On Jan 9, 5:45*am, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-08 17:43:10 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:31:36 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking around
the streets by the side of the road. * * The system is turned on on the
1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature inside the
buildings is regulated by opening the windows.

District heating is done better in a number of places. Iceland is
perhaps the best known.

They have big open air baths there but only because the heat comes
straight out of the ground

The warm water that is used in Reykjavík comes mostly from over 20 kms
away. In Akranes in west Iceland it is over 50 km distance from the
heating source.
The heat in Iceland never comes straight from the ground.

On Jan 8, 8:46*pm, wrote:
On 8 Jan, *
* * *Tony Bryer wrote:





On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:00:05 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water
for piping to homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.

None at all. It is done in Russia.

It was done in London: waste heat from the Battersea power station
was piped under the river to heat the Pimlico estate

http://www.cwh.org.uk/main.asp?page=494

However, in order to do this there is a need to place the power
stations close to where the heat is used. As I have said for a
long time, let's put say three nuclear power stations in London
and one in the other large cities in England.

Not a vote winner, I suspect. But it could make sense to put acres
of polytunnels next to a power station and grow tomatoes etc all
year round with free heat - better than flying the stuff thousands
of miles.

The scandinavans manage to pump hot water for great distances without
excessive loss.

--
* B Thumbs

Where in Scandinavia is that done? (note: Iceland is to the north-
west of the UK, Scandinavia is to the east of the UK)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

we need at least 300GW (peak) to run this country in winter.

What is this 300 GW figure you keep mentioning? If you're talking about
electricity you're out by a large margin: 50-60 GW [1, 2] is nearer the
mark, and it's been about that for decades now.

[1]
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Elect...nd/Demand8.htm

[2] Right now: Demand: 49805MW, Frequency: 50.00Hz, 20:47:45 GMT

--
Andy

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:29:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
CFL's are the answer (not) . They last 25 years (not).
The life of any lamp is stated in hours used.

Start - ups?

A CFL (depending on type) should have 5-10 times the life of a GLS lamp.
If you used it an hour a day a 25 year life is possible.

That would be about 9,130 start up cycles.

DG

I doubt the electrolytics would last 25 years..

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:29:19 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:29:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
CFL's are the answer (not) . They last 25 years (not).
The life of any lamp is stated in hours used.

Start - ups?

A CFL (depending on type) should have 5-10 times the life of a GLS lamp.
If you used it an hour a day a 25 year life is possible.

That would be about 9,130 start up cycles.

DG

I doubt the electrolytics would last 25 years.

There's more than a fair old chance the purchaser wouldn't last 25
years.

Or the building 8-|[

Playing the numbers game. Just a magic number, innit ?

DG

Andy Wade wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

we need at least 300GW (peak) to run this country in winter.

What is this 300 GW figure you keep mentioning? If you're talking about
electricity you're out by a large margin: 50-60 GW [1, 2] is nearer the
mark, and it's been about that for decades now.


Triple that for ALL power, including transport and industrial heating
and domestic heating.

Double it for PEAK capacity..

I am talking *total annual power consumption of the whole country* -
around 160GW average..

Basially the total thermal energy ion all te fossill fuel we consume,
divided by about a 40% average efficiency of use.

(cars worse, combis better , power statonns about that etc)

[1]
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Elect...nd/Demand8.htm

[2] Right now: Demand: 49805MW, Frequency: 50.00Hz, 20:47:45 GMT


Indeed, true, but not relevant to the scenarios I am talking about.

Even replacing the total grid with non fossil fuels, would only reduce
CO2 emissions by at best 30%.

We need to go further than that. Much further.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Triple that for ALL power, including transport and industrial heating
and domestic heating.

Double it for PEAK capacity..

Sounds plausible, but recent real data is readily available:
http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes07.pdf

I am talking *total annual power consumption of the whole country* -
around 160GW average..

It's surely somewhat irrelevant to talk in terms of power, when overall
energy consumption is what matters. (The power flux in the pipe while
you're filling your car up is about 8 MW, but err, so what?)

