harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 9:53 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, tony sayer wrote:
Harry...
Do you think that we'll have enough ground area to put all the solar
panels that will be needed if that idea might have a chance to work?..
[snip harry's evasion]

So we'll take that as a "No", then.

You put them on the roofs so taking up no additional space and
dispersing them thus reducing the load on the grid and improving
efficiency

And causing massive peak flows in an out of various areas thus ruining
efficiency.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sep 20, 10:53*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..

Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the purchase
price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out. Solar panels
failing with time, exactly the same.

I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out." It is a one off cost. The energy it produces
becomes increasingly valuable as time goes by..
This is what renewable means, Don't you understand that? It's simple
enough.
If I bought a petrol generator,I would have to buy petrol forever more.

On Sep 20, 10:53*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:





On Sep 19, 12:37 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:

[snip]

If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis.
I can charge it from my solar panels.

Excellent idea you can charge it overnight. Oh, hang on.

I take it that you never read the blog of the guy who converted a
Bedford Rascal to LiIon cells and a custom wound electric motor? Even
he admitted that on solar it would take a week to charge.

--
•DarWin|
* *_/ * *_/
In Summer I could charge it in a day from the PV.
Don't forget, it wouldn't be run to depletion anyway.
I don't use my car every day.

Which makes the high initial cost of an electric car even more stupid for
your circumstances.
You fall into the common trap of thinking fuel costs being the only one of
motoring. With low use they become the least significant, when running a
new vehicle.


It buys freedom. I don't have to worry about petrol costs ever again.

On Sep 20, 10:53*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a car?

Electricity. In terms of per passenger it will be cheaper than
personal transport.
From a mix of tecnologies. And before you ask,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_bus

On Sep 20, 11:04*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Nitric oxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Hydrogen sulphide. Carbon monoxide,
Carbon dioxide, Carbon particles, Ammonia, Sulphur dioxide, VOCs +
numerous unburned hydrocarbons. Even with a catalyser.

Catalytic convertor. Apart from carbon dioxide, many of these are lower
from a car exhaust than those present in the average town.


The "cat" actually creates pollutants that weren't previously present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyt...nted_reactions
So they are not the be all and end all.

On Sep 20, 11:39*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a car?
nuclear electricity of course.

Trolley busses.

Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

T^rams are slightly more efficient and only one overhead wire is
needed.

On Sep 20, 11:59*am, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The one that is left is Diesel particulates. Very nasty, very carcinogenic.

For Euro 5 compliant cars with a particulate filter, how much is the
volume of particulates reduced?

There are "cats" for diesel engines too now. Still beset with
technical problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyt...Diesel_engines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyt...gative_aspects

On Sep 20, 1:41*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/09/2012 07:42, harry wrote:

There are a lot of daft ****s here that can't get their heads out of
their arses.

Where "****" would be anyone that does not share your opinion I take it?

They are daft ****s because they pay for domestic fuel and I pay
nothing.

You pay nothing - but someone *is* paying.

Harry, out of interest, how do the numbers work out for your
installation if you took away the FiT payments?

In other words, lets say you can save the cost of purchase of any
electricity you use, and you can sell any surplus to the grid at
industry spot wholesale prices (i.e. significantly below retail, and
varying with time of day - so less during a sunny afternoon, but more on
a winter evening etc).

I have a suspicion that looked at like that, the numbers don't work -
however I would be happy to be proved wrong.

They rabbit on about combi- boilers and other unneccesary **** when
all you need is insulation.

Insulation is not great at heating water. It is also frequently not
economically feasible to fit enough of it to all properties.

I expect they are descendants of people who wanted to keep horse and
carts. (it'll never catch on syndrome)
The price of all fossil fuels will rocket. But not *renewable energy
which will come down.

Currently, most "renewable" energy (especially wind) is really just a
disguised vehicle for turning fossil fuels into electricity. Not
directly obviously, but the fuel costs are all embedded in there. Why
else do you suppose it is so expensive?

In twenty years you will be driving an electric car or nothing at all,
regardless of how the technology has progressed. You need to get used
to the idea.

