Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:55:23 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
Bruce pretended :
Don't worry, someone will be along in a minute to tell us that nuclear
power is "too cheap to meter". It's actually more expensive than wind
power, but that uncomfortable fact never seems to make an appearance.
Nuclear if not the cheapest option, is one of the cheapest and no CO2
problems.


If that is really the case, perhaps you should tell the companies who
are poised to start building the next generation of nuclear power
stations, because they refuse to start without agreeing a very hefty
long term subsidy.

Not true.



If what you say is true, nothing would be holding them back!


whats holding them back is the possibilty that some green government of
bearded mumpties will come along in 10 years time just as they are
commissioning them and produce a totally unrealistic set of rules and
regulations they have to abide by, so they wont be able to use them,
without spending the same amount all over again, at which point the
bearded mumpty can say 'look, I told you they weren't safe or they were
too expensive' and go back to picking the toe jam out of his feet and
dreaming of sex with angels.

Andy Champ wrote:
Bruce wrote:

If that is really the case, perhaps you should tell the companies who
are poised to start building the next generation of nuclear power
stations, because they refuse to start without agreeing a very hefty
long term subsidy.

If what you say is true, nothing would be holding them back!


And who is building windmills with no subsidies?


B & Q?


Andy

PJ wrote:
On 13/05/2010 21:18, Andy Champ wrote:
Bruce wrote:

If that is really the case, perhaps you should tell the companies who
are poised to start building the next generation of nuclear power
stations, because they refuse to start without agreeing a very hefty
long term subsidy.

If what you say is true, nothing would be holding them back!


And who is building windmills with no subsidies?

Andy
Why are subsidies necessary? If these privatised industries need capital
for renewing infrastructure why do they not issue more shares? Why
should the UK taxpayer fund their increased assets?

Ofgem should demand that customer charges and levels of service are
equalised across Europe.


Subsidies are necessary for windmills because they are not able to make
money otherwise.

The THEORY is that this is a price worth paying for 'No Climate Change
please: Ve are Germans!'

Since its the German Green 'we are naturists, and god is in the woods'
movement that drives all this eco ********.

And they are very frightened of the atom, in Germany. One once leapt out
at them and went BOO.

wrote:
On 13 May,
Bruce wrote:

That means that, on some days of the week, peak power will coincide
with peak demand. On most other days, it won't. The cycle repeats
exactly every 14 days, with 27 tides per fortnight.

Butbutbut... The tides are not simultaneous. They vary from place to place
(Southampton has twice as many as most other places as well) This should be
enough to reduce the peaks/troughs.

At the cost of extra cables all over the place.

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 13/05/2010 16:42, Jim wrote:
On 13/05/2010 16:34, wrote:
Butbutbut... The tides are not simultaneous. They vary from place to
place
(Southampton has twice as many as most other places as well) This
should be
enough to reduce the peaks/troughs.

Southampton doesn't in fact have twice as many tides. After the first
high water, the tide recedes only slightly before a second high water
about 2 hours later.

From a power generation point of view it wouldn't be that different to
anywhere else.

I think you have missed the main point. As Bruce said tides follow a
predictable cycle but what he missed is that tides at different places
occur at different times. At any given time you can find tides round the
coast at every possible state from high to low and ebb and flow.

Wr no. Only on the west coast and in particular the Bristol channel and
IIRC the bit between Ireland and Scotland is there any tidal flow worth
capturing. By the time you get to the other side of the North sea,
there is no tide left. Swedens shores are tideless and Denmarks are slight.

the east coast of britain has much lower tides than the west

On 13/05/10 22:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

whats holding them back is the possibilty that some green government of
bearded mumpties will come along in 10 years time just as they are
commissioning them and produce a totally unrealistic set of rules and
regulations they have to abide by, so they wont be able to use them,
without spending the same amount all over again, at which point the
bearded mumpty can say 'look, I told you they weren't safe or they were
too expensive' and go back to picking the toe jam out of his feet and
dreaming of sex with angels.


