Lou is borrowing my car tomorrow so I thought I’d better clear it out.
Turns out I’ve been carting about half a ton of junk around. Ohh, bad
for the planet, naughty naughty!
The job took much longer than I envisaged, and as I filled the black
sacks I had the radio on. The car hasn’t got DAB, so much against my
better judgement I settled for BBC Radio Four. I found myself listening
to ‘Any Answers’, presented by Anita Anand. People were ringing in to
discuss global warming. All seemed to be smoothly progressing along the
lines of the usual agenda, with a number of callers more-or-less toeing
the BBC’s line, but then a Scottish lady joined in. At first she talked
about the way greeny policies had damaged employment in Aberdeen, and
although you could hear Anita’s hackles rise this challenge to the
universal consensus was just about tolerated, but then the Scottish
woman went on to express doubts (just doubts) about the whole global
warming hypothesis, in as much as it was affecting employment and
prosperity. She might as well have declared that the moon was made of
green cheese, that the Earth is flat, or that sex with goats was a jolly
fine thing. She was cut off faster than was decent. So much for free speech.
Next up a couple of blokes who were dead against nuclear power. Their
views were welcomed warmly. One said that ‘renewables provide 90% of our
electricity needs already.’ Anita did not challenge this absurd claim,
although she must have known it was rubbish. At the moment of writing
renewables are doing much better than usual because it’s really windy:
they are producing a massive 19% of demand!
The other guy said that nuclear power stations weren’t ‘environmentally
friendly’, because of the amount of cement used when they are built. I
can’t dig out the figures right now but I know that the amount of cement
per GWh of electricity produced by nuclear power stations is dwarfed by
the same figure for wind turbines. Anita kept quiet, but then a caller
came on and to Anita’s palpable alarm cunningly changed tack without
warning. He pointed out that not only do the windmills need a hell of a
lot of cement because they have to have massive foundations to withstand
the lateral forces from the wind, their construction releases large
amounts of CO2 that had been trapped in the peat. Wow! That man was
disappeared mighty quick! Can’t fault that Anita for her reflexes!
The next programme was a short story by Travis Alabanza. Actually, it
isn’t accurate to call it a short story. Blatant propaganda is a better
description. It was in the form of letters between a mother and her
daughter. It was pure one-sided environmentalist claptrap from start to
finish. No really, it was. It was incredible. I’m used to the BBC’s lies
but this really made me sit up. Even in the dark days of the Soviet
Union and Radio Moscow there was no propaganda as naked and unashamed as
this. Amongst much more (because they really crammed it in) we had Obama
GOOD, Boris BAD, Greenpeace GOOD, Monbiot GOOD, Oil BAD, windmills GOOD,
Greta a SAINT, and much much more. Needless to say a quick google
confirms my suspicions about this Travis Alabanza person. She/he/it will
have a fine future with the BBC.
OK, if they want to make a 15 minute over-the-top advert for
environmentalism that’s one thing (and thus warned we could all avoid
it), but for it to masquerade as an innocent short story is outrageously
dishonest.

Bill

On Tue 16/11/2021 02:13, williamwright wrote:
> Lou is borrowing my car tomorrow so I thought I’d better clear it out.
> Turns out I’ve been carting about half a ton of junk around. Ohh, bad
> for the planet, naughty naughty!
> The job took much longer than I envisaged, and as I filled the black
> sacks I had the radio on. The car hasn’t got DAB, so much against my
> better judgement I settled for BBC Radio Four. I found myself listening
> to ‘Any Answers’, presented by Anita Anand. People were ringing in to
> discuss global warming. All seemed to be smoothly progressing along the
> lines of the usual agenda, with a number of callers more-or-less toeing
> the BBC’s line, but then a Scottish lady joined in. At first she talked
> about the way greeny policies had damaged employment in Aberdeen, and
> although you could hear Anita’s hackles rise this challenge to the
> universal consensus was just about tolerated, but then the Scottish
> woman went on to express doubts (just doubts) about the whole global
> warming hypothesis, in as much as it was affecting employment and
> prosperity. She might as well have declared that the moon was made of
> green cheese, that the Earth is flat, or that sex with goats was a jolly
> fine thing. She was cut off faster than was decent. So much for free
> speech.
> Next up a couple of blokes who were dead against nuclear power. Their
> views were welcomed warmly. One said that ‘renewables provide 90% of our
> electricity needs already.’ Anita did not challenge this absurd claim,
> although she must have known it was rubbish. At the moment of writing
> renewables are doing much better than usual because it’s really windy:
> they are producing a massive 19% of demand!
> The other guy said that nuclear power stations weren’t ‘environmentally
> friendly’, because of the amount of cement used when they are built. I
> can’t dig out the figures right now but I know that the amount of cement
> per GWh of electricity produced by nuclear power stations is dwarfed by
> the same figure for wind turbines. Anita kept quiet, but then a caller
> came on and to Anita’s palpable alarm cunningly changed tack without
> warning. He pointed out that not only do the windmills need a hell of a
> lot of cement because they have to have massive foundations to withstand
> the lateral forces from the wind, their construction releases large
> amounts of CO2 that had been trapped in the peat. Wow! That man was
> disappeared mighty quick! Can’t fault that Anita for her reflexes!
> The next programme was a short story by Travis Alabanza. Actually, it
> isn’t accurate to call it a short story. Blatant propaganda is a better
> description. It was in the form of letters between a mother and her
> daughter. It was pure one-sided environmentalist claptrap from start to
> finish. No really, it was. It was incredible. I’m used to the BBC’s lies
> but this really made me sit up. Even in the dark days of the Soviet
> Union and Radio Moscow there was no propaganda as naked and unashamed as
> this. Amongst much more (because they really crammed it in) we had Obama
> GOOD, Boris BAD, Greenpeace GOOD, Monbiot GOOD, Oil BAD, windmills GOOD,
> Greta a SAINT, and much much more. Needless to say a quick google
> confirms my suspicions about this Travis Alabanza person. She/he/it will
> have a fine future with the BBC.
> OK, if they want to make a 15 minute over-the-top advert for
> environmentalism that’s one thing (and thus warned we could all avoid
> it), but for it to masquerade as an innocent short story is outrageously
> dishonest.
>

