Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

| The US saved their own asses. Being the Wal-Mart of war does not give
| the USA the right to claim victory in the field. That went to the
| Soviets and the British, as they most of the fighting. Even
| against the Japanese more Japanese soldiers were taken out of
| operation by the British (Burma and naval) and Soviets (Manchuria)
| than what the US took out.

Good brag.

Factual. Destroys the myth doesn't it.

Wish you'd let us know back then
that we weren't needed.

You make you came in out of the goodness your hearts. The Japs wiped
out a large chunk of your fleet and the Germans declared war on you,
then the US took ships around the canal to the Pacific and the Royal
Navy moved over to protect the US Eastern Seaboard. If we sat back and
were to wait for the US to come in, we would still be waiting.

Actually, Chamberlain did try to tell
us but our attention must have
been elsewhere - and Churchill did
have a tendancy to over-dramatize
("..fight them on the beaches," indeed!)

The Germans were too bright to try fighting us on English beaches. "As
the German general Jodl put it, "so long as the British Navy existed, an
invasion would be to send my troops into a mincing machine". Which
would have happened in their concrete towed barges against the massive
Royal Navy, massive bomber force and armoured units with the Matilda 2
tanks waiting for them.

| Before the US came into WW2, the Germans were stopped in the west
| by the UK (battle of Britain) the massive Royal Navy being there,
| etc. And then in the east at Moscow when the T34 tank was
| introduced taking 30,000 Germans prisoners. The British and Soviet
| economies were far larger than the German (the UK alone had a
| higher industrial output than Germany in 1939). After Moscow in Dec
| 1941, the Germans were going to lose, of that it was certain. The
| Germans went for a big gamble in getting the USSR in one swoop and
| lost. They could not win a war of attrition on two fronts against
| the UK and the Soviets. The US shortened the war, not decide its
| final outcome.

Another good brag.

Factual. Destroys the myth doesn't it.

Sounds like we could have just sat by and watched
while you tidied up.

You could have. It just would have taken longer and you would have made
a lot of money doing it too.

We /are/ slow learners, aren't we?

Not that bad really.

Eventually, we _will_ learn to not
interfere where we're not needed -

Once again they think they came in to save someone else's necks, when
their own was at stake. The US didn't interfere, the US was interfered
with.

If ever a whole nation was in need of history lesson, the US is it.

Dr Drivel, you may partially win here for one or two lunatics !
But at the end, today History is written in ... Hollywood.

For milleniumsss, History is written by the winners.

Erdy

Doctor Drivel wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| Doctor Drivel wrote:
||
||| The US saved their own asses. Being the Wal-Mart of war does not
||| give the USA the right to claim victory in the field. That went
||| to the Soviets and the British, as they most of the fighting.
||| Even
||| against the Japanese more Japanese soldiers were taken out of
||| operation by the British (Burma and naval) and Soviets (Manchuria)
||| than what the US took out.
||
|| Good brag.
|
| Factual. Destroys the myth doesn't it.

I'm not sure what myth you're referring to, unless you're making the
claim that your government presented a false case.

|| Wish you'd let us know back then
|| that we weren't needed.
|
| You make you came in out of the goodness your hearts. The Japs
| wiped out a large chunk of your fleet and the Germans declared war
| on you, then the US took ships around the canal to the Pacific and
| the Royal Navy moved over to protect the US Eastern Seaboard. If
| we sat back and were to wait for the US to come in, we would still
| be waiting.

I haven't made any such assertion. I'm aware that the Nazis didn't
consider the United States to be a serious threat, and felt free to
torpedo American freighters carrying supplies to Britain. After the US
began sending Destroyer escorts to protect supply convoys and a number
of U-boats had been sunk, the Nazi government declared war.

The RN, by the way, had been unable to provide effective protection
from the wolf packs in the North Atlantic (else those ships would not
have been sunk), and if the RN couldn't be effective, it doesn't much
matter where they moved.

|| Actually, Chamberlain did try to tell
|| us but our attention must have
|| been elsewhere - and Churchill did
|| have a tendancy to over-dramatize
|| ("..fight them on the beaches," indeed!)
|
| The Germans were too bright to try fighting us on English beaches.
| "As the German general Jodl put it, "so long as the British Navy
| existed, an invasion would be to send my troops into a mincing
| machine". Which would have happened in their concrete towed barges
| against the massive Royal Navy, massive bomber force and armoured
| units with the Matilda 2 tanks waiting for them.

Which means that the British government was indeed misrepresenting the
situation. I'd somehow never imagined that this might have been the
case.

||| Before the US came into WW2, the Germans were stopped in the west
||| by the UK (battle of Britain) the massive Royal Navy being there,
||| etc. And then in the east at Moscow when the T34 tank was
||| introduced taking 30,000 Germans prisoners. The British and
||| Soviet economies were far larger than the German (the UK alone
||| had a
||| higher industrial output than Germany in 1939). After Moscow in
||| Dec 1941, the Germans were going to lose, of that it was certain.
||| The Germans went for a big gamble in getting the USSR in one
||| swoop and lost. They could not win a war of attrition on two
||| fronts against the UK and the Soviets. The US shortened the war,
||| not decide its final outcome.
||
|| Another good brag.
|
| Factual. Destroys the myth doesn't it.

In view of the other myths and outright falsehoods that you've brought
to light, I'm obliged to concede, reluctantly, that you have nothing
to brag about, other than having successfully duped a nation who
wished you well.

| If ever a whole nation was in need of history lesson, the US is it.

I think we just got one. For me, it's been expensive lesson - it cost
me my father and one of my uncles - I'll not forget.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Erdemal" wrote in message
.. .
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

| The US saved their own asses. Being the Wal-Mart of war does not give
| the USA the right to claim victory in the field. That went to the
| Soviets and the British, as they most of the fighting. Even
| against the Japanese more Japanese soldiers were taken out of
| operation by the British (Burma and naval) and Soviets (Manchuria)
| than what the US took out.