To be honest, a few more major grid incidents like 2008, but slightly
more severe to actually result in forced domestic load shedding (ie
power cuts without warning) would change a few people's minds about
nuclear power. Even the beardy tree shaggers, possibly.

2008 was close enough with emergency DCI (Demand Control Imminent)
alerts being sent to the network operators. Wouldn't take a lot more to
get to major power cuts.

Sadly, National Grid seem to have hidden the system alerts webpage that
used to be publically readable, so it's hard to know how much they are
panicking in the future.

If you want some good reading, google for National Grid Blackstart. At
least they're prepared, But it's not an easy process to restart the grid
if it all fell over which isn't entirely improbable.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:22:44 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:
On 13/05/2010 16:42, Jim wrote:
On 13/05/2010 16:34, wrote:
Butbutbut... The tides are not simultaneous. They vary from place to
place
(Southampton has twice as many as most other places as well) This
should be
enough to reduce the peaks/troughs.
Southampton doesn't in fact have twice as many tides. After the first
high water, the tide recedes only slightly before a second high water
about 2 hours later.

From a power generation point of view it wouldn't be that different to
anywhere else.
I think you have missed the main point. As Bruce said tides follow a
predictable cycle but what he missed is that tides at different places
occur at different times. At any given time you can find tides round the
coast at every possible state from high to low and ebb and flow.


That's true. But it is the case that existing power stations are
distributed around the country to meet regional demand. There are not
huge transfers of power from one end of Britain to the other. The
National Grid is there to serve regions by connecting regional power
stations with their regional consumers.

With tidal power you can't easily do that, other than covering the
country with pylons to a far greater extent than exist today, and
transmission losses become significant.

There is also the issue that there are only a few sites where tidal
power will be viable, if indeed it is viable at all. The idea that
the entire coast would be suitable is fatuous in the extreme, because
long stretches of the coastline have very low (near zero) tidal
currents.

So that takes us back to pumped storage, as I said before.


which has similar drawbacks in that most demand is NOT at the bottom of
a 1000 foot damn holding back a lake the size of loch ness, so you STILL
need massive power cables connecting prime generators not just to
customers but ALSO to pumped storage, and you STILL need AS MUCH pumped
storage as generating capacity. So again, as with wind., you double up
the costs. Of generating AND transmission, half of which is idle at any
given time.




I wonder which is the next blind alley the discussion will take?


Photvoltaic, in which the whole sahara is covered with silicon panels
that survive dust storms and camel attack, whilst massive terawatt
cables snake under the mediterranean, untouched by Islamic terrorist
hands, to emerge into a neon lit Europe, thus solving all our energy
problems and a cost of only 50 times the gross national product, or 300
failed banks.

Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 18:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
wrote:


These are all good points, which, ISTM, apply to most of these types of
power generation. I just felt that the tidal power had at least some
advantages:

1) no "windless" days
2) max power output (when tide is flowing strongest) varies from point
to point so that if enough were installed you'd get a more even power
generation
3) capacity can be added bit by bit (unlike tidal barrage, say)
4) as it's underwater, visual impact is less.

Of course, all these methods have the major drawback of needing a lot of
extra transmission capacity, which is why I favour nuclear anyway.


Right now we need some serious gigawatts - so not building a few nukes
would be foolish. But, in the medium term, I think the tidal stuff and
some offshore wind farms[1] offer a good solution.

If we dont build the nukes, there is no medium term.


There is no sustainable society that can ever exists.

Get used to it.

All life destroys one environment to create another.


If you want to live sustainably, join et bushmen of the Kalahari. Maybe
they know something we don't. How not to breed to much.

Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 12:45, Tim Streater wrote:

More details he

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8677933.stm

I won't quote all of it, except the civil liberties bit:

10. Civil liberties

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
and roll back state intrusion.
This will include:

A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.

Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
permission.

The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide
greater transparency.

Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

Further regulation of CCTV.

Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.

A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal
offences.

....

