In article , SteveW steve@walker-
family.me.uk scribeth thus
On 11/08/2013 12:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 10/08/2013 20:02, polygonum wrote:
That would tend to make the battery-carrying impact even more on the
stop-start/short range electric car than the fuel weight on long journeys.

In the stop-start scenario they can (and do!) use regenerative braking -
recharge the battery with the motors instead of throwing the energy
away. That's what they are really good at - that and not having a
tickover burning fuel even when sitting still.

Many have got used to having either heating or cooling working when the
car is stationary. Indeed, AC is perhaps most needed in start stop traffic
on a hot day.

Indeed. I suffer from urticaria

Bugger that!. I get that sometimes and when it starts its away in just a
few minutes and the itching!! thats like nothing on earth, usually a
half a packet of Piriton nowadays is needed to stop it!.

Sure hate to be stuck in traffic without a pack of them onboard!...

and at times, when getting hot start
itching unbearably. There were suggestions a while ago of fining drivers
for sitting with their engines running - which I would have had a real
problem with!

SteveW


--
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:47:47 +0100, SteveW wrote:

And your job will no longer be possible in that form.
The only reason you do it is because it's possible.

No, because it is necessary. The work I do is specialised. There will be
a demand for it. There will never be enough qualified and experienced
people living in easy reach of companies specialising in it and site
visits will always be a necessity.

Agreed, like my job. But then I don't think Harry has a television
but the same applies to a fair bit of radio output as well.

There are a few broadcast camera and sound people in the Newcastle
area but no where near enough to crew the test match at
Chester-le-Street. And TBH I doubt many of the local camera operators
have that much cricket experience. It's not easy following the action
at the tight end of a big zoom lens when the angle of view is less
than half the width of your little finger at arms length.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 8/11/2013 4:39 PM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , SteveW steve@walker-

Indeed. I suffer from urticaria

Bugger that!. I get that sometimes and when it starts its away in just a
few minutes and the itching!! thats like nothing on earth, usually a
half a packet of Piriton nowadays is needed to stop it!.

Sure hate to be stuck in traffic without a pack of them onboard!...


I've found that a diphenhydramine gel or spray, can help make it more
bearable.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:13:08 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth wrote:

No, but it's very simple to level a punitive rate if tax for consumption
in excess of a given limit. Say we decide that the maximum permitted per
household is 300 kWh per month ...

In summer that is about 15 days average use. In winter about 4 days.
It's only 40 odd days at our the minimum overnight load of 300W.

That would sort out both excessive users[1] and electric car owners[1].

Is 20 kWHr/day (excluding space heating) excessive? We have no gas.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:13:58 +0100, SteveW wrote:

My wife is very good in that respect, four and a half-hour journeys are
no problem.

I tend to need a wee before then, depending on how much coffee was
consumed before leaving...

However when she was pregnant journeys consisted of stopping at each and
every motorway services!

I let them have that, squished bladder then some little bleeder kicks
it...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Bill Wright wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

What about people who have trees outside stopping the light getting in?
A saw. Silly answer.

Those who live in the ludicrous houses built with tiny windows a few
decades back? The disabled who have to charge their mobility equipment
and stairlifts? Those who have to have an oxygen generator running 24/7?
Those who have to tumble dry because they haven't got a backyard? Those
with poor sight who need a bright light to read by? Those in dodgy areas
where they have to have CCTV and door security? The housebound who rely
on the TV for company? Those with large families? Those with large houses?
Perhaps you can't read? A base allowance of 300kWh covers those uses.
No, that allowance would be given to everybody. So those people I mention
above would be discriminated against when their extra needs took them
over the threshold. Or alternatively, they would be discriminated against
because they would have to economise in other uses of electricity to
allow for their special needs.

Try not to be so hysterically ludicrous. The categories you mentioned are
rationed by electricity price already and there's no evidence that they use
more electricity than average.

If you made leccy cost £1 per kWh I for one would be running a genny.
That's fine. Fuel would also be taxed at such a rate as to make that the
painful option.
So absolutely no vehicles on the road then, except electric? Would you
tax gas at that rate, as used for domestic cooking and heating?

No I'd just tax stupidity. Your bill would be enormous.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"harryagain" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

[snip]

Well yes. But it's impossible to tax electricity specifically for road
use. It can't be 'marked' in the same way as heating oil etc is to
differentiate that from road fuel.

