'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

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.

This was not repeated a far as I can tell in later news bulletins, but if
that statement is actually true - what's to stop this coalition of spinning
capitalists bringing out laws preventing parliamentary elections per se?
Now that *WILL* be the start of a dictatorship in this "fair" land of ours,
eh-what old bean!!

And they have just announced the "abolition" of the Identity Card plot - but
I wonder what deeper thoughts they have for the Proletariat - a George
Orwell's 2084 (rather than 1984)?

Far fetched - maybe, but things for those of us earning less than a couple
of million pounds a year don't look that good at all - especially as it was
those *******s that got us into the mess that we are in!

Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from, certainly *NOT* from the pockets of the likes of Ashcroft and his ilk?

I read on the 't internet earlier today that a Lib-Dem council in deepest
Wales has increased the cost of burials by several hundred pounds per grave
to try and claw back some of the cuts already taking place there - and that
is just the f*****g start!!

Oh! But that very same council is spending a fortune on the golf tournament
that's taking place there this year - a matter of priorities eh? Now *THAT*
*IS* the lib dem/tory ethos in reality.

Falco

On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:59:50 +0100, "Falco"
wrote:

Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from


You're wrong. The public spending cuts needed are of the order of
£60 billion to £70 billion per year for at least the next three years.

Labour wouldn't admit to it publicly, but Treasury documents show that
Alastair Darling had already planned cuts of £62 billion a year
starting from April 2011.

£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.

On 12/05/2010 22:08, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

A case where the whole is better than the individual parts I think, good
luck to them I say.
Let's hope that they can sort it.
Cheers
Don

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.

This was not repeated a far as I can tell in later news bulletins, but if
that statement is actually true - what's to stop this coalition of spinning
capitalists bringing out laws preventing parliamentary elections per se?
Now that *WILL* be the start of a dictatorship in this "fair" land of ours,
eh-what old bean!!

I think its bot quire as simple as that. It is as I understand it, more
like a binding contract between the two parties.

But I might be wrong..

The purpose is for the duration of this parliament, to ensure stability
and continuity. Mindful of the fact that we have some very very
difficult times ahead in the next 2-3 years, and that people with no
brain will be crying out for communism shortly, in the vain belief that
coming off the debt drug will be any better if nursey simply injects
them with crack, and lets them run riot on the streets.

WE were always heading for some form of police state under Laber. This
isn't exactly a military dictatorship alternative that has replaced it,
but I agree, its in that direction.

I believe it to be the lesser of two evils.

And they have just announced the "abolition" of the Identity Card plot - but
I wonder what deeper thoughts they have for the Proletariat - a George
Orwell's 2084 (rather than 1984)?


The concept of a Proleteriat only exists in the minds of the Left. With
luck, it will be dead ad forgotten in 5 years.

The Tory vision, partly shared by the LibDems, is to give power and
responsibility *back* to the population, not to necessarily impose
anything more than the bare minimum of crap from on high.

This is not the replacement of a Marxist state with a Fascist state.,
Its about the orderly deconstruction of the State itself, in its
present form, before it falls apart entirely under its own spiralling costs.

If you like, the real Labour project was to build a State to do
Everything. It was an impossible fantasy. The Tory vision is to build a
new economic engine that can actually generate wealth, rather than
simply spend it. I suspect the LibDEms want to make sure it gets spent
as carefully as possible, but are mindful of the fact that you cant
spend what you dont have, and that before you can spend money, you have
to actually eran it. A concept the Left has never ever understood.



Far fetched - maybe, but things for those of us earning less than a couple
of million pounds a year don't look that good at all - especially as it was
those *******s that got us into the mess that we are in!


If you are in the private sector and on less than 30k things should be a
little better in terms of income, and a bit worse in terms of inflation.
Overall probably neutral

The real losers will be the marginal public sector workers. Telephone
sanitisers and community lesbian liason officers on 65k. They will find
themselves on the dole probably, and on a pretty restricted dole probably.




Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from, certainly *NOT* from the pockets of the likes of Ashcroft and his ilk?


Some will, I can assure you. No one is making money out of this. Apart
from Tony Blair, of course.



I read on the 't internet earlier today that a Lib-Dem council in deepest
Wales has increased the cost of burials by several hundred pounds per grave
to try and claw back some of the cuts already taking place there - and that
is just the f*****g start!!

Well that's reasonable. No worse than an inheritance tax.



Oh! But that very same council is spending a fortune on the golf tournament
that's taking place there this year - a matter of priorities eh? Now *THAT*
*IS* the lib dem/tory ethos in reality.