Bloody excellent. Wonder if "unnecessary Building Regs" will be included
in the "proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences"?

Anyway, I love that. Some semblance of a return to the Britain of my
youth in the 70's - ie bankrupt and useless, but at least the coppers
weren't fingering you for trivia!

yup.

Actually I think more the 80s myself. Bloody awful hard work, but there
did finally seem to be a future to work FOR.

S Viemeister wrote:
On 5/13/2010 12:45 PM, Tim Streater wrote:


Is this anything other than advanced willy-waving? It struck me as
significant that it cost £6billion to build 60 miles from St Panc to
Dover - this is a very crowded country. Also, when I once had to go
Cambridge-Glasgow, it cost something like £60 on EasyJet and £300 by
train. Given the huge subsidies for the trains, that hints to me that
trains consume much more of society's resources to provide the same
service, although I have no numbers here.


Train prices vary wildly - a couple of weeks ago, I travelled from
London KingsX to Inverness, in first class, for 52.80. (Standard would
have been about 40.00, so I splurged.)
Well I know
a very hiugh up person iuna very large train company, and the way he
explined it is this.

"Franchises vary, as do subsidies. Train operator A has a franchise on a
main line from London to the North. He paid a bloody lot for it, and so
its not subsidised, its taxed. It gets commuter traffic, so its
profitable and humongous ticket prices, BUT its the only train to get
into London for 9 a.m.

However operator B has a completely different franchise. He is operating
a local service out of grimy Northern town on branch line C. He is
subsidised to ensure that local train services exists. His trains,
however, can escape onto the main line and go to london, 'as part of the
local service' He charges almost nothing for the tickets, because he
doesn't need to: He gets paid to run trains, not carry passengers'

Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/05/10 22:59, Falco wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from
what I
heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there are
plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this
coalition of
idiots for the next 5 years.

My understanding is this means the PM cannot request a dissolution of
Parliament *when it suits him* but he must stay the full 5 years,
*unless* there is a vote of no confidence in the Government, in which
case 55% or more MP could vote to force an election.


I think you are correct, and I think I like that too.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. Fixed election, no fiddling the dates
and the ultimate sanction remains - and note, they are not increasing
the term of Government. If they had, that may well look dodgey.

Yup

On 13/05/10 22:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/05/10 22:59, Falco wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from
what I
heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there
are
plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this
coalition of
idiots for the next 5 years.

My understanding is this means the PM cannot request a dissolution of
Parliament *when it suits him* but he must stay the full 5 years,
*unless* there is a vote of no confidence in the Government, in which
case 55% or more MP could vote to force an election.


I think you are correct, and I think I like that too.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. Fixed election, no fiddling the dates
and the ultimate sanction remains - and note, they are not increasing
the term of Government. If they had, that may well look dodgey.

Yup


Although, I wonder if a Government with a massive majority could "no
confidence" itself when convenient?

My cynicism is only matched by the scumminess of politicians.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On 13/05/2010 22:19, Bruce wrote:
But, in the medium term, I think the tidal stuff and
some offshore wind farms[1] offer a good solution.

Agreed. But with any intermittent supply, such as wind or tidal,
there has to be additional pumped storage so that the power can be
re-generated when it is actually needed, rather than when the wind
blows or the tide flows.

And where pray are you going to park your pump storage schemes?

You tell me. You're the self-appointed expert after all!

Am I?

I pointed you at a web page that suggested you were wrong about the cost
of nuclear v windpower which you ignored. Now I ask you a simple
question and you turn into a Dribble clone.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:42:05 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

To be honest, a few more major grid incidents like 2008, but slightly
more severe to actually result in forced domestic load shedding (ie
power cuts without warning) would change a few people's minds about
nuclear power.


But nuclear power is not the answer to the energy gap, because it
takes at least nine years to build and commission a nuclear power
station.

Nuclear would be four or five years too late, as we will have a
shortage of generating capacity in 2014/2015.

Tim Watts wrote:
Seriously... At least it seems more potent, or less impotent than wind
power. There is always demand, so I presume this means they can ramp the
gas generators down a bit which is a good thing.