Or were you thinking about delivering all energy in the form of
nuclear-generated electricity?

--
Andy

On 2008-01-09 13:50:02 +0000, sigvaldi said:

On Jan 9, 5:45*am, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-08 17:43:10 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:31:36 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking around

the streets by the side of the road. * * The system is turned on on
the
1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature inside the
buildings is regulated by opening the windows.

District heating is done better in a number of places. Iceland is
perhaps the best known.

They have big open air baths there but only because the heat comes
straight out of the ground

The warm water that is used in Reykjavík comes mostly from over 20 kms
away. In Akranes in west Iceland it is over 50 km distance from the
heating source.
The heat in Iceland never comes straight from the ground.

Not even at http://www.bluelagoon.com or is that run from natural gas?

Andy Wade wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Triple that for ALL power, including transport and industrial heating
and domestic heating.

Double it for PEAK capacity..

Sounds plausible, but recent real data is readily available:
http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes07.pdf

I am talking *total annual power consumption of the whole country* -
around 160GW average..

It's surely somewhat irrelevant to talk in terms of power, when overall
energy consumption is what matters. (The power flux in the pipe while
you're filling your car up is about 8 MW, but err, so what?)


Allright, multiply 160GW by 24x365 for annual consumption of power
OUTPUT in TWh, and then multiply by two to get what the oil input
actually is. Roughly. Thats how I got there in the first place.

Its not irrelevant.
Its totally relevant: What is also relevant is that youu cannot
apparently do sumns, which makes you a strange person to be arguing
against my maths,.


Or were you thinking about delivering all energy in the form of
nuclear-generated electricity?

Yes, At last he sees it. Or windmills. Or anything that doesn't burn
oil/gas/coal and produce CO2.

It goes like this. We burn whatever it is tons of carbon fuel a year. We
need to reduce that not by 0.000012% and have crappy lightbulbs, nor yet
by 0.00000001% with a propellor on our heads. We need to at lest halve
it, and it would be nice to shhot for 85-90%, so we could syill fly to
Australia with a cloeart cosncience.

How could this be acvhiebved?

And the answer turns out to be one simple way, and only one that is
remotely scalable and remotely viable. It is in fact totally scalable,
economically viable, and largely either technology that exists and works
at the scale required, or exists and works at the scale required but is
expensive cos its new, or exists and probably works, but no one has
actually doine it this way befire

Nuclear power stations, and electric cars. Plus a few other cheap energy
storage devices like hot water tanks to smooth out the off-peak load.

At current fuel prices the power stations are already viable. Since
about 1/3rd of fossil fuel is used in electricity generation, that
implies a 3:1 grid upscale is needed broadly. Well within our capabilities.


So thats energy generation and distribution. A 10-15 year program of
installing nuclear sets and beefing up the grid. Now to maximise the
utility, they need to runs at fairly constant HIGH outpout - all through
the winter, and be taken down for servicing in the summer. To avoid
building more than need be, we need to store power in off peak.

The rough breakdown of UK power usage is 30% electricity, 30% transport,
30% heating and 10% the rest.

We can store low grade heat for heating ourselves in hot water tanks. It
takes very little to do this.

We can store enough energy for a few days motoring in the electric car
batteries, so thats all right.

We could, if was cost effective. store a couple of days electricity n
lead acid batteries. Its not hugely expensive. Not cheap, but possible.

You balance the cost of excess capacity that dumps waste heat when
underloaded, with the storage costs. Maybe you just build a few more
power stations.

The myth about building all this takes more Co2, is precisely that,a
myth. The chemical release of CO2 in making things, is peanuts compared
wit the energy derived CO2, i.e. every ton of cement release maybe a few
kilos of Co2, but takes a ton of coal to make it hot enough to do it. So
use an electric furnace.

Sythetic hydrocarbons to make plastics are not that hard, and the actual
use of oil by te plastics industry is very low..less than a few percent
IIRC.

The ONLY places we need liquid fuel is long haul stuff, where recharge
times get to be a pain, stuff that operate far from the grid, like
industrial site equipment, and miltary stuff, and aircraft.

