"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
news In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.


Horsehit as usual. Farms were self sufficient with manure. There weren't
the means to move it great distances.

Bollix.

Fact.

Evrything that comes out of the ground has to be put back.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
news In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.


Horsehit as usual. Farms were self sufficient with manure. There weren't
the means to move it great distances.

Bollix.
Evrything that comes out of the ground has to be put back.


Another of your inane comments.
--
bert

On 20/08/2014 10:47, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/08/2014 10:42, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote:
That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.


And before they worked out that the radiation from betalights was
negligible unless you ate one.

I poked a geiger counter at one when I was at school. Nothing more than
normal background radiation was shown until the counter was almost
touching the unit. If you're worried about radiation, don't eat bananas.

... or Brazil nuts.

What is the Banana Equivalent Dose of a brazil nut?

Don't bother, I'll look it up...

1.875.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/08/2014 08:25, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html




You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near that
much and never have. You must waste a lot.

You're not clever Den are you.

I use around 4000Kwh/year

“For us, it has been a great success. Maybe we just got lucky. I expect
energy bills to rise, so I think what we’ve done will pay dividends in
future. Our energy consumption has come down to just under 7,000kWhrs a
year.”

Even 4000kw hr isn't as much as me.


But the saving includes some for the car.

So you swapped a big old car for a tiny electric car that you don't
drive during the day as you are charging it with solar energy.
You wouldn't want to charge it at night using base load nukes would you.

You would have saved even more if you hadn't bought the electric car and
had a Ka or similar.

And no gas bill,

Heat pump!, you have no mains gas.
Hardly a saving on energy is it.

And tax free.

On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
8

I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.



That would explain why NHS buildings are usually rated D/E on the energy
performance ratings. There is only one grade worse and that is probably
iron/steel works where they have no glass in the windows.

On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.



They aren't.

On 20/08/2014 08:54, harryagain wrote:

8

Bollix.
Evrything that comes out of the ground has to be put back.


Have fun putting the helium back.

On 20/08/14 17:27, Dennis@home wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic
and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.



They aren't.

quite the reverse.
In fact.
All the evidence from radiotherapy is that what counts is the peak exposure.

In fact there is some very strong, though not conclusive, evidence that
cells have tow halves to DNA for a reason. Parity check. If they don't
match the cell dies.
So up to a certain amount of damage, you don't have reproducible
mutations (cancers).

Below that threshold you have to be very very unlucky to get any
mutations that survive at all.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 20/08/2014 20:28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article om,
"Dennis@home" wrote:

On 20/08/2014 08:54, harryagain wrote:

8

Bollix.
Evrything that comes out of the ground has to be put back.


Have fun putting the helium back.

and the radon. and the sulphur dioxide from volcanoes. And so on.


They are possible, the helium has gone, it evaporates into space.

On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:45, harryagain wrote:
It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.

Considerable quantities of seaweed have been used in coastal areas for
many centuries.

And inland?


You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient.
Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by
horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible.
Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let
us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of
legumes.

--
Rod

On 20/08/2014 21:53, polygonum wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:45, harryagain wrote:
It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.

Considerable quantities of seaweed have been used in coastal areas for
many centuries.

And inland?


You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient.
Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by
horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible.
Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let
us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of
legumes.


One of the best general fertilizers is fish, blood and bone.

--
Colin Bignell

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:07:16 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

It wasn't limited to Britain. An estimated one million tons of shipping
was saved in the year to March 1943 by growing supplies for the troops
in the Middle East locally.

This must have been so successful that even in 1946 troops returning
from Burma were fattened up in Egypt because they would have strained
resources at home. My late father didn't mention his time in Burma but
did tell the story of being required, as a flight sergeant, to
announce to the men they would not be returning straight home because
the officers thought it best coming from one of the NCOs.

AJH

On 20/08/14 21:53, polygonum wrote:
You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient.

Which came first, the plant or the horse?

I think Harry has finally lost it, big time..