Good brag.

Factual. Destroys the myth doesn't it.

Wish you'd let us know back then
that we weren't needed.

You make you came in out of the goodness your hearts. The Japs wiped out
a large chunk of your fleet and the Germans declared war on you, then the
US took ships around the canal to the Pacific and the Royal Navy moved
over to protect the US Eastern Seaboard. If we sat back and were to wait
for the US to come in, we would still be waiting.

Actually, Chamberlain did try to tell
us but our attention must have
been elsewhere - and Churchill did
have a tendancy to over-dramatize
("..fight them on the beaches," indeed!)

The Germans were too bright to try fighting us on English beaches. "As
the German general Jodl put it, "so long as the British Navy existed, an
invasion would be to send my troops into a mincing machine". Which would
have happened in their concrete towed barges against the massive Royal
Navy, massive bomber force and armoured units with the Matilda 2 tanks
waiting for them.

| Before the US came into WW2, the Germans were stopped in the west
| by the UK (battle of Britain) the massive Royal Navy being there,
| etc. And then in the east at Moscow when the T34 tank was
| introduced taking 30,000 Germans prisoners. The British and Soviet
| economies were far larger than the German (the UK alone had a
| higher industrial output than Germany in 1939). After Moscow in Dec
| 1941, the Germans were going to lose, of that it was certain. The
| Germans went for a big gamble in getting the USSR in one swoop and
| lost. They could not win a war of attrition on two fronts against
| the UK and the Soviets. The US shortened the war, not decide its
| final outcome.

Another good brag.

Factual. Destroys the myth doesn't it.

Sounds like we could have just sat by and watched
while you tidied up.

You could have. It just would have taken longer and you would have made
a lot of money doing it too.

We /are/ slow learners, aren't we?

Not that bad really.

Eventually, we _will_ learn to not
interfere where we're not needed -

Once again they think they came in to save someone else's necks, when
their own was at stake. The US didn't interfere, the US was interfered
with.

If ever a whole nation was in need of history lesson, the US is it.

Dr Drivel, you may partially win here for one or two lunatics !
But at the end, today History is written in ... Hollywood.

Yep!!! In Hollywood.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| Doctor Drivel wrote:
||
||| The US saved their own asses. Being the Wal-Mart of war does not
||| give the USA the right to claim victory in the field. That went
||| to the Soviets and the British, as they most of the fighting.
||| Even
||| against the Japanese more Japanese soldiers were taken out of
||| operation by the British (Burma and naval) and Soviets (Manchuria)
||| than what the US took out.
||
|| Good brag.
|
| Factual. Destroys the myth doesn't it.

I'm not sure what myth you're referring to,

The one about the US coming to the aid of the world out of the goodness of
its heat and saving it.

|| Wish you'd let us know back then
|| that we weren't needed.
|
| You make you came in out of the goodness your hearts. The Japs
| wiped out a large chunk of your fleet and the Germans declared war
| on you, then the US took ships around the canal to the Pacific and
| the Royal Navy moved over to protect the US Eastern Seaboard. If
| we sat back and were to wait for the US to come in, we would still
| be waiting.

I haven't made any such assertion.
I'm aware that the Nazis didn't
consider the United States to be a
serious threat, and felt free to
torpedo American freighters carrying
supplies to Britain. After the US
began sending Destroyer escorts to
protect supply convoys and a number
of U-boats had been sunk, the Nazi
government declared war.

The Nazis declared war when Japan wiped out a huge piece of the US Navy.

The RN, by the way, had been
unable to provide effective protection
from the wolf packs in the North Atlantic
(else those ships would not have been sunk),
and if the RN couldn't be effective, it doesn't much
matter where they moved.

The RN provide enough protection and developed specialist anti U-Boat
corvettes to counter. After Dec 1941 the US Navy decided not to escort its
merchantmen as it was beneath them to do so, and lost around 500 ships in 6
months. The Brits were ****ed off big time as this a lot of merchant ships
to lose at the outset. A nice start eh!!! Then the Brits offered Corvettes
which the US reluctantly accepted.

|| Actually, Chamberlain did try to tell
|| us but our attention must have
|| been elsewhere - and Churchill did
|| have a tendancy to over-dramatize
|| ("..fight them on the beaches," indeed!)
|
| The Germans were too bright to try fighting us on English beaches.
| "As the German general Jodl put it, "so long as the British Navy
| existed, an invasion would be to send my troops into a mincing
| machine". Which would have happened in their concrete towed barges
| against the massive Royal Navy, massive bomber force and armoured
| units with the Matilda 2 tanks waiting for them.

Which means that the British
government was indeed misrepresenting the
situation. I'd somehow never imagined
that this might have been the case.

What are you on about? The Germans would be big fools to try an invasion
with what they had. Churchill was preying they would to give them a good
smack on the nose.

||| Before the US came into WW2, the Germans were stopped in the west
||| by the UK (battle of Britain) the massive Royal Navy being there,
||| etc. And then in the east at Moscow when the T34 tank was
||| introduced taking 30,000 Germans prisoners. The British and
||| Soviet economies were far larger than the German (the UK alone
||| had a
||| higher industrial output than Germany in 1939). After Moscow in
||| Dec 1941, the Germans were going to lose, of that it was certain.
||| The Germans went for a big gamble in getting the USSR in one
||| swoop and lost. They could not win a war of attrition on two
||| fronts against the UK and the Soviets. The US shortened the war,
||| not decide its final outcome.
||
|| Another good brag.
|
| Factual. Destroys the myth doesn't it.

In view of the other myths and
outright falsehoods that you've brought
to light,

Name one!!!!

I'm obliged to concede, reluctantly, that you have nothing
to brag about, other than having successfully duped a nation who
wished you well.