I haven't done the sums on those yet, but theyt are NOT in a majority.
Its likely biofuel or synthetic fuel could fill that gap.


Net result. After a 15 year program by the west, in investment in
electrical transport, distributed storage systems, and nuclear power (at
lest in northern climates, where solar is useless) we could cut our Co2
emissions by 85%, cut on street pollution by about 95%, and end up with
a greener cleaner and QUIETER place than we now have.

And it wouldn't actually cost us that much. Unlike sodding windmills.

And the revenue to radical islam would dry up. And the Jihadist ********
would fade into history.

We swap a couple of billion tons of CO2 a year that is definitely
harming the whole planet badly in ways we don't understand..for a couple
of hundred tons of fairly hot radioactive nucleides, that won't harm the
planet at all, and not even us if we don't get too friendly with them.
Or simply spread them around thinly enough.


Ok, we would rather NOT have them, but its the lesser of all the evils,
by a HUGE margin.

Nothing else today will do the job, at anything approaching the low
level of disruption, and the same low costs.

Take your choice. Burn the oil and go back a million years plus.

Go bunny hugging, and go back 2000 years, and see the world population
collapse..

Or build nuclear power stations, electric cars, and develop from where
we are.

I dunno about you, but its a no brainer as far as I can tell.

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:32:48 +0000 someone who may be Derek Geldard
wrote this:-

Unlike wind turbines, they only last 19.

Nice try. However, incorrect. If you are referring to the repowering
of Delabole you are clutching at straws.



--
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

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 05:50:02 -0800 (PST), sigvaldi
wrote:

The heat in Iceland never comes straight from the ground.

Not strictly true surely? It sometimes does. It's just that people
tend not to build another town in the same place for a few centuries
afterwards.

On Jan 10, 1:47*am, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-09 13:50:02 +0000, sigvaldi said:





On Jan 9, 5:45*am, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-08 17:43:10 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:31:36 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking around

the streets by the side of the road. * * The system is turned on on
*the
1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature inside the
buildings is regulated by opening the windows.

District heating is done better in a number of places. Iceland is
perhaps the best known.

They have big open air baths there but only because the heat comes
straight out of the ground

The warm water that is used in Reykjavík comes mostly from over 20 kms
away. In Akranes in west Iceland it is over 50 km distance from the
heating source.
The heat in Iceland never comes straight from the ground.

Not even athttp://www.bluelagoon.comor is that run from natural gas?- Hide quoted text -

The water at the Blue lagoon is fresh water heated up by the steam
that comes from the heating plant at Svartsengi nearby. The Svartsengi
plant also provides hot water for the Keflavik airport and the towns
nearby.

On Jan 10, 8:23*am, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 05:50:02 -0800 (PST), sigvaldi
wrote:

The heat in Iceland never comes straight from the ground.

Not strictly true surely? *It sometimes does. *It's just that people
tend not to build another town in the same place for a few centuries
afterwards.

Sometimes as in what case?
And what towns are you referring to that existed centuries ago in
Iceland?

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 05:50:02 -0800 (PST) someone who may be sigvaldi
wrote this:-

The heat in Iceland never comes straight from the ground.

Does the water in the pool in the second photograph at
http://www.snorrastofa.is/default.as...004%7C &tId=1
not come straight from the ground very nearby? From memory it
emerges from some rocks and goes down to the pool via a "pipe" made
of flat stones.

However, I accept that a fair proportion of hot water now comes from
further afield than was the case when many towns were first
established.


--
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

sigvaldi wrote:

The warm water that is used in Reykjavík comes mostly from over 20 kms
away. In Akranes in west Iceland it is over 50 km distance from the
heating source.
The heat in Iceland never comes straight from the ground.


I think that what sigvald is getting at is there is a water to water
heat transfer involved at some stage. Hot, highly mineralised (think
super, extra, double, mega hard!) water comes out of the ground and is
used to heat 'normal' water obtained on the surface. The heated normal
water is then used to heat things.

The reason for this is the the highly mineralised water scales things
up very quickly and it's a good idea to restrict the amount of the
system that gets scaled up.

