy-land theory goes, in the scenario of 100% "renewable" supply the ROC would become redundant, and we would have a vibrant industry developing and producing competitive alternative energy for us and the rest of the world.

Dream on.

Unfortunately this attempt at forced development neglects several very important aspects which are more related to physics and basic economics than political wishful thinking.

First, virtually all of the turbines purchased come from a group of foreign companies. These companies occasionally toss the odd manufacturing bone across the channel when is suites them. But as we saw in the Isle of Wight with Vestas, they are just as keen to maximise their profits at the expense of the workforce as any other ruthless faceless and foreign corporation.

Secondly no turbine in the current turbine fleet could possibly be economically viable without the ROC. The government has recently suggested a measly 10% reduction. This has flown into a hail of objection from the wind turbine lobby.

So if these things become unviable at a mere 10% reduction in the ROC how the hell are you ever going to get to a zero cost ROC? Remember these things are supposed to have a life of 25 years! They are still going to be at least as inefficient and ineffective in 10 -20 years time as they are now.

Of course we must also remember that wind turbines can never replace all fossil fuel generation. Many would say they cannot replace any.

Because wind can never replace much fossil plant there will always be a demand for the ROCs. So our wind turbine carpet bagger friends can always get a good return on their pieces of paper.

They simply have to ensure that their turbines don't actually do what they are hyped up to do. Bearing in mind the physics of the situation (aka Betts Law) this is the defacto situation anyway.

So get used to being ripped off. Until we get a government that is willing to stand up to this ugly wind energy cartel  the robbery will continue.

Bearing in mind how financially involved many senior politicians are with this outrage, change threatens to be a long time coming.

The Defence of Silton

So it begins.

The Silton Planning Inquiry starts on Tuesday 28th February.

On the one hand we have the good people of Silton.  They have pledged their hard earned cash to defend their village from the carpet baggers and wind turbine fashionista's who threaten it.

The villagers have to pay for the legal council they need to defend their village. Money they can ill afford. The local council will also be defending a democratically arrived decision to refuse planning. Also at great cost to the community.

On the other hand we have a ruthless and laughably pretentious wind farm operator which greedily seeks to overturn the councils planning refusal.

So on one side we have a perfectly valid and democratic planning decision to refuse the erection of an industrial wind turbine complex at Silton.

On the other we have a vain and ruthless developer who will now attempt to defeat local democracy.

This is outrageously unfair and undemocratic.

But fairness and democracy never were the strong suites of the wind turbine fraternity.

But still, the good people of Silton are defending their patch, and good for them. Their moral stance, backed up by their admirable resolution and social responsibility are an example to us all.

The Save our Silton Website is HERE
The Dorset Against Rural Turbines Site is HERE

If there is any justice left in the planning system, the Silton villagers will win hands down.

Today I just want to wish my friends in Silton all the best. May your village remain as beautiful as it is today, unspoiled by pointless industrial development.

Good luck to you.

The End of the German Solar Dream

So far the Germans have invested approximately 130 billion Euros in household and industrial solar power. (Roughly the same as the recent Greek bail-out)   See Here

Over a year solar now provides around 3% of their electrical requirements. (See Wikipedia Here)

Of course this solar power is only effective during the daylight hours and then only when the sun is shining. During winter the output is usually as close to nil as makes no difference.

The headline solar installation capacity is (for 2011) 24.8 GW. If that was really the effective output it would amount to 30 medium/large Nuclear or fossil fuel power stations (assuming a typical capacity factor of 80%).

Sounds impressive.

Unfortunately the claim is deceptive, if not down right fraudulent.

This is a snippet from the above Wikipedia article

When you do the sums you find that the actual yearly solar output is just over 8% of the much heralded maximum.

The actual energy produced by these 130,000,000,000 Euros worth of solar averages over the year at less than two and a half Nuclear or CCGT or coal power stations power stations, each rated at 1GW with an 80% Capacity factor.

Even then, the solar output is of course intermittent. Not only due to the the obvious night time limitation of solar, but due to variable solar intensity due to time of year and the inevitable periods of cloud.

The net result of this is that the 130,000,000,000 Euros worth of solar does not displace anywhere near 2.5 GW of fossil or nuclear plant.

Let us be kind and throw caution to the wind.

Lets say that this 130,000,000,000 Euros worth of solar saves carbon emissions from 3 coal powered stations each rated at 1GW.

That averages out at over 43 billion euro per coal plant shut down. Hardly an economic or environmental miracle is it?

Let us do a comparison here.

A CCGT gas plant produces less than 40% of the carbon emmissions of a coal plant. So to save the same amount of carbon as this expensive solar plant (but in a reliable and on-demand way) all you need  to do is replace 5, 1GW coal plants with 5, 1GW CCGT plants.

A 1GW CCGT plant costs around 600 million Euros so you can do the same thing  (but also produce reliable dispatchable and on-demand electricity all the year round) for about 3 billion Euros. Or just over 2% of the cost of solar. The running costs of the gas  plant would also be considerably less than the feed in tarif payments of 10 billion paid annually for the solar plant.

Of course if the Germans coiuld get over their collective phobia regarding nuclear then you could save the same amount of carbon by replacing 2.5 Coal plants with 2.5 modern Nuclear plants

Even using the ludicrously inflated figures from the anti nuclear lobby the  cost would be only 7.5 Billion Euros or 5% of the solar cost (actually the real figure is about 3%)

Like the rest of Europe, Germany is sitting on an ocean of shale gas. Germany also has the technical expertise to exploit 3rd and 4th generation nuclear as well as cutting edge nuclear such as MSR or LFTR nuclear plant.