You he/she/it missed a point Bill. Look at its web page and when
referring to itself the word 'their' is used, so it is definitely an 'it.'

On 16/11/2021 02:13, williamwright wrote:

> OK, if they want to make a 15 minute over-the-top advert for
> environmentalism that’s one thing (and thus warned we could all avoid
> it), but for it to masquerade as an innocent short story is outrageously
> dishonest.
>
> Bill

I am guessing that you won't be watching BBC2 at 8pm tonight. "The
People V Climate Change" the programme is called. But reading the
programme details it is asking ordinary people how the climate change
goals can be met.

I bet there is never a second programme offering the opposite point of view.

Tongue in cheek I offer the following proposal. When the skies are
clear the weather forecasters say the temperatures will drop sharply
overnight. When the skies are cloudy the night-time temperatures hardly
drop at all. So my recommendation to combat global warming is to ban
overnight cloud. :-)

Jim

On 16/11/2021 02:13, williamwright wrote:
>
> Lou is borrowing my car tomorrow so I thought I’d better clear it out.
> Turns out I’ve been carting about half a ton of junk around. Ohh, bad
> for the planet, naughty naughty!
> The job took much longer than I envisaged, and as I filled the black
> sacks I had the radio on. The car hasn’t got DAB, so much against my
> better judgement I settled for BBC Radio Four. I found myself listening
> to ‘Any Answers’, presented by Anita Anand. People were ringing in to
> discuss global warming. All seemed to be smoothly progressing along the
> lines of the usual agenda, with a number of callers more-or-less toeing
> the BBC’s line, but then a Scottish lady joined in. At first she talked
> about the way greeny policies had damaged employment in Aberdeen, and
> although you could hear Anita’s hackles rise this challenge to the
> universal consensus was just about tolerated, but then the Scottish
> woman went on to express doubts (just doubts) about the whole global
> warming hypothesis, in as much as it was affecting employment and
> prosperity. She might as well have declared that the moon was made of
> green cheese, that the Earth is flat, or that sex with goats was a jolly
> fine thing. She was cut off faster than was decent. So much for free
> speech.

One would have thought that a city whose prosperity has been based on
oil-rigs for the last 50 years or so would have little difficulty in
adapting to the installation and maintenance of wind-turbines out at sea.

> Next up a couple of blokes who were dead against nuclear power. Their
> views were welcomed warmly. One said that ‘renewables provide 90% of our
> electricity needs already.’ Anita did not challenge this absurd claim,
> although she must have known it was rubbish. At the moment of writing
> renewables are doing much better than usual because it’s really windy:
> they are producing a massive 19% of demand!

Fair comment, it doesn't help anybody to ignore basic facts.

> The other guy said that nuclear power stations weren’t ‘environmentally
> friendly’, because of the amount of cement used when they are built. I
> can’t dig out the figures right now but I know that the amount of cement
> per GWh of electricity produced by nuclear power stations is dwarfed by
> the same figure for wind turbines.

You need to give this claim provenance, but again it helps no-one to get
the basic facts wrong.

> Anita kept quiet, but then a caller
> came on and to Anita’s palpable alarm cunningly changed tack without
> warning. He pointed out that not only do the windmills need a hell of a
> lot of cement because they have to have massive foundations to withstand
> the lateral forces from the wind, their construction releases large
> amounts of CO2 that had been trapped in the peat. Wow! That man was
> disappeared mighty quick! Can’t fault that Anita for her reflexes!