Why not a man made diesel or a hydrogen powered car? Both are doable
with adequate electrical generation capability.

The vehicles themselves are not the real stumbling block. Right now we
don't have the generation capacity to support even a marginal shift to
electric road transportation.

So Drivel you see is a trendsetter. Even if he is mad.

We are in a transition period. Fossil fuels are goinf to become
ruinously expensive.
It is neccesary to get the alternative energies upand running before
this happens.

We can't wait for it to happen first,that will be too late.

So the new energy system has to be subsidised. The theory is that by
2020 parity in fuel costs will be achieved. After that renewable
energies will be cheaper.
And we need all the technolgies Wind, solar, wave, tide and gas to
fill the occasional gaps.
A new gas power station has just been opened in SW Wales for this very
purpose, 50% efficient and very flexible output.

The net financial benefit to me in my house including tax is £3500/
year.
This includes FIT and having no heating costs due to massive
insulation and solar thermal hot water.
This benefit will get to be more and more as heating cost rise. I will
stil pay nothing.
If I get an electric car, I will pay nothing for fuel for at least six
months/year.
So fuel poverty will never affect me.
I would think at least 30% of houses could be converted to Solar
Passive houses.
For people that have the wit to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive..._and_landscape

My house is insulated to beyond this standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive...uperinsulation

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:53 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..
Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the purchase
price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out. Solar panels
failing with time, exactly the same.

I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out."

It runs out every single night harry,.

It is a one off cost. The energy it produces
becomes increasingly valuable as time goes by..

Not really. It will always be more expensive than nuclear power so in a
world where nuclear power exists it will be worthless - or only worth
about 1/4 as much as nuclear power because it is so inflexible.


This is what renewable means, Don't you understand that? It's simple
enough.

No, I dont know what renewable means. Since physics tells us that the
universe itself does not renew.

As far as I can tell its a term used by marketing suits to con money out
of total ****s,.

And I think they caught one.


If I bought a petrol generator,I would have to buy petrol forever more.

Even you wont live that long harry,.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:

It buys freedom. I don't have to worry about petrol costs ever again.
I dont worry about em now
I drive a diesel.

But you SHOULD worry about diesel and petrol prices harry, because they
will affect the cost of every single thing you buty.

Same as the money you THINK you are saving on solar sunsidies, is
actually getting taken from you twice over in terms of rising costs of
everything else you buy.


You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you harry?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:

Note, no allowance is made for depreciation, repairs or inflation.


As I said, not the brightest bulb in the box.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article
,
harry wrote:
Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the
purchase price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out.
Solar panels failing with time, exactly the same.

I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out." It is a one off cost.

It will runs out when it fails. As everything does.

The energy it produces
becomes increasingly valuable as time goes by..

Without the subsidies, not a good return on capital.

This is what renewable means, Don't you understand that? It's simple
enough.

I understand what renewable means. You obviously have no understanding of
economics.


If I bought a petrol generator,I would have to buy petrol forever more.

Why would you want to generate your own electricity from a generator? No
mains where you live?

If solar generation were cost effective every single new building would be
fitted with it.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

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

harry wrote:

Carbon particles can give you cancer.

That's utter and complete ****.

In article
,
harry wrote:
Catalytic convertor. Apart from carbon dioxide, many of these are lower
from a car exhaust than those present in the average town.


The "cat" actually creates pollutants that weren't previously present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyt...nted_reactions
So they are not the be all and end all.

Only with poor quality petrol which isn't imported into this country.

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

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

On Sep 20, 7:12*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
It buys freedom. I don't have to worry about petrol costs ever again.

I dont worry about em now
I drive a diesel.

But you SHOULD worry about diesel and petrol prices harry, because they
will affect the cost of every single thing you buty.

Same as the money you THINK you are saving on solar sunsidies, is
actually getting taken from you twice over in terms of rising costs of
everything else you buy.

You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you harry?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.


I will always be better off than people without it.
You should have gone for it while you had chance. That makes you
pretty dim.