If they had avoided the quasi-religious dogma that forced them down this solar blind alley, they would today be reducing their carbon emissions. instead they are about to massively rise as they replace nuclear with coal.

Instead of a dynamic, low carbon and cutting edge power generation network, the Germans now have their self indulgent and next to useless solar money pit, plus their equally hopeless wind farms - all backed up by dirty coal.

No wonder some German politicians are running scared. ( See Here ) ( and Here )

Lagging the Roof with Davey

At last! A morsel of common sense from the great and good.  ( See Guardian HERE ). Insulating houses and so REDUCING energy demand is fundamentally a very sound idea.

Household insulation should be at the very front of the government policy and if anything should get a subsidy it should be insulation.

But regrettably our esteemed leaders are still proud wind turbine fashionistas, even though it is these very wind turbines that will undo the good work done by the insulation and force many more thousands into fuel poverty.

Ed Davey, the new Huhne clone has announced that insulation can save as much as 2 Nuclear power stations. (see the above link)

Now I imagine that means a total power of about 2 GW (i.e. two Sizewell B's).

So let us do a comparison with an "average" on-shore wind turbine which is 2MW but has a capacity factor of 25% or less (in the South West - much less).

A little maths tells us that instead of supplanting 2 nuclear power station that produce reliable "dispatchable" power we could .......

dispense with  4000 unreliable, intermittent and massively subsidised wind turbines instead.

(yes that is not a misprint - FOUR THOUSAND - every land based bird mincer in the country plus some more..)

let's see.....

Close down 2  effective nuclear power plants?

Or 4000 ineffective wind turbines?

I know which I would choose.

Not only would we be free of these hopeless white elephants, but the money we would save on NOT paying the ROC subsidy would pay for the whole of the subsidised household insulation - for every home in the country.

The final icing on the cake would be the 250,000 households that would NOT be pushed into fuel poverty simply to line the pockets of the wind turbine carpet baggers.

Half truths at the Guardian

Look at this hopelessly partisan propaganda piece from the Guardian. Half truths, cherry picked data and innuendo like this should shame any editorial desk. ( See HERE )

Like all propaganda, this piece is based around a morsel of truth. But it then goes on to vent its bigotry in as many flavours of nudge-nudge-wink innuendo as it can possibly manage.

Laughably they shoot themselves in the foot with a graph, (below) which actually is about the only truly unsullied part of the article. Maybe they thought their Guardian readership would be overawed with a graph, even if it junks most of their propaganda.

So let us look at this a little more.

True - carbon emmissions went up last year in the UK by 3.1%. But if you look at the graph you will see that the shock-horror-probe "blip" is actually a decreasing trend spanning many years.

True - this 3.1% is the first rise in a very long time, But then the previous years drop (8.7%) was unprecendented, as was the recession.

Also true - the increase was made worse by break downs in our old nuclear plant, most of which is at the end of its life. Perhaps instead of making ridiculous statements about the "fickleness" of nuclear power, these two dismal journalists should address the need for more nuclear now. I would put money on it though that the last thing they would support would be more nuclear, irrespective of the consequences for carbon emissions.

Instead it looks like they are dedicated followers of fashion and would rather kill a few thousand more old folk with their ludicrous though very trendy windmills, which unfortunately, are the truly ineffective option.

Nuclear, like all rotating machinery may break down but at least when it is up and running it generates useable quantities of power. Except for mechanical breakdown it will perform.

Of course, whether wind farms produce any power at all at a particular time  is a total lottery.

Their silence about the appalling performance of the wind farms last year is deafening - again we see just more propaganda -leave out the bits that don't fit with your wishful thinking.

One thing we should have all learned from the cold snap last year (including this hopeless pair of propagandists) is that so called "green" energy - especially the Wind Turbine fleet was hopelessly ineffective.

Old nuclear plant may have broken down and needed fixing but the wind turbine fleet, at crucial times, simply did not work. Fixed or not.

Of course they also drag in their mates from Greenpeace, WWF and New Economics Foundation who can be relied on to issues various flavours of "Its a bloody disgrace".

But for all their pompous bluster they simply cannot disguise the truth so graphically displayed in their graph.

The UK's carbon emissions are on a long term downward trend, and that this is with no thanks whatsoever to their beloved windmills.

The Great Wind Farm Robbery Revisited

The wind turbine industry gets ever more greedy with its claims for curtailment/constraint payments. Turbine operators are claiming huge sums of money just in order to shut down. 
( The Scotsman HERE ) ( Telegraph HERE )

Luckily for us, wind turbines are so pathetically incapable of actually generating on a reliable basis that the need for curtailment payments are relatively rare. 

Take this scatter graph from the National Grid Winter Consultation 2011 ( HERE )

Each dot represents an individual wind farm output (y-axis) against actual demand (x-axis) The line National Grid have drawn shows where curtailment payments may have to be made. Inevitably these are at times when turbine output is high but demand is low. In other words the turbine power is being generated when it is not needed. Yet they still have the nerve to claim huge curtailment payments.

This scatter graph also confirms two other shocking truths about wind power. The majority of the time the output is actually well below the capacity factor. It is only the occasional high wind occurrence that bigs up the capacity factor to the (still derisory) value of 20-25%. 

Also it confirms the rather obvious flaw in wind power in that there is absolutely no correlation between wind turbine output and demand. Look to the right hand end of the x-axis and you will see plenty of evidence of turbine output being well below 10% while demand was near maximum.

But still, there are occasions when for operational reasons, during periods of low demand and high wind that the grid needs to get turbines to shut down. When these occasions happen the turbine owners go into a feeding frenzy. They demand and get payments many times the value of the electricity the could have produced - just to shut down.