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 20/08/14 22:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/08/2014 21:53, polygonum wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:45, harryagain wrote:
It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.

Considerable quantities of seaweed have been used in coastal areas for
many centuries.

And inland?


You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient.
Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by
horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible.
Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let
us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of
legumes.


One of the best general fertilizers is fish, blood and bone.

I find mulching Greens is very good.

Save the planet: Mulch your Greens!

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
....
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in
reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic
predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing
methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that
does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are
ideal attributes for that job.


--
Colin Bignell

On 21/08/2014 08:01, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
...
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in
reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic
predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing
methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that
does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are
ideal attributes for that job.


You do remember how the NHS worked in the past don't you? I'd have given
those as the perfect qualifications for an NHS manager until fairly
recently. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 21/08/2014 09:03, John Williamson wrote:
On 21/08/2014 08:01, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
...
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in
reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic
predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing
methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that
does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are
ideal attributes for that job.


You do remember how the NHS worked in the past don't you? I'd have given
those as the perfect qualifications for an NHS manager until fairly
recently. ;-)


Possibly a little unfair. In several decades of supplying the NHS I met
a few very competent people. Unfortunately, one of the best got her job
through internal promotion, which, apparently, was not an approved route
and her job had to be advertised externally. Her successor knew rather
less about the job, but had better paper qualifications.

--
Colin Bignell

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 20/08/14 22:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/08/2014 21:53, polygonum wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:45, harryagain wrote:
It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.

Considerable quantities of seaweed have been used in coastal areas for
many centuries.

And inland?


You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient.
Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by
horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible.
Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let
us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of
legumes.


One of the best general fertilizers is fish, blood and bone.

I find mulching Greens is very good.

Save the planet: Mulch your Greens!

LOL
--
bert

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:17, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 10:25, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 18/08/2014 09:37, Tim Lamb wrote:

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely
commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT
payment....

£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.

I understand share price inflation over a long enough period has kept
up
with property etc.

Indeed, but you can do quite a bit better than the stock market, if you
have a good spread of investments, take the long view and don't mind if
some of the investments don't work out too well.

I suspect the lack of dealing charges and zero risk would be more
attractive.

Harry's idea of investment seems to be putting money in a Building
Society, so he probably is in the risk averse category.

No, my idea is property. (And land)
Buy a wreck with a very obvious problem and fix the problem and do it up.
Up sizr when prices are down.
Downsize when prices are up.
Extend the small property.
All part time DIY of course.
And tax free.

Here is a propety that had a very obvious problem. No road and 3/4 mile
from
the highway.
Google EarthNP4 8TT
There is now a road as you will see.
I knew for a source of free rock. So the road went in for around £1000
About two thousand tons of rock were needed.
I bought that house for £25,000 & sold it ten years later for nearly
£400,000
Probably spent another £5000 on it over the ten years./
So better than shares in the HSBC.
Quite right, risk free.
But a lot of work.

I have done five houses up.
First one cost £400. (Ooop North 1970.)
Retrospectively, I wasn't bold enough, I could easily have done twice as
good and been a millionaire.

I know a builder who did much the same. It is only tax free if the house
is your main place of residence, so you have to live in a wreck for a
while. When we costed out how much he could have charged for his time
doing similar work for other people and factored in the normal rise in
house prices, he had made a profit, but nowhere near as much as he
originally thought.

Exactly so re the tax.
Spare time hobby for me.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 20/08/2014 08:13, harryagain wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message

8

There must be a few that end up with hail damage etc.


Very rare we get hail big enough to cause that amount of damage in the UK



The climate is changing, how do you know we wont get such hail often
enough to wipe out the solar energy for the whole of the UK?


Because SFB, hailstorms are local events associated with CuNim (thunder
clouds).

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:25, harryagain wrote:
...
But the saving includes some for the car.
...

ISTR that the savings you gave before would only apply if you had
previously been driving something like the 5 litre V8 Mercedes M Class I
used to run. To be realistic, you should compare the electric car to
something of similar size and discomfort.