On Sep 20, 7:09*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:53 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:
If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..
Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the purchase
price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out. Solar panels
failing with time, exactly the same.

I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out."

It runs out every single night harry,.

* It is a one off cost. *The energy it produces

becomes increasingly valuable as time goes by..

Not really. It will always be more expensive than nuclear power so in a
world where nuclear power exists it will be worthless - or only worth
about 1/4 as much as nuclear power because it is so inflexible.

This is what renewable means, Don't you understand that? It's simple
enough.

No, I dont know what renewable means. Since physics tells us that the
universe itself does not renew.

My you ARE pretty thick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:09 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:53 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..
Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the purchase
price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out. Solar panels
failing with time, exactly the same.
I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out."
It runs out every single night harry,.

It is a one off cost. The energy it produces

becomes increasingly valuable as time goes by..
Not really. It will always be more expensive than nuclear power so in a
world where nuclear power exists it will be worthless - or only worth
about 1/4 as much as nuclear power because it is so inflexible.

This is what renewable means, Don't you understand that? It's simple
enough.
No, I dont know what renewable means. Since physics tells us that the
universe itself does not renew.

My you ARE pretty thick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

well it starts off by rewriting the laws of physics. so its obviously
written by Renewable UK or a shill thereof.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:12 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
It buys freedom. I don't have to worry about petrol costs ever again.
I dont worry about em now
I drive a diesel.

But you SHOULD worry about diesel and petrol prices harry, because they
will affect the cost of every single thing you buty.

Same as the money you THINK you are saving on solar sunsidies, is
actually getting taken from you twice over in terms of rising costs of
everything else you buy.

You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you harry?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.


I will always be better off than people without it.

No you wont. Not when you are quids out of pocket, and you cant sell
your house because the FIT has gone and its a worthless eyesore.

You should have gone for it while you had chance. That makes you
pretty dim.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sep 20, 7:09*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:53 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:
If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..
Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the purchase
price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out. Solar panels
failing with time, exactly the same.

I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out."

It runs out every single night harry,.

* It is a one off cost. *The energy it produces

becomes increasingly valuable as time goes by..

Not really. It will always be more expensive than nuclear power so in a
world where nuclear power exists it will be worthless - or only worth
about 1/4 as much as nuclear power because it is so inflexible.

This is what renewable means, Don't you understand that? It's simple
enough.

No, I dont know what renewable means. Since physics tells us that the
universe itself does not renew.

As far as I can tell its a term used by marketing suits to con money out
of total ****s,.

And I think they caught one.

If I bought a petrol generator,I would have to buy petrol forever more.

Even you wont live that long harry,.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There will be no leap to nuclear power. No-one knows the cost because
the waste problem has yet to be solved in the UK or anywhere else
The Germans and the Japs have sensibly turned away from it.
No-one want nuclear waste buried under their house.
Nobody has a succesful site operastional.

You might want to read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...ertai n_sites

On Sep 20, 7:23*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the
purchase price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out.
Solar panels failing with time, exactly the same.
I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out." It is a one off cost.

It will runs out when it fails. As everything does.

The petrol tank can fail,they often do.
I can buy a new part cheaper than replacing a petrol tank.
And I don't need to buy dangerous petrol.

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:09 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:53 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..
Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the purchase
price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out. Solar panels
failing with time, exactly the same.
I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out."
It runs out every single night harry,.

It is a one off cost. The energy it produces

becomes increasingly valuable as time goes by..
Not really. It will always be more expensive than nuclear power so in a
world where nuclear power exists it will be worthless - or only worth
about 1/4 as much as nuclear power because it is so inflexible.

This is what renewable means, Don't you understand that? It's simple
enough.
No, I dont know what renewable means. Since physics tells us that the
universe itself does not renew.

As far as I can tell its a term used by marketing suits to con money out
of total ****s,.

And I think they caught one.

If I bought a petrol generator,I would have to buy petrol forever more.
Even you wont live that long harry,.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There will be no leap to nuclear power. No-one knows the cost because
the waste problem has yet to be solved in the UK or anywhere else
The Germans and the Japs have sensibly turned away from it.
No-one want nuclear waste buried under their house.
Nobody has a succesful site operastional.