No, but it's very simple to level a punitive rate if tax for consumption
in
excess of a given limit. Say we decide that the maximum permitted per
household is 300 kWh per month and anything over that is taxed at 98p/kWH.
That would sort out both excessive users[1] and electric car owners[1].

If an electric car owner can reduce use of domestic electricity to
compensate for their use in a car good luck to them.

[1] Same thing.


All you need to get round that is a PV panel.
Most sensible people will have one in the near future.

Jings but you're dumber than a ****ing rock. When the working person gets
home, how many hours of daylight before morning?

I notice that as usual with you, you have just slimed away from your
ludicrous claims about fuel and battery weight.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Steve Firth wrote:


Try not to be so hysterically ludicrous.
It's the time of the month dear.

The categories you mentioned are
rationed by electricity price already and there's no evidence that they use
more electricity than average.
Obviously if someone has extra reasons to use electric they will tend to
use more.


If you made leccy cost £1 per kWh I for one would be running a genny.
That's fine. Fuel would also be taxed at such a rate as to make that the
painful option.
So absolutely no vehicles on the road then, except electric? Would you
tax gas at that rate, as used for domestic cooking and heating?

No I'd just tax stupidity. Your bill would be enormous.
That's a pathetic ad hominem attack that reveals your inability to
sustain further argument.

Incidentally your willingness to tax everything is a symptom of a
sickness called socialism.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:

What about people who have trees outside stopping the light getting in?

A saw.
Silly answer.


Those who live in the ludicrous houses built with tiny windows a few
decades back? The disabled who have to charge their mobility equipment
and stairlifts? Those who have to have an oxygen generator running 24/7?
Those who have to tumble dry because they haven't got a backyard? Those
with poor sight who need a bright light to read by? Those in dodgy areas
where they have to have CCTV and door security? The housebound who rely
on the TV for company? Those with large families? Those with large
houses?

Perhaps you can't read? A base allowance of 300kWh covers those uses.
No, that allowance would be given to everybody. So those people I mention
above would be discriminated against when their extra needs took them over
the threshold. Or alternatively, they would be discriminated against
because they would have to economise in other uses of electricity to allow
for their special needs.


If you made leccy cost £1 per kWh I for one would be running a genny.

That's fine. Fuel would also be taxed at such a rate as to make that the
painful option.
So absolutely no vehicles on the road then, except electric? Would you tax
gas at that rate, as used for domestic cooking and heating?


There's always going to be larger trucks. They would be hard to electricfy.
I think more stuff would be carried by train & locally transshipped.

Maybe even canals would be used more.

Probably cars would be only for the wealthy.
It's hard to see how millions of cars could be near simultaneously charged.

Quality of life is going to fall, too many people about and the era of cheap
fossil fuel is almost over..
Already happening when you think about it.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"harryagain" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

[snip]

Well yes. But it's impossible to tax electricity specifically for road
use. It can't be 'marked' in the same way as heating oil etc is to
differentiate that from road fuel.

No, but it's very simple to level a punitive rate if tax for consumption
in
excess of a given limit. Say we decide that the maximum permitted per
household is 300 kWh per month and anything over that is taxed at
98p/kWH.
That would sort out both excessive users[1] and electric car owners[1].

If an electric car owner can reduce use of domestic electricity to
compensate for their use in a car good luck to them.

[1] Same thing.


All you need to get round that is a PV panel.
Most sensible people will have one in the near future.

Jings but you're dumber than a ****ing rock. When the working person gets
home, how many hours of daylight before morning?

I notice that as usual with you, you have just slimed away from your
ludicrous claims about fuel and battery weight.

Which ludirous claims were those?

I expect your grandad wanted to keep horses when the ICE engine appeared.

On 12/08/2013 06:26, harryagain wrote:
....
I expect your grandad wanted to keep horses when the ICE engine appeared.

The ICE motor car was a relative late comer, with both steam and
electric automobiles pre-dating it.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Incidentally your willingness to tax everything is a symptom of a
sickness called socialism.

I thought the discussion was how the revenue raised at the moment by
petrol and diesel taxes would be *replaced* if and when electric cars
become the norm.

--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

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

"harryagain" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"harryagain" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

[snip]

Well yes. But it's impossible to tax electricity specifically for road
use. It can't be 'marked' in the same way as heating oil etc is to
differentiate that from road fuel.

No, but it's very simple to level a punitive rate if tax for consumption
in
excess of a given limit. Say we decide that the maximum permitted per
household is 300 kWh per month and anything over that is taxed at
98p/kWH.
That would sort out both excessive users[1] and electric car owners[1].