While other generation technologies can also get curtailment payments, they all seem to have more of a sense of moral responsibility than the massively subsidised wind turbine cartel.

These shockingly greedy payments demanded by the wind turbine operators are at least open to inspection.

But the REF (Renewable Energy Foundation - HERE) have discovered that as well as these outrageous payments there are a set of secretive extra payments made to turbine operators which are actually even more extravagant. ( SEE THIS REF LINK ) also (Power Engineering Magazine HERE).

Even so, all these payments get dwarfed by the massive ROC subsidy turbine operators receive. But these greedy claims for yet more cash are perhaps a clearer indication of the predatory and ruthless motives that drive the wind turbine gravy train.

Morally there is no reason a massively subsidised wind turbine should get even a sniff of a constraint payment. Bearing in mind how much of the time they have to rely on other generation to pick up the shortfall caused by their intermittency the occassional call to shut down should go unrewarded.

My original piece on the Great Wind Farm Robbery is HERE

A Letter that Demands Action

It looks like the time has come where many  in high office have finally decided to take a deep breath, grit their teeth and put the interests of the country ahead of the money men, zealots and carpet baggers of the wind turbine cartel industry.

The following letter was signed by 101 MPs

While every signature is important and courageous, perhaps we should provide an extra level of applause to those from Labour and the Lib-Dems who will undoubtedly pay a heavy price for their challenge to the narrow doctrinaire obedience demanded by their colleagues on this issue.

The Telegraph article is ( HERE ).

Here is the letter and signatories:

[quote]
The Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
LONDON, SW1A 2AA
30th January 2012
As Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, we have grown more and more concerned about the Government’s policy of support for on-shore wind energy production.

In these financially straightened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies on-shore wind turbines.

In the on-going review of subsidy for renewable energy subsidies, we ask the Government to dramatically cut the subsidy for on-shore wind and spread the savings made between other types of reliable renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures.

We also are worried that the new National Planning Policy Framework, in its current form, diminishes the chances of local people defeating unwanted on-shore wind farm proposals through the planning system. Thus we attach some subtle amendments to the existing wording that we believe will help rebalance the system.

Finally, recent planning appeals have approved wind farm developments with the inspectors citing renewable energy targets as being more important than planning considerations. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that it is impossible to defeat applications through the planning system. We would urge you to ensure that planning inspectors know that the views of local people and long established planning requirements should always be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Heaton-Harris (CON), Daventry
Christopher Pincher (CON), Tamworth
Nadine Dorries (CON), Mid Bedfordshire
Karen Bradley (CON), Staffordshire Moorlands
Steve Baker (CON), Wycombe
David Davis (CON), Haltemprice and Howden
Matthew Hancock (CON), West Suffolk
Richard Bacon (CON), South Norfolk
David Nuttall (CON), Bury North
Bernard Jenkin (CON), Harwich and North Essex
Dr. Daniel Poulter (CON), Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
Anne Main (CON), St Albans
David Mowat (CON), Warrington South
Karen Lumley (CON), Redditch
Nadhim Zahawi (CON), Stratford-on-Avon
Natascha Engel (LAB), North East Derbyshire
Pauline Latham (CON), Mid Derbyshire
Sarah Newton (CON), Truro and Falmouth
Geoffrey Cox (CON), Torridge and West Devon
Brandon Lewis (CON), Great Yarmouth
Adam Holloway (CON), Gravesham
Damian Collins (CON), Folkestone and Hythe
David Morris (CON), Morecambe and Lunesdale
Graham Brady (CON), Altrincham and Sale West
Louise Mensch (CON), Corby
Robert Walter (CON), North Dorset
Aidan Burley (CON), Cannock Chase
Bob Blackman (CON), Harrow East
Nick De Bois (CON), Enfield North
Steve Brine (CON), Winchester
Robert Syms (CON), Poole
Caroline Nokes (CON), Romsey and Southampton North
Brian Binley (CON), Northampton South
Steven Barclay (CON), North East Cambridgeshire
Julian Lewis (CON), New Forest East
Lorraine Fullbrook (CON), South Ribble
Tony Cunningham (LAB), Workington
Christopher Chope (CON), Christchurch
Dan Byles (CON), North Warwickshire
Edward Leigh (CON), Gainsborough
Richard Harrington (CON), Watford
Jacob Rees-Mogg (CON), North East Somerset
Guto Bebb (CON), Aberconwy
Kris Hopkins (CON), Keighley
Iain Stewart (CON), Milton Keynes South
Mark Spencer (CON), Sherwood
John Stevenson (CON), Carlisle
Bill Cash (CON), Stone
Andrew Griffiths (CON), Burton
Simon Hart (CON), Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire
Peter Bone (CON), Wellingborough
Charlie Elphicke (CON), Dover
Justin Tomlinson (CON), North Swindon
Mark Pawsey (CON), Rugby
Stuart Andrew (CON), Pudsey
Marcus Jones (CON), Nuneaton
Alun Cairns (CON), Vale of Glamorgan
Richard Drax (CON), South Dorset
Martin Vickers (CON), Cleethorpes
Craig Whittaker (CON), Calder Valley
Bob Stewart (CON), Beckenham
Adam Afriyie (CON), Windsor
Jack Lopresti (CON), Filton & Bradley Stoke
James Wharton (CON), Stockton South
Julian Sturdy (CON), York Outer
Heather Wheeler (CON), South Derbyshire.
Nigel Mills (CON), Amber Valley
Simon Reevell (CON), Dewsbury
Mark Reckless (CON), Rochester and Strood
Paul Maynard (CON), Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Jeremy Lefroy (CON), Stafford
Jackie Doyle-Price (CON), Thurrock
Philip Hollobone (CON), Kettering
James Clappison (CON), Hertsmere
Sammy Wilson (DUP), East Antrim
David Tredinnick (CON), Bosworth
Roger Williams (LIB DEM), Brecon and Radnorshire
Nicholas Soames (CON), Mid Sussex
Graham Evans (CON), Weaver Vale
Douglas Carswell (CON), Clacton
Patrick Mercer (CON), Newark
Rory Stewart (CON), Penrith and The Border
John Glen (CON), Salisbury
Mark Pritchard (CON), The Wrekin
Caroline Dinenage (CON), Gosport
Neil Parish (CON), Tiverton and Honiton
Stephen McPartland (CON), Stevenage
Greg Knight (CON), East Yorkshire
David Ruffley (CON), Bury St Edmunds
Tracey Crouch (CON), Chatham and Aylesford
Priti Patel (CON), Witham
Karl McCartney (CON), Lincoln
James Gray (CON), North Wiltshire
Mark Williams (LIB DEM), Ceredigion
Andrew Rosindell (CON), Romford
Oliver Heald (CON), North East Hertfordshire
Andrea Leadsom (CON), South Northamptonshire
Ian Liddell-Grainger (CON), Bridgwater and West Somerset
Charles Walker (CON), Broxbourne
Andrew Percy (CON), Brigg and Goole
Andrew Bridgen (CON), North West Leicestershire
Andrew Turner (CON), Isle of Wight
Mark Garnier (CON), Wyre Forest
Andrew Bingham (CON), High Peak
Stewart Jackson (CON), Peterborough
Philip Davies (CON), Shipley
[end quote]