You wished us well as you took the money and we did the fighting.

| If ever a whole nation was in need of history lesson, the US is it.

I think we just got one. For me, it's been expensive lesson - it cost
me my father and one of my uncles - I'll not forget.

.....and a few of my family were lost too. And my mother would cry at loud
thunder as she would think the bombers had come back again.

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

I thought Moby Dick was written by an American anyway.

Some of us don't consider New York part of America........

More like a part of Liverpool. Well up until 90 to 100 years ago,

Heck the guy had to die for 50years before anyone would even read his
works.
Now Mellville is considered one the greatest in America literature.

Melville was a mechant sailor and wrote a lot about Liverpool as he spent
much time there.

'Redburn, His First Voyage' by Herman Melville 1849...

"Previous to this, having only seen the miserable wooden wharves and
shambling piers of New York... in Liverpool I beheld long China walls of
masonry; vast piers of stone; and a succession of granite-rimmed docks,
completely enclosed. The extent and solidity of these structures seemed
equal to what I had read of the old pyramids of Egypt. In magnitude, cost
and durability the docks of Liverpool surpass all others in the world... for
miles you may walk along that riverside, passing dock after dock, like a
chain of immense fortresses.

Prince's Dock, of comparatively recent construction, is perhaps the largest
of all and is well known to American sailors from the fact that it is mostly
frequented by the American shipping. Here lie the noble New York packets,
which at home are found at the foot of Wall-Street; and here also lie the
Mobile and Savannah cotton ships and traders."

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .

Guns should be kept way from the likes of you.

On 17 Oct, 08:27, Andy Hall wrote:

The better solutions would be to address generation by investment in
nuclear capacity

While we're on that, I keep seeing people saying that nuclear is the
greenest and most reliable way forward.
Let's see how that's working out
-------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...KLK0o&refer=uk
"Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) -- British Energy Group Plc, the U.K.'s biggest
power generator, fell the most in a year in London trading after
safety concerns forced shutdowns at two nuclear plants."
-------------------------------------------
(that's 50% of nuclear capacity offline right now)
-------------------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html
Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and unrest, says
new study
· Output peaked in 2006 and will fall 7% a year
· Decline in gas, coal and *uranium* also predicted
-------------------------------------------

So, we've got worries about power cuts this winter, decreased uranium
production, oil prices hitting new highs every week...and STILL people
dismiss micro-generation and self-sustainability.

"Jonathan" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 17 Oct, 08:27, Andy Hall wrote:

The better solutions would be to address generation by investment in
nuclear capacity

While we're on that, I keep seeing people saying that nuclear is the
greenest and most reliable way forward.
Let's see how that's working out
-------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...KLK0o&refer=uk
"Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) -- British Energy Group Plc, the U.K.'s biggest
power generator, fell the most in a year in London trading after
safety concerns forced shutdowns at two nuclear plants."
-------------------------------------------
(that's 50% of nuclear capacity offline right now)
-------------------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html
Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and unrest, says
new study
· Output peaked in 2006 and will fall 7% a year
· Decline in gas, coal and *uranium* also predicted
-------------------------------------------

So, we've got worries about power cuts this winter, decreased uranium
production, oil prices hitting new highs every week...and STILL people
dismiss micro-generation and self-sustainability.


Yep. I was reading that the Rivers Mersey and Seven, would generate about 6
to 7% of the UK power by tidal means alone...and make some bridges for free.
Then the still introduction of wind farms, onshore and offshore. High
insulation and air-tightness test of home built with passive solar in
design, better town planning to reduce travelling, more efficient
appliances, local Combined Heat & Power generation for districts, burning of
waste and not re-cycling the stuff which uses more energy to re-cycle, etc,
etc.

It all adds up, to reduce fossil and nuclear fuel demand.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:22:27 -0700 someone who may be Jonathan
wrote this:-

(that's 50% of nuclear capacity offline right now)

I see that the nuclear lobby is using this as a good wheeze to
campaign for more nuclear generation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7057687.stm


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Doctor Drivel wrote:

If ever a whole nation was in need of history lesson, the US is it.

I have consistently found that Americans appear to have learnt their history
from an alternate universe's version of the text books.

Graham

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed

Bull****.

Again for the brainless..."The police are NOT armed".

Maybe Steve's never been abroad ? The difference is obvious. I recall the first
time I went abroad in 1976 to Sweden and the immigration guy had a gun in a
holster.

Graham

and ?

I found it slightly disturbing actually.

Graham

Erdemal wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

If ever a whole nation was in need of history lesson, the US is it.

Dr Drivel, you may partially win here for one or two lunatics !
But at the end, today History is written in ... Hollywood.

For milleniumsss, History is written by the winners.

Yabbut ..... both the UK and the USA won but from posts here it seems their
history books tell different stories.

Graham

On 2007-10-23 10:22:27 +0100, Jonathan said:

On 17 Oct, 08:27, Andy Hall wrote:

The better solutions would be to address generation by investment in
nuclear capacity

While we're on that, I keep seeing people saying that nuclear is the
greenest and most reliable way forward.
Let's see how that's working out
-------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d1IKLK0o&refer
=uk
"Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) -- British Energy Group Plc, the U.K.'s biggest
power generator, fell the most in a year in London trading after
safety concerns forced shutdowns at two nuclear plants."
-------------------------------------------
(that's 50% of nuclear capacity offline right now)
-------------------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html
Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and unrest, says
new study
· Output peaked in 2006 and will fall 7% a year
· Decline in gas, coal and *uranium* also predicted
-------------------------------------------

So, we've got worries about power cuts this winter, decreased uranium
production, oil prices hitting new highs every week...and STILL people
dismiss micro-generation and self-sustainability.

There's little point in dismissing nuclear generation on this basis
since conventional plant is also subject to many of the same failures.
Moreover, this is not an argument either for not developing new
plant, especially when there is an effective capacity in France.