That assumes that all wind-turbines are installed in peaty areas;
obviously quite a lot of them are, but by no means all, and any
disturbance to the surrounding peat is only temporary, it will recover.

> The next programme was a short story by Travis Alabanza. Actually, it
> isn’t accurate to call it a short story. Blatant propaganda is a better
> description. It was in the form of letters between a mother and her
> daughter. It was pure one-sided environmentalist claptrap from start to
> finish. No really, it was. It was incredible. I’m used to the BBC’s lies
> but this really made me sit up. Even in the dark days of the Soviet
> Union and Radio Moscow there was no propaganda as naked and unashamed as
> this. Amongst much more (because they really crammed it in) we had Obama
> GOOD, Boris BAD, Greenpeace GOOD, Monbiot GOOD, Oil BAD, windmills GOOD,
> Greta a SAINT, and much much more. Needless to say a quick google
> confirms my suspicions about this Travis Alabanza person. She/he/it will
> have a fine future with the BBC.
> OK, if they want to make a 15 minute over-the-top advert for
> environmentalism that’s one thing (and thus warned we could all avoid
> it), but for it to masquerade as an innocent short story is outrageously
> dishonest.

You didn't have to listen to what you didn't want to hear, so don't
expect sympathy because you did. I don't listen to or watch drama on
radio or TV, because I find the vast majority of it unrealistic in some
way, this sounds no different, so your rant is wasted on me.

--

Fake news kills!

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

>. Amongst much more (because they really crammed it in) we had Obama
>GOOD, Boris BAD, Greenpeace GOOD, Monbiot GOOD, Oil BAD, windmills GOOD,
>Greta a SAINT, and much much more. Needless to say a quick google
>confirms my suspicions about this Travis Alabanza person. She/he/it will
>have a fine future with the BBC.
>OK, if they want to make a 15 minute over-the-top advert for
>environmentalism that’s one thing (and thus warned we could all avoid
>it), but for it to masquerade as an innocent short story is outrageously
>dishonest.
>
>Bill

Seems like the Doris at the BBC knows fuck all as do most about the
subject like the Green around the ears warriors know bugger all either..

Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below enough of
the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long enough either.

You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.

What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that
Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if
we are to phase out fossil.

We will need the power for our cars and transport and home heating ..

Rather like what France have done mainly Nuclear and Hydro they have
that right and the UK is one of the windiest areas in Europe too! It
isn't good enough...

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic
=-0.73,50.04,1792

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 16/11/2021 07:53, Woody wrote:

> You he/she/it missed a point Bill. Look at its web page and when
> referring to itself the word 'their' is used, so it is definitely an 'it.'
>
>
Could be man with a dick or a woman with a cunt, just doing it out of
solidarity. There's nowt s'queer as folk yer know.

Bill

On 16/11/2021 08:27, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 16/11/2021 02:13, williamwright wrote:

> I am guessing that you won't be watching BBC2 at 8pm tonight. "The
> People V Climate Change" the programme is called. But reading the
> programme details it is asking ordinary people how the climate change
> goals can be met.

Oh dear, I'll be asleep.

>
> I bet there is never a second programme offering the opposite point of
> view.

No.

>
> Tongue in cheek I offer the following proposal.  When the skies are
> clear the weather forecasters say the temperatures will drop sharply
> overnight.  When the skies are cloudy the night-time temperatures hardly
> drop at all.  So my recommendation to combat global warming is to ban
> overnight cloud.  :-)
Not half as daft as some ideas.

Bill

In article <ohypm7Ki59khFwov@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

> Seems like the Doris at the BBC knows fuck all as do most about the
> subject like the Green around the ears warriors know bugger all
> either..

> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below
> enough of the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long
> enough either.

> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
> system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
> output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
> storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.

> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear
> that Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as
> possible if we are to phase out fossil.

> We will need the power for our cars and transport and home heating

100% this.

That is the only sensible way to have reliable energy and reduce CO2
output. Strangely though, many argue against nuclear maybe because
CO2 isn't really their target, it's capitalism.

Bob.

On 16/11/2021 16:37, tony sayer wrote:
>
> Seems like the Doris at the BBC knows fuck all as do most about the
> subject like the Green around the ears warriors know bugger all either..
>
> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below enough of
> the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long enough either.
>
> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
> system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
> output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
> storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.
>
> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that
> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if
> we are to phase out fossil.

Sigh! What hopelessly short memories people have! This subject has
been flogged to death in this ng multiple times over the last decade or
so, and nothing has changed since to make it worthwhile flogging it to
death all over again. Once again, let me remind you that:

- The world doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph: without
'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means something
like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' = significant
uncertainty, total current world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference
Scenario = predicted demand) ...