I have.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:25, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html




You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near
that
much and never have. You must waste a lot.

You're not clever Den are you.

I use around 4000Kwh/year

Which means that if you didn't have all your gubbins, you would have to
have spent about £4500 per year on energy for your house. Pull the other
one....

But the saving includes some for the car.
And no gas bill,
And tax free.


My *total* energy bills including all the petrol for the car and all the
diesel fuel for the boat are about £2500 per year.

I could possibly reduce them by abut £500 by getting rid of the Land Rover
and buying a G-Whiz, but I'd need to hire a van once a month or so, or pay
to get the coal and gas delivered which would eliminate *that* saving
quite quickly.

Unless you live in a mansion with no insulation, it would be quite hard to
spend more than £4000 on energy. When I lived in a reasonably insulated
house, I spent about £3000 p.a. and I wasn't trying to economise. Then
again, I wasn't ripping the rest of the country off claiming a large FIT
payment.

Tch. I said BENEFIT.

You neglect the income from the solar panels which is tax free and is paid
whether you use it or not.
Some of the 4000Kwh comes from the solar panels and hence is free.
And I have zero gas bill.
You're not good with money are you?

And you live on a boat, a tenth the size of a house.
I bet you have one of those little stove thingys too?
With pictures of castles and roses painted on it?

Paraffin lamps?

I have seen a narrow boat with PV on the roof.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:39, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 17/08/2014 06:45, harryagain wrote:


Renewable energy is the only one no-one can take away from us.
Nuclear is far too expensive, dangerous, it's use is totally
irresponsible.



So why do you use nuclear power then harry?

I use nuclear fusion power.


With Fission as a backup for when that fails. And you also burn coal, oil
and gas as a backup for that every night.

A mix that needs to be changed.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 19:55:05 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 06:45:29 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Renewable energy is the only one no-one can take away from us.
Nuclear is far too expensive, dangerous, it's use is totally
irresponsible.

Not as dangerous as farming Harry, that you say you were involved in.
Farming accounts for almost 1 in 5 deaths in the workplace and is
still the most dangerous profession to work in. Overall, 148 workers
were killed in the UK between April 2012 and March 2013.
Source:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/03/07/...n-says-hse.htm

I'm amazed you went anywhere near it, you seem so concerned with
dangerous industries. Very irresponsible of you!

I thought fishing was the most dangerous occupation.

That quote is from Farmers Weekly, who in turn were quoting Health and
Safety Executive figures. They should know. If the nuclear industry
was as bad as that there'd be uproar.

I lived on the farm but it was not my occupation. It was a nice place to
live.
NP4 8TT on Google maps/earth.

But you owned it Harry. You said so earlier in this thread. Which
means you made money out of it. Well would you believe it. Harry
making money out of an industry far more dangerous than the nuclear
industry, yet he has the brass neck to claim the nuclear industry is
dangerous. And I thought you were at least sincere in your beliefs,
even if misguided. Now I wouldn't be surprised to hear you have shares
EDF. You disappoint me Harry.


Why does it neccessarily mean I ran it as a business?

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
8

I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.



That would explain why NHS buildings are usually rated D/E on the energy
performance ratings. There is only one grade worse and that is probably
iron/steel works where they have no glass in the windows.

It's because many are old. Heated by coal in many cases.

The new ones are far more efficient.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
...
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in
reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic
predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods,
an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit
your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes
for that job.

And you have demonstrated you are stuck in the past, unable to see we need a
complety different way forward.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2014 08:01, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
...
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in
reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic
predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing
methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that
does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are
ideal attributes for that job.


You do remember how the NHS worked in the past don't you? I'd have given
those as the perfect qualifications for an NHS manager until fairly
recently. ;-)

The problems we now have in the NHS are recent.
Due to parachuting in people with zero experience of running hospitals.
Eg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...speak-out.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...anagement.html

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 20/08/14 17:27, Dennis@home wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic
and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are
too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones
then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.



