In article <59b408da5echarles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <stbnmu$5t1$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> > On 01/02/2022 14:17, charles wrote:
> > > Our local Waitrose ran out of Orkney Oatcakes last week

> > I think you will survive, not as if they have run out of Highland Park
> > (I hope).

> I do have one unopened bottle - a pressie for providing PA for a charity
> Christmas event.

I gave away all my old bottles of malts when I had to give up drinking for
health reasons. Alas.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j7coci-lrqo1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> > http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
> >
> > The above shows the area that - under International Law and Treaties -
> > Scotland has available for power generation from wind, wave, tidal,
> > etc, power. It is, erm, quite large. And a lot of it is generally
> > quite windy. (As many people hit by the storms of the last few days -
> > another coming this afternoon - can testify.[1])
> >
> ... and a lot of it is quite beautiful!

Yes, quite a lot of the land, is indeed. :-)

But there is also quite a lot of ocean area that can be used for energy
capture.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <stchs3$67j$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> You will also probably have seen the news reports on TV about the major
> floods on the Somerset Levels where the locals put the reason down to
> DEFRA no longer being interested in dredging. That did get documented
> where I could find it easily:
> https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
> "There had been less dredging of the river channels on the Somerset
> Levels leading up to 2014. However, as a result of this, the channels
> had raised due to sediment accumulation. This reduced the capacity of
> rivers to transport water, leading to flooding."

> I would wager a small sum that the increased flooding in York is
> similarly caused by reduced dredging.

My recollection is that when this was investigated the 'reasons' where more
complex. In part the increase in flooding affecting people is due to two
factors:

1) Developers being allowed to build on known flood plain areas without
dealing with thr increased risk of flooding causing damage to the
suckers... erm buyers of the homes there.

2) Dredging and tidying upsteam causing the water to flow more rapidly down
to the plains than before. Causing more flooding.

In effect the calls for 'dredging' in a given place simply shift the
problem downstream to cause a *bigger* problem there!

Another part of this is the clearing away of wooded areas on the hills that
tended to temporarily soak up the rain and then release it more slowly. and
into a meandering river that *hadn't* beed dredged aggressively, and this
smoothed out the flow, avoiding flooding in the areas where homes had been
built.

Hence the demands for dredging, etc, actually can make things worse, not
better.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <59b45ccb1echarles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> DEFRA = Department for Elimination of Farming & Rural Activities

Aha!, PE ad naus. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
> wrote:
> > If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
> > wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
>
> IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
>
If you look at the 'deaths per output power' rate for nuclear power it
is way down in the statistacal 'noise' alongside wind.

--
Chris Green
·

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <j7coci-lrqo1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
> wrote:
> > > http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
> > >
> > > The above shows the area that - under International Law and Treaties -
> > > Scotland has available for power generation from wind, wave, tidal,
> > > etc, power. It is, erm, quite large. And a lot of it is generally
> > > quite windy. (As many people hit by the storms of the last few days -
> > > another coming this afternoon - can testify.[1])
> > >
> > ... and a lot of it is quite beautiful!
>
> Yes, quite a lot of the land, is indeed. :-)
>
> But there is also quite a lot of ocean area that can be used for energy
> capture.
>
Is the sea not bautiful too?

--
Chris Green
·

In article <59b4722518noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <59b408da5echarles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > In article <stbnmu$5t1$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > On 01/02/2022 14:17, charles wrote:
> > > > Our local Waitrose ran out of Orkney Oatcakes last week

> > > I think you will survive, not as if they have run out of Highland Park
> > > (I hope).

> > I do have one unopened bottle - a pressie for providing PA for a charity
> > Christmas event.

> I gave away all my old bottles of malts when I had to give up drinking for
> health reasons. Alas.