On paper, tidal power is very appealing. The energy density of moving water is
very high. But as far as I'm aware there is still no commercially viable (i.e.
profitable) tidal current turbine facility in operation. I'm referring to a
turbine that is just plonked down in a spot with high currents, not to a
facility with a dam and/or gates.

The marine environment is very challenging. Highly corrosive, teeming with
life, very high loadings, unfriendly to workers.

Bruce wrote:

If that is really the case, perhaps you should tell the companies who
are poised to start building the next generation of nuclear power
stations, because they refuse to start without agreeing a very hefty
long term subsidy.

If what you say is true, nothing would be holding them back!


There are subsidies for oil as well. You can think of the cost of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and the aid to Israel, as oil subsidies.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
PJ wrote:
On 13/05/2010 21:18, Andy Champ wrote:
Bruce wrote:

If that is really the case, perhaps you should tell the companies who
are poised to start building the next generation of nuclear power
stations, because they refuse to start without agreeing a very hefty
long term subsidy.

If what you say is true, nothing would be holding them back!


And who is building windmills with no subsidies?

Andy
Why are subsidies necessary? If these privatised industries need
capital for renewing infrastructure why do they not issue more shares?
Why should the UK taxpayer fund their increased assets?

Ofgem should demand that customer charges and levels of service are
equalised across Europe.


Subsidies are necessary for windmills because they are not able to make
money otherwise.

The THEORY is that this is a price worth paying for 'No Climate Change
please: Ve are Germans!'

Since its the German Green 'we are naturists, and god is in the woods'
movement that drives all this eco ********.

I think you are a bit confused. Chernobyl has become a wildlife refuge, but it
isn't a great place for people to live.

wrote:
On 13 May,
Bruce wrote:

That means that, on some days of the week, peak power will coincide
with peak demand. On most other days, it won't. The cycle repeats
exactly every 14 days, with 27 tides per fortnight.

Butbutbut... The tides are not simultaneous. They vary from place to place
(Southampton has twice as many as most other places as well) This should be
enough to reduce the peaks/troughs.


True, but the variation from north to south in Britain is only a few hours
(can't recall the exact number). The more salient point is that not everywhere
on the coast is a suitable turbine site. You need spots where tidal currents
are very high.

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:49:52 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
Right now we need some serious gigawatts - so not building a few nukes
would be foolish.


The energy gap that urgently needs filling arises between 2014 and
2018. New nuclear will not contribute a single kWh to filling that
gap because the earliest practicable date for commissioning a nuclear
station is 2019.


But, in the medium term, I think the tidal stuff and
some offshore wind farms[1] offer a good solution.


Agreed. But with any intermittent supply, such as wind or tidal,
there has to be additional pumped storage so that the power can be
re-generated when it is actually needed, rather than when the wind
blows or the tide flows.


Like tidal power, pumped storage is feasible only in special locations. Big
efficiency losses too.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 18:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
wrote:


These are all good points, which, ISTM, apply to most of these types of
power generation. I just felt that the tidal power had at least some
advantages:

1) no "windless" days
2) max power output (when tide is flowing strongest) varies from point
to point so that if enough were installed you'd get a more even power
generation
3) capacity can be added bit by bit (unlike tidal barrage, say)
4) as it's underwater, visual impact is less.

Of course, all these methods have the major drawback of needing a lot of
extra transmission capacity, which is why I favour nuclear anyway.


Right now we need some serious gigawatts - so not building a few nukes
would be foolish. But, in the medium term, I think the tidal stuff and
some offshore wind farms[1] offer a good solution.

If we dont build the nukes, there is no medium term.


There is no sustainable society that can ever exists.

There is no society that ever did many of the things we do. Your idea that we
look back, see that previous societies were not sustainable, and throw up our
hands strikes me as rather facile.

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:18:10 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
If that is really the case, perhaps you should tell the companies who
are poised to start building the next generation of nuclear power
stations, because they refuse to start without agreeing a very hefty
long term subsidy.