Guy, geology A level
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Dawson I.T. Manager Crossflight Ltd

Huge wrote:
On 2008-01-09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:


Sounds like some council flats I stayed in in Denmark. Had some kind
of waste burning boiler..
And you have to have a gob stopper in your mouth in order to speak the
language.....



I never bothered. Denmark is all right, but not for the whole afternoon..

Blimey, that's a bit strong. I worked in Copenhagen (well, OK, Bellerup) for a
while and I rather liked it. And them.


Oh the odd Dane you meet over here is all right. Its the depressing mass
of them all at once in their totally organised and oh so boring, But
very clean and tidy, little country.

My overriding impression was, that on taking a ferry to Sweden,for the
first time I saw a young couple *holding hands and smiling*

It was such a contrast it stuck in my mind.

I guess a counyty that is so depserately cold and dull, learns to regard
waste of energy in laughing and smiling, to be a Mortal Sin. I hear the
Finns are even worse. Sorry. I am a Latin at heart. Stick me somewhere
in Spain or Italy, with everybody yelling and screaming and laughing,
and I'll willingly trade teh neatness for a bit of passion..;-)

Huge wrote:
On 2008-01-10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What is also relevant is that youu cannot
apparently do sumns,

We need to at lest halve
it, and it would be nice to shhot for 85-90%, so we could syill fly to
Australia with a cloeart cosncience.

Nuclear power stations, and electric cars.

The rough breakdown of UK power usage is 30% electricity, 30% transport,
30% heating and 10% the rest.

What were you saying about sums, again?


well that 30+30+30+10=100?

Guy Dawson wrote:
sigvaldi wrote:

The warm water that is used in Reykjav�k comes mostly from over 20 kms
away. In Akranes in west Iceland it is over 50 km distance from the
heating source.
The heat in Iceland never comes straight from the ground.


I think that what sigvald is getting at is there is a water to water
heat transfer involved at some stage. Hot, highly mineralised (think
super, extra, double, mega hard!) water comes out of the ground and is
used to heat 'normal' water obtained on the surface. The heated normal
water is then used to heat things.

The reason for this is the the highly mineralised water scales things
up very quickly and it's a good idea to restrict the amount of the
system that gets scaled up.

Well its a moot point as to where heat comes from directly..anyway,
since it tends to travel via any conductive surface to where its cooler..


Guy, geology A level
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Dawson I.T. Manager Crossflight Ltd

On Jan 10, 11:23*am, David Hansen
wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 05:50:02 -0800 (PST) someone who may be sigvaldi
wrote this:-

The heat in Iceland never comes straight from the ground.

Does the water in the pool in the second photograph athttp://www.snorrastofa.is/default.asp?sid_id=7688&tre_rod=002%7C001%7...
not come straight from the ground very nearby? From memory it
emerges from some rocks and goes down to the pool via a "pipe" made
of flat stones.

Yes, it comes from nearby and is mixed with cold water to obtain bath
temperature.

However, I accept that a fair proportion of hot water now comes from
further afield than was the case when many towns were first
established.

Utilisation of hot water for heating buildings in Iceland did not
start until the 20th century, most towns used oil for heating until
fairly recently.

--
* 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

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:33:37 -0800 (PST) someone who may be sigvaldi
wrote this:-

Utilisation of hot water for heating buildings in Iceland did not
start until the 20th century, most towns used oil for heating until
fairly recently.


My 1989 book on energy in Iceland, published by a variety of
organisations in Iceland, says that until the late 19th century it
was just used for bathing, washing and cooking.

During the first decade of the 20th century farmers started to heat
their homes with water from hot springs nearby. In the 1920s and 30s
many schools were located near geothermal areas to use water for
heating the buildings and swimming pools.

In 1930 water was piped for 3km to heat the main hospital, a school
and 60 houses in Reykjavik. Since then the system in the area has
been developed. Other areas also developed their resources further
since that time.




--
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

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:36:34 -0800 (PST), sigvaldi
wrote:


Sometimes as in what case?

Heimaey?