Huhne: Good Riddance

I understand that before the now notorious speeding offence, Huhne had already accumulated several driving convictions. If he had taken another three points on his licence (instead of the points going on his wife's licence) then he would have been banned from driving.

So it looks like this arrogant self obsessed technical ignoramus drives without any consideration for anyone else. A bit like his approach to high office in fact.

Regrettably, even though we are well rid of this egotistical bigot, the general thrust of the coalitions approach to the wind turbine scam is unlikely to change - at least in the short term.

I picked up on an email that a long term political insider said this about the government and Huhne's demise:

“I don't believe anything has changed with the departure of Huhne,
other than we have lost one of our more arrogant and ultimately stupid Ministers.”

 I don't know who made this comment, but it sounds about right.

Shock Horror Probe

Perhaps I expect too much of modern day journalism.

Take the following two articles:

The first concerns recent data on global warming ( HERE)

It is not the skeptical stance of the article that disturbs me, it is more the lack of accessibility to the released [quote] without fanfare [unquote] data -purportedly from the Met office.

I have looked for the referred to Met office document without success. Does it exist?

 All it would have taken would have been a link or reference in the above article. Is that too much to ask?

I could Google and Bing and whatever and maybe (if it exists - which I expect it does) I would find it.

But the article without a valid reference is diminished.

To be fair, it also diminishes the Met Office by them not having ready access to what they must know is likely to be controversial data. Are they hiding it? Or does it not exist? Who knows?

If you know - tell me. It would be nice to know, so I can make my own judgement.

The second is this article concerning Peer to Peer lending (HERE)

Again I admit I am quite a fan of peer to peer lending but I still look to responsible journalism for proper information on this growing sector of the financial system.

The article referred to a small increase in repayment default at Zopa (still less than that accepted at the main banks) and also a failed company that operated on the margins and outside of the voluntary regulation self imposed by most responsible peer to peer companies.

Yet these two unrelated aspects are used to taint the reputation of the three main companies trading in this field, namely Zopa, Funding Circle and Ratesetter.

Perhaps if the article had concentrated on the need for formal FSA regulation (as demanded by Zopa, FC and RateSetter) then it would have had a purpose.

As it was it simply indulged in an orgy of half truths and innuendo.

Journalism fails us when the sources are not transparent. It particularly fails us when journalists fail to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

DIY Foreign Aid on a Budget

The great thing about DIY is that it is cheap and effective.

That applies to DIY foreign aid just as much as it does to building that book shelf the wife has been moaning about for the last year.

You can get somebody else to do it, but then you know it is going to cost alot more and probably be done to a lower standard as well.

If you really want to get ripped off just get a government department to do the job. Not only will you pay through the nose, you will also get crap service. That is why much of the seven billion we spend in aid every year simply goes down the toilet.

Not only does our governmental aid fail to reach the deserving poor, it is often used to ensure they remain downtrodden.

Have a read of this Daily Mail article (HERE). AHa! I hear you say, but that is the Daily Mail, they would say that wouldn't they?

Well, how about this Zambian Economist (HERE) Incidentally she created quite a stir with her book titled Dead Aid (Amazon HERE)

So what can you do?

Personally, I have followed the advice given by the above Zambian economist (DAMBISA MOYO) and have loaned out (not given) a small amount of cash to honest hardworking folk all over the world through an organisation called Kiva (HERE)

It may be only a lousy $150 in total but I suspect it does more good than a considerably bigger sum doled out by the foreign office.

Not only that it is also relatively safe.

On Kiva you can deal yourself in with $25 (circa £18). That and you can also get your money back if necessary. This is Billothewisps Kiva page (HERE)

At least have a look at Kiva. You can make a difference as an individual by giving a hand up not a hand out. Even though you end up doing the bloody Foreign Office's job for them.