My younger daughter looked at my collection and suggested she took some
away because I'd kill myself if I drank them all. I said "No"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 02/02/2022 12:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article<stchs3$67j$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>> You will also probably have seen the news reports on TV about the major
>> floods on the Somerset Levels where the locals put the reason down to
>> DEFRA no longer being interested in dredging. That did get documented
>> where I could find it easily:
>> https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
>> "There had been less dredging of the river channels on the Somerset
>> Levels leading up to 2014. However, as a result of this, the channels
>> had raised due to sediment accumulation. This reduced the capacity of
>> rivers to transport water, leading to flooding."
>
>> I would wager a small sum that the increased flooding in York is
>> similarly caused by reduced dredging.
>
> My recollection is that when this was investigated the 'reasons' where more
> complex. In part the increase in flooding affecting people is due to two
> factors:
>
> 1) Developers being allowed to build on known flood plain areas without
> dealing with the increased risk of flooding causing damage to the
> suckers... erm buyers of the homes there.
>
> 2) Dredging and tidying upsteam causing the water to flow more rapidly down
> to the plains than before. Causing more flooding.
>
> In effect the calls for 'dredging' in a given place simply shift the
> problem downstream to cause a *bigger* problem there!
>
> Another part of this is the clearing away of wooded areas on the hills that
> tended to temporarily soak up the rain and then release it more slowly. and
> into a meandering river that *hadn't* beed dredged aggressively, and this
> smoothed out the flow, avoiding flooding in the areas where homes had been
> built.
>
> Hence the demands for dredging, etc, actually can make things worse, not
> better.
>
> Jim
>
The dredging that hasn't been done but needed to be done is the part of
the river from the estuary to the first major residential area.

Dredging upstream of the major residential areas is a sign of someone
who doesn't understand Queueing Theory.

Jim

On 02/02/2022 13:53, williamwright wrote:
> The highest floods in York ever recorded were in 1625 and 1638.

Obviously too many cars in the city. :-)

On 02/02/2022 17:19, charles wrote:
> My younger daughter looked at my collection and suggested she took some
> away because I'd kill myself if I drank them all. I said "No"

I was with someone who considered himself a whisky connoisseur and was
trying to identify a single malt, he was convinced it was one particular
one so I just had a sniff of it and compared with the one that he
thought it was. I could tell straight away that it was not the same but
he had had a few drams which of course had killed any sense of taste.

On 02/02/2022 17:05, Chris Green wrote:
>
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
>>> wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
>>
>> IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
>
> If you look at the 'deaths per output power' rate for nuclear power it
> is way down in the statistical 'noise' alongside wind.

I think that probably Jim is not disputing that. It is certainly true
that nuclear power has killed very few people compared with, say, coal,
when you add up all the people killed by both - it's not just mining
accidents for coal, but also those killed by smogs, incidental disasters
like Aberfan, etc. I don't recall whether the last figures I saw a year
or two back were properly weighted per GWhr generated, but I don't wish
to dispute them. However, the thing about nuclear power is that when it
fails, it often fails catastrophically, with widespread long-lasting
damage, and that is not necessarily true of coal, oil, etc, though of
course we've all heard of damaging marine oil spills as well. It's this
potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in
deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources
of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over
budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff
is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to
ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 02/02/2022 11:22, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:34:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2022 12:55, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <pb9ivgtk6gt3mk8dql1n8fasa9nc229f5j@4ax.com>,
>>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to
>>>> my house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10
>>>> hour rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot
>>>> water and heating my house electrically at the same rate that my
>>>> 24kW gas combi boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a
>>>> similar story in a great many other houses. Somebody needs to find
>>>> the back of an envelope and do a few sums. (If they know how).
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Exactly so.
>>>
>>> I also have a 24KW gas boiler and anything less is not enough to be
>>> warm on the coldest days. I have a 10KW shower and an cooker. Often
>>> all in use at the same time. No car to charge.
>>>
>>> The penny hasn't dropped yet with the majority yet.
>>
>> To an extent, the sums are already being done. Cars won't be charging
>> at the maximum rate while domestic consumption is high in the evenings,
>> they'll be charged when consumption is low overall, at night.
>
> But will there always be enough night to charge it?
>
> Take a representative figure of 75kWh (to make the sums easy) for the
> energy capacity of a present day electric car. They vary a bit, but 75
> is close to many of the quoted figures. Given that one of the biggest
> criticisms of electric cars is their lack of range between charges, it
> seem likely that future development will be aimed at making batteries
> able to store even more.
>
> Consider that the *maximum* power that a car charger can draw from a
> domestic supply is currently (no pun intended unless you think it's a
> good one) 7.5kW. Increasing this would require not just a bigger main
> fuse in every house but roads dug up to provide thicker supply cables
> everywhere. And more generators of course (fuelled by what?)
>
> Divide the energy capacity of the battery in kilowatt-hours by the
> charging rate in kilowatts, and the answer is the number of hours it
> will take to charge the battery. That's 75 divided by 7.5. (I told you
> I'd make it easy). There is no magic that can subvert the laws of
> physics. That's how long it would take, and future cars may have
> bigger batteries and need even more.
>
> Provided you don't get back late at night and need an early start the
> next day, and provided it isn't winter so you need the heater on, and
> provided it isn't summer so you need the airconditioning, then
> depending on your travelling distance you may be lucky. You never need
> to worry about any of this with a petrol car because you can charge up
> its fuel tank for about 300 miles worth in a couple of minutes, but
> the development of electric cars has a long way to go, not least in
> the provision of the infrastructure that will have to supply all the
> magic energy that will be needed to drive them.