In article 47838948@qaanaaq, Andy Hall wrote:
There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water for piping to
homes rather than (or as well as) electricity.

None at all. It is done in Russia.


Great idea.

Pipes over 2m high with about 50mm of insulation on them snaking around
the streets by the side of the road.

The Siberian towns I've worked in (and courted in) had CHP systems
(Combined Heat and Power), but almost all of the piping is underground or inside
the buildings. They were cities that had been built relatively recently. Baku, by
contrast doesn't need a CHP system and doesn't seem to have one (in the 2 months
over New Year that I worked there, I don't think it ever got below -7 centigrade),
but they do have externally-fitted plumbing and wiring in what would otherwise be
a very elegant city. Makes the place look like a psychotic rat's nest.
CHP and public heating systems can be done well, be inconspicuous, and
efficient. Similarly plumbing, electric power and telecommunications wiring can be
totally bodged. Depend on the people doing the work (and also on the local
planning regulations, I suppose).

The system is turned on on the
1st October, regardless of the weather, and the temperature inside the
buildings is regulated by opening the windows.

In Noyabrsk, it was 2nd or 3rd week of September when the system came on.
And at -55deg C you only open one of the layers of windows, taking the window down
from effectively quadruple or quintuple glazing down to only double glazing. If
the heating in an apartment block breaks down, people die (when I got there it had
warmed up to a balmy -30deg C by day and barely -40deg C by night. But if you went
another 500km North-East to Novy Urengoy (4 towns up the line ; about 36 hours and
you're north of the Arctic Circle at last) you'd be into the serious cold and
they'd have to fit the annual maintenence into just a couple of weeks.
Of course, this is all the fault of building with cold materials like wood
and stone. The natives have survived for milennia by not using wood or stone.

--
Aidan
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:02 GMT, but posted later.

On 2008-01-10 13:18:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

I guess a counyty that is so depserately cold and dull, learns to
regard waste of energy in laughing and smiling, to be a Mortal Sin. I
hear the Finns are even worse.


Different entirely. Quite quiet. They describe themselves as shy
and humble, which is a reasonable stereotype. There is not a lot of
body language at all, but once one has passed the initial shyness, are
very friendly and genuinely so.

For sure a contrast to the Mediterranean countries, but generally do do
what they say that they will do, which has other advantages.

On Jan 10, 3:31*pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:36:34 -0800 (PST), sigvaldi
wrote:



Sometimes as in what case?

Heimaey?

The town of Vestmannaeyjar on the island of Heimaey has been a town
for less than 50 years. A volcanic eruption destroyed a part of the
town in 1973 but the town is still in the same place today.

On Jan 10, 1:57*pm, David Hansen
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:33:37 -0800 (PST) someone who may be sigvaldi
wrote this:-

Utilisation of hot water for heating buildings in Iceland did not
start until the 20th century, most towns used oil for heating until
fairly recently.

My 1989 book on energy in Iceland, published by a variety of
organisations in Iceland, says that until the late 19th century it
was just used for bathing, washing and cooking.

Yes, just as I wrote above and only in a very few places.

During the first decade of the 20th century farmers started to heat
their homes with water from hot springs nearby. In the 1920s and 30s
many schools were located near geothermal areas to use water for
heating the buildings and swimming pools.

Yes, they were located near the geothermal areas but you still had to
drill down for the water and pipe it to the houses, often for some
distance.

In 1930 water was piped for 3km to heat the main hospital, a school
and 60 houses in Reykjavik. Since then the system in the area has
been developed. Other areas also developed their resources further
since that time.

Yes, parts of Reykjavik was burning oil in the 1960´s and Kopavogur
until the late 1970´s.

Huge wrote:
On 2008-01-10, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-10 13:18:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:
I guess a counyty that is so depserately cold and dull, learns to
regard waste of energy in laughing and smiling, to be a Mortal Sin. I
hear the Finns are even worse.

Different entirely. Quite quiet. They describe themselves as shy
and humble, which is a reasonable stereotype. There is not a lot of
body language at all, but once one has passed the initial shyness, are
very friendly and genuinely so.

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were paralytic
for a substantial part of the time.


