Adrian wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:05:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

There's not many more blinkered than you here.

Oh, the irony.

Class, innit.

--
Terry Fields

harryagain wrote:


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

making electricity from PV as a commercial exercise is a stupid game to be
playing. PV is the option of last resort for locations where it's that or
nothing.

Exactly. Nothing may be what we have in the future.
The clothheads are planning that right now.

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.

ITYM "The cost of renewables is crippling and always will be".

Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

Infrastructure to carry loads is expensive compared to infrastucture
to maintain balance.

--
Terry Fields

On 19/01/2014 18:01, harryagain wrote:

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.

Same as any other fuel... all you need is a way to get your hands on it
and use it.

Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need so
much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Nightjar wrote:

Not many houses will take a 4kWp array on a single roof, although a
bungalow may well do.

I've never considered my 70s semi particularly large, and managed
to accommodate an array of 3,64 kWp. I think that you may be
underestimating actual roof sizes.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 20/01/2014 07:53, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

Not many houses will take a 4kWp array on a single roof, although a
bungalow may well do.

I've never considered my 70s semi particularly large, and managed
to accommodate an array of 3,64 kWp. I think that you may be
underestimating actual roof sizes.

That is based upon the dimensions of three different houses I have lived
in or owned and for which I have drawings. Only one - a five bedroom
house - would have been able to take a full 4kWp array on a single roof.

Colin Bignell

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 19/01/2014 17:55, harryagain wrote:
"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 16:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
...
The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free
roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding
cost
less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An
ideal
roof,
to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody
who
says yes.

You dozy old bugger.
They are not selling solar panels.
The householdpays nothing. (Until they want to sell their house that
is.)
They are looking for free sites where they can generate maximum
income
for
themselves.
ie the FIT payment.
The householder only gets free electricity.
So they are only going to be wanting ideal sites.

They are going to want any site where they can persuade the gullible
to
let them put up panels.

what's gullible about accepting such an offer

If you weren't thinking of having panels to keep the FIT for yourself
what have you lost?

The gullible bit is:-
"What happens when you want to sell the house?"

so what happens when you do want to sell the house


Usually you have to buy the installation at an inflated price.
(All in the fine print.)

So be very sure to read it before signing up.



Then you will find out its about retail prorata for the remaining years.
Do you have any evidence the prices are inflated?

I know someone it happened to.
It was not a good deal for them (the house owner/seller)

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote:

Not many houses will take a 4kWp array on a single roof, although a
bungalow may well do.

I've never considered my 70s semi particularly large, and managed
to accommodate an array of 3,64 kWp. I think that you may be
underestimating actual roof sizes.

In general bungalows have a larger footprint than a 2 storey house, hence a
larger roof.
Helps if the roof is gabled (ie none hipped). Also chimneys can be a
problem.

I could have got around 6Kwp on mine but made no economic sense of course to
go above 4Kwp.

It was a stupid way to band the charges, it should have been on amount
generated rather size of installation.

In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote:

Not many houses will take a 4kWp array on a single roof, although a
bungalow may well do.

I've never considered my 70s semi particularly large, and managed to
accommodate an array of 3,64 kWp. I think that you may be
underestimating actual roof sizes.

In general bungalows have a larger footprint than a 2 storey house, hence
a larger roof. Helps if the roof is gabled (ie none hipped). Also
chimneys can be a problem.

does it? my gable end faces south.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/01/2014 18:01, harryagain wrote:

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.

Same as any other fuel... all you need is a way to get your hands on it
and use it.

Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need so
much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.


In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being zero
cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see
the
advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

--
Terry Fields


Unsafe and polluting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:05:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

There's not many more blinkered than you here.

Oh, the irony.

If it were viable, it would be being done.
And it isn't.
End of story.

Except we are piling up the nuclear waste with not a clue how to deal with
it.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 19/01/2014 18:10, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

A 4KWp array covers my electricity needs including the (electric) car.
I export a lot in Summer and import in Winter

So basically you're using the National Grid as an energy storage
device.

And the FIT payment would cover my electricty bill by a factor of four.

wow

You must have a very wasteful and inefficient house.

And yours is probably less efficient than you think, bearing in mind
the above.

(Oh you said it was uninsulated and heated by electricity.)
You must be mental.

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

It works very well.
As you obviously don't have one, how would you know?