Many of the above points are valid, but many of them also fall in to the
category of complaining because things won't be perfect, and ignoring
that they will nevertheless be an improvement. I notice that you don't
mention any of the positive aspects of electric vehicles, such as them
making it possible to live in cities that do not constantly break
pollution laws concerning exhaust fumes, etc. No-one is claiming what's
coming is going to be perfect, even my post to which you reply above
began with "To an extent ...", and certainly, as with all new
technology, there will be problems, but usually there will in time be
solutions also.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 02/02/2022 18:38, MB wrote:
>
> I was with someone who considered himself a whisky connoisseur and was
> trying to identify a single malt, he was convinced it was one particular
> one so I just had a sniff of it and compared with the one that he
> thought it was. I could tell straight away that it was not the same but
> he had had a few drams which of course had killed any sense of taste.

You've told us this story before, and I've answered before that there is
indeed a wide variety of tastes of single malts.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 02/02/2022 17:22, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 02/02/2022 12:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> Hence the demands for dredging, etc, actually can make things worse, not
>> better.
>
> The dredging that hasn't been done but needed to be done is the part of
> the river from the estuary to the first major residential area.
>
> Dredging upstream of the major residential areas is a sign of someone
> who doesn't understand Queueing Theory.

That's not my recollection of the Somerset flooding, which I recall as
being mostly fairly up river. I may still have a programme about it
somewhere, I'll see if I can find it, and if so, watch it again.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive wrote:

> certainly, as with all new technology, there will be problems, but usually there
> will in time be solutions also.

I accept that someone has to do some pushing of the envelope, to see where the
problems are and what the solutions might be ... but what we seem to be doing
with energy policy is gathering up a bundle of material, jumping off a cliff and
hoping we can figure out how to make a parachute on the way down ...

On 02/02/2022 18:07, MB wrote:
>
> On 02/02/2022 13:53, williamwright wrote:
>>
>>    The highest floods in York ever recorded were in 1625 and 1638.
>
> Obviously too many cars in the city.  :-)

Smiley or no, more likely too much woodland clearance upstream, allowing
silt to clog up the river.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 02/02/2022 17:05, Chris Green wrote:
> >
> > Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
> >>> wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
> >>
> >> IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
> >
> > If you look at the 'deaths per output power' rate for nuclear power it
> > is way down in the statistical 'noise' alongside wind.
>
> I think that probably Jim is not disputing that. It is certainly true
> that nuclear power has killed very few people compared with, say, coal,
> when you add up all the people killed by both - it's not just mining
> accidents for coal, but also those killed by smogs, incidental disasters
> like Aberfan, etc. I don't recall whether the last figures I saw a year
> or two back were properly weighted per GWhr generated, but I don't wish
> to dispute them. However, the thing about nuclear power is that when it
> fails, it often fails catastrophically, with widespread long-lasting
> damage, and that is not necessarily true of coal, oil, etc, though of
> course we've all heard of damaging marine oil spills as well. It's this
> potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
> nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in
> deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources
> of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over
> budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff
> is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to
> ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"
>
Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from
Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread
long-lasting damage'?

--
Chris Green
·

On 02/02/2022 19:36, Chris Green wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> It's this
>> potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
>> nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in
>> deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources
>> of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over
>> budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff
>> is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to
>> ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"
>>
> Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
> failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
> Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from
> Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread
> long-lasting damage'?

How could you forget Fukushima?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 02/02/2022 18:38, MB wrote:
> On 02/02/2022 17:19, charles wrote:
>> My younger daughter looked at my collection and suggested she took some
>> away because I'd kill myself if I drank them all. I said "No"
>
>
> I was with someone who considered himself a whisky connoisseur and was
> trying to identify a single malt, he was convinced it was one particular
> one so I just had a sniff of it and compared with the one that he
> thought it was. I could tell straight away that it was not the same but
> he had had a few drams which of course had killed any sense of taste.
>
>
That reminds me of a training course I attended many years ago, where we
stayed overnight in the hotel where the course was held.