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets.aspx

- The UK has bugger all!

- That currently nuclear is by far the most expensive means of
generation by source in the UK:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732

"When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn.
Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn."

So half-way through the build it's £5bn over budget, can we assume that
means it will be £10bn over budget by completion? I don't know, but I
won't be surprised if it is. Meanwhile from the same report:

"The deal he refers to is the so-called Strike Price for Hinkley C's
electricity. Also in 2016, the British government fixed that price at
£92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh). The price rises with inflation and has
now reached £106/MWh.

Back then, the equivalent price for electricity from offshore windfarms
was well over £120/MWh. But wind costs have fallen fast. Today new wind
projects are fixed at about £50/MWh, well under half the price of
Hinkley power."

.... not forgetting that the projected excess of global nuclear fuel
demand over supply can only make the fuel more expensive, and while it's
a small part of the final price of electricity per unit, as above that's
already very high indeed, without being pushed even higher.

Then there's the strategic weakness in reliance upon other nations for
our energy supply.

The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels, so we have to
burn as little of the latter as we can and capture the carbon as we do
so. Yes, it'll be expensive to do so, but at least we know we have the
fuel, so we won't be committing ourselves to reliance on other nations
for our electricity supply, as we would with nuclear.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/11/2021 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
> On 16/11/2021 16:37, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> Seems like the Doris at the BBC knows fuck all as do most about the
>> subject like the Green around the ears warriors know bugger all either..
>>
>> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below enough of
>> the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long enough either.
>>
>> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
>> system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
>> output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
>> storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.
>>
>> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that
>> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if
>> we are to phase out fossil.
>
> Sigh!  What hopelessly short memories people have!  This subject has
> been flogged to death in this ng multiple times over the last decade or
> so, and nothing has changed since to make it worthwhile flogging it to
> death all over again.  Once again, let me remind you that:
>
> -  The world doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph: without
> 'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means something
> like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' = significant
> uncertainty, total current world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference
> Scenario = predicted demand) ...
>
> https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets.aspx
>
> -  The UK has bugger all!
>
> -  That currently nuclear is by far the most expensive means of
> generation by source in the UK:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732
>
> "When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn.
> Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn."
>
> So half-way through the build it's £5bn over budget, can we assume that
> means it will be £10bn over budget by completion?  I don't know, but I
> won't be surprised if it is.  Meanwhile from the same report:
>
> "The deal he refers to is the so-called Strike Price for Hinkley C's
> electricity. Also in 2016, the British government fixed that price at
> £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh). The price rises with inflation and has
> now reached £106/MWh.
>
> Back then, the equivalent price for electricity from offshore windfarms
> was well over £120/MWh. But wind costs have fallen fast. Today new wind
> projects are fixed at about £50/MWh, well under half the price of
> Hinkley power."
>
> ... not forgetting that the projected excess of global nuclear fuel
> demand over supply can only make the fuel more expensive, and while it's
> a small part of the final price of electricity per unit, as above that's
> already very high indeed, without being pushed even higher.

Meant to add for balance, but got distracted, that further on in the
above article it mentions the current high price of gas, etc, and that
this makes the Hinckley price look comparatively cheap at the moment:

"Henry Edwardes-Evans, a respected analyst at S&P Global Power, said:
"Yesterday we assessed October's electricity at £207 per MWh.

"Hinkley's contract is now at £106 - so Hinkley is now looking very good
value.""

But I wonder how long term that is going to be in reality? Nobody at
the time the Hinckley deal was agreed seemed to predict the halving in
price of wind since then. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the
market's like when it starts actually generating.

> Then there's the strategic weakness in reliance upon other nations for
> our energy supply.
>
> The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
> which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels, so we have to
> burn as little of the latter as we can and capture the carbon as we do
> so.  Yes, it'll be expensive to do so, but at least we know we have the
> fuel, so we won't be committing ourselves to reliance on other nations
> for our electricity supply, as we would with nuclear.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/11/2021 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
> Then there's the strategic weakness in reliance upon other nations for
> our energy supply.

If we spent half as much on Tidal generation as we are planning to do on
obtaining power from the fickle wind, we would be much nearer
independence on other nations, and with a much more reliable generation
profile.