No worse than gay lesbian afro caribbean drop in centers.

The Tory plans are that in general such councils will in time, be able
to raise their own money by local taxes, have a fairly free hand to
raise and spend as they like, but no longer be able to depend on the
central state for funding, and no longer able to evade responsibility
for their actions with their local electorate., That's what all eh
peoples power bit is about. If you don't like it, vote the *******s out,
stand for local election yourself, and manage your own budgets yourselves.

If it looks like local councils actually will have the power to do more
than rubber stamp central government decisions, I am sorely tempted to
do just that.



Falco

Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:59:50 +0100, "Falco"
wrote:
Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from


You're wrong. The public spending cuts needed are of the order of
£60 billion to £70 billion per year for at least the next three years.

Labour wouldn't admit to it publicly, but Treasury documents show that
Alastair Darling had already planned cuts of £62 billion a year
starting from April 2011.

£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.


That's an average cut of £1000 a year per head of population.

Compare and contrast with the total debt of around £50,000 per head of
population. IIRC

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

Anyone can claim they invested money in a night out with a prostitute.
But it isn't investment, because there is no pay back.

It does however 'create jobs' for ladies of the night...

Investment that really does create jobs that generate real wealth is
money spent on things like nuclear power stations, tax relief for export
manufacturing, education that actually teaches people how to think, and
solve problems and do something useful, and the like.

Donwill wrote:
On 12/05/2010 22:08, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

A case where the whole is better than the individual parts I think, good
luck to them I say.
Let's hope that they can sort it.

My fear is that it is unsortable, actually.

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, and may in effect allow
them to be MORE drastic than the Tories alone would ever have dared.

It's one thing to come up with measures and have a bloc that commands
more votes than you, shout you down: But to have two parties agreeing
that its the only way, with a minority whingeing from across the
benches, is a lot easier to deal with.

I believe this is why Cameron and the boys made such an insanely
generous offer to get the coalition. They truly believe its necessary,
and that if they couldn't entirely convince the electorate, they could
at least convince the LibDems.

I also truly believe that for a time at least, tribalism has been set
aside for the good of the nation. And that is probably really what we
voted for, after all.

Until such time as it reappears, I am in support of the current arrangement.

This is uncharted territory, but at least we have some pragmatic brains
on the case.

Not a bunch of troughing dinosaurs whose sole claim to power is that a
bunch of community wurkahs and unemployed smack heads reckoned they were
a softer touch than anyone else.


Cheers
Don

On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:44:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:59:50 +0100, "Falco"
wrote:
Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from


You're wrong. The public spending cuts needed are of the order of
£60 billion to £70 billion per year for at least the next three years.

Labour wouldn't admit to it publicly, but Treasury documents show that
Alastair Darling had already planned cuts of £62 billion a year
starting from April 2011.

£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.


That's an average cut of £1000 a year per head of population.

Compare and contrast with the total debt of around £50,000 per head of
population. IIRC

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


Absolutely. And most of the spending was not value for money. NHS
spending more than doubled yet the resulting increase in output
(patient treatments) was only 17%. Most of the money went on large
pay increases and the employment of an army of administrators with no
prior knowledge of health care.


Anyone can claim they invested money in a night out with a prostitute.
But it isn't investment, because there is no pay back.

It does however 'create jobs' for ladies of the night...


Interesting analogy. ;-)


Investment that really does create jobs that generate real wealth is
money spent on things like nuclear power stations, tax relief for export
manufacturing, education that actually teaches people how to think, and
solve problems and do something useful, and the like.


I's agree with all of that except nuclear power stations. Nuclear
generated electricity is the most expensive form of power generation,
costing even more than wind power which has to be very heavily
subsidised. Nuclear doesn't generate wealth, it consumes it.

The LibDems are opposed to nuclear power. The Tories are opposed to
subsidising it. The generating companies want hefty government
subsidies as in France and other countries, or they won't build new
nuclear stations. We are already critically dependent on imported gas
and the Tories proposed to build more gas fired stations to fill the
energy gap Labour has created. Where do we go from here?

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.

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.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On 13/05/10 08:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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, and may in effect allow
them to be MORE drastic than the Tories alone would ever have dared.

It's one thing to come up with measures and have a bloc that commands
more votes than you, shout you down: But to have two parties agreeing
that its the only way, with a minority whingeing from across the
benches, is a lot easier to deal with.

I believe this is why Cameron and the boys made such an insanely
generous offer to get the coalition. They truly believe its necessary,
and that if they couldn't entirely convince the electorate, they could
at least convince the LibDems.