If what you say is true, nothing would be holding them back!

And who is building windmills with no subsidies?


That's a fair point. But if the Chapmans and Bloomfields of this
world are to be believed, nuclear is so cheap that it needs no subsidy
at all.

So why aren't the companies who are poised to start building the next
generation of nuclear power stations hard at work?

Because the figures don't add up!

I told you. Because there are no figures they can add up, when a huge
part of the cost equation is an unknown *political* situation.

EDF fully intends to build new stations on existing and new sites. It
has planning permission, BUT it wont if it thinks a bunch of bearded
lunatics are going to sit in the road, or that it will have to meet
insane safety targets, or insane decomissioning targets.




They are therefore demanding very hefty subsidies from the taxpayer
before going ahead.


No, they are not.


Perhaps Messrs. Chapman and Bloomfield should go to these companies
and tell them that their cost projections are completely wrong. Then
Chapman and Bloomfield could set up as energy consultants and clean up
... as we know with nuclear waste, there's a lot of cleaning up to do!


You know jack **** about nuclear power, or finance.

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 13/05/2010 22:19, Bruce wrote:
But, in the medium term, I think the tidal stuff and
some offshore wind farms[1] offer a good solution.

Agreed. But with any intermittent supply, such as wind or tidal,
there has to be additional pumped storage so that the power can be
re-generated when it is actually needed, rather than when the wind
blows or the tide flows.

And where pray are you going to park your pump storage schemes?

You tell me. You're the self-appointed expert after all!

Am I?

I pointed you at a web page that suggested you were wrong about the cost
of nuclear v windpower which you ignored. Now I ask you a simple
question and you turn into a Dribble clone.
Its probably dribble on better meds. Its coherent, and there are no
allusions to hallucinatory plantpots, but the same total confidence with
zero competence and information, is there.

Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 21:58, PJ wrote:

Why are subsidies necessary?

How long have you lived here?

You should know by now that private involvement in national industry
means "no risk and all of the dosh, ta".

;-|

Or in the case of the Dartford bridge IIRC its 'you take all the risk
and put up all the money, and once you have JUST paid it back, we will
steal it from you so you never make a profit'

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:42:05 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
To be honest, a few more major grid incidents like 2008, but slightly
more severe to actually result in forced domestic load shedding (ie
power cuts without warning) would change a few people's minds about
nuclear power.


But nuclear power is not the answer to the energy gap, because it
takes at least nine years to build and commission a nuclear power
station.

Nuclear would be four or five years too late, as we will have a
shortage of generating capacity in 2014/2015.

Thats entirely the fault of people like you.

So we had better throw in more gas stations hadn't we? and hope we have
enough roubles for the gas meter.


But I think you can BUILD a nuke quicker than that. Its the planning
permission and legals that holds it up.

Gib Bogle wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 18:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
wrote:


These are all good points, which, ISTM, apply to most of these types of
power generation. I just felt that the tidal power had at least some
advantages:

1) no "windless" days
2) max power output (when tide is flowing strongest) varies from point
to point so that if enough were installed you'd get a more even power
generation
3) capacity can be added bit by bit (unlike tidal barrage, say)
4) as it's underwater, visual impact is less.

Of course, all these methods have the major drawback of needing a
lot of
extra transmission capacity, which is why I favour nuclear anyway.


Right now we need some serious gigawatts - so not building a few
nukes would be foolish. But, in the medium term, I think the tidal
stuff and some offshore wind farms[1] offer a good solution.

If we dont build the nukes, there is no medium term.


There is no sustainable society that can ever exists.

There is no society that ever did many of the things we do. Your idea
that we look back, see that previous societies were not sustainable, and
throw up our hands strikes me as rather facile.

Your statement strikes me that way. But then, to the stupid, any
informed statement they don't understand themselves, seems facile.