If an electric car owner can reduce use of domestic electricity to
compensate for their use in a car good luck to them.

[1] Same thing.


All you need to get round that is a PV panel.
Most sensible people will have one in the near future.

Jings but you're dumber than a ****ing rock. When the working person gets
home, how many hours of daylight before morning?

I notice that as usual with you, you have just slimed away from your
ludicrous claims about fuel and battery weight.

Which ludirous claims were those?

They were ludicrous claims harry, not ludirous.

You remember, your series of ludicrous claims made over the last two days.
You blabbed that fuel is heavy and forgot that batteries are ten time
heavier. You claimed that there's not much difference in weight between a
car that runs on fuel and one that runs on batteries when in truth the car
running on batteries can be twice the weight.

As usual you lie and weasel.

I expect your grandad wanted to keep horses when the ICE engine appeared.

I expect your grandfather looked into your cot and said "I don't know what
that is, put it out of its misery."

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Bill Wright wrote:
[snip]

Incidentally your willingness to tax everything is a symptom of a
sickness called socialism.

Perhaps you can show where I have proposed taxing *everything*?

And then you can reflect on your stupidity in making such a claim.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 11/08/13 14:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
polygonum wrote:
On 11/08/2013 12:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Not having a car (for whatever reason) never stopped me getting to
work.
If none of your friends, neighbours or colleagues could help out (as
their vehicles are also mostly discharged) and any public transport was
many times over-loaded already, it can be very difficult.
If it's very overloaded it means plenty are managing to get around without
a car. And would it be better to arrive at work slightly late - owing to
not understanding the PT system than not at all? Although you could of
course simply leave more time for the journey.

I have failed to get to work through lack of a suitable vehicle in the
prevailing circumstances.
Not sure I'd be happy living somewhere which such total reliance on a car
is essential.

cars per se are not essential. But people who transport the food you eat
into the towns you live in, that no longer have railways near them - and
that's quite a lot - are. Also are the people who take te goods from the
putative railways and get them to your local shops and even your door.

Likewise the man who drives up an a van full of bits to fix the
water/electricity/sewage/gas/ whatever that you need to stay alive.

Without motorised transport, the half life of a modern city is about 4
days: In a month most people would simply be dead. And the rest would be
cannibals.





--
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 11/08/13 15:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Not having a car (for whatever reason) never stopped me getting to
work.

But you didn't live in a rural area with poor/no public transport and
the nearest work 20 miles away.
I'd have an alternative to the car in that situation.

But I thought you lived in a town? So just making up stories as usual?

Its quite extraordinary how narrow peoples views are. They think only of
themselves, their car, their workplace..and utterly ignore the fact that
all of these things depend on a lot of other people rushing around in
vehicles to ensure they themselves don't need one.



--
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 11/08/13 19:40, harryagain wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
That could cause chaos if there were a major overnight power cut in an
area with high electric car usage. Lots of people failing to get to
work, school, etc.
Says a lot of modern society if they'd fail to get to work or school
because their car won't go.

But that's how things are nowadays.
Not having a car (for whatever reason) never stopped me getting to work.

But you didn't live in a rural area with poor/no public transport and the
nearest work 20 miles away.

Bill
Country houses would revert to peasants and townies would live in towns.
I blame stamp duty.


No, townies would DIE in towns.



--
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 11/08/13 11:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 11/08/2013 01:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/13 15:36, Nightjar wrote:
On 10/08/2013 14:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/13 12:40, Nightjar wrote:
On 10/08/2013 11:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 09/08/2013 23:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
I doubt many people actually need a 600 mile range. Few would
drive that
distance without stopping - especially in the UK.


I bought the long range tank for my car specifically to give me a
better range than that for when I go touring in Europe. I won't
do it
non-stop, but I also don't have to buy fuel at motorway prices.

Where do you stop for the night? Not on a motorway, surely? So buy
your fuel there?

Precisely. With a 600+ mile range I can fill up at whatever town or
city
I stop in for the night.

Which means you are using only motorways when touring abroad?

My destinations are usually at least a couple of days' motorway
travel
away. Whether or not I use the car once there will depend upon the
destination. Places like Vienna or Berlin are best seen on foot or
using public transport. The Black Forest is somewhere to tour around.

Colin Bignell
Germany and Italy are less than a days drive.