I agree. This carries teh notion that unpleasant policies (unthinkable
even) will have a broader political concensus in the eyes of the public.

Lets have a look at the "working manifesto" if you can call it that,
from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8677088.stm

THE ECONOMY
===========
snipped expected oridinary stuff

* Measures to promote financial stability and support business growth

Bit meaningless without details

* Next year's 1% National Insurance tax rise to be partly scrapped

* Substantial rise in income tax allowances for lowest paid from April 2011

Presumably with a higher tax rate at the top ends? Otherwise this is a
voter-happy measure that adding more debt...

* New ministerial committee to look at "structural" banking reform

Something's needed - wonder what they have in mind?

* New tax on financial transactions, clampdown on "unacceptable" bonuses

That is different. SWMBO wonders if it will afect her company, which is
an internet payment service provider, or whether it is aimed at the high
end like investment banking?

snip

EDUCATION

* Investment to reduce class sizes for children from poorer backgrounds

Spending money?

* New independent schools in state sector - "free schools" - to be set up

Maintained grammar schools again?

snip

POLITICAL REFORM

* Referendum on the Alternative Vote system for general elections

* Fixed-term Parliaments - next election in May 2015
55% of MPs required to bring government down in confidence vote

I agree with those. Note sure AV is the best system, but it seems better
than FPTP and is obviously more palatable to the Tories.
Fixed term in office seems to be a good thing.

* Committee to look at fully PR-elected House of Lords

"Look at" != "will happen". It seems more democratic, but what will it
achieve? The benefit and at teh same time, the problem with the Lords is
long term office without representation. "Good and wise lords" do not
need to electioneer so spend more time contributing wisdom to the
process. "Bad lords" would serve the interests of the rich and powerful
without regard for the ordinary man. I really cannot see much point in
an elected 2nd house. Why not make the best of the 1st house and scrap
the Lords if they really are perceived to be a problem? Personally I
think the review but limited powers of the Lords is fine as it is.

* Cut in number of MPs and equal size constituencies

Agree.

* Right of the public to "recall" corrupt MPs

Excellent - but how hard will it be for the constituents to recall the
fellow?

* Statutory register for lobbyists

Good.

* Scottish Parliament to get more powers under Calman proposals
* Referendum of devolution of further powers to Welsh assembly
* Review of Scottish MPs voting on England-only legislation

Agree, as long as the 3rd point is there.

* Ban on "non-doms" sitting in Parliament
* Reform of political donations and party funding

Good.

snip


FOREIGN POLICY/EUROPE


snip

* No further powers ceded to EU without referendum

About time!

* UK not to join euro in lifetime of Parliament

No one in their right mind would join the Euro right now.

* Work to limit application of EU Working Time Directive in UK

Typical tory. This is one of the few good things to come from the EU IMO.

HEALTH

* NHS spending to rise in real terms every year of the Parliament

Hmm, more spending. Good, but where's the money coming from?


CIVIL LIBERTIES

* Great Repeal Bill including abolition of ID cards

Excellent. How far will it go though?

* Safeguards for use of personal details on the DNA database

Vague.

PENSIONS AND WELFARE


snip expected stuff

* Benefits to be conditional on willingness to work

Has been since I worked in the JobCentre in 1991. They have always been
able to stop benefits of people "not available" to work. Dole queue is
still full of scroungers though.

IMMIGRATION

* Cap on immigration from outside the European Union

Why not just go for a points system like everyone else?

ENVIRONMENT

* Aviation passenger duty replaced by plane tax

Interesting.

* No new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted

They're going somewhere else presumably?

* New nuclear power plants (Lib Dems able to abstain on issue)

Hallelujah... Seem to have reached a reasonable gentlemen's agreement
with the Libs who would rather gut themselves than touch anything
nuclear. If this is the spirit of the coalition it might just work. Now
all they need is a time machine so they can start work in 1990.

* Creation of a green investment bank.

* High-speed rail network to be built

And yet they've appointed a potential "slasher" and non train
enthusiast as transport secretary?

* No new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage

OK.

* Increased target for share of energy from renewable sources

As long as it takes the wider view and isn't a few windmills to appease
the tree shaggers.


FAMILIES


* Tax break for married couples and civil partners (Lib Dems able to
abstain)

Seems fairer.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

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

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.


I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

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!

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

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.)

On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:04:58 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

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

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.


I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.


Yes, it's predictable. It happens every 12 hours, 25 minutes so it
predictably, but inconveniently, gets 50 minutes later every day.

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.

Not much use when demand peaks at the same times every day!