Jim

In article <sn0s53$nrr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 16/11/2021 16:37, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> Seems like the Doris at the BBC knows fuck all as do most about the
>> subject like the Green around the ears warriors know bugger all either..
>>
>> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below enough of
>> the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long enough either.
>>
>> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
>> system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
>> output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
>> storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.
>>
>> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that
>> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if
>> we are to phase out fossil.
>
>Sigh! What hopelessly short memories people have! This subject has
>been flogged to death in this ng multiple times over the last decade or
>so, and nothing has changed since to make it worthwhile flogging it to
>death all over again. Once again, let me remind you that:
>
>- The world doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph: without
>'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means something
>like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' = significant
>uncertainty, total current world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference
>Scenario = predicted demand) ...
>
>https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-
>resources/uranium-markets.aspx
>
>- The UK has bugger all!
>
>- That currently nuclear is by far the most expensive means of
>generation by source in the UK:
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732
>
>"When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn.
>Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn."
>
>So half-way through the build it's £5bn over budget, can we assume that
>means it will be £10bn over budget by completion? I don't know, but I
>won't be surprised if it is. Meanwhile from the same report:
>

Lets forget Hinckley and the large reactors these are the new small
modular ones that can be factory built such as Rolls Royce have now got
the support to make them as have other firms in the USA even bill gates
is behind the idea, suppose their all wrong;?.

They can be factory built then stack as many of they as you need and
where you need ..

And yes we don't have the stuff we will have to get it from elsewhere
but where does our gas now come from I wonder?..
>"The deal he refers to is the so-called Strike Price for Hinkley C's
>electricity. Also in 2016, the British government fixed that price at
>£92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh). The price rises with inflation and has
>now reached £106/MWh.
>
>Back then, the equivalent price for electricity from offshore windfarms
>was well over £120/MWh. But wind costs have fallen fast. Today new wind
>projects are fixed at about £50/MWh, well under half the price of
>Hinkley power."

Yes but its NOT reliable enough, there was quite a long period earlier
this year where the wind was contributing very little to the grid even
if we doubled them tripled them if the wind isn't there then they
aren't!..

>
>... not forgetting that the projected excess of global nuclear fuel
>demand over supply can only make the fuel more expensive, and while it's
>a small part of the final price of electricity per unit, as above that's
>already very high indeed, without being pushed even higher.
>
>Then there's the strategic weakness in reliance upon other nations for
>our energy supply.

Well be that as it may we haven't got any other option and fusion well
long time coming but who knows?..

>
>The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
>which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels, so we have to
>burn as little of the latter as we can and capture the carbon as we do
>so. Yes, it'll be expensive to do so, but at least we know we have the
>fuel, so we won't be committing ourselves to reliance on other nations
>for our electricity supply, as we would with nuclear.
>
Well we have some wind as and when solar isn't a lot of cop in the
winter overcast days and water?, we have bugger all of that and good
luck with Carbon capture!. What are you going to do when the Gas runs
out and coal if we could capture all the CO2?.

I think Mac you'd have us all back to horse and carts if you had your
way;!...
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <598c63e6e8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-
of-spam.invalid> scribeth thus
>In article <ohypm7Ki59khFwov@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Seems like the Doris at the BBC knows fuck all as do most about the
>> subject like the Green around the ears warriors know bugger all
>> either..
>
>> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below
>> enough of the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long
>> enough either.
>
>> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
>> system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
>> output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
>> storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.
>
>> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear
>> that Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as
>> possible if we are to phase out fossil.
>
>> We will need the power for our cars and transport and home heating
>
>100% this.
>
>That is the only sensible way to have reliable energy and reduce CO2
>output. Strangely though, many argue against nuclear maybe because
>CO2 isn't really their target, it's capitalism.
>
>Bob.

Its fear of them going BANG!

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 21:12:21 +0000, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 16/11/2021 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
>> Then there's the strategic weakness in reliance upon other nations for
>> our energy supply.
>
>If we spent half as much on Tidal generation as we are planning to do on
>obtaining power from the fickle wind, we would be much nearer
>independence on other nations, and with a much more reliable generation
>profile.
>

Here's a copy of a letter to The Times on that very subject.

<quote>
Sir, Correspondents addressing the energy crisis have this week
described “vast” or “very large” tidal energy resources that we don'’t
exploit. Yet more than ten years ago the late David McKay FRS had the
brilliant idea of dividing “vast” numbers by 50 million, to make it
easier to appreciate how much, or how little, they could do for us per
person. John Ryle-Barnes (letter, Oct 11) mentions the 500GWh per
annum of the Rance barrage in France. A vast number indeed. However,
much of it comes from the hours per year, of which there are 8,766.
The actual average output is 0.057GW. That would provide about one
watt per person. It is estimated that the UK has half of Europe'’s
tidal resources. Norman Kilpatrick (letter, Oct 11) describes this as
“very large”. Indeed, it is a full 10GW, or 87,000 GWh pa, or 200W per
person — not much towards the UK total energy consumption of 4kW per
person, yet requiring already 200 Rance-equivalent installations.

One correspondent considers the mighty Thames, with its 20 million
tons of water rising and falling up to 23ft twice a day with the tide,
and reflects that this makes a vast amount of energy available. That
is less than half a ton of water per person dropping about seven
metres twice a day. The energy there is seven ton-metres (7,000
joules) per day, or well under one tenth of a watt.

