Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > How to reduce global carbon emissions?

Should read 40% of the pre renovation amounts

Dec 20, 2015 at 12:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

You do know, don't you raft, that we'd only reduce CO2 output by 4% if we stopped all human emissions? Doesn't that worry you as it's such a dangerous gas for you chaps?

Actually that is not quite accurate. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 4% of the annual CO2 FLUX between the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and mainly sedimentary rocks.

Dec 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaleoclimate Buff

Raff, as has been mentioned earlier, the UK has always had higher energy costs, than the USA for example. Coal was relatively cheap, but oil was not. Town gas was made from coal.

The London Smogs triggered the 'first air quality' Environmental legislation, and the use of coal as a domestic fuel started to decline.

North Sea gas allowed the phasing out of Town gas, and this was after coal had been removed from the railways.

North Sea oil did not make fuel cheaper in the UK, as the price was pegged with OPEC.

The oil price hikes by OPEC in the 70s massively hiked the price of oil, but made the financial returns from North Sea Oil exploration possible.

The price of energy has been hiked massively due to Green Blob interference with market forces, and provided no benefit to anyone outside the Green Blob. The vulnerable and poor die of cold.

Peak oil has not happened. Peak Fracking is a long way off. OPEC can't price fix oil at the moment, partially due to Islamic terrorists flogging all the oil they can from Syria, Iran, Iraq etc.

Ironically, until military intervention occurs to remove ISIS/DAESH, OPEC can't raise oil prices.

Yes we are having a warmer than normal winter, luckily for electricity supplies. According to the BBC, the last time it was this warm was 1948. The BBC fail to mention that 1947 was the coldest winter in living memory.

Wind and solar are hopelessly Unreliable, and have not provided any benefit. I may be no physics whizz, but I probably know more than most about construction, design, failures, defects, fraud busting, scams etc from a working knowledge, not just reading articles in the Guardian.

So I do have well considered opinions based on experience, clearly you do not, given your rhetoric.

For what it is worth, Margaret Thatcher was generally correct more often than not. In my opinion, her biggest mistake was stopping councils from building houses, particularly with the money raised from selling the existing ones. The creation of Housing Associations out of rented council houses has helped develop new housing, but Housing Associations operate like commercial developers and profit comes first.

If we hadn't been wasting money on preventing non manmade climate change, we could have spent the money on something useful, like housing improvements.

Attempts to fix prices, via restrictive practices, tax, market rigging etc always have consequences, and are always exploited by profiteers.

Do you have any relevant experience that can contribute to constructive debate? Or is this part of your course in Environmental Communication, and how to avoid difficult subjects?
Housing confiscated from convicted climate scam fraudsters, should be used to benefit the poor and vulnerable.

Meanwhile you hold the moral high ground by wanting to make energy more expensive, so only the wealthy can afford it.

Perhaps you could start a thread on 'Why are the Green Blob losing the Hearts and Minds of the UK Public?' It might prove very popular.

Dec 20, 2015 at 1:12 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Anyone who owns their home has the capital to improve it to make it livable in cold weather. Rented homes should be required by law to be cheaply heatable.
Dec 19, 2015 at 9:23 PM Raff

"Anyone who owns their home has the capital to improve it to make it livable in cold weather."
Raff would you care to elaborate? Plenty of people own their home but are far from well-off otherwise.

"Rented homes should be required by law to be cheaply heatable"
So far as I can see this depends on the assumption that the renter could afford to cover the cost of installing insulation.

- In cases where the tenants were not already skint the landlord would have to recover the cost of installing insulation by putting up the rent.

- Homes, where the landlord had no prospect of recovering the cost of installing insulation, or where installing insulation was not feasible, would disappear from the rental market, increasing still further the rent (via supply&demand) of those homes still available for rent.

Dec 20, 2015 at 10:05 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

One of the pits that people fall into when thinking about making homes more efficient is lots of insulation and bunging the holes up - as the Oxford study shows, it's actually quite hard and expensive to bung all the holes up and once you've done that you need to put ventilation and dehumidification in as well. Even normal insulation needs care because it can make any damp problems much worse. Places that have been heavily insulated are then sometimes too warm in summer and might need air conditioning too.