Nothing else to do up there.

On 11 Jan 2008 18:52:16 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2008-01-10, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-10 13:18:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

I guess a counyty that is so depserately cold and dull, learns to
regard waste of energy in laughing and smiling, to be a Mortal Sin. I
hear the Finns are even worse.


Different entirely. Quite quiet. They describe themselves as shy
and humble, which is a reasonable stereotype. There is not a lot of
body language at all, but once one has passed the initial shyness, are
very friendly and genuinely so.

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were paralytic
for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation they
have. I'm sure you will claim that you were trying to be amusing.
Just try a litle harder you ignorant sob!

In message , Edward W.
Thompson writes
On 11 Jan 2008 18:52:16 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2008-01-10, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-10 13:18:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

I guess a counyty that is so depserately cold and dull, learns to
regard waste of energy in laughing and smiling, to be a Mortal Sin. I
hear the Finns are even worse.


Different entirely. Quite quiet. They describe themselves as shy
and humble, which is a reasonable stereotype. There is not a lot of
body language at all, but once one has passed the initial shyness, are
very friendly and genuinely so.

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were
paralytic
for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation they
have. I'm sure you will claim that you were trying to be amusing.
Just try a litle harder you ignorant sob!

You've obviously never been to Scandinavia

I have never come across a bigger load of **** artists (well, maybe some
Swiss I know). The more draconian the licensing laws, the more alcoholic
the population. The UK is even worse, we are attempting to come out of
such a regimen with the lack of responsibility associated with it

now - **** off

--
geoff

On 2008-01-13 07:41:02 +0000, Edward W. Thompson
said:

On 11 Jan 2008 18:52:16 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2008-01-10, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-10 13:18:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

I guess a counyty that is so depserately cold and dull, learns to
regard waste of energy in laughing and smiling, to be a Mortal Sin. I
hear the Finns are even worse.


Different entirely. Quite quiet. They describe themselves as shy
and humble, which is a reasonable stereotype. There is not a lot of
body language at all, but once one has passed the initial shyness, are
very friendly and genuinely so.

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were paralytic
for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation they
have. I'm sure you will claim that you were trying to be amusing.
Just try a litle harder you ignorant sob!

Have you ever actually been to any of the Nordic countries? There
is quite an element of truth in the degree of alcohol use and abuse;
predominantly because of the state operated booze shops in Norway,
Sweden and Finland. Originally there was a Church ethic behind this,
but of course it has become now a convenient way to get extra tax
revenue. There is a slight advantage in Sweden at least, where the
buying power of Systembolaget does lead to good availability of quality
French and other wines.

Even so, the abuse of alcohol in Finland is a serious problem, to the
point that there are paramedic patrols in all of the major towns during
the winter months picking up people on the streets who would otherwise
die of hypothermia in temperatures well below -20 degrees. I have
seen people being picked up in Helsinki, Tampere and other cities on
several occasions and we are not talking about down and outs in shop
doorways, but people in suits.

Having said that, Russia has a far more serious problem with this.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:37:10 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-01-13 07:41:02 +0000, Edward W. Thompson
said:

On 11 Jan 2008 18:52:16 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2008-01-10, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-10 13:18:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

I guess a counyty that is so depserately cold and dull, learns to
regard waste of energy in laughing and smiling, to be a Mortal Sin. I
hear the Finns are even worse.


Different entirely. Quite quiet. They describe themselves as shy
and humble, which is a reasonable stereotype. There is not a lot of
body language at all, but once one has passed the initial shyness, are
very friendly and genuinely so.

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were paralytic
for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation they
have. I'm sure you will claim that you were trying to be amusing.
Just try a litle harder you ignorant sob!

Have you ever actually been to any of the Nordic countries? There
is quite an element of truth in the degree of alcohol use and abuse;
predominantly because of the state operated booze shops in Norway,
Sweden and Finland. Originally there was a Church ethic behind this,
but of course it has become now a convenient way to get extra tax
revenue. There is a slight advantage in Sweden at least, where the
buying power of Systembolaget does lead to good availability of quality
French and other wines.