You don't need to own one to know that they are limited in range and speed
or that they take a long time to recharge. My car can do up to 800 miles
on a full tank, can cruise the autobahn at 145mph (130mph on the winter
tyres I have on now) and can refuel in a few minutes. It would suit the
needs of a lot more people than an electric car would.

Colin Bignell

You are full of drivel as usual.
When did you last drive 800 miles at 145mph?
Oh you went to Tesco yesterday.

Such a car is only owned by weak minded attention seeking nobodies.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 19/01/2014 11:45, Capitol wrote:
The bit I haven't understood is why a roofing company hasn't come
up with a solar panel roof? Or have they? I can't see the case for
drilling holes to install panels on top of roof tiles/slates.

They shouldn't drill holes.
They have brackets that go under the tiles/slates and then attach to
channels that hold the panels.


True for concrete interlocking tiles.

Plain tiles and slatres have to be cut.
Then they have to fit lead soakers or expensive gadgets that replace the
tiles.

The hole drilling virtually guarantees a leak.

On 20/01/2014 09:18, harryagain wrote:
"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote:

Not many houses will take a 4kWp array on a single roof, although a
bungalow may well do.

I've never considered my 70s semi particularly large, and managed
to accommodate an array of 3,64 kWp. I think that you may be
underestimating actual roof sizes.

In general bungalows have a larger footprint than a 2 storey house, hence a
larger roof.
Helps if the roof is gabled (ie none hipped). Also chimneys can be a
problem.

I could have got around 6Kwp on mine but made no economic sense of course to
go above 4Kwp.

It was a stupid way to band the charges, it should have been on amount
generated rather size of installation.

Size of array is easier to administer. It is an absolute figure that is
fixed at the time of installation.

Colin Bignell

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:33:11 +0000, harryagain wrote:

You don't need to own one to know that they are limited in range and
speed or that they take a long time to recharge. My car can do up to
800 miles on a full tank, can cruise the autobahn at 145mph (130mph on
the winter tyres I have on now) and can refuel in a few minutes. It
would suit the needs of a lot more people than an electric car would.

You are full of drivel as usual.
When did you last drive 800 miles at 145mph?

When did you last drive a sixth of that distance at half that speed?

Oh, wait. You quite simply _can't_, without serious fannying and delay...

Your i-Miev couldn't even do the day out I had yesterday.

On 20/01/2014 09:33, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

You don't need to own one to know that they are limited in range and speed
or that they take a long time to recharge. My car can do up to 800 miles
on a full tank, can cruise the autobahn at 145mph (130mph on the winter
tyres I have on now) and can refuel in a few minutes. It would suit the
needs of a lot more people than an electric car would.

You are full of drivel as usual.
When did you last drive 800 miles at 145mph?

I didn't claim that both were possible at the same time, any more than I
would expect an electric car to be able to achieve both maximum range
and maximum speed together. However, a trip of several hundred miles
mostly at continental motorway speeds would not be unusual. I need a car
that can do that comfortably and safely, with reasonable fuel economy
and a fair load carrying capacity. No electric car is going to give me
that. They might be suitable as second cars, to go shopping, but they
are noticeable by their absence from any of the reserved parking spaces
in local car parks, so perhaps not many people think that.

Colin Bignell

On 19/01/2014 10:47, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see
the advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

Only it's not cheap.
The taxpayer is paying/will have to pay forever the cost of storing
nuclear
waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty government.

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed for
the task.


Fiction.

http://transatomicpower.com/products.php




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 20/01/2014 09:25, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see
the
advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

--
Terry Fields


Unsafe and polluting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you also
get waste pile of thorium...




--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , Terry Fields
scribeth thus
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

It works very well.

Within its limited range, limited speed, limited accesories, long
charge times and *hugely* expensive replacement batteries.

As you obviously don't have one, how would you know?

I don't need one to know about their shortcomings.


And they won't be really viable until the prime power problem is fixed
and that doesn't look like happening anytime soon;(...

As good as electric transmission is even!...
--
Tony Sayer

John Rumm wrote:

On 19/01/2014 10:47, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed for
the task.

Fiction.

http://transatomicpower.com/products.php

harry's gone quiet again.

--
Terry Fields

harryagain wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need so
much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.

In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being zero
cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

The fuel might be free, but recovering the energy from renewables
results in the most expensive form of generation known.

--
Terry Fields

On 20/01/14 13:56, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Terry Fields
scribeth thus
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

It works very well.