Ground source heating wasn't used in that property but it would have added at least another £10,000 and would have involved digging the garden up. I didn't find enough info to tell if it had underfloor heating after the mods but that would be essential for ground source heating. Think about the remodelling to accomodate that - raised floors, skirtings, shortened doors etc. Think about parquet or block floors. Think about listed buildings. What about properties without gardens. The problems are endless.

The easy things to reduce energy loss that aren't that expensive have already been done in many homes. The first and foremost being loft insulation. A lot of homes have double glazing and new boilers (gas, ha, ha ha). There isn't that much low hanging fruit to be picked. Look at the super efficient homes, invariably they're new builds with lots of space and above all cash. At the same time the home owner is forking out for all this, they're supposed to be buying storage batteries and electric cars, plus paying for the changes to industry, government, amenities and social housing.

Yes Raff, we have thought about this.

Dec 20, 2015 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Raff, why do I get the impression you want us to do your homework project assignment for you? As Green Blob taxation is destroying the economy, it should be scrapped, with no further public money wasted on pointless Green Blob Scams. Some of the savings could be put towards improving the housing stock.

TinyCO2, no generation wants to pay for previous mistakes. The Green Blob ate determined to turn the enlightened age, into one of Endarkenment. Our Grandchildren are going to have to pay the price.

When the Green Blob get control of a construction or refurbishment project, it is always a financial disaster, because they are spending other peoples money, and do not have to face the consequences.

New build construction with improved thermal insulation is not a major cost. The minimum standards have been increased over 40 (?) years for energy conservation. Double glazing offers excellent value for money when included at the design stage. Replacing perfectly serviceable single glazing, with double, does not have a realistic payback period. Replacing knackered single glazed windows with modern double glazed, does have a good payback.

Of course Scandanavians don't understand why the UK doesn't use Triple glazing. Scandanavians are also bemused by the quaint British custom of putting soil and vent pipes (sewage) on external walls, as all Scandanavians know they will freeze solid in winter, and the loos will block.

The next Green Blob refurbishment of an older terrace, should start with building a double glazed greenhouse/conservatory enclosing the entire terrace, plus some garden area front and rear. Call it a biodome if you like, and don't heat it, but allow to ventilate massively to prevent summer overheating. Then look at what needs to be done to the existing properties.

Yes you can put solar panels on the biodome. Yes you can grow food in the gardens. Yes you can collect rainwater. Yes you can generate hotwater from solar panels on the original roofs. Etc, etc, etc.

Yes you could do this with new construction. Build a large warehouse type shed, but clad with glazing/solar panels, and then bring in prefabricated mobile homes, stackable containerised flats etc. On site construction time costs would be reduced, and delays for bad weather would be less likely. It would be cheaper.........

People like you, who want to CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT would love it..

Dec 20, 2015 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin, yes that was a sweeping statement - it depend on the house and location. I seem to remember last time I looked at it that (oddly) the UK excess winter death rate was highest in the South East. Anyone owning a home there can extract capital (which can be recovered on death) against the value of the home. I don't know the mechanisms but I if can't be done in a country with such an extensive financial services industry, then bankers are missing a trick.

It is not, in my view, the business of the tenant to improve the building fabric - not when they can be turfed out at a moment's notice. The owner should make the house cheaply (but define cheaply!) livable. If he cannot extract enough blood rent in the market to cover the cost of buying and upgrading the building then he paid too much for it.

Tiny, yes I'm sure it is not easy to turn poor quality old buildings into anything like a passivhaus. That is why it is important to get new ones built to very high standards. The example you quoted was interesting. There's no detailed before/after comparison (of fittings) and so it is difficult to know which expenditure was most worthwhile. The PV system was probably pointless, so strip 10K. Also the choice of internal insulation over external is odd. My guess is you could get a lot of the gain for a lot less money. Turning the heating down to 20 from 24 and putting on a vest would probably do most of the job (cue abuse).

Dec 20, 2015 at 1:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff we don't do external cladding because it changes the look of the building. Even ignoring rules about styles, people buy houses often because they like the traditional look.