They aren't.

quite the reverse.
In fact.
All the evidence from radiotherapy is that what counts is the peak
exposure.

In fact there is some very strong, though not conclusive, evidence that
cells have tow halves to DNA for a reason. Parity check. If they don't
match the cell dies.
So up to a certain amount of damage, you don't have reproducible mutations
(cancers).

Below that threshold you have to be very very unlucky to get any mutations
that survive at all.

Usual drivel eh TurNiP

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0521093034.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 10:42, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic
and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are
too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones
then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.


And before they worked out that the radiation from betalights was
negligible unless you ate one.

I poked a geiger counter at one when I was at school. Nothing more than
normal background radiation was shown until the counter was almost
touching the unit. If you're worried about radiation, don't eat bananas.

... or Brazil nuts.

Usual drivel.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.

--
Colin Bignell

Hah, Drivel.
It was vitally neccesary that it all went back to where the oats came
from.

Bull****.

Total recycling.
Otherwise in a few years nothing would grow.

We did nothing like that with ours, essentially because
it was never going to be feasible to move it all back from
the city streets to where it was grown and it kept growing fine.

But Oz is just all desert.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I have been there. Took a bus trip across part of the interior.
It was nearly all desert.
Filled with wannabe Crocodile Dundees at that time.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 21:53, polygonum wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:45, harryagain wrote:
It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.

Considerable quantities of seaweed have been used in coastal areas for
many centuries.

And inland?


You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient.
Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by
horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible.
Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let
us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of
legumes.


One of the best general fertilizers is fish, blood and bone.

Was. Haven't seen it for years
Alright for you garden but too expensive for farms.

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
news
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.


Horsehit as usual. Farms were self sufficient with manure. There weren't
the means to move it great distances.
--
bert
There was a major traffic on canal boats.
It had to removed from towns because of the pong if nothing else

On 23/08/2014 17:10, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 20/08/2014 08:13, harryagain wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message

8

There must be a few that end up with hail damage etc.


Very rare we get hail big enough to cause that amount of damage in the UK



The climate is changing, how do you know we wont get such hail often
enough to wipe out the solar energy for the whole of the UK?


Because SFB, hailstorms are local events associated with CuNim (thunder
clouds).



So how do you know we won't get lots of slow moving thunder storms that
will knock out all the solar panels?
You claim we are going to get more sever weather but appear to want to
ignore what you say.

On 23/08/2014 17:29, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
8

I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.



That would explain why NHS buildings are usually rated D/E on the energy
performance ratings. There is only one grade worse and that is probably
iron/steel works where they have no glass in the windows.

It's because many are old. Heated by coal in many cases.

The new ones are far more efficient.



I only have the figures on new ones!

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
...
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of
rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find,
unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of
commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total
rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I
somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job.
And you have demonstrated you are stuck in the past, unable to see
we need a complety different way forward.

Yes, with more nuclear and no windmills - quite right, harry.

You don't get much wind at night.
Crop spraying needs low wind speed; preferably less than 4 mph. Usually
early morning, late evening. Somebody may have real figures:-)


--
Tim Lamb

On 23/08/2014 19:47, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
...
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of
rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find,
unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of
commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total
rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I
somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job.
And you have demonstrated you are stuck in the past, unable to see
we need a complety different way forward.

Yes, with more nuclear and no windmills - quite right, harry.

You don't get much wind at night.
Crop spraying needs low wind speed; preferably less than 4 mph. Usually
early morning, late evening. Somebody may have real figures:-)


That is a bit of an over generalisation. It is true to say that during
periods of high pressure lightest winds occur dusk/overnight/dawn
particularly in summer since there are no solar thermals at this time of
day, but depression created winds are just as strong at night as during
the day.

--
Chris

On 23/08/2014 17:21, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:25, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html




You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near
that
much and never have. You must waste a lot.

You're not clever Den are you.