There's also little point in paying much attention to a write up from a
German green energy group written up in The Guardian. Neither have
any more credibility than the Fisher Price windmills that they seem to
believe everybody should have.

Morris Dovey wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:
|
| You make you came in out of the goodness your hearts. The Japs
| wiped out a large chunk of your fleet and the Germans declared war
| on you, then the US took ships around the canal to the Pacific and
| the Royal Navy moved over to protect the US Eastern Seaboard. If
| we sat back and were to wait for the US to come in, we would still
| be waiting.

I haven't made any such assertion. I'm aware that the Nazis didn't
consider the United States to be a serious threat, and felt free to
torpedo American freighters carrying supplies to Britain. After the US
began sending Destroyer escorts to protect supply convoys and a number
of U-boats had been sunk, the Nazi government declared war.

Errrr NO.

Germany declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor as the Axis ally of the
Japanese. That's why.


The RN, by the way, had been unable to provide effective protection
from the wolf packs in the North Atlantic (else those ships would not
have been sunk), and if the RN couldn't be effective, it doesn't much
matter where they moved.

It wasn't that they weren't effective at all, the RN simply didn't have enough
ships and men to crew them (and sufficient hi-tech equipment like radar) to be
totally effective.

Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
There's also little point in paying much attention to a write up from a
German green energy group written up in The Guardian. Neither have any
more credibility

Little Middle England speaks out here. Equiv of US rednecks.

On 2007-10-23 11:17:39 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:22:27 -0700 someone who may be Jonathan
wrote this:-

(that's 50% of nuclear capacity offline right now)

I see that the nuclear lobby is using this as a good wheeze to
campaign for more nuclear generation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7057687.stm

It's fairly logical that if there is insufficient capacity because of
planned and unplanned maintenance to build more and where possible to
correct issues in earlier designs. This is normal engineering
advancement in any industrial plant implementation.

As the article says, all that is required is for Brown to make a simple
policy U turn on renewable energy commitment, which is irrelevent for
anything other than political posturing anyway. After the reneging on
the referendum, nobody will notice if they do this. Then the money
can be spent sensibly on nuclear projects rather than toy windmill and
wave projects which wreck the environment.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:00:21 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

As the article says, all that is required is for Brown to make a simple
policy U turn on renewable energy commitment, which is irrelevent for
anything other than political posturing anyway. After the reneging on
the referendum, nobody will notice if they do this. Then the money
can be spent sensibly on nuclear projects rather than toy windmill and
wave projects which wreck the environment.

Hear hear!

--
Frank Erskine

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:00:21 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

As the article says, all that is required is for Brown to make a simple
policy U turn on renewable energy commitment, which is irrelevent for
anything other than political posturing anyway. After the reneging on
the referendum, nobody will notice if they do this. Then the money
can be spent sensibly on nuclear projects rather than toy windmill and
wave projects which wreck the environment.

Hear hear!

You two clearly haven't a clue about these matters. Which is very sad.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:44:59 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

There's also little point in paying much attention to a write up from a
German green energy group written up in The Guardian. Neither have
any more credibility than the Fisher Price windmills that they seem to
believe everybody should have.

It is always reassuring when the best argument that people can come
up with is to make this sort of childish assertion. If they had
better arguments then no-doubt they would use them.

It tends to confirm that they have no better arguments, and/or are a
member of a group which deals in childish insults rather than
grown-up talk. Most party politicians, most journalists and many
academics are examples of groups who have yet to learn how to put
forward real arguments.

The sort of people who make this sort of childish accusation
sometimes give the impression that they do so because they think it
upsets their opponents. Little do they realise that this sort of
childish accusation does not upset their opponents in the least,
quite the reverse.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Eeyore wrote:

Erdemal wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:
If ever a whole nation was in need of history lesson, the US is it.
Dr Drivel, you may partially win here for one or two lunatics !
But at the end, today History is written in ... Hollywood.

For milleniumsss, History is written by the winners.

Yabbut ..... both the UK and the USA won but from posts here it seems their
history books tell different stories.


One of the most interesting things I read about WW2 is
"WW2 is a movie that made 60 million casualities among the 'extras'"

Erdy

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-10-23 11:17:39 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:22:27 -0700 someone who may be Jonathan
wrote this:-

(that's 50% of nuclear capacity offline right now)

I see that the nuclear lobby is using this as a good wheeze to
campaign for more nuclear generation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7057687.stm

It's fairly logical that if there is insufficient capacity because of
planned and unplanned maintenance to build more and where possible to
correct issues in earlier designs. This is normal engineering
advancement in any industrial plant implementation.

As the article says, all that is required is for Brown to make a
simple policy U turn on renewable energy commitment, which is
irrelevent for anything other than political posturing anyway. After
the reneging on the referendum, nobody will notice if they do this. Then
the money can be spent sensibly on nuclear projects rather than
toy windmill and wave projects which wreck the environment.

Another hear hear - nowt wrong with nuclear IMO, I'm all for more reactors
and wouldn't object to long term storage near me.....

Eeyore wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:
|
| You make you came in out of the goodness your hearts. The Japs
| wiped out a large chunk of your fleet and the Germans declared war
| on you, then the US took ships around the canal to the Pacific and
| the Royal Navy moved over to protect the US Eastern Seaboard. If
| we sat back and were to wait for the US to come in, we would still
| be waiting.

I haven't made any such assertion. I'm aware that the Nazis didn't
consider the United States to be a serious threat, and felt free to
torpedo American freighters carrying supplies to Britain. After the US
began sending Destroyer escorts to protect supply convoys and a number
of U-boats had been sunk, the Nazi government declared war.

Errrr NO.

Germany declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor as the Axis ally of the
Japanese. That's why.


The RN, by the way, had been unable to provide effective protection
from the wolf packs in the North Atlantic (else those ships would not
have been sunk), and if the RN couldn't be effective, it doesn't much
matter where they moved.