Yes, there are loads of things we could do and yes, there is money that could be spent doing it (although not as much as you imagine) but people just won't do it. Don't think governments will make them either unless there is mass public agreement because there is always someone else who will come along and say 'vote for me and I'll change the rules). That's what democracy is all about and why climate science isn't good enough for what people like you dream of.

Dec 20, 2015 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Raff, do explain how tenants can be "turfed out" at a moments notice.

Is this another sweeping statement based on what you have been told? Yes there are rogue landlords. Yes there are years of delays for people on the Council Housing list. Yes there is a shortage of affordable accommodation.

You aren't getting the responses you belived you would are you?

Are you Lewandowsky? Simply waiting to report on your rigorous survey of denier mindsets?

Dec 20, 2015 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@Charlie "Raff, why do I get the impression you want us to do your homework project assignment for you?"
Exactly with Raff it's always a wild goose chase.. You answer his questions, but he at best only half answers ours.

e.g. "#3 Generate electricity differently." he replies
well what does this mean ? ..We've already said solar/wind are rubbish
"Forget Green Gimmicks like Wind/SolarPV/TidalBarrages/electric cars," and I mentioned Fusion.
and biofuels are contentious, as to do they actually reduce CO2.

And I knew he wouldn't be able to tell the difference, between electricity which is not made EVEN more expensive by green gimmicks and CHEAP electricity.
the way you go about anything is with proper maths, science and not lying. Deceiving like about the capabilities of solar, wind etc. has led us into a big mess.

And I bet he doesn't know how much UK energy is used in domestic home and non-domestic sectors.

I think we've agreed that what governments have done up to now is the WRONG WAY
...except for encouraging better insulation and less consumption.

Finally Question for Raff instead of tapping us, (maybe part of his brainwashing operation), don't you think it's up political Greens to lead the way ?..What do you think they should be doing ?

An easy answer for anyone else , is no we won't bother doing anything about saving CO2 until those Green schreechers have actually shown us they have really reduced theirs..

Dec 20, 2015 at 2:14 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

As for building new ones - we already have a massive shortage of new homes. Developers can't build super efficient homes and then sell them on at an affordable price. People would shun them for older properties or just not bother, leaving the new ones empty and not helping the shortage problem. The only option for the building firms would be to rent but then the return on investment would be ages. What if it turns out AGW is not so bad? What if we discover fusion and energy becomes super cheap? What if the few countries that act on AGW decide to drop their goals because they're not going to ruin their own countries for no reason. Suddenly the great investment in green measures become redundant and the investor ends up with small, ugly, over engineered white elephants.

The Green Deal failed because people realised that future buyers would be very wary of taking on someone else's debt and eco upgrade of doubdtful benefit. The interest rate was higher than an ordinary loan. If the entire country was doing the same then it wouldn't matter but how do you start the ball rolling without making laws that see you out of office at the next election?

Dec 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

"Whoa !GLOBAL WARMING scary scary, There's going to be run away warming, it's going to get much warmer
..So the first thing you must do is spend 50% of your income on insulating your house to keep HEAT in:
Is not what anyone said in the past

@TinyCO2 Re Oxford Brookes (Polytechnic) "Retrofit for the Future" Nelson Street, Oxford project project page
that project page says "Total energy consumption 58.6% reduction over pre-refurbishment actual"
another page briefly makes the 85% claim used in the media.
The other 2 houses
..It does NOT look like there was any follow up after 2011

Dec 20, 2015 at 3:03 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

It is not, in my view, the business of the tenant to improve the building fabric - not when they can be turfed out at a moment's notice. The owner should make the house cheaply (but define cheaply!) livable. If he cannot extract enough blood rent in the market to cover the cost of buying and upgrading the building then he paid too much for it.

No it's not the job of the tenant to improve the building. But I see you agree that it's the rent paid by the tenant that would pay for it.

And the landlord would also agree that, if legally compelled to insulate the house/flat, and they can't charge a rent that covers the cost of doing so, then they paid too much for it.