Look up entropy and learn up on it.
A sustainable society is one that breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

Gib Bogle wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
Seriously... At least it seems more potent, or less impotent than wind
power. There is always demand, so I presume this means they can ramp
the gas generators down a bit which is a good thing.

On paper, tidal power is very appealing. The energy density of moving
water is very high.

No, its very low.

But as far as I'm aware there is still no
commercially viable (i.e. profitable) tidal current turbine facility in
operation. I'm referring to a turbine that is just plonked down in a
spot with high currents, not to a facility with a dam and/or gates.


That's because its almost certainly not viable on cost grounds, and no
one wants to spend the money to make sure.

The marine environment is very challenging. Highly corrosive, teeming
with life, very high loadings, unfriendly to workers.

Precisely

Gib Bogle wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:49:52 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
Right now we need some serious gigawatts - so not building a few
nukes would be foolish.


The energy gap that urgently needs filling arises between 2014 and
2018. New nuclear will not contribute a single kWh to filling that
gap because the earliest practicable date for commissioning a nuclear
station is 2019.


But, in the medium term, I think the tidal stuff and some offshore
wind farms[1] offer a good solution.


Agreed. But with any intermittent supply, such as wind or tidal,
there has to be additional pumped storage so that the power can be
re-generated when it is actually needed, rather than when the wind
blows or the tide flows.


Like tidal power, pumped storage is feasible only in special locations.
Big efficiency losses too.

efficiency not bad... 80% I thought..agree with rest

Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 22:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/05/10 22:59, Falco wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from
what I
heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there
are
plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this
coalition of
idiots for the next 5 years.

My understanding is this means the PM cannot request a dissolution of
Parliament *when it suits him* but he must stay the full 5 years,
*unless* there is a vote of no confidence in the Government, in which
case 55% or more MP could vote to force an election.


I think you are correct, and I think I like that too.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. Fixed election, no fiddling the dates
and the ultimate sanction remains - and note, they are not increasing
the term of Government. If they had, that may well look dodgey.

Yup


Although, I wonder if a Government with a massive majority could "no
confidence" itself when convenient?


Normally it just dissolves parliament and calls an election: That is the
governments prerogative. Here they have ceded that prerogative in
exchange for a guarantee that the LibDems wont force the issue with a no
confidence vote.

My cynicism is only matched by the scumminess of politicians.

I dunno. I've seen scummy politicians all my life, and although there is
a slight veneer of slime on Cleggover, I think Cameron plays with a
fairly straight bat, smart enough not to need to lie. Cant really think
of a PM that I feel was more honest..John Major maybe, but he was never
given a chance.

I could be wrong, but I wasn't about T Bliar. He stank of bull**** from
the first. I really hoped Broon would be better, but although he was
more principled, he was terminally stupid, and extremely boring and dull
and he knew it and hated it and took it out on everyone around him.

It's taken a long time for the Tories to repair the damage Thatcher did.
She fixed the country, but she destroyed the conservatives for a
generation. There are still a few blow hards that need slinging out,
even now.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

WE were always heading for some form of police state under Laber.

This man is known stupidity on legs.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

The real issue is that Labour 'Investment' wasn't 'Investment' it was
juts 'spending'

Absolutely.

The stupid backing up the stupid. The spending was stakes in banks.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Look up entropy and learn up on it.
A sustainable society is one that breaks the laws of thermodynamics.


That's facile^2

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

But I believe we have the best chance with what we now have. I don't rate
the LibDems much, but they carry 23% of the vote, and that gives the whole
shebang more perceived legitimacy,

No one won the election. All lost. Some lost less than others. Like those
in mid-table at the end of the football season. They did not win the title,
but never lost as they were not relegated. It is like Stoke City, Fulham
and Sunderland arguing who was best in the league this season. Only a few
points apart yet some scored more goals and some had better goal difference.
Rather petty to argue about pedantic details in mid-table.

Labour never lost in that they could have been in power if they wanted to -
but at a price. The price to them was not worth it. The Tories were
prepared to pay that price.