It wasn't that they weren't effective at all, the RN simply didn't have enough
ships and men to crew them (and sufficient hi-tech equipment like radar) to be
totally effective.

Isn't it strange that among the aftermaths of WW2, USA allied
France and England lost their empires and the ennemies of USA,
Japan and Germany took the second and the thrid place of world
economic power and took leadership on their respective continent.

Sounds like a 'who win lose' game

Erdy

N.B. atl.solar.thermal ????

On 2007-10-23 13:39:16 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed

Bull****.

Again for the brainless..."The police are NOT armed".

Maybe Steve's never been abroad ? The difference is obvious. I recall the first
time I went abroad in 1976 to Sweden and the immigration guy had a gun in a
holster.

Graham

and ?

I found it slightly disturbing actually.

Graham

I suppose that if you hadn't traveled before you might. As it is,
immigration in pretty much everywhere else except the UK packs heat.
Quite who they think is likely to be carrying a gun on arrival I am not
sure.

On 2007-10-23 14:32:31 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:44:59 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

There's also little point in paying much attention to a write up from a
German green energy group written up in The Guardian. Neither have
any more credibility than the Fisher Price windmills that they seem to
believe everybody should have.

It is always reassuring when the best argument that people can come
up with is to make this sort of childish assertion. If they had
better arguments then no-doubt they would use them.


Actually it confirms that there is no point in re-stating the obvious
yet again.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:32:31 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

It tends to confirm that they have no better arguments, and/or are a
member of a group which deals in childish insults rather than
grown-up talk.

There may possibly be many thinks one can accuse Andy of but I doubt
if membership of FoE or Greenpeace are amongst them.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:44:59 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

There's also little point in paying much attention to a write up from a
German green energy group written up in The Guardian. Neither have
any more credibility than the Fisher Price windmills that they seem to
believe everybody should have.

It is always reassuring when the best argument that people can come
up with is to make this sort of childish assertion. If they had
better arguments then no-doubt they would use them.

The joke wind tubines being promoted for fitting on your home are indeed
virtually worthless, a waste of money and resources and a classic example of
pointless 'greenwash'.

Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-22 15:52:27 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed

Bull****.

Again for the brainless..."The police are NOT armed".

Maybe Steve's never been abroad ? The difference is obvious. I recall the
first
time I went abroad in 1976 to Sweden and the immigration guy had a gun in
a
holster.

Graham

and ?

And it was a terrible horrible no good very bad thing....

"Jim" wrote in message
news

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-22 15:52:27 +0100, Eeyore
said:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed

Bull****.

Again for the brainless..."The police are NOT armed".

Maybe Steve's never been abroad ? The difference is obvious. I recall
the first time I went abroad in 1976 to Sweden and the immigration guy
had a gun in a holster.

Graham

and ?

And it was a terrible horrible no good very bad thing....

I would go along with that.

In article ,
"Jim" writes:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:26:09 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

avoiding polluting our (children's) environment with substances which
cause/contribute to global warming or are toxic to life and difficult
or
impossible to clean up.
You mean like the mercury in CFL's? :-)

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Probably quite badly. Break a CFL in your house and you have a hazardous
waste contamination problem to deal with in that room. Generating the
extra electricity for the incandescent may liberate more Hg, but it will
not be concentrated in a room where you will be breathing its vapour for
years.

No you don't.
You would need 1000 CFL's to get the same amount of mercury as
the average person has in their body (mainly as fillings initially,
but it migrates harmlessly around the body).

I seem to recall that CFL's are not suposed to contain more than 5mg of

That's correct in the EU. The actual value used nowadays has
been reduced to 3mg by most manufacturers.

Hg; however, I have one that clearly shows a 2mm ball rolling about inside
if held upside down.

That's an amalgum which absorbs and releases the mercury in order
to maintain the mercury vapour pressure in the gas discharge at
the correct level. (The other way to do this is to have a piece
of cold tubing connected which is out of the discharge, as it's
the coldest area of the gas fill which effectively sets the
mercury vapour pressure for the whole of the discharge.)

5mg is hardly enough to cause concentrated vapour for years, but if they
aren't going to follow the rules and let visible blobs roll about, that is a
different story.....

The "blob" mostly isn't mercury, although it will have some
mercury absorbed into it. By end of life, much of the mercury
will have been absorbed into the phosphor, the glass, and the
tube electrodes, where it no longer works, and this is one of
the reasons the lamp gets dimmer (although drop off of the
phosphor efficiency is the main one). But as I said, the total
amount is far too low to be a hazard.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Yep. I was reading that the Rivers Mersey and Seven, would generate
about 6 to 7% of the UK power by tidal means alone...and make some
bridges for free. Then the still introduction of wind farms, onshore and
offshore. High insulation and air-tightness test of home built with
passive solar in design, better town planning to reduce travelling, more
efficient appliances, local Combined Heat & Power generation for
districts, burning of waste and not re-cycling the stuff which uses more
energy to re-cycle, etc, etc.

It all adds up, to reduce fossil and nuclear fuel demand.


Trouble with the tidal stuff is it comes and goes, and blocking off
those rivers would cause major environmental problems too.

We don't need power for a 6 hour(ish) period every 12.5 hours, we need
it in daytime (mostly). A tidal system would make things very hard for
the conventional systems that don't like being turned on and off.

Unless you want use Loch Ness for pumped storage?

We should have spent money on Fusion back in the 1960s. We'd probably
have it now, but as it is the politician's can't see beyond the next
election and don't care.