Engineers can more usefully concentrate on building nuclear, wind and
solar installations, which can be made large enough to supply our
needs.

Professor David Dunstan
School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London
<end quote>

--
brightside S9

BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 21:12:21 +0000, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2021 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>> Then there's the strategic weakness in reliance upon other nations for
>>> our energy supply.
>>
>> If we spent half as much on Tidal generation as we are planning to do on
>> obtaining power from the fickle wind, we would be much nearer
>> independence on other nations, and with a much more reliable generation
>> profile.
>>
>
> Here's a copy of a letter to The Times on that very subject.
>
> <quote>
> Sir, Correspondents addressing the energy crisis have this week
> described “vast” or “very large” tidal energy resources that we don'’t
> exploit. Yet more than ten years ago the late David McKay FRS had the
> brilliant idea of dividing “vast” numbers by 50 million, to make it
> easier to appreciate how much, or how little, they could do for us per
> person. John Ryle-Barnes (letter, Oct 11) mentions the 500GWh per
> annum of the Rance barrage in France. A vast number indeed. However,
> much of it comes from the hours per year, of which there are 8,766.
> The actual average output is 0.057GW. That would provide about one
> watt per person. It is estimated that the UK has half of Europe'’s
> tidal resources. Norman Kilpatrick (letter, Oct 11) describes this as
> “very large”. Indeed, it is a full 10GW, or 87,000 GWh pa, or 200W per
> person — not much towards the UK total energy consumption of 4kW per
> person, yet requiring already 200 Rance-equivalent installations.
>
> One correspondent considers the mighty Thames, with its 20 million
> tons of water rising and falling up to 23ft twice a day with the tide,
> and reflects that this makes a vast amount of energy available. That
> is less than half a ton of water per person dropping about seven
> metres twice a day. The energy there is seven ton-metres (7,000
> joules) per day, or well under one tenth of a watt.
>
> Engineers can more usefully concentrate on building nuclear, wind and
> solar installations, which can be made large enough to supply our
> needs.
>
> Professor David Dunstan
> School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London
> <end quote>
>

The other problem with tidal barrages is that they tend to gum up with silt
and also affect silting and flows within the river. All sorts of unintended
consequences result when messing about with waterways, as the Dutch
discovered when they built their first set of polders.

The good thing about the current crop of low wind high pressure systems
whilst we are short of gas is to illustrate to the non scientific decision
makers that wind turbines cannot be our only source of power.

Look in any local paper, these are now called advertorials, I understand.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ohypm7Ki59khFwov@bancom.co.uk...
> >. Amongst much more (because they really crammed it in) we had Obama
>>GOOD, Boris BAD, Greenpeace GOOD, Monbiot GOOD, Oil BAD, windmills GOOD,
>>Greta a SAINT, and much much more. Needless to say a quick google
>>confirms my suspicions about this Travis Alabanza person. She/he/it will
>>have a fine future with the BBC.
>>OK, if they want to make a 15 minute over-the-top advert for
>>environmentalism that's one thing (and thus warned we could all avoid
>>it), but for it to masquerade as an innocent short story is outrageously
>>dishonest.
>>
>>Bill
>
>
> Seems like the Doris at the BBC knows fuck all as do most about the
> subject like the Green around the ears warriors know bugger all either..
>
> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below enough of
> the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine long enough either.
>
> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking high
> system in place and they do happen then there will be sod all wind
> output. Even if we could store it we would need very long days of
> storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.
>
> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular nuclear that
> Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as soon as possible if
> we are to phase out fossil.
>
> We will need the power for our cars and transport and home heating ..
>
> Rather like what France have done mainly Nuclear and Hydro they have
> that right and the UK is one of the windiest areas in Europe too! It
> isn't good enough...
>
>
> https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic
> =-0.73,50.04,1792
>
>
> http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/
>
> --
> Tony Sayer
>
>
> Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
>
> Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
>
>

In article <kPyKtbMndClhFwTT@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <598c63e6e8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-
> of-spam.invalid> scribeth thus
> >In article <ohypm7Ki59khFwov@bancom.co.uk>,
> > tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Seems like the Doris at the BBC knows fuck all as do most about the
> >> subject like the Green around the ears warriors know bugger all
> >> either..
> >
> >> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below
> >> enough of the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine
> >> long enough either.
> >
> >> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking
> >> high system in place and they do happen then there will be sod
> >> all wind output. Even if we could store it we would need very
> >> long days of storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.
> >
> >> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular
> >> nuclear that Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as
> >> soon as possible if we are to phase out fossil.
> >
> >> We will need the power for our cars and transport and home
> >> heating
> >
> >100% this.
> >
> >That is the only sensible way to have reliable energy and reduce
> >CO2 output. Strangely though, many argue against nuclear maybe
> >because CO2 isn't really their target, it's capitalism.
> >
> >Bob.