Within its limited range, limited speed, limited accesories, long
charge times and *hugely* expensive replacement batteries.

As you obviously don't have one, how would you know?

I don't need one to know about their shortcomings.


And they won't be really viable until the prime power problem is fixed
and that doesn't look like happening anytime soon;(...

As good as electric transmission is even!...

lithium AIR batteries have te right sort of energy density IN THE LAB to
make a car range of 800 miles and even make a sort of twin otter style
electric aeroplane possible.

BUT they don't exist in safe reliable cheap production quantities or any
of the above.

Yet.

top speed will never be an issue with batteries. You can easily have a
140mph electric car, if you don't mind it only having a 10 mile range.



--
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.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

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

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

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

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 16:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
...
The salesman is going round looking for South facing, shadow free
roofs.
I expect he will also be attracted to bungalows as scaffolding cost
less.
Concrete tiled roofs will also be attractive.

They are the current equivalent of double glazing salesmen. An ideal
roof,
to them, is one without panels on it and they will sell to anybody
who
says yes.

You dozy old bugger.
They are not selling solar panels.
The householdpays nothing. (Until they want to sell their house that
is.)
They are looking for free sites where they can generate maximum
income for
themselves.
ie the FIT payment.
The householder only gets free electricity.
So they are only going to be wanting ideal sites.

They are going to want any site where they can persuade the gullible
to let them put up panels.

what's gullible about accepting such an offer

If you weren't thinking of having panels to keep the FIT for yourself
what have you lost?

The gullible bit is:-
"What happens when you want to sell the house?"

so what happens when you do want to sell the house


Usually you have to buy the installation at an inflated price.
(All in the fine print.)

So be very sure to read it before signing up.

as I said

UTCCA applies here

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/01/2014 11:31, tim...... wrote:

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...
If you weren't thinking of having panels to keep the FIT for yourself
what have you lost?

The gullible bit is:-
"What happens when you want to sell the house?"

so what happens when you do want to sell the house

In effect, you are leasing your roof to the company supplying and fitting
the PV panels, and lenders are generally unwilling to mortgage encumbered
properties.

I think that's an overstated risk

They might be reluctant when only 1% of properties have them, but when 10%
do they aren't going to be able to be so picky

tim

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

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

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

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


You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

No they weren't

All our power industries have governemt subsidies.

but we don't need to subsidise this one

making electricity from PV as a commercial exercise is a stupid game to
be playing. PV is the option of last resort for locations where it's
that or nothing.

Exactly. Nothing may be what we have in the future.
The clothheads are planning that right now.

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.
Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

Of all the renewables, PV is by far the easiest to fit in a hurry, if we
ever get to the point of needing to

Tthey have a limited useful lifetime. Fitting them now in case we need them
in 25 years is not helping

tim

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/01/2014 18:01, harryagain wrote:

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.

Same as any other fuel... all you need is a way to get your hands on it
and use it.

Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need so
much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.


In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being zero
cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

I'm inclined to agree with you

but we are nowhere near that point yet

tim

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 09:18, harryagain wrote:
"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote:

Not many houses will take a 4kWp array on a single roof, although a
bungalow may well do.

I've never considered my 70s semi particularly large, and managed
to accommodate an array of 3,64 kWp. I think that you may be
underestimating actual roof sizes.

In general bungalows have a larger footprint than a 2 storey house, hence
a
larger roof.
Helps if the roof is gabled (ie none hipped). Also chimneys can be a
problem.

I could have got around 6Kwp on mine but made no economic sense of course
to
go above 4Kwp.

It was a stupid way to band the charges, it should have been on amount
generated rather size of installation.

Size of array is easier to administer. It is an absolute figure that is
fixed at the time of installation.


Makes little difference since the amount generated varies accoding to
position and weather.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote:

Not many houses will take a 4kWp array on a single roof, although a
bungalow may well do.

I've never considered my 70s semi particularly large, and managed to
accommodate an array of 3,64 kWp. I think that you may be
underestimating actual roof sizes.

In general bungalows have a larger footprint than a 2 storey house, hence
a larger roof. Helps if the roof is gabled (ie none hipped). Also
chimneys can be a problem.

does it? my gable end faces south.

Well your roof is them facing East an West which would give a lesser return.
Also shading then becomes even more of an issue

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need so
much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.