One person on the course considered himself a whisky connoisseur and was
delighted in the range available in the hotel bar. So he had several,
trying a lot of the ones he had never tried before.

When the barman wanted to close the bar and asked everyone who wanted a
final drink to order them now, I joined the group wanting a nightcap,
and heard connoisseur asking the barman which whisky would be worth
trying as his last for the night. The barman with a completely straight
face said "I suggest you choose the cheapest, because after what you
have had so far this evening, they will all taste the same".

Jim

On 02/02/2022 20:07, Java Jive wrote:
> On 02/02/2022 19:36, Chris Green wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's this
>>> potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
>>> nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in
>>> deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources
>>> of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over
>>> budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff
>>> is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to
>>> ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"
>>>
>> Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
>> failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
>> Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from
>> Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disasters' have had 'widespread
>> long-lasting damage'?
>
> How could you forget Fukushima?
>
Most of that damage was caused by the tsunami. However, the Japanese
authorities were really cautious about the radiation that leaked out, so
it got a lot of headlines.

Unlike Chernobyl, there was no runaway nuclear catastrophe.

Jim

On 02/02/2022 12:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>> The best example I remember was someone who said that if you go to the
>> appropriate authorities and ask for a grant to study the breeding habits
>> of squirrels in South East England then you will be unlikely to get
>> anything. But ask for a grant to study the effect of "global warming"
>> on the breeding habits of squirrels in South East England then they will
>> be queuing up to give you money.
>
> Tracable source for this mysteriously convenient "someone"?
>
> Jim
>

It's an apocryphal tile intended to illustrate a valid point. Would you
ask for attribution for the story of the boy who cried wolf, or the
Parable of the Good Samaritan?

Bill

In article <stelum$1lb$2@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 02/02/2022 18:38, MB wrote:
> >
> > I was with someone who considered himself a whisky connoisseur and was
> > trying to identify a single malt, he was convinced it was one
> > particular one so I just had a sniff of it and compared with the one
> > that he thought it was. I could tell straight away that it was not the
> > same but he had had a few drams which of course had killed any sense
> > of taste.

> You've told us this story before, and I've answered before that there is
> indeed a wide variety of tastes of single malts.

Since MB lives in the Highlands, he probably knows that.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 02/02/2022 12:41, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
> wrote:
>> If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
>> wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
>
> IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
>
> Unless, perhaps you mean fusion. Which still remains in prospect.
>
> Jim
>

How many deaths per GWh from generation by solid fuel, wind turbines,
versus nuclear? Living in what used to be a coal mining area I'm all too
well aware of the deaths from mining.

Bill

In article <steolb$s5o$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> That reminds me of a training course I attended many years ago,
> where we stayed overnight in the hotel where the course was held.

> One person on the course considered himself a whisky connoisseur
> and was delighted in the range available in the hotel bar. So he
> had several, trying a lot of the ones he had never tried before.

> When the barman wanted to close the bar and asked everyone who
> wanted a final drink to order them now, I joined the group wanting
> a nightcap, and heard connoisseur asking the barman which whisky
> would be worth trying as his last for the night. The barman with
> a completely straight face said "I suggest you choose the
> cheapest, because after what you have had so far this evening,
> they will all taste the same".

In August 1987 my employer instructed me to attend a meeting in
Edinburgh. I had a few days notice and people gave me a shopping list
for things to bring back for them. Something called 'Bridies' was it?
And a few other things.

Anyway, flew out of Birmingham early morning arrived not long
afterwards and went to the meeting. It lasted a couple of hours and
to be honest I thought it a waste of time. As we departed I said the
host that I liked some whiskey and whilst there I'd like to buy
something he recommended.

"What do you like", he asked.
"Glenmorangie is my favourite" I said.

"You won't do any better than that" he said. Disappointment or what
and I'm sure he's not correct.

Did all the shopping and home for tea.

Such a waste of money and time.

Bob.

On 02/02/2022 12:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> 2) Dredging and tidying upsteam causing the water to flow more rapidly down
> to the plains than before. Causing more flooding.

After the terrible flood at Fishlake the guy from the Rivers Authority
went on the telly and swore blind that the upstream river management
improvements hadn't caused the downstream flooding. We all knew he was
lying but it's good to have it confirmed by an expert like yourself Jim.

Bill