Even so, the abuse of alcohol in Finland is a serious problem, to the
point that there are paramedic patrols in all of the major towns during
the winter months picking up people on the streets who would otherwise
die of hypothermia in temperatures well below -20 degrees. I have
seen people being picked up in Helsinki, Tampere and other cities on
several occasions and we are not talking about down and outs in shop
doorways, but people in suits.

Having said that, Russia has a far more serious problem with this.

That may be the case but it does not excuse the content of the
original post and a follow up which contained insulting generalities
which are blatantly false and are designed to offend.

You can visit most 'western' countries and see yobish and drunken
behaviour, the UK comes to mind, but the majority of citizens do not
behave that way. To extrapolate the behaviour of the few to the
nation is simply absurd. Further, the incidence of drunken behaviour
is generally found in city centres where most visitors tend to
frequent. To extend this behaviour to the majority of inhabitants
makes no sense.

Having returned to the UK after living overseas for 30 years I am
appalled at what I perceive as the decline in standards of behaviour
In my more rational moments I recognize that this decline relates to a
small minority. Nevertheless, there is no pride in being 'British'.

The essence of this topic is a cause for embarrassment.

In article 478a8486@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Even so, the abuse of alcohol in Finland is a serious problem, to the
point that there are paramedic patrols in all of the major towns during
the winter months picking up people on the streets who would otherwise
die of hypothermia in temperatures well below -20 degrees. I have
seen people being picked up in Helsinki, Tampere and other cities on
several occasions and we are not talking about down and outs in shop
doorways, but people in suits.

Is this because, as a tourist or visitor, you're walking around these city
centres? Rather than just driving your car as in the UK?

You'll see plenty of drunks of all social classes in the West End of
London at night if you walk around or use public transport. And I'd guess
in most cities.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-01-14 10:38:54 +0000, Huge said:

I worked in Sweden, Denmark and Finland (*), making dozens of visits of 1 or 2
weeks each, occasionally longer, spread over 11 years.

The Scandies drink too much.

As do Finns and the populace of other Baltic states.

They know it, we know it. The Swedes in Copenhagen
on drinking sprees made the West End on a Saturday night look like an AA
convention.

This is even more noticable now that the bridge to Malmoe is open -
it's a quick drive.


All the "off sales" in Finland belong to the State,

That's changed a bit. Beer of less than 4.7% ABV is now available
from supermarkets and other retailers, with Alko being for anything
more.


are hideously
expensive

Spirits are approx 50% more than the UK.

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were
paralytic for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation they
have.

Of course anyone who attempts to moralise about sweeping generalisations
by posting a sweeping generalisation has effectively kneecapped themself
before entering an arse kicking contest.

Posting an ad hominem as a sequitur to the generalisation does rather
put the complainant outside the pale.

Huge wrote:

The Swedes in Copenhagen on drinking sprees made the West End on a
Saturday night look like an AA convention.

When I worked in Denmark the standing joke was "How do you tell a Swede
from a Dane in Copenhagen?" answer "The Swedes are the ones face down in
the fountains."

Andy Hall wrote:

[Spirits]

are hideously expensive

Spirits are approx 50% more than the UK.

That makes them hideously expensive in my book. The local shops in Italy
sell spirits (and indeed all alcohol) for a fraction of the UK price. A
bottle of single malt in the local supermarket is about 7 Euro.

I don't see binge drinkers outside the one city with an airport bringing
in trippers on cheap flights from the UK. In general it's notable that
the drunks in the street are all talking loudly in English. In cities
where the English don't go public inebriation is almost unknown.

On 2008-01-15 03:33:43 +0000, (Steve Firth) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

[Spirits]

are hideously expensive

Spirits are approx 50% more than the UK.

That makes them hideously expensive in my book.

All relative - depends on your starting point. I used the UK as a
comparison point since it's a UK group.


The local shops in Italy
sell spirits (and indeed all alcohol) for a fraction of the UK price. A
bottle of single malt in the local supermarket is about 7 Euro.