So for most of the time, not enough Watts, Tim. ;-)

On 13/05/10 13:29, 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.)

Going to London from Robertsbridge costs a bleeding fortune in the
morning. But last week, 2 adults, and one half fare to Hastings cost 8
quid in a nice comfortable Electrostar 375. Not as good a deal as yours!
But 8 quid for 2.5 people for both ways on a 25 minute journey is
definately in my band of "acceptable" - beats driving as I live on top
of the station

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On 13/05/10 13:32, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:04:58 +0100, Tim wrote:

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

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.


I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.


Yes, it's predictable. It happens every 12 hours, 25 minutes so it
predictably, but inconveniently, gets 50 minutes later every day.

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.

Not much use when demand peaks at the same times every day!

So for most of the time, not enough Watts, Tim. ;-)


Laugh? I nearly cracked a rib! ;-

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.

But, yes, I agree. Peak demand is the big problem. I notice in the
fuller "manifesto" they mention "smart grid" and "smart meters".
Anything to smooth the demand would be good. Although I do wonder who
can take advantage? Many people have ditched electric storage heating in
favour of gas. Haven't check the prices recently but I think gas is
still cheaper than Economy 7? Not to mention that topping up in the day
is cripplingly expensive (I should know, no gas CH yet).


--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:48:12 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:


Lets have a look at the "working manifesto" if you can call it that,
from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8677088.stm

snip

EDUCATION

snip

* New independent schools in state sector - "free schools" - to be set up

Maintained grammar schools again?

I'm all for that.

--
Frank Erskine

On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:42:45 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 13:32, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:04:58 +0100, Tim wrote:

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

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.


I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.


Yes, it's predictable. It happens every 12 hours, 25 minutes so it
predictably, but inconveniently, gets 50 minutes later every day.

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.

Not much use when demand peaks at the same times every day!

So for most of the time, not enough Watts, Tim. ;-)


Laugh? I nearly cracked a rib! ;-


Sorry, couldn't resist. I bet you heard it a million times before.


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.

But, yes, I agree. Peak demand is the big problem.


If there was a will to build more pumped storage schemes similar to
that at Dinorwig, tidal and wind power would become much more viable.
The trouble is, there is a lack of a strategic view, and the private
sector isn't going to build another Dinorwig of its own accord.


I notice in the
fuller "manifesto" they mention "smart grid" and "smart meters".
Anything to smooth the demand would be good. Although I do wonder who
can take advantage? Many people have ditched electric storage heating in
favour of gas. Haven't check the prices recently but I think gas is
still cheaper than Economy 7? Not to mention that topping up in the day
is cripplingly expensive (I should know, no gas CH yet).


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.

On 13/05/10 15:00, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:48:12 +0100, Tim wrote:

* New independent schools in state sector - "free schools" - to be set up

Maintained grammar schools again?

I'm all for that.


AOL Me too /AOL

Just wondered if that is what they actually meant...

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

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.

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.

On 13/05/2010 17:22, 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.

Not really, I agree with his main point, I was trying to correct what
appeared to be a misconception about Southampton's tides.

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.

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

On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:03:33 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 13/05/10 15:00, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:48:12 +0100, Tim wrote:

* New independent schools in state sector - "free schools" - to be set up

Maintained grammar schools again?

I'm all for that.


AOL Me too /AOL

Just wondered if that is what they actually meant...


I don't think it is, because both parties have a presumption against
selective schools, although many traditional Tories are still very
much in favour.

The schools local to me in Buckinghamshire are still selective.
Primary school pupils sit the 11+ exam to see which school they will
go to. What I find interesting is that, while it is no surprise that
Buckinghamshire's grammar schools have high academic standards, the
non-grammar schools still produce results that are significantly above
the national average for all schools.

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.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On 13/05/2010 15:02, Bruce wrote:
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.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...Commentary.pdf

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. Wind power is the most expensive option by far and cannot be
relied upon alone, to be able to supply demand constantly. No wind, no
power.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

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.

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

On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:44:28 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
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.

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.


Agree 100%. I'm sure that there will be some tidal power in the
future, and I agree that tidal stream generation is in many ways
preferable to the construction of massive barrages such as the one
that has been under consideration for the Severn Estuary. But it is
not likely to be a major contributor to the UK's electricity supply on
anything like the scale of wind power, for example.

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.

On 13/05/2010 20:24, 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?

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

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.

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:44:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:59:50 +0100, "Falco"
wrote:
Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from

You're wrong. The public spending cuts needed are of the order of
£60 billion to £70 billion per year for at least the next three years.