That depends upon how many hours you want to spend on the road and
whether you keep to speed limits.

er not really. I clocked Tuscany to where I live. 600 miles.

12 hours max at 50mph average.

Far longer than I would choose to drive in one day and no allowance
for breaks. Even when I was young, my maximum was 3 x 3 hour driving
sessions with at least a 30 minute break between each.


My maximum drive was 23 hours 47 minutes Copenhagen to Cambridge via
Calais. 20 minutes doze at aachen, plus pee and coffee and refuelling
breaks as required. Breakfast on the ferry.

Sienna to cambridge well under 12 hours, though I did split the driving.

I generally reckon that Liege or Troyes are where I will stop for the
first night and anything further is going to need a second day's driving.

sheesh, I used to commute to Brussels.. weekly...non stop


Colin Bignell



--
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 11/08/13 11:34, Nightjar wrote:
On 11/08/2013 07:20, harryagain wrote:


Thorium is an alpha emitter. You could wrap it in thick plastic for
safe disposal.

but harry would claim...well almost any alarmist bolloxs if you did.

Colin Bignell



--
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 Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:34:47 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

You spend your holidays driving????
Boring.

B1257, A68, Llanberis Pass, Cat and Fiddle, Buttertubs Pass. Further afield
Stelvio and Transfagarasan. Not boring. Pure pleasure.

You need a more inspiring car Harry. Anything that makes a noise, burns
hydrocarbons and chucks out some CO2 would be a good start.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ubs-Pass-1.jpg


--

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:46:39 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

The optimum shape for a car has long ago been arrived at.


and it isn't this:

http://www.mitsubishiinthenews.com/w...MiEV-image.jpg

The Japs also appear to have nicked the design from something discarded by the
Brits two decades ago

http://www.aronline.co.uk/images/newmini_99.jpg

More info here
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars...pment-history/


Also that drag coeffiicent of 0.35* is appaling for a jelly mould boring box

* http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/i-miev/2012/features-specs.html

The Audi 100 of 1983 was 0.30, the Lotus Elite of 1958 a mere 0.29


--

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:55:10 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Incidentally what is the purpose behind buying a car and renting a
battery? Does that mean you can actually rent several batteries and leave
one at home while driving on the other one?
Or do they expect them to pack up so early they need to keep renewing
them, a bit like 1970s Colour TVs?


It's so the up front cost of the car is reduced.
An inducement to buy.

They are massively expensive and universally have **** poor performance.

They could waterboard me and I wouldn't have one.


--

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:02:01 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:13:08 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth wrote:

No, but it's very simple to level a punitive rate if tax for consumption
in excess of a given limit. Say we decide that the maximum permitted per
household is 300 kWh per month ...

In summer that is about 15 days average use. In winter about 4 days.
It's only 40 odd days at our the minimum overnight load of 300W.

That would sort out both excessive users[1] and electric car owners[1].

Is 20 kWHr/day (excluding space heating) excessive? We have no gas.

It seems a bit low to me, 300kWh / month is almost exactly our usage. That's
pure domestic load, no space heating, no electric cars, no lights left on, no
telly the size of a football pitch, no dishwasher.


--

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/13 15:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Not having a car (for whatever reason) never stopped me getting to
work.

But you didn't live in a rural area with poor/no public transport and
the nearest work 20 miles away.
I'd have an alternative to the car in that situation.

But I thought you lived in a town? So just making up stories as usual?

Its quite extraordinary how narrow peoples views are. They think only of
themselves, their car, their workplace..and utterly ignore the fact that
all of these things depend on a lot of other people rushing around in
vehicles to ensure they themselves don't need one.

It's quite extraordinary how narrow some people's views are. That if their
car breaks down they have no option but to stay at home and keep the kids
away from school.

--
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

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

Steve Firth wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
[snip]

Incidentally your willingness to tax everything is a symptom of a
sickness called socialism.

Perhaps you can show where I have proposed taxing *everything*?

You have displayed a general mindset in favour of taxation.


And then you can reflect on your stupidity in making such a claim.
Why are you always saying other people are stupid?

As one of my kids once said to her twin, "I might be stupid but I'm not
so stupid that I don't know I'm stupid, so I don't need you to tell me."