I'm very happy to have nuclear waste buried under my house.

Let's face it... planet earth is made of nuclear waste.

Mind you, Id like to watch you and others like you living - at least
for the few weeks you would survive - in a world with only what you
wrongly call 'renewable' energy.



You might want to read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...ertai n_sites


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:23 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the
purchase price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out.
Solar panels failing with time, exactly the same.
I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out." It is a one off cost.
It will runs out when it fails. As everything does.

The petrol tank can fail,they often do.
I can buy a new part cheaper than replacing a petrol tank.
And I don't need to buy dangerous petrol.
So you bought toxic solar panels instead, and highly dangerous batteries.

What a Wankel.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:

If I bought a petrol generator,I would have to buy petrol forever more.

No you wouldn't. It will burn alcohol, which can be made easily from
plant material, or synthesised hydrocarbons made by using carbon
dioxide, water and nuclear energy.

If desperate, you could split water using solar energy, and perform the
minor conversion to let the engine run on hydrogen.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/09/2012 17:56, harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 9:51 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,





harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:48 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/09/2012 17:19, Doctor Drivel wrote:

John Williamson wrote:

It does with the Ampera

Only by using the fossil fuel engine to keep the battery charged. In
which case, why not just use a simpler internal combustion engined
vehicle?

You are very slow. As the name implies, "hybrid". Full EV in cities
and when you go long distance occasionally the car runs on the genny
and still gets 60mpg.

And I can get 70mpg on a run in a number of small cars

The Ampera is NOT small. Again dumbo, it runs on zero emissions in the
city where we do not need harmful, toxic emissions. For the long range

So what harmful toxic emissions come out of conventional modern cars then?

Nitric oxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Hydrogen sulphide. Carbon monoxide,
Carbon dioxide, Carbon particles, Ammonia, Sulphur dioxide, VOCs +
numerous unburned hydrocarbons. Even with a catalyser.

CO2 is not toxic and neither are the "carbon particles" or the "numerous
unburned hydrocarbons".

You should really learn what the word "toxic" means. Cyanide,
f'rinstance *is* toxic.


Carbon particles can give you cancer. And CO2 does not support life
the last I heard.

Tell that to a plant...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/09/2012 09:51, Tim Streater wrote:
CO2 is not toxic and neither are the "carbon particles" or the "numerous
unburned hydrocarbons".

CO2 most definitely is toxic. (Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent). And the carbon particles in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic.

Andy

On 20/09/2012 18:01, Tim Streater wrote:
I can drown in water, doesn't make it toxic.

Tell that to Leah Betts.

Andy

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
has an automatic gearbox

The Prius does not have a gearbox.

Please explain how the drive from the engine gets to the wheels
without a gearbox.

I have explained that you in the past. Unfortunately you are too dumb to
understand.

Sadly

You are Correction, you are too senile to understand.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:

and the Prius is even less economical than BMW M3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=badoMjA_rW0

Total ********.

But true.

Total ******** - you are known to be senile.

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:23:32 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:

and the Prius is even less economical than BMW M3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=badoMjA_rW0

Total ********.

The camera never lies. Not only will you look a dork driving a Prius you
are
simultaneously trashing the planet.

A Prius is cool. Propaganda about energy to make it. Daily Mail garbage.
The Prius is now old hat technology - you never knew that.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/09/2012 17:19, Doctor Drivel wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

It does with the Ampera

Only by using the fossil fuel engine to keep the battery charged. In
which case, why not just use a simpler internal combustion engined
vehicle?

You are very slow. As the name implies, "hybrid". Full EV in cities
and when you go long distance occasionally the car runs on the genny
and still gets 60mpg.

And I can get 70mpg on a run in a number of small cars

The Ampera is NOT small. Again dumbo, it runs on zero emissions in the
city where we do not need harmful, toxic emissions. For the long range

So what harmful toxic emissions come out of conventional modern cars then?