Labour wouldn't admit to it publicly, but Treasury documents show that
Alastair Darling had already planned cuts of £62 billion a year
starting from April 2011.

£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.

That's an average cut of £1000 a year per head of population.

Compare and contrast with the total debt of around £50,000 per head of
population. IIRC

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


Absolutely. And most of the spending was not value for money. NHS
spending more than doubled yet the resulting increase in output
(patient treatments) was only 17%. Most of the money went on large
pay increases and the employment of an army of administrators with no
prior knowledge of health care.


Anyone can claim they invested money in a night out with a prostitute.
But it isn't investment, because there is no pay back.

It does however 'create jobs' for ladies of the night...


Interesting analogy. ;-)


Investment that really does create jobs that generate real wealth is
money spent on things like nuclear power stations, tax relief for export
manufacturing, education that actually teaches people how to think, and
solve problems and do something useful, and the like.


I's agree with all of that except nuclear power stations. Nuclear
generated electricity is the most expensive form of power generation,
costing even more than wind power which has to be very heavily
subsidised. Nuclear doesn't generate wealth, it consumes it.


No, its cost competitive with anything else and 3-10 times cheaper than
wind.

Typical CANDU figures based on a 40 years span and reasonable interest
rates and 15% decommissioning are about 2-4p a Kwh. Depending on the
profit/interest rate.



The LibDems are opposed to nuclear power. The Tories are opposed to
subsidising it. The generating companies want hefty government
subsidies as in France and other countries, or they won't build new
nuclear stations.

No, they don't. They want a guarantee that the policies wont be changed
to suddenly make it impossible to run them, as they did in Germany. Or
they wont get saddled by ridiculous standards of decommissioning.

Nuclear power is highly competitive and should be very profitable, in a
boring long term sort of way. IF its not handicapped by totally
unrealistic demands about how its operated and how the power stations
are finally shut down.

We are already critically dependent on imported gas
and the Tories proposed to build more gas fired stations to fill the
energy gap Labour has created. Where do we go from here?

Settle on a set of rules for nuclear, argue the case for coal, make the
decision and then step back and let private investment build the things.

And stop subsidising windmills. Or subsidise nuclear to the same extent.

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!

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

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!

On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:43:21 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:
On 13/05/2010 20:24, 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!

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

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.


I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.

Nice idea, but ahem, a drop in the ocean....Ok I'll get my coat..but it
is really nowhere near enough.

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:42:45 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 13:32, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:04:58 +0100, Tim wrote:

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

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.

I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.

Yes, it's predictable. It happens every 12 hours, 25 minutes so it
predictably, but inconveniently, gets 50 minutes later every day.

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.

Not much use when demand peaks at the same times every day!

So for most of the time, not enough Watts, Tim. ;-)

Laugh? I nearly cracked a rib! ;-


Sorry, couldn't resist. I bet you heard it a million times before.


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.

But, yes, I agree. Peak demand is the big problem.


If there was a will to build more pumped storage schemes similar to
that at Dinorwig, tidal and wind power would become much more viable.
The trouble is, there is a lack of a strategic view, and the private
sector isn't going to build another Dinorwig of its own accord.


2 points, its not will, its suitable places.

And a pumped storage to back up a power station DOUBLES the amount of
generating capacity you have to build. I.e. a 1GW station with 1GW of
backup is 2Gw of overall generating capacity. And a very fat cable
joining them.

Dinorwig is useful, because it copes with short term peak to mean
fluctuations..allowing demand ripples to not result in supply ripples.,
It doesn't need to be very big to do that, and means that you can save a
power station somewhere that would otherwise be running at low
efficiency locked in and ready to take load.

But as backup for serious amounts of wind power? forget it. As I said.
loch Ness 1000 feet deep and 300GW of turbine capacity would keep the
country - the whole total country, all its energy needs, running for 48
hours.

Imagine emptying a 1000 foot deep loch Ness in 48 hours. That's what the
countries energy needs are.

Now look at the pretty windmills..turning slowly in the breeze..and wet
yourself laughing.


I notice in the
fuller "manifesto" they mention "smart grid" and "smart meters".
Anything to smooth the demand would be good. Although I do wonder who
can take advantage? Many people have ditched electric storage heating in
favour of gas. Haven't check the prices recently but I think gas is
still cheaper than Economy 7? Not to mention that topping up in the day
is cripplingly expensive (I should know, no gas CH yet).


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.


Its not,m but its a convenient lie for its detractors.

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 13/05/2010 15:02, Bruce wrote:
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.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...Commentary.pdf

Dont confuse him with facts.

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".

;-|

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.