I use around 4000Kwh/year

Which means that if you didn't have all your gubbins, you would have to
have spent about £4500 per year on energy for your house. Pull the other
one....

But the saving includes some for the car.
And no gas bill,
And tax free.


My *total* energy bills including all the petrol for the car and all the
diesel fuel for the boat are about £2500 per year.

I could possibly reduce them by abut £500 by getting rid of the Land Rover
and buying a G-Whiz, but I'd need to hire a van once a month or so, or pay
to get the coal and gas delivered which would eliminate *that* saving
quite quickly.

Unless you live in a mansion with no insulation, it would be quite hard to
spend more than £4000 on energy. When I lived in a reasonably insulated
house, I spent about £3000 p.a. and I wasn't trying to economise. Then
again, I wasn't ripping the rest of the country off claiming a large FIT
payment.

Tch. I said BENEFIT.

You neglect the income from the solar panels which is tax free and is paid
whether you use it or not.
Some of the 4000Kwh comes from the solar panels and hence is free.
And I have zero gas bill.
You're not good with money are you?

I'm not good at ripping off other taxpayers, no. On the other hand, I'm
as good with money as I need to be.

And you live on a boat, a tenth the size of a house.

A`quarter the floor area of my house, half the floor area of my last flat

I bet you have one of those little stove thingys too?
With pictures of castles and roses painted on it?

Nope. It's cast iron, bare metal, and burns anything I can get into the
hole. It's cheapest and best fuel is coal, with renewable fuel costing
between 4 and 6 times the amount per kilowatt hour, either in cash or
considering my time collecting and preparing it for use at the National
Minimum Wage.

Paraffin lamps?

They're not allowed on boats nowadays, though if they were, I'd modify
them to burn vegetable oil, for preference rapeseed oil, which I could
also modify slightly and burn in the engine and save a bit of money.

I have seen a narrow boat with PV on the roof.

Which makes very good sense when you're off grid. They are cheaper to
run than a small generator, as well as being silent in operation.
Unfortunately, they don't work well in the short Winter days, when you
need more energy for lighting, so the generator or engine need to be run
for an hour or more every day. They can just about keep up with the
fridge in Summer, as long as you don't also try to charge your laptop.

You don't know much about boats, do you?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 23/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 10:42, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic
and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are
too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones
then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.


And before they worked out that the radiation from betalights was
negligible unless you ate one.

I poked a geiger counter at one when I was at school. Nothing more than
normal background radiation was shown until the counter was almost
touching the unit. If you're worried about radiation, don't eat bananas.

... or Brazil nuts.

Usual drivel.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php


That article makes no mention of radiation in food, so is as relevant as
the twaddle you normally link to. I wasted almost a minute reading that
article, I'll send an invoice for the wasted time....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 20/08/2014 08:25, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html




You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near
that
much and never have. You must waste a lot.

You're not clever Den are you.

I use around 4000Kwh/year

“For us, it has been a great success. Maybe we just got lucky. I expect
energy bills to rise, so I think what we’ve done will pay dividends in
future. Our energy consumption has come down to just under 7,000kWhrs a
year.”

Even 4000kw hr isn't as much as me.


But the saving includes some for the car.

So you swapped a big old car for a tiny electric car that you don't drive
during the day as you are charging it with solar energy.
You wouldn't want to charge it at night using base load nukes would you.

You would have saved even more if you hadn't bought the electric car and
had a Ka or similar.

And no gas bill,

Heat pump!, you have no mains gas.


I have no heat pump.
I don't do big mileages either.
My previous car was a Hyundia Matrix.

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
...
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour
in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find,
unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial
costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of
anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't
think those are ideal attributes for that job.
And you have demonstrated you are stuck in the past, unable to see we
need a complety different way forward.

Yes, with more nuclear and no windmills - quite right, harry.

You don't get much wind at night.
Crop spraying needs low wind speed; preferably less than 4 mph. Usually
early morning, late evening. Somebody may have real figures:-)

That's because people are indoors by night.