Bill

harryagain wrote:

Quality of life is going to fall,
That's what the environmentalists crave, because they are against
prosperity and progress. And capitalism of course. Years ago we had
various ****-for-brains groups including the CND lot, the Socialist
Workers Party, the hippies, the veggies, etc et bloody cetra. Now
they've found a common umbrella movement, environmentalism. Shooting
would be too good for 'em in my opinion.

too many people about and the era of cheap
fossil fuel is almost over..
Only because of greeny pressure. There's 200 years' worth of coal here
in Yorkshire.

Bill

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's quite extraordinary how narrow some people's views are. That if their
car breaks down they have no option but to stay at home and keep the kids
away from school.

That's the actual situation for many in rural areas.

Bill

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's quite extraordinary how narrow some people's views are. That if
their car breaks down they have no option but to stay at home and keep
the kids away from school.

That's the actual situation for many in rural areas.

Not denying that. However, what percentage of the population does it apply
to? 1% - or less?

Seems to me some on here can't see beyond the end of their probably
extensive driveway in the middle of nowhere. And seem to think everything
should be designed for them.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

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

On 11/08/13 12:28, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

er not really. I clocked Tuscany to where I live. 600 miles.

12 hours max at 50mph average.

Far longer than I would choose to drive in one day and no allowance
for breaks. Even when I was young, my maximum was 3 x 3 hour driving
sessions with at least a 30 minute break between each.

There's this ridiculous macho thing about driving on and on all day
long. It's daft.

Bill
we were not commenting on the advisability, but on the possibility.


--
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 12/08/2013 11:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/13 11:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 11/08/2013 01:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
12 hours max at 50mph average.

Far longer than I would choose to drive in one day and no allowance
for breaks. Even when I was young, my maximum was 3 x 3 hour driving
sessions with at least a 30 minute break between each.


My maximum drive was 23 hours 47 minutes Copenhagen to Cambridge via
Calais. 20 minutes doze at aachen, plus pee and coffee and refuelling
breaks as required. Breakfast on the ferry.

That you did it does not make it a safe practice. To be safe, RoSPA
recommends no more than 2 continuously hours at the wheel, followed by a
break of at least 20 minutes (3 hours / 30 minutes was the
recommendation when regularly drove long distances) and avoid driving
between 2:00am and 6:00am and again after lunch.

Sienna to cambridge well under 12 hours, though I did split the driving.

I generally reckon that Liege or Troyes are where I will stop for the
first night and anything further is going to need a second day's driving.

sheesh, I used to commute to Brussels.. weekly...non stop

I pass Brussels on the way to Liege.

Colin Bignell

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/13 15:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Not having a car (for whatever reason) never stopped me getting to
work.

But you didn't live in a rural area with poor/no public transport and
the nearest work 20 miles away.
I'd have an alternative to the car in that situation.

But I thought you lived in a town? So just making up stories as usual?

Its quite extraordinary how narrow peoples views are. They think only of
themselves, their car, their workplace..and utterly ignore the fact that
all of these things depend on a lot of other people rushing around in
vehicles to ensure they themselves don't need one.

It's quite extraordinary how narrow some people's views are. That if their
car breaks down they have no option but to stay at home and keep the kids
away from school.


Oh no, if my car breaks down I hire another car. Anything else would be a
severe PITA. The local bus service doesn't get into the city until 0930 for
example.

PT is ****e.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

The Other Mike wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:02:01 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:13:08 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth wrote:

No, but it's very simple to level a punitive rate if tax for consumption
in excess of a given limit. Say we decide that the maximum permitted per
household is 300 kWh per month ...

In summer that is about 15 days average use. In winter about 4 days.
It's only 40 odd days at our the minimum overnight load of 300W.

That would sort out both excessive users[1] and electric car owners[1].

Is 20 kWHr/day (excluding space heating) excessive? We have no gas.

It seems a bit low to me, 300kWh / month is almost exactly our usage. That's
pure domestic load, no space heating, no electric cars, no lights left on, no
telly the size of a football pitch, no dishwasher.

I chose it because its quoted as the national average and it's a lot higher
than my usage.

I don't mind if the rest of you get shafted.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Bill Wright wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
[snip]
Incidentally your willingness to tax everything is a symptom of a
sickness called socialism.
Perhaps you can show where I have proposed taxing *everything*?

You have displayed a general mindset in favour of taxation.

Thank you for your admission that you were telling a lie.

And then you can reflect on your stupidity in making such a claim.
Why are you always saying other people are stupid?

Why are people so stupid?

As one of my kids once said to her twin, "I might be stupid but I'm not
so stupid that I don't know I'm stupid, so I don't need you to tell me."

