HBlack wrote:
I'm not convinced estuary based tidal power could meet 100% of
Britain's needs. However, tidal lagoons are scalable far beyond
what is possible with estuary power. Also tidal lagoons are
beneficial to the wildlife environment whereas barrages are
detrimental AND they interfere with maritime traffic.

Tidal lagoons are both the long-term answer and they are more
acceptable politically. It would take 30 railways to haul rock
from 30 large quarries over 25 years to meet 100% of Britain's
need for energy. 2500 million tons of rock and 25% of the Irish
Sea. This is surely possible and mostly involves hauling rock
from mountains to sea on an unprecedented scale. Britain's engineers
are easily up for that challenge.


I doubt Britains taxpayers, Britain's Roads, Britain's lorry fleets or
indeed any of Britain's bankers are, though.

Hek, whiy not simply almdfill acroos teh notyh sea and use that as extra
land mas, for affordable housing andmake the whole North Sea a tidal logoon.

Its only money, time, manpower, fuel to move materials..and
energy...that we WERE trying to reduce, not increase..

sigh.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .

And the rest. I used to do occasional pick and shovel sessions with the
blokes who did it regularly. I think I once worked out that I'd moved
about 30 tonnes during a shift and I was just one of the blokes on a
factory floor with four conveyor belts.

They should have kept you on that chain gang.

Its always those to the left of center that have the greatest leanings
towards fascism, isn't it?

Doctor Drivel wrote:

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

LVT ensures land is used for maximum benefit. Someone buying land to
do nothing with it is not a benefit.

Maximum financial benefit that is then. I see. I don't like it.

No, beneficial to people and the community. You know nothing about it.
You are guessing.

That is taken into account. Special cases for reserved land, such as
SSSI, etc.

Is a hill farm, or a forest, reserved land?

If it is, it is.

I think this would kill farming and all the other low profit rural
activities that have made Britain what it is.

It would enhance farming as it would largely eliminate large landowners
who charge high rents for farms. Most farms world be owned by the farmers.

Most farms would be owned by a bank, and there would be no farms at all.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .

And the rest. I used to do occasional pick and shovel sessions with the
blokes who did it regularly. I think I once worked out that I'd moved
about 30 tonnes during a shift and I was just one of the blokes on a
factory floor with four conveyor belts.

They should have kept you on that chain gang.

Its always those to the left of center that have the greatest leanings
towards fascism, isn't it?

I think extremists of every kind think they know better than anyone else
what to do with someone elses life, labour and income. It doesn't matter
what they call themselves, left or right wing, I can's see any
difference between the policies of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot,
Kim il whatever, Mao Zhe Dong ... insert list of dictators here.

And I'm always staggered that otherwise sensible people (I'm not
including Drivel in a list of "sensible" people) think that it's OK to
steal or extort from someone, provided they do so "for a good cause".
Perhaps they beleive that RNLI collectors should be allowed to cosh
passers by and remove 45% of the money from their person. After all,
it's in a good cause.

Derek Geldard wrote:
I suspect that was an article from the wrong kind of journal, one for
eight year old kids.

Well, it was a PR leaflet from the CEGB: I'm not sure which you'd put
that under.

Dan.