> Its fear of them going BANG!

Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone
back to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought
with it a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors
much safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that
failed due to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that
self cooling can be designed in now.

Personally, I would be happy to do the same as Germany or go nuclear,
anything is better than the expensive, eyesore, unreliables of wind
and solar. But for others expensive, unreliable energy is desirable,
presumably until they can no longer afford energy or it fails in the
middle of their operation.

Bob.

In article <ivgie2Fpq95U1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> All seemed to be smoothly progressing along the lines of the usual
> agenda, with a number of callers more-or-less toeing the BBC's line,
> but then a Scottish lady joined in. At first she talked about the way
> greeny policies had damaged employment in Aberdeen, and although you
> could hear Anita's hackles rise this challenge to the universal
> consensus was just about tolerated, but then the Scottish woman went on
> to express doubts (just doubts) about the whole global warming
> hypothesis, in as much as it was affecting employment and prosperity.
> She might as well have declared that the moon was made of green cheese,
> that the Earth is flat, or that sex with goats was a jolly fine thing.
> She was cut off faster than was decent. So much for free speech.

Erm, "free speech" doesn't mean we all *have* to *listen* to and fall for
cobblers.

Global warming is real, and measured in many ways over many years. Only the
deluded / wishful thinkers / ignorant deny this now. The only real
arguments are about the details - which largely depend on how we as a
global set of people behave in response.

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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:09:36 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

[...]
>The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
>which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels,
[...]

Ultimately the only real answer to the question of how we use energy
supplies is to aim to have fewer people using them. Solve that problem
and everything else will fall into place.

Unfortunately it still boils down to the practicality of how to change
the behaviour of vast numbers of people. I don't know the best way to
do this, but the main choices would seem to be despotism, advertising,
or something in the water. I'm not sure which would be worst.

Rod.

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <kPyKtbMndClhFwTT@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <598c63e6e8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-
> > of-spam.invalid> scribeth thus
> > >In article <ohypm7Ki59khFwov@bancom.co.uk>,
> > > tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Seems like the Doris at the BBC knows fuck all as do most about the
> > >> subject like the Green around the ears warriors know bugger all
> > >> either..
> > >
> > >> Wind power is simply bloody useless as the wind does not below
> > >> enough of the time simple as that, nor does the olde sun shine
> > >> long enough either.
> > >
> > >> You could cover the entire UK with windy mills but a blocking
> > >> high system in place and they do happen then there will be sod
> > >> all wind output. Even if we could store it we would need very
> > >> long days of storage the wind earlier this year was very poor.
> > >
> > >> What we do need is very simple, Nuclear and the new modular
> > >> nuclear that Roll Royce are developing and we need the bugger as
> > >> soon as possible if we are to phase out fossil.
> > >
> > >> We will need the power for our cars and transport and home
> > >> heating
> > >
> > >100% this.
> > >
> > >That is the only sensible way to have reliable energy and reduce
> > >CO2 output. Strangely though, many argue against nuclear maybe
> > >because CO2 isn't really their target, it's capitalism.
> > >
> > >Bob.
>
> > Its fear of them going BANG!
>
> Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
> decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone
> back to coal. But every accident around the world should have brought
> with it a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors
> much safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that
> failed due to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that
> self cooling can be designed in now.
>
Not to mention that the number of people killed by nuclear power is
still pretty trivial compared with other sources. Hydro-electric
power in particular has killed hundreds of thousands.

--
Chris Green
·

In article <598c3b8c2fnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ivgie2Fpq95U1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> > All seemed to be smoothly progressing along the lines of the
> > usual agenda, with a number of callers more-or-less toeing the
> > BBC's line, but then a Scottish lady joined in. At first she
> > talked about the way greeny policies had damaged employment in
> > Aberdeen, and although you could hear Anita's hackles rise this
> > challenge to the universal consensus was just about tolerated,
> > but then the Scottish woman went on to express doubts (just
> > doubts) about the whole global warming hypothesis, in as much as
> > it was affecting employment and prosperity. She might as well
> > have declared that the moon was made of green cheese, that the
> > Earth is flat, or that sex with goats was a jolly fine thing. She
> > was cut off faster than was decent. So much for free speech.

> Erm, "free speech" doesn't mean we all *have* to *listen* to and
> fall for cobblers.

> Global warming is real, and measured in many ways over many years.

> Only the deluded / wishful thinkers / ignorant deny this now.

That's me then, thanks.

The climate has always changed and always will without any help from
man.