Andy

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
There's also little point in paying much attention to a write up from a
German green energy group written up in The Guardian. Neither have any
more credibility

Little Middle England speaks out here. Equiv of US rednecks.
Yes folks like Walter Cronkite,Isaac Rose,and their reneck lawyer Robert F
Kennedy.
With a red neck consulants over at British Warfare
Center....www.hyannismarina.com
......pull down the information box for wind threat tab.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jim" writes:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:26:09 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

avoiding polluting our (children's) environment with substances which
cause/contribute to global warming or are toxic to life and difficult
or
impossible to clean up.
You mean like the mercury in CFL's? :-)

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Probably quite badly. Break a CFL in your house and you have a
hazardous
waste contamination problem to deal with in that room. Generating the
extra electricity for the incandescent may liberate more Hg, but it will
not be concentrated in a room where you will be breathing its vapour for
years.

No you don't.
You would need 1000 CFL's to get the same amount of mercury as
the average person has in their body (mainly as fillings initially,
but it migrates harmlessly around the body).

I seem to recall that CFL's are not suposed to contain more than 5mg
of

That's correct in the EU. The actual value used nowadays has
been reduced to 3mg by most manufacturers.

Hg; however, I have one that clearly shows a 2mm ball rolling about
inside
if held upside down.

That's an amalgum which absorbs and releases the mercury in order
to maintain the mercury vapour pressure in the gas discharge at
the correct level. (The other way to do this is to have a piece
of cold tubing connected which is out of the discharge, as it's
the coldest area of the gas fill which effectively sets the
mercury vapour pressure for the whole of the discharge.)

5mg is hardly enough to cause concentrated vapour for years, but if
they
aren't going to follow the rules and let visible blobs roll about, that
is a
different story.....

The "blob" mostly isn't mercury, although it will have some
mercury absorbed into it. By end of life, much of the mercury
will have been absorbed into the phosphor, the glass, and the
tube electrodes, where it no longer works, and this is one of
the reasons the lamp gets dimmer (although drop off of the
phosphor efficiency is the main one). But as I said, the total
amount is far too low to be a hazard.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
It might also be noted that mercury does leave the human body after contact.
In either air or touch.......so yes the amount might be small, but every
little bit adds up.
And one of the main fears over coal burning ....when we are not talking
mercury content
in light bulbs.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

The message
from Andy Champ contains these words:

Trouble with the tidal stuff is it comes and goes, and blocking off
those rivers would cause major environmental problems too.

The environmental problems are major only in the eyes of the deluded who
would rate the welfare of a minority of animals much higher than of the
majority of humans and who are so blinkered that they cannot accept that
if global warming continues unabated the wildlife is likely to suffer
worse as well.

We don't need power for a 6 hour(ish) period every 12.5 hours, we need
it in daytime (mostly). A tidal system would make things very hard for
the conventional systems that don't like being turned on and off.

But unlike the vagaries of wind tide is almost totally predictable and
as the tide times vary round the UK it wouldn't take many schemes to
provide continuous 24 hour cover with probably less than 50% variation
between maximum output on spring tides and minimum on neaps.

Unless you want use Loch Ness for pumped storage?

Unnecessary with just a few barrages but Loch Ness would be a poor
choice for pump storage which is best arranged around a high reservoir
rather than something almost at sea level. (And in the wrong place
anyway. Scotland currently has a surplus of electricity and the
Highlands are far better suited to hydro schemes.)


--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
The message
from Andy Champ contains these words:

Trouble with the tidal stuff is it comes and goes, and blocking off
those rivers would cause major environmental problems too.

The environmental problems are major only in the eyes of the deluded who
would rate the welfare of a minority of animals much higher than of the
majority of humans and who are so blinkered that they cannot accept that
if global warming continues unabated the wildlife is likely to suffer
worse as well.

It shouldn't be forgotten that these schemes are not totally green.
Taking out all the tidal estuaries in England and Wales would have major
impacts on bird life, and that might make them politically unacceptable.


We don't need power for a 6 hour(ish) period every 12.5 hours, we need
it in daytime (mostly). A tidal system would make things very hard for
the conventional systems that don't like being turned on and off.

But unlike the vagaries of wind tide is almost totally predictable and
as the tide times vary round the UK it wouldn't take many schemes to
provide continuous 24 hour cover with probably less than 50% variation
between maximum output on spring tides and minimum on neaps.

Fascinating. Which rivers do you think would make good places for a
tidal barrage? The Severn is obvious, with that enormous range and the
large size. The Dee seems to have a reasonable range, the Mersey is
full of shipping, Morecambe Bay would need a 10 mile barrage, The Solway
is almost in Scotland where you said we don't need it, the Humber looks
pretty good, maybe the Essex Blackwater? But isn't that about it?

Unnecessary with just a few barrages but Loch Ness would be a poor
choice for pump storage which is best arranged around a high reservoir
rather than something almost at sea level. (And in the wrong place
anyway. Scotland currently has a surplus of electricity and the
Highlands are far better suited to hydro schemes.)

I was kidding. I know Loch Ness is only 50M up, (and is in fact the
lower part of a pumped storage system already) but I don't know anywhere
that could make a storage scheme big enough.

The real problem is - what do we do about the Chinese coal-fired power
station programme?

Andy

In message , Andy Champ
writes
Unnecessary with just a few barrages but Loch Ness would be a poor
choice for pump storage which is best arranged around a high reservoir
rather than something almost at sea level. (And in the wrong place
anyway. Scotland currently has a surplus of electricity and the
Highlands are far better suited to hydro schemes.)

I was kidding. I know Loch Ness is only 50M up, (and is in fact the
lower part of a pumped storage system already) but I don't know
anywhere that could make a storage scheme big enough.

The real problem is - what do we do about the Chinese coal-fired power
station programme?

Reduce our demand for chinese goods ?

--
geoff

On 2007-10-23 23:36:12 +0100, geoff said:

In message , Andy Champ
writes
Unnecessary with just a few barrages but Loch Ness would be a poor
choice for pump storage which is best arranged around a high reservoir
rather than something almost at sea level. (And in the wrong place
anyway. Scotland currently has a surplus of electricity and the
Highlands are far better suited to hydro schemes.)