Keeping the lights on with Nuclear

You may have noticed that I am an unashamed supporter of nuclear power generation.

I do however, believe nuclear materials needs to be treated with respect. But that is true of 100's of other materials we also need for our daily needs. We need to keep things in proportion.

Nuclear energy has the potential to transform power generation around the world. It is the only viable generation source that can displace coal and even gas. It is safe and secure and remarkably resilient to even massively catastrophic events - like the recent Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami (including the clapped out 50 year Fukishima plant).

Compare Fukishima to the Banquao disaster, (Wikipedia page here) where a hydroelectric plant failed in China in 1975 resulting in at least 200,000 deaths. Nobody believes we should shut down our hydroelectric plants even after the catastrophe at Banquao. Neither should we shut down our nuclear plants because of the failure of one 50 year old, obsolete plant under ultra extreme conditions.

Particularly we should shun the insane German decision to shut down nuclear and build polluting coal plant to replace it.

But what about the risks of Nuclear? If it is so safe why did they evacuate Fukishima? Why was Three Mile island treated so seriously although nobody died?

Once, a long time ago in I heard a analogy regarding nuclear safety and the extreme precautions that are taken.

The analogy revolves around the question: "Why, if nuclear power was so safe, do we have to take so many precautions?"

Here is the analogy:

A man had two children. His children were frightened of the dark. The children believed there were ghosts and goulies waiting in the dark. Unfathomable horrors waiting for them.

Consequently, to allay their fears, their father left on the hall light. He knew there were no ghosts. But he also knew that without the light, his children would be frightened.

He took the precaution.

Much of the  rigorous safety precautions surrounding nuclear and the extreme low dosimetry involved are the equivalent of putting the hall light on.

The irony of the fathers compassionate decision was that by lighting up the hall he would reinforce the fears of his children that there actually were ghosts and ghoulies waiting in the dark.

After all why would he put the light on unless there really were bad things waiting in the dark?

Why should they believe their fathers protestations that there were no ghosts? After all he is the one that puts the hall light on.

One day the father and his children would have to confront the issue, or continue wasting resources on the unneccessary light.

For us today the stakes are much higher than a single light bulb.

But perhaps it is time the nuclear industry stopped pandering to the childish fears about nuclear power that infect our society.

Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University makes a compelling case far a more mature approach to nuclear risk in his book Radiation and Reason. It is available at Amazon (here) I also have a number of other links related to this book/reviews/websites  On This Post Here

Perhaps it is also time we treated the ridiculous and immoral scare-mongering claims made by the anti-nuclear lobby (See this Post), with the contempt and derision they deserve.

The Windscale Fire - 55 Years On

The Windscale fire was a fire in a nuclear reactor in Cumbria, England in 1957. Although the radiation release was less than Chernobyl, the pollution fell over nearby towns and also travelled across the Irish sea. Before Chernobyl, the Windscale fire was the worlds worst nuclear accident. The Windscale fire Wikipedia page is here

The enquiry into the Windscale fire searched for the casualties. It arrived at the conclusion that "statistically" 33 fatalies had resulted from the fire, although nobody could actually place names on the dead.

If you use the anti-nuclear scale that reckons around one million have died so far from Chernobyl, and one million will die from Fukishima (14,000 in the USA already), It would seem reasonable to give a conservative estimate to  the Windscale death toll over the last 55 years at  somewhere between 500,000 and 750,000.

Look at the scale of this thing.

It has been 55 years since the Windscale fire. So on average, using figures estimated from the anti-nuclear lobby's figures for Chernobyl and Fukushima, there should have been on average, about 10,000 radiation induced deaths a year.

There would have been peaks where a certain mortality took hold. So perhaps we should have seen, over this period,  a series of peaks of  20,000 - 40,000 deaths in particular years.

This would be a scale of additional mortality similar to that caused by medium size war.

Yet no medic or even anti-nuclear lobby has flagged up or protested about these tens of thousands of additional annual deaths. Nobody noticed.

Is that plausible?

Why is Cumbria (in particular) not an area of radioactive desolation? Why are the fields around Seascale not packed with mass graves? Why was the Irish population not decimated?

Unless you are one of the totally paranoid who believe in some magical international conspiracy designed to hide these deaths, you must admit, Cumbria is much as it was.

There have been no massive death peaks due to radiation induced illnesses. No mass graves, no huge health consequences. In fact a recent study into the health of the emergency responders found no long term health consequences at all, and they were the people who took the brunt of the radiation.

There was a localised rise in Thyroid cancer that was treated. This rise though was nothing like that at Chernobyl. At Windscale  iodine tablets were rapidly deployed and milk was discarded for a period of time.

Remember Windscale is still the third worst nuclear accident the world has ever seen.

Could it be a dark worldwide conspiracy and cover-up? Or is the truth that the anti-nuclear lobby's figures for Chernobyl and now Fukushima, are hopelessly over-stated.

In fact is it also possible that even the "official" figures are overstated?

Have we been frightening ourselves silly by allotting a far fetched and fanciful toxicity to nuclear material?

Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University (See this Post) believes in the second option.

And I tend to go along with him.

Nuclear Accident Casuality Figures

What are the real casualty figures for the nuclear accidents we have had so far? Can we trust the official figures produced? Or should we trust the anti-nuclear lobby instead?

Will Fukishima cause 1 million deaths? Has Fukishima already caused over 14,000 deaths in the USA as recently claimed?

Or have there been no radiation deaths caused by Fukishima?

Did Chernobyl cause 1 million deaths as claimed by the same people making the Fukishima claims?

Or were there less than 100 fatalities as found by the International committe that
evaluated the disaster?