In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being
zero
cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

The fuel might be free, but recovering the energy from renewables
results in the most expensive form of generation known.

At the moment.
But not in the future.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Terry Fields
wrote:

harryagain wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need
so much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.

In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being
zero cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

The fuel might be free, but recovering the energy from renewables
results in the most expensive form of generation known.

Just confirms what we've known all along: harry can't do sums.

And you have your head up your arse.

On 20/01/2014 19:00, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 09:18, harryagain wrote:
"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote:

Not many houses will take a 4kWp array on a single roof, although a
bungalow may well do.

I've never considered my 70s semi particularly large, and managed
to accommodate an array of 3,64 kWp. I think that you may be
underestimating actual roof sizes.

In general bungalows have a larger footprint than a 2 storey house, hence
a
larger roof.
Helps if the roof is gabled (ie none hipped). Also chimneys can be a
problem.

I could have got around 6Kwp on mine but made no economic sense of course
to
go above 4Kwp.

It was a stupid way to band the charges, it should have been on amount
generated rather size of installation.

Size of array is easier to administer. It is an absolute figure that is
fixed at the time of installation.


Makes little difference since the amount generated varies accoding to
position and weather.


IOW the amount generated can vary, but the size of the array does not.
As I said, it is easier to administer.

Colin Bignell

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:05:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

There's not many more blinkered than you here.

Oh, the irony.

If it were viable, it would be being done.
And it isn't.
End of story.

Except we are piling up the nuclear waste with not a clue how to deal
with it.

You really are a ****ing liar harry. You've been told many times that:

1) such waste can be glassified
2) this is being done now
3) it has been being done for 20 years

The difficulty is then what to do with the glass, due to the FUD put
about by liars like you that the material might "leak out" of any
repository it's put in.


Tell me what your experience is to define what is crap and what is not.
Aaah. You read the Daily Mail.


You might like to explain how radioactive material can "leak out" of
the glassy material.

In the meantime, while you try to think up some drivel in response, how
about ceasing to post cock on this ng. Yours in hope rather than
expectation.

Glassifying it is not dealing with the problem.
(Tell me where it is being glassified anyway.)
(Is it being done in the UK?
They still don't know what to do with it when it's been glassyfied..
All it does is it makes it harder to use in a "dirtybomb." They think.

No-one knows what happens to glass after 3,000 years never mind 500,000
years.

You really believe all the soothing crap the nuclear industry puts out.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/01/2014 10:47, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could
see
the advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

Only it's not cheap.
The taxpayer is paying/will have to pay forever the cost of storing
nuclear
waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty government.

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed for
the task.


Fiction.

http://transatomicpower.com/products.php

Ve-ery interesting.
And where exactly is this wonderful device located?

Wel f***k me. Another pie-in-the-sky that doesn't exist.
More nuclear industry bull****.

You are very credulous.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/01/2014 09:25, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see
the
advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

--
Terry Fields


Unsafe and polluting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you also
get waste pile of thorium...

Neodymium is used for all manner of things, from PM motors to colouring
glass to fertilizer.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 09:33, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

You don't need to own one to know that they are limited in range and
speed
or that they take a long time to recharge. My car can do up to 800 miles
on a full tank, can cruise the autobahn at 145mph (130mph on the winter
tyres I have on now) and can refuel in a few minutes. It would suit the
needs of a lot more people than an electric car would.

You are full of drivel as usual.
When did you last drive 800 miles at 145mph?

I didn't claim that both were possible at the same time, any more than I
would expect an electric car to be able to achieve both maximum range and
maximum speed together. However, a trip of several hundred miles mostly at
continental motorway speeds would not be unusual. I need a car that can do
that comfortably and safely, with reasonable fuel economy and a fair load
carrying capacity. No electric car is going to give me that. They might be
suitable as second cars, to go shopping, but they are noticeable by their
absence from any of the reserved parking spaces in local car parks, so
perhaps not many people think that.

I have no need for such a car.
On the ocassion I go on along journey, I fly or take the train.
Just for holidays these days.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/14 13:56, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Terry Fields
scribeth thus
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

It works very well.

Within its limited range, limited speed, limited accesories, long
charge times and *hugely* expensive replacement batteries.

As you obviously don't have one, how would you know?

I don't need one to know about their shortcomings.


And they won't be really viable until the prime power problem is fixed
and that doesn't look like happening anytime soon;(...