I was kidding. I know Loch Ness is only 50M up, (and is in fact the
lower part of a pumped storage system already) but I don't know
anywhere that could make a storage scheme big enough.

The real problem is - what do we do about the Chinese coal-fired power
station programme?

Reduce our demand for chinese goods ?

Exactly. In the end it come to our wanting to buy for the cheapest
price.....

The message
from Andy Champ contains these words:

Trouble with the tidal stuff is it comes and goes, and blocking off
those rivers would cause major environmental problems too.

The environmental problems are major only in the eyes of the deluded who
would rate the welfare of a minority of animals much higher than of the
majority of humans and who are so blinkered that they cannot accept that
if global warming continues unabated the wildlife is likely to suffer
worse as well.

It shouldn't be forgotten that these schemes are not totally green.
Taking out all the tidal estuaries in England and Wales would have major
impacts on bird life, and that might make them politically unacceptable.

I would have thought that not having electricity at the flick of a
switch would generate far more public anger than the welfare of the
birds, but there are far more tidal inlets than needed to provide power
even if some of them would be very expensive propositions in terms of
unit cost.

We don't need power for a 6 hour(ish) period every 12.5 hours, we need
it in daytime (mostly). A tidal system would make things very hard for
the conventional systems that don't like being turned on and off.

But unlike the vagaries of wind tide is almost totally predictable and
as the tide times vary round the UK it wouldn't take many schemes to
provide continuous 24 hour cover with probably less than 50% variation
between maximum output on spring tides and minimum on neaps.

Fascinating. Which rivers do you think would make good places for a
tidal barrage? The Severn is obvious, with that enormous range and the
large size. The Dee seems to have a reasonable range, the Mersey is
full of shipping, Morecambe Bay would need a 10 mile barrage, The Solway
is almost in Scotland where you said we don't need it, the Humber looks
pretty good, maybe the Essex Blackwater? But isn't that about it?

Just about any tidal inlet would do in extremis but the larger the
scheme the longer the build time and the longer the government has to
plan ahead. In any event the lead times for major projects must be of
the same order as nuclear power stations so the time is rapidly running
out if they want to avoid a repeat of the 3 day working week.

The places you quote are just some of the major indentations in the
coast but some may not be good choices anyway. ISTM that the critical
feature of any such barrage is the relationship between the cost of the
barrage and the amount of usable water it can impound.

Of the ones you don't mention the Wash seems a better bet than Morecombe
Bay and Harwich Harbour a better bet than the Blackwater but the former
would really have the animal lovers up in arms and the latter is one of
the busiest ports in the country. But just up the coast from Harwich is
the River Deben which on the face of it would be ideal being a narrow
river with a long stretch of tidal water.

Unnecessary with just a few barrages but Loch Ness would be a poor
choice for pump storage which is best arranged around a high reservoir
rather than something almost at sea level. (And in the wrong place
anyway. Scotland currently has a surplus of electricity and the
Highlands are far better suited to hydro schemes.)

I was kidding. I know Loch Ness is only 50M up, (and is in fact the
lower part of a pumped storage system already) but I don't know anywhere
that could make a storage scheme big enough.

You need a large height difference to make pump storage schemes
effective which rules out most of England but tidal barrages should be a
better bet in any case.

The real problem is - what do we do about the Chinese coal-fired power
station programme?

There is nothing we can do other than complain bitterly while continuing
to buy their slave labour goods. :-)

--
Roger Chapman

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Yep. I was reading that the Rivers Mersey and Seven, would generate
about 6 to 7% of the UK power by tidal means alone...and make some
bridges for free. Then the still introduction of wind farms, onshore and
offshore. High insulation and air-tightness test of home built with
passive solar in design, better town planning to reduce travelling, more
efficient appliances, local Combined Heat & Power generation for
districts, burning of waste and not re-cycling the stuff which uses more
energy to re-cycle, etc, etc.

It all adds up, to reduce fossil and nuclear fuel demand.

Trouble with the tidal stuff is it comes and goes, and blocking off those
rivers would cause major environmental problems too.

The environmental problems have been taken into account.

We don't need power for a 6 hour(ish) period every 12.5 hours, we need it
in daytime (mostly). A tidal system would make things very hard for the
conventional systems that don't like being turned on and off.

The tides are highly predicatable.

Unless you want use Loch Ness for pumped storage?

Good idea.

We should have spent money on Fusion back in the 1960s. We'd probably
have it now, but as it is the politician's can't see beyond the next
election and don't care.

Research is still ongoing on that point.

A Google finds lots. Found this below. A barrage also gives a free bridge
for road and rail, and maybe leisure facilities on it too, like tall towers
and restaurants on the top, etc.

Power from the Mersey in 2020
Oct 9 2007 by Larry Neild, Liverpool Daily Post

PLANS to build a tidal barrage on the River Mersey are expected to be lodged
by Mersey Docks and Harbour Company owners Peel Holdings by 2010, it was
revealed last night.

The giant generator would then produce enough power to meet the demands of
thousands of homes by 2020.

The announcement comes after an influential government advisory team
yesterday named the Mersey as a new source of energy potential to meet
growing 21st- century electricity needs.

The national report by the Government's independent adviser, the Sustainable
Development Commission, highlighted the potential for power generation from
the Mersey Estuary.

Although focused mainly on suggestions to build a barrage across the River
Severn, the report also raised the prospect of the Mersey and five other
prime locations in the UK being suitable for tidal energy generation.

The report, Turning the Tide - Tidal Power in the UK, concludes there is
"real enthusiasm for harnessing the tidal resource in the Mersey, and a
consortium of interests that might be willing to take this forward."

The report is being seen as a boost for a Mersey barrage initiative. It
follows a separate study, called Power from the Mersey, published earlier
this year by Peel Environmental and the Northwest Regional Development
Agency, in association with the Mersey Basin Campaign.