See Holocene climate optimum, Roman climate optimum, medieval warm
period and mini ice age. Note that two of them use the word 'optimum'
in their title for warm periods, better for man. Even now, the cold
kills 10 times more people than the heat. See millions of years with
CO2 10 times higher than now during an ice-age.

But a rise of CO2 from 0.03% to 0.04% is all due to man and it's THE
temperature control knob. Yeah right.

If it's all the same to you, I'll stay very sceptical.

Enjoy the sour cherries, sorry facts.

Bob.

In article <smvq0s$rl1$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> I am guessing that you won't be watching BBC2 at 8pm tonight. "The
> People V Climate Change" the programme is called. But reading the
> programme details it is asking ordinary people how the climate change
> goals can be met.

> I bet there is never a second programme offering the opposite point of
> view.

No need to ask. The big oil producers, etc, are showing us how to fail
to meet the goals. They've generously spent a lot of time and (our)
money on doing so, out of the kindness of their hearts. They just
followed the Tobacco Playbook which told smokers what they wanted
to believe.

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

On 17/11/2021 10:07, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:09:36 +0000, Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> The answer to all this is that we have to use what nature has given us,
>> which is not nuclear but wind, water, and fossil fuels,
> [...]
>
> Ultimately the only real answer to the question of how we use energy
> supplies is to aim to have fewer people using them. Solve that problem
> and everything else will fall into place.
>
> Unfortunately it still boils down to the practicality of how to change
> the behaviour of vast numbers of people. I don't know the best way to
> do this, but the main choices would seem to be despotism, advertising,
> or something in the water. I'm not sure which would be worst.
>
> Rod.

There is always Global Warming to submerge thousands of square miles of
fertile, crop-bearing land under higher water levels. ;-)

Jim

On 17/11/2021 10:27, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <598c3b8c2fnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <ivgie2Fpq95U1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
>> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> All seemed to be smoothly progressing along the lines of the
>>> usual agenda, with a number of callers more-or-less toeing the
>>> BBC's line, but then a Scottish lady joined in. At first she
>>> talked about the way greeny policies had damaged employment in
>>> Aberdeen, and although you could hear Anita's hackles rise this
>>> challenge to the universal consensus was just about tolerated,
>>> but then the Scottish woman went on to express doubts (just
>>> doubts) about the whole global warming hypothesis, in as much as
>>> it was affecting employment and prosperity. She might as well
>>> have declared that the moon was made of green cheese, that the
>>> Earth is flat, or that sex with goats was a jolly fine thing. She
>>> was cut off faster than was decent. So much for free speech.
>>
>> Erm, "free speech" doesn't mean we all *have* to *listen* to and
>> fall for cobblers.

Exactly, nor is it a carte blanche to speak the cobblers in the first
place, "free speech" is not permission to lie.

>> Global warming is real, and measured in many ways over many years.
>>
>> Only the deluded / wishful thinkers / ignorant deny this now.
>
> That's me then, thanks.
>
> The climate has always changed and always will without any help from
> man.
>
> See Holocene climate optimum, Roman climate optimum, medieval warm
> period and mini ice age. Note that two of them use the word 'optimum'
> in their title for warm periods, better for man. Even now, the cold
> kills 10 times more people than the heat. See millions of years with
> CO2 10 times higher than now during an ice-age.

TROLL! Proven lies debunked many times previously repeated again!

> But a rise of CO2 from 0.03% to 0.04% is all due to man and it's THE
> temperature control knob. Yeah right.

As explained to you times beyond counting previously, it is.

> If it's all the same to you, I'll stay very sceptical.

You mean you'll remain an ignorant bigot.

> Enjoy the sour cherries, sorry facts.

Either make some effort to understand the subject, or quit posting lies
about it, the choice is yours.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 17/11/2021 08:39, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <kPyKtbMndClhFwTT@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Its fear of them going BANG!
>
> Yes I'll grant you that, there are some people in that camp. Germany
> decided against nuclear following Fukushima and seems to have gone
> back to coal.

Not an accurate description, they've adopted renewable technologies, but
have used them to replace nuclear rather than coal.

> But every accident around the world should have brought
> with it a list of lessons to be learnt which should make new reactors
> much safer. IIRC, it was the pumps that pushed cooling water that
> failed due to power failure following the tsunami but I've read that
> self cooling can be designed in now.
>
> Personally, I would be happy to do the same as Germany or go nuclear,
> anything is better than the expensive, eyesore, unreliables of wind
> and solar. But for others expensive,

As already explained in this thread, new nuclear is currently the most
expensive energy source in this country. Even offshore wind is about
half the price of new nuclear.

> unreliable energy is desirable,
> presumably until they can no longer afford energy or it fails in the
> middle of their operation.

The last major failure in this country involved both wind and
fossil-fuel power, and the last one before that involved nuclear power.

--

Fake news kills!

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