This dumb Chav again.

in the country the IC genny cuts in running at a more efficient constant
speed.

Possibly helps make up for all the extra weight they are carrying and the
extra beneficences of the multiple conversions required.

Conversions? Boy is he dumb.

Daft idea... build the nukes, then use the electricity to make synthetic
liquid fuel. Anything else is just ****ing in the wind.

This proves the man is mad.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/09/2012 19:24, Doctor Drivel wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

BFD. 60mpg is what I got anyway Canterbury to Durham with a couple
of overnight stops earlier this year, in a 2008 dizzle C4.

Totally irrelevant comment

Completely pertinent comment. You're trying to tout 60mpg as something
special when it is not.

For that size of car it is. And it is smooooooooth and quiet and emits
far less crap into the air..

What CO2 and H2O...?

Chav, it emits far less crap into the air.

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:30:33 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:37:57 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:

Yeah - what sports car did he claim to have too ?

DB5 or other exotic?

That I do have.

and it's made by Dinky

They were in Liverpool. This one bigger and made in Newport Pagnell.

Purchased at Newport Pagnell services, from the toy section.

IT seems you are familiar with this mythical section.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/09/2012 11:30, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:37:57 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:

Yeah - what sports car did he claim to have too ?

DB5 or other exotic?

That I do have.

and it's made by Dinky - do they allow metal objects in your secure
facility?

Its probably like the one I have - there is a button to push on the side
that makes the little plastic man fly out of the ejector seat ;-)

Chav do you still have one?

So to RELIABLY make a trip of 30 miles there, and 30 miles back EVERY
DAY harry will meed 800 sq meters of panels. And of course, that's Â*only
if he travels at night and charges by day.

The cost will be a little bit shy of a million quid.

Of course in summer he will simply throw the power away, because there
is no way he can use it.

In summer he might generate 80 times as much.

When no one needs it or wants it.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are a bloody half wit. A range of renewable technolgies are
needed. Solar is just the Summer one.

Well suggest some workable reliable ones then Harry, and don't bother
with Solar I've been working outside all this week and the amount of
sunshine.. Well wouldn't power a dolls house let alone the few delivery
lorries we've had here...

And the wind .. lets ignore that so whats left?..

--
Tony Sayer

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:39:09 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Carrying capacity? Our newest 'Bumblebee' 5-section trams can take up to
240 people.

Depends. Smaller trains with greater frequencies is generally better.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a
car?

nuclear electricity of course.

Trolley busses.

Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Trams make traffic jams. A waste of time in many cases. Manchester try
to pass off Metrolink as rapid-transit. What a joke! Rapid transit has
to be grade segregated.

for 95% of the route it is

Rapid it is not.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:39:09 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh,
are putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley
busses? Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Carrying capacity? Our newest 'Bumblebee' 5-section trams can take up to
240 people.

Course your city has to have been built from scratch with trams in mind,
or if old to have wide boulevards. Most of which doesn't apply in the UK.

Liverpool's boulevards were built to take trams in the centres. The city's
tram network was the by far the biggest.

Trolley busses don't, of course, have the limitations that trams have.

It is like talking to children. Trolleybuses are silly the regularly run off
the wires. Wires are expensive and ugly. Supercap buses have eclipsed trams
and trolleybuses.

"Alan Braggins" wrote in message
...

One answer is a hybrid, running on electric power in the conditions most
likely to soot up the filter.

But a bad answer. The best answer is not have a diesel in the first place.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/09/2012 12:30, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:39:09 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Carrying capacity? Our newest 'Bumblebee' 5-section trams can take up to
240 people.

If one painted out the route - with nice easy rail like curves and corners
etc, how many people would you carry in similar length (or half length and
double decker) electric road train?

Like a bendy bus.

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:11:58 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 19/09/2012 13:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The Wankle engine - same as other two stroke designs - suffers from
poor 'cylinder' filling and evacuation.

Dunno what this "Wankle" engine is

It's a contraction of 'wank hole', I think, which explains why drivel
knows so much about it.

wank, wankel, .......oh so witty.