The new commission report includes a series of recommendations to the
Government on how to develop the country's tidal resource and emerging tidal
technologies, to provide secure, low carbon electricity for the long term.

It calculates that a barrage in the Severn Estuary could supply 4.4% of UK
electricity supply.

SDC chairman Jonathon Porritt said the UK could get at least 10% of its
electricity from tidal power.

In respect of the potential for power generation in the Mersey, the SDC
report notes: "Our analysis has focused on the issue of a Severn barrage,
but we have also looked at the extensive resource outside the Severn
Estuary, including the well-developed proposals for the Mersey Estuary.

"There is now renewed interest as a result of a recent study commissioned by
Peel Environmental in association with the NWDA and the Mersey Basin
Campaign."

Mr Porritt said: "The UK's unique tidal resources deserve particular
consideration, and a Mersey scheme should be looked into carefully."

Last night, Peter Nears, strategic planning director for Mersey Docks and
Harbour Company owners, Peel Holdings, welcomed the report.

He revealed: "We shall be moving Power from the Mersey forward into a Phase
2 study shortly and we will include the recommendations of the SDC on the
principles of sustainable development in the brief.

"We hope this will result in a planning application by 2010, and a scheme
delivering renewable power by 2020."

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...

It shouldn't be forgotten that these schemes are not totally green. Taking
out all the tidal estuaries in England and Wales would have major impacts
on bird life, and that might make them politically unacceptable.

There is only two, the Seven and the Mersey. The Seven one is massive making
a bridge from beyond Cardiff to Somerset, locking in Bristol, Avonmouth and
Cardiff .

There was talk of making a barrage across a part of Liverpool Bay, locking
in the Dee and the Mersey estuaries. I think this will not come about, while
a barrage at the Mersey narrows would a relatively cheap undertaking.

Fascinating. Which rivers do you think would make good places for a tidal
barrage? The Severn is obvious, with that enormous range and the large
size.

3rd highest tidal range in the world.

The Dee seems to have a reasonable range,

Not deep enough and much wildlife use the Dee as it basically a sandbank
these days.

the Mersey is full of shipping,

The Mersey has the 4th highest tidal range in the world. Large sea locks
can be incorporated in the barrage. The large Seaforth container terminal
may have locks into it on the sea side of the barrage. Large Post-Panamax
container ships could berth on the barrage, either side of it. The large
container ships rest on the river bed at low tide, as do the oil tankers at
Tranmere on the Mersey river.

Locks in the barrage may mean smaller ships may come and go at any time. In
the locks and up into the dammed-in river. This means access to the
Manchester Ship Canal taking ships 45 miles from sea is 24/7. Ships could
also use berths on the river walls which previously they could not because
of the 32 foot tidal range.

The strong tides take in sand into the Mersey estuary making dredging
essential at some points. A dredged channel is maintained to the Manchester
Ship Canal locks at Eastham on the Wirral side. Once the river is dammed
in, the sand can be removed and the river will remain deep making it more
appealing for shipping and larger ships, and hold more water, which is more
energy to produce more electricity.

Also John Lennon airport is on the river banks. At low tide sand is visible.
Once the river is dammed in, a dock/wharf setup can be built meshing in with
the new air cargo port that is being built there. A direct combined cargo
air/sea port. The cargo airport will be linked to Liverpool Seaforth
container terminal at the river mouth by rail links. Garston Docks are
right next to the airport, but the owners of the airport do own them. They
own the airport and the massive container terminal at Seaforth.

The pros far outweigh the cons.

Similar with the Seven. But the Severn has far more environmental issues
than the Mersey, as far more river is being dammed in. The proposed Seven
barrage is huge. Migrating birds which use the Mersey, can just use the
River Dee, which is virtually next door.

Expect to see the Mersey barrage built first if it comes about, as it will
be smaller across the river narrows.

The real problem is - what do we do about the Chinese coal-fired power
station programme?

Don't buy their goods. But that will not happen. Shanghai is twinned with
Liverpool and St Petersburg. Shanghai business pumped about £12 billion into
St Petersburg. Liverpool is strengthening bonds with Shanghai with a big
sell headed by Lehey, the Tesco wizz kid, and it appears they will use the
city and port as a gateway into the UK/Western Europe. So economics will
prevent pressure being put on the Chinese. Only the UN and the various
international climate lobbies can make an impact on China and India.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...

Just about any tidal inlet would do
in extremis but the larger the
scheme the longer the build time and
the longer the government has to
plan ahead.

The Mersey has a large estuary full of water. The water enters via the
Mersey narrows. The strong tidal current entering the narrows does what is
called a tidal scour. It creates deep water in the narrows, hence why
Liverpool is a large deep water port. There are few places on the west of
England/Wales for such deep water havens. I think Liverpool is the only one.

ISTM that the critical
feature of any such barrage is
the relationship between the cost of the
barrage and the amount of usable water
it can impound.

The Severn is a funnel shape and the river not that deep at all, so the
barrage has to be far out to store enough water.. The Mersey once dammed in
and the estuary dredged out eventually will hold a hell of a lot of water
for its area because of the depth.

The estimates are that the two barrages will provide from 6 to 10% of the Us
electricity. Also there will be less trucks using energy on the roads if
the waterways created are used to the full extent.

Tesco supermarket import ship loads of US, South American, Australian and
South Africa wine. They used southern English ports and trucked it up to
Manchester where it was bottled in their plant. Now they land the wine at
Liverpool container port, transfer the containers to smaller ships which
sail up the Manchester Ship Canal and off load at Irlam 2 miles from the
bottling plant, taking hundreds of inefficient trucks off the roads. If
they had brains in the first place they could have put the bottling plant on
the canal cutting in their own lay-by and take direct from the ship into the
plant, avoiding the cost of 2 miles by truck as well.

The knock on affects of stable dammed in waterways should not be
underestimated.