Dec 20, 2015 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

The problem with Green economics, is that nothing and nobody ever works, unless subsidised from the Magic Money Tree.

It is about the same as children working out that Father Christmas may not be as real as portrayed in fairy stories in the Guardian and on the BBC. When will the Green Blob realise that someone has to earn money, in order for it to be wasted by selfish idiots who think they are saving the planet?

The simple answer to this question is to ask how many Green Jobs have been created. Then assume that every Green Job created is 2 real jobs lost, and 1 property that could have been improved with better insulation to reduce the exorbitant cost of staying warm. So every Green job is one cold household. That is the true cost of fabricating a green economy.

My figures are approximate to +/- 50%, which is Unprecedented accuracy in Green Economics where +/-97% is the norm.

Dec 20, 2015 at 9:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

As I understand the question, the plan is to maintain the current levels of economic growth and at the same time reducing CO2 and related emissions to zero. So all domestic heating, lighting and cooking, all transport, all industrial production will be carried out using electricity. There is no completion date for this in the question but it'll take a fair amount of time and a huge amount of money. Say 30 million domestic gas central heating and cooking systems. 30 million cars and several million commercial and PSV vehicles. Ignoring industry for this debate, that is a huge undertaking.

As there is no slack in the electricity system at the moment, the reverse is the case with an impending shortfall. Renewables are goining to be a no starter, once climate change has been reversed the periods of blocking highs over fallen snow from a couple of decades ago will return with the inevitable consequences for wind and solar. The only viable solution is nuclear. My back of the envelope calculation is that four or five times the generating capacity of the current grid and the distribution network will be needed. Better insulation, LED lighting and the like are tinkering at the edges in terms of consumption. Heat pump systems are beyond the pocket of 97% of households so a gas central heating system will be replaced by electrical heating, with no real energy saving.

Given the known issues with Nuclear in terms of speed of ramp up and shutdown and the unpredictable nature of renewables a totally Carbon free economy with today's technology is a non-starter. Something like 20% of electricity will have to be generated by gas even if everything else is run on electricity.

If the level of atmospheric CO2 does start to fall say as a result of schemes like this and natural cooling then things start to get problematical at pre-industrial levels.

Dec 20, 2015 at 10:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Tiny, does that mean that external cladding is not allowed? Much of the UK housing stock is pig ugly, especially new build, so cladding is unlikely to make it worse. It is true that most people wont upgrade their house without an incentive. But I see no good reason why rental properties should not be required to be safe, secure, dry and warm.

Golf, there are plenty of reports of tenants being turfed out after having asked for repairs or improvements. And if a tenant is going to install new windows for example any tenancy less than the life of the windows is too short.

Martin, as with the economics of "tax incidence", price elasticity determines who really pays. That will doubtless vary depending upon the location. There are actually two sources of money, the rental income and the sale value. Improving the house should raise the sale value even if the rental income cannot be increased to cover the cost in the short term.

Sandy, I agree with much of what you say. We will need much higher generation capacity and although I have no problem with wind and maybe solar in the south, most needs to be nuclear. I find the issue of nuclear not ramping well to be puzzling. For one because nuclear submarines must be able to ramp up and down quickly. And for another because if nuclear plant don't ramp we can use the excess electricity (which would otherwise be wasted) to power fuel synthesis from airborne CO2 (inefficient, but maybe better than ramping unresponsive plant). We'll always need liquid fuels in some applications.

Timescales for this are long, don't forget, and most appliances, lorries and cars existing now will be replaced long before 2050. The costs are huge if you look at them in isolation, but if we are replacing things gradually anyway that is not an issue. But things that last much longer like houses and power stations are the big issue. And some costs are offset, for example instead of importing more than $25bn oil/gas each year we can use electricity generated by nuclear. That's almost a bloated Hinkley C per year the UK is bleeding.

I don't know what you mean by "once climate change has been reversed" and "If the level of atmospheric CO2 does start to fall". That seems to indicate a misunderstanding.

Dec 21, 2015 at 1:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff, if the terms of the lease were FRI, then not to do so would be a breach of contract. Where is the problem, or are you getting confused? There are lots of examples of people going on about stuff they are clueless about.