How can we at least, get a feel for ourselves as to what the real consequences have been?

Fukishima is a recent event, so whatever claim is made and however outlandish it is, the recency of the event obscures any clear decision in the short term.

With Chernobyl, the poor Soviet era health and social care and the consequent closer monitoring of public health post Chernobyl also obfuscates the situation. It allows those with an agenda (whatever it is) to muddy the waters.

Also, we have to contend with those who fervently believe that there has been a grand conspiracy to hide the true casualty figures from Chernobyl.

To me, this proposed suppression of the "truth"  sounds exactly like the type of paranoia you get with a bad case of climate science denial. Why an international committee of world renowned experts would seek to hide the truth and fake the casualty figures is beyond me.

But there is greater clarity surrounding Windscale fire in 1957. The Windscale fire was the world's worst nuclear accident before Chernobyl. Even today is still ranked at number three.

Next post I will be looking at the 1957 Windscale fire - and I'll go looking for the bodies.

If the lurid claims for Chernobyl and Fukishima are correct, there must be hundreds of thousands of them.

Infant Mortality and Fukushima

I am prompted to write this post after a commenter on another post ( See Here ) referred to two studies on the medical effects of radiation.

One of these (the KiKK report) was legitimate science. I will come back to this in another post, because there are still some well known issues with it.

But today I want to make some observations on the other report, which proposes that the Fukushima meltdowns caused a large number of deaths in the USA in the fourteen week period immediately after the Tsunami.

The report ( Press Release Here) claims that there have been 14000 deaths in the USA in the first 14 weeks  after the Japanese Tsunami including 822 infants. It attributes these deaths to Nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima in Japan.

Scary stuff - if it were true.

Rather than having me, a mere bog standard engineer moaning about the dismal and probably dishonest methodology of the paper, you would be better off reading ( This Link ) by the illustrious Mike Moyer (Editor in charge of technology coverage at Scientific American).

If you want a complete demolition of the pseudo-statistics that forms the base of this report try This Post.. The is some more incisive  Informed Commentary Here.

 

But what I am going to do is make some observations on the consequences if this claim is true. We can then see how much this proposed increase in infant mortality has on the annual USA infant mortality rate and then see how this fits in with the infant mortality trends over the last 50 years.

The report "calculates" 14000 people have died from radiation effects in the USA from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. They also state that infants have been particularly badly affected with an additional 822 dying in the 14 week period.  So if this was maintained for a year the excess number of infant deaths would be over 3000. So I am going to assume a conservative figure of an increase mortality of 2000 children between 0 -1 year over the full year. The figure is not critical. Use you own if you like.

The following maths is simple enough.

The CIA fact book (Here) tells us that there are about 4.35 million births in the USA per year. The world bank graph of USA infant mortality rate shows 2010 as 6.5 deaths per 1000 births.

That means there are 28275 deaths of infants in the USA in a year.

(4,350,000 /1000) x 6.5 = 28275

So using this study as a base, infant mortality in the USA has, from 2010 to 2011 jumped from 28275 to about 30275. All in one year.

How does our 2000 extra deaths affect the annual infant death mortality rate?

we know  28275 deaths equates to 6.5 deaths per 1000 live births

So our new rate is  (30275/28275) x 6.5 = (as near as dammit) 7 deaths per 1000 live births

Even if the 822 deaths was the maximum and the radiological mortality stopped mysteriously at the 14 week boundary this would still push the annual infant mortality rate up to 6.7 per 1000 live births.

Do you find this plausible?

Why have the thousands of front line medical staff in the USA not noticed what amounts to a huge jump in infant mortality? Especially when we are talking about the first 800 or so casualties occurring in the such a short time.

Are all USA paediatricians asleep on the job?

Seriously, do you think it even remotely realistic that nobody has noticed the undoing nearly ten years of improvement? Except for the two anti-nuclear campaigners who discovered it in their cherry picked data?

This is the World Bank graph of infant mortality in the USA over the last few decades. This Link takes you to an interactive version so you can explore the rate year by year. Notice how the infant mortality rate has continuously declined, following a roughly exponential decay from the mid 1960's to the late 1980's .

Notice how it then heads on down (post Chernobyl) at a slightly increased decline rate. 

Let us look for some events.

Notice 1979 - Three Mile Island.

Can you see anything? To me it looks like there is no discontinuity let alone a prolonged spike.

Now look to 1986 - Chernobyl.

The only noticeable thing on the graph around this time is that the rate of decrease (i.e. improvement) accelerates towards the 1990's. Maybe the extra vigilance due to the fear of Chernobyl led to this small acceleration in decline?

Over the whole fifty year period, at no time does the infant mortality rate increase.

Of course, there will be variations month by month, day by day and location by location over the year. But this only turns into an increase and epidemic if you cherry pick your data and have an agenda.

If this report is correct we should expect the first increase in the annual infant mortality rate the USA in the last fifty years, and a large increase at that.

Mike Moyer of Scientific American wrote this about the study, it's methodology and the authors:
[quote]
... a check reveals that the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths.” The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.
[unquote]

This report is appallingly flawed. But it also puts politics before science. It is dishonest, immoral and cruel. Such a distortion of the truth to suite political ends is a terrible indictment of the depths that sections of anti-nuclear lobby will sink to.

Fukishima Cold Shutdown

After the Japanese Tsunami (25,000 dead) the world has focussed its post Tsunami reporting on a series of meltdowns at the Fukishima nuclear plant.

There are those who have eagerly claimed that Fukishima would result in hundreds of thousands of radiation based deaths. The highest prediction Billothewisp has so far come across is 1.4 million.