I don't see binge drinkers outside the one city with an airport bringing
in trippers on cheap flights from the UK. In general it's notable that
the drunks in the street are all talking loudly in English. In cities
where the English don't go public inebriation is almost unknown.

Therein lies a clue.......

On 2008-01-15 03:33:43 +0000, (Steve Firth) said:

Huge wrote:

The Swedes in Copenhagen on drinking sprees made the West End on a
Saturday night look like an AA convention.

When I worked in Denmark the standing joke was "How do you tell a Swede
from a Dane in Copenhagen?" answer "The Swedes are the ones face down in
the fountains."


One told to me by several Finns (indicating that they do poke fun at
themselves:

Two Finns sit at a bar drinking continuously all night without saying a
word. After 12 hours, one turns to the other and says: "Kippis"
("cheers"). The other turns to him and says: "You want to talk or you
want to drink?" and turns back to his vodka.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:33:42 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were
paralytic for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation they
have.

Of course anyone who attempts to moralise about sweeping generalisations
by posting a sweeping generalisation has effectively kneecapped themself
before entering an arse kicking contest.

Posting an ad hominem as a sequitur to the generalisation does rather
put the complainant outside the pale.

Interesting comment to try to justify what are very distasteful
remarks about 'foreigners'.

You may think it smart to analyse in detail what has been posted but
to many the impression given is one of disdain for others. However, I
may be mistaken and being paralytic (drunk) for a substantial part of
the time is being admired. That would fit judging from the behaviour
of many in this country.

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:33:42 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were
paralytic for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation they
have.

Of course anyone who attempts to moralise about sweeping generalisations
by posting a sweeping generalisation has effectively kneecapped themself
before entering an arse kicking contest.

Posting an ad hominem as a sequitur to the generalisation does rather
put the complainant outside the pale.

Interesting comment to try to justify what are very distasteful
remarks about 'foreigners'.

You may think it smart to analyse in detail what has been posted but
to many the impression given is one of disdain for others. However, I
may be mistaken and being paralytic (drunk) for a substantial part of
the time is being admired. That would fit judging from the behaviour
of many in this country.

You may want to get your head out of your arse someday. You could start
by readign what was written, rather than knee-jerking over what you
think was written.

On Jan 6, 11:37 am, "Dave Liquorice" wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000, john wrote:
Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels. They never produce
enough power to run the average house for a day, even with minimal use.

Solar panels as in photo-voltaic or thermal?

Show me some wind turbines or solar panels for domestic use that can
power an electric shower, kettle, TV and radio, maybe even a computer.

Plenty of wind turbines about, you could pick up a 400kW jobbie from the
side of the road at the end of last month, bit bent mind... Smaller ones
say 5kW rated to be useful are also easily available.

But using wind and or thermal solar panels is not about replacing mains
power or fuels but reducing ones consumption of them. If I had the spare
cash, I'd be installing a large heat bank with wind (5kW or so), thermal
solar, wood burner and oil boiler as energy sources. If the heat bank was
up to temperature and the wind was blowing I'd be wanting o sell the
excess power to the grid, that still seems to be rather hard to set up.

OK at current fuel prices it would take a long time to pay back but with
kero now at 40p+/l when it was 30p+/l only 2 years ago and 17p/l 7 years
ago using todays energy prices in the pay back calculation is not entirely
accurate...

Or (since this is a DIY site) we could bend the rules a bit and not
cheat:

http://www.afrigadget.com/2007/06/25/williams-windmill/

Teenager William Kamkwamba did -and his invention is quickly making
him famous. ..He... began making windmills when he left school at 14
because he
couldn't afford the fees.

He started with a five-metre structure fashioned from plastic piping,
his father's
bicycle and chunks of wood. Referencing a basic design outlined in a
schoolbook he cut up plastic piping and fashion them into propeller
blades.

The handmade electricity generator was enough to power one light bulb
in his family home. But he wanted more, he decided to construct a 12-
metre version.

To replace broken plastic blades with metal ones he "took an old oil
drum to the tin-smith at the trading centre and asked him to help me
cut it into new blades".

And a picture of Mk 1 on he
http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/.../06/index.html