There are lots of examples of companies being driven out of business because of Green Blob instigated changes in legislation. Do you have a problem with that?

There are lots of examples in the last week alone of hundreds of coal miners losing their jobs due to Green Blob instigated changes in legislation. Where is their fault in that?

Shouldn't you improve your use of rhetoric before making sweeping assumptions based on your lack of knowledge? Is this how climate science was taught to you, because it is not how science works. Unfortunately climate science seems to depend on too much verbatim regurgitation, and the same rubbish keeps being repeated.

Dec 21, 2015 at 1:35 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Landlords are not required to do anything to reduce the renter's bills. If it needs a new boiler they have to put a condencing boiler in but that's about it. If it didn't have a boiler, there's nothing to make a landlord fit central heating. They'd have to sort obvious problems like a broken window or a hole in the roof. Landlords certainly don't have fifty to a hundred thousand for every property. Upgrades won't even automatically increase the value of the property. External cladding isn't allowed on listed buildings as they have to remain true to the original when it was listed. On ordinary buildings it would have to depend on appearance, location, if it changed the overall size of the building, ensure it didn't make existing problems worse, You couldn't just do it, you'd have to negotiate with the authorities.It all costs time and money.

Dec 21, 2015 at 1:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

@Raff still didn't answer my question
"#3 Generate electricity differently." well what does this mean ?

@Raff's Fantasy Island
"is important to get new ones built to very high standards"
The UK has a million empty homes and you are talking about building NEW ones generating more CO2 ?

@Raff's Fantasy Island
"It is not, in my view, the business of the tenant to improve the building fabric - not when they can be turfed out at a moment's notice."

You must give at least two months' notice under section 21 of the Housing act 1988 if you want to evict your tenant. This is known as a Section 21 notice.
The court can't make a possession order in the first six months of the tenancy.
How quickly can a possession order be obtained?
The length of time it takes to obtain a possession order will vary depending on a number of factors but, generally, it could take 3 – 4 months from lodgement of the legal advice
*But there is a point that some tenants are living in properties which could be better insulated.
#1 For them grants are available
#2 From April 2018, landlords will be required by law to get their leakiest properties to an energy efficiency rating of at least Band “E”.

In addition, by April 2016 tenants would be given the right to request consent to carry out energy efficiency measures, with landlords only able to refuse 'unreasonable'.

Stats show that there are loads of homes with inadequate insulation "eight per cent of rented homes had no loft insulation compared with around four per cent in the owner-occupier sector. " that show what a backward country the UK is £billions in tax and bill payer money has been handed out to Greenblob for gimmicks when not a penny should have been handed out before insulation was upto standard first.

Dec 21, 2015 at 7:23 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Right back to your chat which is down the rabbit hole of domestic heating and cladding
Cladding is Ugly ? : "X-Clad is a brick slip faced, external wall insulation system"

@Raff said : "it is difficult to know which expenditure was most worthwhile." Exactly untransparency about maths is part of Green culture.

@Raff said : "Also the choice of internal insulation over external is odd" (cladding he means)
#1 I wonder if their neighbours CO2 has gone up, since they are no longer sharing thru the terrace walls.
#2 "Also the choice of internal insulation over external is odd" ..Any evidence that external is more efficient ?
..Here it says internal pays back 50% faster

However a 60% CO2 saving is not a 60% CO2 saving
due to the Rebound Effect : you save CO2 on one thing and then you go and spend the savings something creating CO2. eg. Our couple in Oxford save £400/year and then celebrate like Dale Vince by buying an electric sports car.
... Again Green maths is a problem. We should not estimate potential savings, but rather measure what the state of the real world IS.

And in all this talk : Remember subsidies should have an inefficiency factor due to the inherent "law of unintended consequences" effects :
#1 Spivs profiteering
#2 Screwups like "cavity wall insulation" causing condensation cos iot was installed in unsuitable areas like in damp valleys or coastal areas. and now millions has to be spent ripping it out

Seems to me governments should avoid both pressure to "rush into things" and subsidy programmes.