But no one has actually died of a radiation induced illness at Fukishima. Nor are there likely to be any fatalities, especially as Fukishima reached cold shutdown a couple of weeks ago.
( See This IAEA pdf )

But was Fukishima just a lucky break for the nuclear industry?

Just like at Windscale 1957? At Windscale a Plutonium fire burned for days spewing radioactive waste over the nearby village. The subsequent enquiry declared that thirty three people were "statistically" killed though nobody actually knows who they were.

Another lucky break for the nuclear industry?.

Or like the 1979 Three Mile Island partial meltdown. Lots of panic. Lots of lurid predictions but no deaths.

Was this just another lucky break for the nuclear industry?

Even the ultimate catastrophe at Chernobyl. You know - explosion, no containment vessel, burned for days, dumped its plutonium into a nearby forest, nobody doing anything effective for a considerable period, clouds of radiation over Europe,  no issue of Iodine tablets until weeks later.

The wild predictions of millions of deaths from Chernobyl remain just that - wild predictions. Truly it was socially dislocating industrial distaster. But hardly a catastrophe. Look at the Japanese Tsunami for a real catastrophe.

So was even Chernobyl just another lucky break for the nuclear industry?

Are you like me starting the get the feeling that there is something very wrong here.

Either the lurid predictions of millions of deaths are true and these deaths are being hidden from us by some fantastic dark international conspiracy, or there is something very seriously wrong with the way some people are assessing radiation risk.

After reading a book by Prof. Wade Allison of Oxford University, I am very strongly of the opinion that the latter is the case.

The book is called Radiation and Reason. ( Amazon Link Here )

There is also a website unsurprisingly called http://www.radiationandreason.com/

Here is a Link  to Prof Allison's bio on that site. Here is his Bio on Wikipedia.

The guy is a Fellow of Keble College and a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford. Don't be put off. The book is highly readable.

I think many will find Allisons book an eye opener.

2012 - The End of The World is Nigh.

Harold Camping was RIGHT!. We are all going to die, and you dear Reader will be deader than most.

21st December 2012. BOOM! The end of the world. 12:00pm sharp. Don't be late. This is the date the Mayan 13th Bak'tun on their Long Count Calender runs out. (actually it wraps over to the 14th Bak'tun - but we'll ignore that)

The Mayans may have been a stone age civilisation, but they knew (Uh...) "things". Things like, well, Um....

They were in touch with a deeper mystical and celestial presence.

They had reached that deep cosmic Nirvana that our civilisation cannot ever attain.

They were in touch with the inner psyche of the divinity at the centre of existence.

Their karma extended beyond a mere physical existence into a truly eternal Cosmic conscience..

That is why they painted their women's faces blue, then filed down their teeth to points. Finally they made them go boss eyed by balancing a ruby on their nose.

How mystical!

How metaphysical!

And how much money do you have? Arghhhh!..Ignore that last question.

YOU really are DOOMED. YOU are the walking DEAD.

But is that a fat wallet I see?.Hallelujah!!!! There is a way ahead. There is salvation. Remember though, if you have money you simply cannot enter heaven. De Facto.

Rich men and the eye of needle? Remember that?

It's no goodtrying to amend your ways now. Rushing off down the boozer to blow it all on Old Rosie (the Cider of Champions) simply is NOT going to cut the mustard.

Remember this is GOD we are dealing with. Not the planning department at the local council.

Oh OK - bad example - but just because the planning dept think they are gods doesn't make it true.

(In order to be culturally inclusive the following applies to all Welsh, Scots and Irish as well as Canadians, Australians, Yanks, Mexicans, Norwegians and everyone else for that matter, as long as they were born on a week-day or alternatively on the week-end)

Yep. I am talking to ONLY TO YOU my grubby little Englander. YOU are the only one who can be saved by Billothewisp. But YOU Have to agree to be saved.

Let's face it. Otherwise you are stuffed. Unless you agree to be saved then for you, it is an eternity of hell fire and damnation. So what is Hell? Brimstone? Whips? Boiling Oil?

Nah - that's kids stuff.

Hell is being forced to drink gassy alcohol free American lager and watch the X factor all day. The adverts will be filled with no-win no-fee lawyers. If you change channels all you will get is a continual discussion between the two members of JedWard on their understanding of the Schroedinger Wave equation.

Your eyes will be stitched open. Your bladder will be stitched shut. Your mind will be filled with images of a naked Kate Moss - but when she is 85 years old.

Serves you right. But there is hope.

Yes! Billothewisp is here to save you! Don't start thinking about it! Don't start reasoning! That only leads to hell and a wrinkly Kate Moss. What you need to do is divest yourself of all that hellish filthy lucre just laying in your bank account. Billothewisp has broad shoulders. He can absorb the shame. He can soak up the bad karma that flows from (ugh!) money. So, as soon as possible, ensure you send him all those ugly high denomination notes.

When the whole world explodes at 12.00pm 21st December 2012, you can go straight to

the front of the queue into Heaven (celebrity entrance). Just mention Billothewisp.

Be Saved. Send all your money to me! (Metaxa is also accepted in part payment)

You know it makes sense.

Happy New Year.

Love and kisses

Billothewisp.

A Christmas Carol

It was Christmas Eve.

 In a dark corner of the public bar in an obscure boozer in one of the wilder recesses of Purbeck, Carol pulled a pint of Old Rosie (the Cider of Champions).

Scrooge greedily eyed the filling glass and impatiently tapped the bar with his knuckles. 

The liquid slowly filled the glass. The smell of sour apples filled the bar. Scrooge's tapping got louder and louder.