Ah, it's genetic is it?

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
It's quite extraordinary how narrow some people's views are. That if
their car breaks down they have no option but to stay at home and keep
the kids away from school.


Oh no, if my car breaks down I hire another car. Anything else would be
a severe PITA. The local bus service doesn't get into the city until
0930 for example.

The point I was trying to drag from some would be that arriving a little
late is better than simply not trying?

--
*My dog can lick anyone

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

On Monday, 12 August 2013 14:13:28 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

Bill Wright wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:



It's quite extraordinary how narrow some people's views are. That if

their car breaks down they have no option but to stay at home and keep

the kids away from school.



That's the actual situation for many in rural areas.



Not denying that. However, what percentage of the population does it apply

to? 1% - or less?



Seems to me some on here can't see beyond the end of their probably

extensive driveway in the middle of nowhere. And seem to think everything

should be designed for them.



--

*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wal...e_Cure_song%29

On Monday, 12 August 2013 14:24:43 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/13 12:28, Bill Wright wrote:

Nightjar wrote:



er not really. I clocked Tuscany to where I live. 600 miles.



12 hours max at 50mph average.



Far longer than I would choose to drive in one day and no allowance

for breaks. Even when I was young, my maximum was 3 x 3 hour driving

sessions with at least a 30 minute break between each.



There's this ridiculous macho thing about driving on and on all day

long. It's daft.



Bill

we were not commenting on the advisability, but on the possibility.

I know of a couple that drive to cornwall and share the journey.
They just stop, sometimes have a break and swap over.
They can't be the only ones to have thought of this method to dribve long distances.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 11/08/2013 19:25, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 11/08/2013 06:59, harryagain wrote:
...
Or a plane if it wasn't.

I've given up flying if it is possible to drive there instead. It was
different when I could fly myself, but airports are simply too much
hassle
these days.

Colin Bignell

You don't have to go to the big ones.
There are some that are free.
Eg many gliding clubs.

I was never happy with fewer than two engines. I also don't know of any
gliding clubs that fly from airports, rather than airfields, which would
make international travel a bit problematic.

Colin Bignell

Nothing wrong with airfields. Gliders or otherwise.
All you have to do is telephone in advance and you can land at most of them
for free.
Most also have fuel (Avgas.)

Or even fields.
I have landed in hundreds.
There is a list somewhere of farmers who have private airfields you can use.

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:34:47 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:

You spend your holidays driving????
Boring.

B1257, A68, Llanberis Pass, Cat and Fiddle, Buttertubs Pass. Further
afield
Stelvio and Transfagarasan. Not boring. Pure pleasure.

You need a more inspiring car Harry. Anything that makes a noise, burns
hydrocarbons and chucks out some CO2 would be a good start.

I had a car like this one I built myself.
http://www.ngownersclub.org.uk/NG-TD.html
It had a 3.5litre V8 enegine

I have driven across the Andes several times.
Also in the desert and the jungle.
But not in the NG.

Got bored with driving and took up flying (Gliders).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ubs-Pass-1.jpg


--

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:46:39 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:

The optimum shape for a car has long ago been arrived at.


and it isn't this:

http://www.mitsubishiinthenews.com/w...MiEV-image.jpg

The Japs also appear to have nicked the design from something discarded by
the
Brits two decades ago

http://www.aronline.co.uk/images/newmini_99.jpg

More info here
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars...pment-history/


Also that drag coeffiicent of 0.35* is appaling for a jelly mould boring
box

* http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/i-miev/2012/features-specs.html

The Audi 100 of 1983 was 0.30, the Lotus Elite of 1958 a mere 0.29


It's not nicked.
As I have said it is the optimum shape for a car for all things (as well as
aerodynamic drag.)
That's why tey are all the same shape.

And the Euroboxes are the same shape.

On 12/08/2013 15:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
It's quite extraordinary how narrow some people's views are. That if
their car breaks down they have no option but to stay at home and keep
the kids away from school.


Oh no, if my car breaks down I hire another car. Anything else would be
a severe PITA. The local bus service doesn't get into the city until
0930 for example.

The point I was trying to drag from some would be that arriving a little
late is better than simply not trying?

A very simplistic PoV.

When I last could not get to work, I did what I could from home. That
probably achieved between half and three-quarters of my usual work. Had
I spent hours getting to work - and allowed similar for the return
journey - I might not have managed anything!

--
Rod