@Raff said "Turning the heating down to 20 from 24 and putting on a vest would probably do most of the job"
Any stats for how much that saves ? Since heating is only on 6 months anyway
..see next bit

Dec 21, 2015 at 7:40 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

DOWNSIZING : Stopping spending money is the easiest way of cutting CO2 since all spending generates CO2

Here people are still talking about "have your cake and eat it solutions"
and gone down the rabbit hole of thinking that a persons CO2 footprint is just their heating bill or electric bill
If someone has a £60,000 income and someone else £12,000
then who has the lowest CO2 footprint even if he lives in a super insulated house ?

As I always say DOWNSIZING is an effective way to reduce your CO2
@Raff touches on it by saying turn heating down from 24C to 20C

@Raff has not answered my question about Political Greens leading the way
Maybe the could by signing a low CO2 pledge : Agree to no children, no car, no flying and live in dormitory accommodation. Then they could pay a 80% tax which the government is not allowed to spend (as that would generate CO2) instead it would go on paying the national debt which largely comes from the gov borrowing money to pay pensions to our grandparents.
After 40 years if their climate concerns have been proved true we can reward Greens with 5p Green star, if proved untrue they'll lose their pensions

Plus we could put over 18's into work, and save CO2 at the same time by abandoning University construction increasing university places, where people are just wasting their time, when they can study while they work anyway.. And we'd stop needing to import foreign labour.

Can governments just stop wasting money on vanity projects ? Like why do we have school halls and carparks that at not used at night ..and arts centres which are not used in daytime (apart from the odd rehearsal).
There should be a ban on naming infrastructure after politicians or their mates.
There should never have been a Channel Tunnel, nor should their be HS2 nor any new public transport Rather better planning like limits so that a completely new town is started once an old one gets to a certain size etc. That way people can walk to jobs/services, instead of using vehicles at all.

Dec 21, 2015 at 7:50 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@Raff said "I find the issue of nuclear not ramping well to be puzzling. For one because nuclear submarines must be able to ramp up and down quickly. "
Surely the reactor runs gently charging the batteries, if the sub needs sudden power then the battery charge goes down as you draw charge from it quickly

"Timescales for this are long, don't forget, and most appliances, lorries and cars existing now will be replaced long before 2050.
for example instead of importing more than $25bn oil/gas each year we can use electricity generated" by nuclear. by fracked gas power stations that can be built within a year.

\\"I don't know what you mean by "once climate change has been reversed" and "If the level of atmospheric CO2 does start to fall". That seems to indicate a misunderstanding."//
Under some theory : If we say CO2 stays in the atmos 40 years then if today we emit CO2 at a rates lower than the day 40 years ago ..then atmos CO2 should fall.
Under the theory that atmos CO2 increases cos heat causes it to leave the oceans then it would be different.

Dec 21, 2015 at 8:18 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

"The UK has a million empty homes" is somewhat misleading. Not every home that is empty is suitable for someone to move into. The home could be awaiting probate (could take ages if the estate is complicated or if there's a dispute); it could be being renovated; it could be in the wrong place (eg Burnley instead of London); it could be awaiting planning permission; it could be being sold; etc.

Dec 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

"For one because nuclear submarines must be able to ramp up and down quickly. "
Surely the reactor runs gently charging the batteries, if the sub needs sudden power then the battery charge goes down as you draw charge from it quickly

I don't think (but I'm by no means an expert) that nuclear subs have batteries for propulsion. Never heard of it and logic says that they don't for several reasons.

They probably can ramp reactor power output up and down *very* quickly.

A submarine reactor is *far* smaller than a power station reactor, core reportdly about the size of a dustbin (much smaller power output *and* using fuel with a much higher proportion of U235). [With pure U235 you can make a reactor the size of an orange -- in principle...]

And with higher reactivity of the enriched fuel, presumably much less problem with xenon poisoning if it needs to start up again soon after having shut down. Plus if shut down instantly, it can presumably just dump the fission product decay heat into the sea around it.

I doubt that there is a Haynes manual for a nuclear sub but it would be interesting to read one if there were.

Dec 21, 2015 at 12:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Can nuclear power plants be expected to load follow?

Dec 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2