Carol (who was not known for her tolerance of old impatient men) glared at the ungrateful customer. She finished the pouring. The glass was slid across the counter. Scrooge grudgingly passed over a handful of coins.

Scrooge licked his lips. His grubby little hands clutched round the glass of cloudy fluid. Raising it carefully to his lips, he sipped the brew. Slowly and carefully, he consumed the golden liquid.

Soon the glass was empty.

Scrooge tearfully eyed the empty glass, then like a man in mourning, he cracked open his wallet and extracted a single twenty pound note. He bought another pint of Old Rosie and then another and finally, a fourth.

Scrooge, it has to be said, was utterly hammered.

It should be remembered that Old Rosie, (the Cider of Champions) is not a brew for the faint hearted. It is rated at 7.5% ABV.

It may be that the natural cloudiness of Old Rosie is part of the brewing process, or it might be because Old Rosie is dissolving the glass.

This does have its advantages though, we now know that Old Rosie is one of the most potent sterilising agents known to man.

If during an outbreak of MRSA the patients were given a couple of pints of Old Rosie each morning, the bug would be toast.

However, I digress. Back to Scrooge.

Anyway Scrooge had imbibed four whole pints of Old Rosie before he decided to stagger home. He got about half way before the hedge looked too comfortable to avoid. He lay down.

Now at this point of course, old Scrooge is supposed to go off on three journeys of discovery, into the past, the present and the future. There he discovers the true meaning of Christmas and ends up a better and more fulfilled person.

But really, let's be serious. If you think anyone is going to be able to stand up after drinking four pints of Old Rosie, let alone indulge in time travelling and character building, then you are sadly deluded.

Scrooge was lucky. Carol was driving home down the same country lane and noticed the old man snoring away in the hedge. She woke him up and threw the drunk into the back of her car. In true Christmas spirit she dumped him 100 yards from home. Just far enough for him to stagger home, and dream up an excuse for the wife.

A true act of Christmas generosity by a bona-fide Christmas Carol.

Merry Xmas.

Love & Kisses

Billothewisp

Another day Another Template

Well, I was getting tired of the old template anyway. I thought I would upgrade to one of the latest wizzy free templates in hope of fixing the embedded comment box problem as well on the fly, but to no avail.

So I give up. It is going to have to be pop up comment boxes from now on.

Looks like this is a problem smeared all over the net, but if I wait for Google to come up with a fix I'll probably die of old age first.

Anyway no more of me droning on about how crap this is. (Thank God I hear you say).

A cidery Xmas lament is in the making

regards
Billo

Re-Functional but only just...

My inability to comment (i.e. reply) on this blog has finally been fixed by changing the comment method to a separate window from in-line. When I get daring I will change it back.

My God, don't you forget just how sloooowww modems were, though to be fair this GSM modem isn't too bad. I suppose it is all down to the amount of bloat on websites these days.

Anyway, before I start reposting I should re-visit some folk first.

I'll get the Xmas greeting done next, then its back to some dear old campaigning.

Regards
Billo

Blogger is Broken

My Blogger I/F is broken.

To make matters worse, I am currently running on a GSM modem that is as slow as a three legged dog on sedatives.

There appears to be a javascript issue where the owner of a blog cannot now  even comment on his own posts!

When I try and issue a comment it asks me which identity I wish to sign in as, although I am already signed in. Then it refuses to allow me to select anything by clicking the button. I cannot issue a comnment until logged in etc etc etc. forever ad infinitum.

Hi Ho Hum.

For those missing a reply, please accept my apologies. A reply is written and will be issued asap.
Regards
Billo




I give in.

I will have another go tomorrow, but maybe that wordpress blog beckons. I am getting sick of this and google changing stuff under your feet without testing it thooroughly first.

Intermission

A short intermission will ensue. Please feel free to leave comments but the may not be moderated or replied to for a few days as I am currently overwhelmed with other things and time is tight.

Normal abuse will resume shortly.

Any comments to this blog are always published (excluding adverts, gratuitously offensive or totally off-topic) and a reply usually issued. But there may a delay for a few days. That's all.

Love and Kisses
Billo

Safer SetBacks

Actually, the Scout Camp at East Stoke would be (much) less than 1000 feet from the nearest turbine of the proposed East Stoke (Alaska Farm) Industrial wind turbine complex.

Yet a leading Wind Turbine Manufacturer (Vestas) recommends in its technical documentation that technicians working on turbines of a similar size stay at least 400 metres away (1300 feet) - unless absolutely necessary.

A residential home for people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (i.e. some of the most vulnerable in our community)  is about 2400 feet away.

Peoples homes are within 2000 feet.

Meanwhile the Scottish Government requires a 2Km (6500 foot) setback and just about every medical expert who has studied the field agrees with them including:

•  Dr Chris Hanning (the world's leading sleep deprivation expert) 
• The French equivalent of the BMA, 
• Dr Amanda Harry ENT Specialist 
• Dr Nina Pierpont consultant pedriatrician (author of Wind Turbine Syndrome). 

All of these medics have produced devastating reports on the effects of having turbines too close to peoples homes.

Then there are  the environmental bodies, all queuing up to support a setback of around 2Km.

• The United Kingdom Noise Association
• The John Muir Trust
• The CPRE.

The only organisation who thinks having closer setback is a "good idea" is RenewablesUK the cartel trade association representing the wind turbine carpet baggers.

But, seriously folks,  you do not have to worry about the morality and social conscience of the wind turbine fraternity.

They simply don't have any.

Hat tip to my friend Linda at Windtoons ( Here )