As good as electric transmission is even!...

lithium AIR batteries have te right sort of energy density IN THE LAB to
make a car range of 800 miles and even make a sort of twin otter style
electric aeroplane possible.

BUT they don't exist in safe reliable cheap production quantities or any
of the above.

Yet.

top speed will never be an issue with batteries. You can easily have a
140mph electric car, if you don't mind it only having a 10 mile range.


The issue will always be charging them up if they were to become numerous.
It is early days yet.

I am a trendsetter.
Others will follow later.
Excepting some of the stick-in-the-muds here that can'tsee we are on the
verge of an energy revolution.
They think things can/will always carry on as before.
Well, it's not going to happen.
If you haven't taken precautions, you will be f***d .

On 20/01/2014 19:21, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:05:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

There's not many more blinkered than you here.

Oh, the irony.

If it were viable, it would be being done.
And it isn't.
End of story.

Except we are piling up the nuclear waste with not a clue how to deal
with it.

You really are a ****ing liar harry. You've been told many times that:

1) such waste can be glassified
2) this is being done now
3) it has been being done for 20 years

The difficulty is then what to do with the glass, due to the FUD put
about by liars like you that the material might "leak out" of any
repository it's put in.


Tell me what your experience is to define what is crap and what is not.
Aaah. You read the Daily Mail.


You might like to explain how radioactive material can "leak out" of
the glassy material.

In the meantime, while you try to think up some drivel in response, how
about ceasing to post cock on this ng. Yours in hope rather than
expectation.

Glassifying it is not dealing with the problem.
(Tell me where it is being glassified anyway.)
(Is it being done in the UK?
They still don't know what to do with it when it's been glassyfied..
All it does is it makes it harder to use in a "dirtybomb." They think.

No-one knows what happens to glass after 3,000 years never mind 500,000
years.

However *we* do know that its not very radioactive if it doesn't decay
in a few hundred years.

We also know the so called highly radioactive waste will have gone
through many half lives in 3000 years and won't exist at all in 500.000
years.

The main reason it isn't all being glassified is because that puts it
into a state that is difficult to reprocess and recover useful elements.
At one time that didn't matter but now it is considered worth doing
reprocessing.

That requires you to store it for a few decades to get rid of the worst
of the waste which isn't useful anyway.


You really believe all the soothing crap the nuclear industry puts out.



You don't believe facts at all.

On 20/01/2014 19:28, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/01/2014 10:47, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could
see
the advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

Only it's not cheap.
The taxpayer is paying/will have to pay forever the cost of storing
nuclear
waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty government.

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed for
the task.


Fiction.

http://transatomicpower.com/products.php

Ve-ery interesting.
And where exactly is this wonderful device located?

Wel f***k me. Another pie-in-the-sky that doesn't exist.
More nuclear industry bull****.

You are very credulous.


They have been reprocessing used fuel at Sellafield and other places for
many decades now. They extract plutonium and other radioactive isotopes
from used fuel rods and turn it into MOX fuel to be used in the 30
reactors that are currently using it in Europe, with another 20 licenced
to do so.

Transatomic are a spinoff from MIT, who have a good reputation for doing
good engineering. Bill Gates also has a startup doing work on recycling
nuclear fuel. The only new thing about Transatomic is that their reactor
should be able to use old fuel rods directly. They're hoping to get
round the current hysteria in the USA about reprocessing used fuel.

At least it will give predictable power 24/7.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/01/14 18:44, tim...... wrote:

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/01/2014 18:01, harryagain wrote:

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.

Same as any other fuel... all you need is a way to get your hands on
it and use it.

Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need
so much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.


In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being
zero cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

I'm inclined to agree with you


except he is of course wrong. All fuel is in the limit zero cost.


What costs money is what you have to do it to turn it into electricity
in this case,.

And in this case what you have to do is three times more than gas or
coal and 100- times less reliable. and about 50 times more impact on the
envoronment



but we are nowhere near that point yet

There will never be a point at which renewable technology will be
cheaper than fossil and nuclear.

tim






--
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 20/01/2014 19:35, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/01/2014 09:25, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could see
the
advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

--
Terry Fields


Unsafe and polluting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you also
get waste pile of thorium...

Neodymium is used for all manner of things, from PM motors to colouring
glass to fertilizer.


And the thorium by product can be used in reactors to generate more
power than the wind turbines ever will.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.