In the sordid shameless dealings Labour won. The Tories did not implement
fully what they wanted - they mainly represent the top 5-10% of the
population and their gift to them, inheritance tax, was not delivered, as
was many others. You could say they partially lost, but not by much.


For 4 consecutive elections the Tories failed to get a majority. And they
are in power. As Lord Faulkner said the Tories didn't give much away.

The Lib Dems sold out on PR,which would have stopped the likes of the Tories
getting in power again.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I dunno. I've seen scummy politicians all my life, and although there is a
slight veneer of slime on Cleggover, I think Cameron plays with a fairly
straight bat, smart enough not to need to lie.

Cameron is a born liar.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

£6 billion is just the start, and it is just a tiny fraction of what
is needed to get the economy out of the mess that Gordon Brown left
behind, and told a pack of lies about to conceal it from voters.

More crap from an idiot. He has never heard of the Credit Crunch. He needs
locking up.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

So why aren't the companies who are poised to start building the next
generation of nuclear power stations hard at work?

Because the figures don't add up!

Correct..
you don't spend millions on a project that needs but doesn't have government
approval.
You get approval first.
Nothing will happen until the government decides to allow some to be built.
Also remember that labour deliberately bankrupted the privatised British
Energy and nobody was going to invest while labour was in charge.

On 13/05/2010 22:18, Bruce wrote:

And who is building windmills with no subsidies?

That's a fair point. But if the Chapmans and Bloomfields of this
world are to be believed, nuclear is so cheap that it needs no subsidy
at all.

Bruce is sounding more and more like Dribble these days.

On 13/05/2010 22:42, Tim Watts wrote:

To be honest, a few more major grid incidents like 2008, but slightly
more severe to actually result in forced domestic load shedding (ie
power cuts without warning) would change a few people's minds about
nuclear power. Even the beardy tree shaggers, possibly.


It appeared that the Government (the one that has just been kicked out)
had no interest and no figures on how low wind power output actually
gets when the weather conditions are unfavourable either from lack of
wind or from too much wind and their only contingency plan for lack of
power was to take industry off line.

On 13/05/2010 23:15, Gib Bogle wrote:

The marine environment is very challenging. Highly corrosive, teeming
with life, very high loadings, unfriendly to workers.

Great place to park a wind farm then. ;-)

On 13/05/2010 23:23, Gib Bogle wrote:
Butbutbut... The tides are not simultaneous. They vary from place to
place
(Southampton has twice as many as most other places as well) This
should be
enough to reduce the peaks/troughs.

True, but the variation from north to south in Britain is only a few
hours (can't recall the exact number). The more salient point is that
not everywhere on the coast is a suitable turbine site. You need spots
where tidal currents are very high.

You need to put those nice people at:

http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EASYTIDE...electPort.aspx

right then.

I started to extract the figures below to counter TMH's claim that there
wasn't much range to our tides but here is as good a place as any to
post them together, with times. Today's figures used. Time is GMT and
range in metres.

Place Range time

East Coast

Leith 4.4 8.20
River Tees 4.1 9.44
Grimsby 5.1 11.54
Hunstanton 5.5 13.12
Lowestoft 1.7 15.35
Harwich 3.3 17.33
Southend 4.8 18.55

West Coast

Avonmouth 10.8 7.09
Aberdovey 4 8.11
Liverpool 7.4 11.02
Morecombe 7.5 11.25
Maryport 6.8 11.25

Times for the East Coast are for low water. Times for the West Coast are
for high water.

The grater the tidal range the greater the tidal flow or, in the case of
tidal barrages the greater the potential. Tidal barrages have the
potential to generate serious amounts of energy but the capital costs
are enormous. Machines to tap tidal flow are I suppose on a par with
wind turbines but should be cheaper to build and install as well as
being more predictable. (In case it still isn't apparent to Bruce I am
not a fan of windmills).

Gib Bogle wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Look up entropy and learn up on it.
A sustainable society is one that breaks the laws of thermodynamics.


That's facile^2

I think your record has stuck in a groove dear..