"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

Nothing is zero risk.

Some things are.

His house might have caught fire and the fire brigade refused to enter,
because of the solar panels.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

He might have failed to hear an electric car approaching and been run
over and killed before he had time to enjoy ripping off the rest of
society.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The risks of failure might be low, but they are never zero.

Wrong, as always.

I think that the low risk version of the fund would probably have
produced a similar return to the FIT, although I don't have actual
figures for that option.

But the risk would have been much higher even with that.

The risk is they break down and need repair.

That's not a risk to the return on the investment,
its just part of the cost of the investment.

Might be a problem getting matching panels now, they are 3.5 years old.

Sure, but that's just a nuisance if they don’t match.

The new panels all look less clunky then mine..
But everything is now much cheaper.
Also it's a bungalow so little scaffolding needed.

I have never heard of any breaking down.
Touch wood.

There must be a few that end up with hail damage etc.

My next door neighbour went mad with solar panels,
virtually covered his entire very substantial flat roofed
house with panels.

I did consider it myself but decided that our obscenely
generous gross feed in tariff of 60c/KWH even if you
use all the electricity yourself couldn’t last the absolutely
guaranteed change in govt. They did kill it when the
govt changed but then wimped out at the howls
of rage when they did that and reinstated it for
those who had got it before the govt change.

The whole thing was always up for review about
now and I expect they will pull the plug on it now.

Andy Burns wrote
harryagain wrote

http://youtu.be/4jKGQXH55fs

Does YouTube's suggestion list include an episode
of Steptoe & Son for anyone else after watching that?

Yeah, it did for me, hilarious.

On 19/08/2014 22:58, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 19/08/2014 22:10, Dennis@home wrote:
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html






You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near
that much and never have. You must waste a lot.

Yep. In a house with no double glazing, 100mm of loft insulation,
electric cooking, non-off peak electric water heating and direct
electric heating, I pay about £2,500 a year. The electricity company
keep trying to persuade me that is excessive.


That is more than double mine.
I use far more electricity than most people do too.
The fish tanks take about 10% of what I use.

Harry seems to forget what he has said in the past.
He said he didn't need to heat the place but he has had a heat pump
installed and a wood burner too.
I suppose they could be for decoration or maybe he is trying to get even
more payments from the RHI even though he doesn't need any heat.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"bert" ] wrote in message
news
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.

Why bother now that decent modern fertilizers are available now ?

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.

--
Colin Bignell

Hah, Drivel.
It was vitally neccesary that it all went back to where the oats came
from.

Bull****.

Total recycling.
Otherwise in a few years nothing would grow.

We did nothing like that with ours, essentially because
it was never going to be feasible to move it all back from
the city streets to where it was grown and it kept growing fine.

In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
news
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.


Horsehit as usual. Farms were self sufficient with manure. There weren't
the means to move it great distances.
--
bert

On 19/08/2014 19:32, harryagain wrote:
....
The fire brigades are well aware of how to deal with PV panels these days...

Yep - unless life is at risk, stay outside. The risk of live cables or
the panels falling though the roof is too great to risk the lives of
firemen, just to save property. In Germany, the insurance companies
won't even insure firemen who enter a burning building with solar panels
on the roof and they are experts at assessing risks.


--
Colin Bignell

On 19/08/2014 19:45, harryagain wrote:
"bert" ] wrote in message
news
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.


Not according to the London Transport Museum, which tells us they just
dumped it in the poor parts of the city:

'Fifty-thousand horses were required to keep Victorian London's public
transport running. According to one writer of the time, these horses ate
their way through a quarter of a million acres of foodstuff per year,
and deposited 1000 tonnes of dung on the roads every day. The disposal
of large quantities of horse droppings was a major problem. Dung could
make the roads hazardous and unpleasant when wet. Crossing sweepers made
meagre earnings clearing a path for pedestrians to cross and dung carts
collected and deposited droppings on vast dung heaps in the poorer parts
of town each day'

http://www.ltmcollection.org/resourc...A%20Overground

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:32, harryagain wrote:
...
The fire brigades are well aware of how to deal with PV panels these
days...

Yep - unless life is at risk, stay outside.

And they can't know if life is at risk without going inside most of the
time.

The risk of live cables or the panels falling though the roof is too great
to risk the lives of firemen, just to save property.

But they can still hose the place down from outside.

In Germany, the insurance companies won't even insure firemen who enter a
burning building with solar panels on the roof

More fool the krauts.

and they are experts at assessing risks.

Pigs arse they are. There is no more risk
than there is with a conventional tiled roof.

On 19/08/2014 19:17, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 10:25, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 18/08/2014 09:37, Tim Lamb wrote:

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT
payment....

£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much out
of the FIT.

I understand share price inflation over a long enough period has kept up
with property etc.

Indeed, but you can do quite a bit better than the stock market, if you
have a good spread of investments, take the long view and don't mind if
some of the investments don't work out too well.

I suspect the lack of dealing charges and zero risk would be more
attractive.

Harry's idea of investment seems to be putting money in a Building
Society, so he probably is in the risk averse category.

No, my idea is property. (And land)
Buy a wreck with a very obvious problem and fix the problem and do it up.
Up sizr when prices are down.
Downsize when prices are up.
Extend the small property.
All part time DIY of course.
And tax free.

Here is a propety that had a very obvious problem. No road and 3/4 mile from
the highway.
Google EarthNP4 8TT
There is now a road as you will see.
I knew for a source of free rock. So the road went in for around £1000
About two thousand tons of rock were needed.
I bought that house for £25,000 & sold it ten years later for nearly
£400,000
Probably spent another £5000 on it over the ten years./
So better than shares in the HSBC.
Quite right, risk free.
But a lot of work.

I have done five houses up.
First one cost £400. (Ooop North 1970.)
Retrospectively, I wasn't bold enough, I could easily have done twice as
good and been a millionaire.

I know a builder who did much the same. It is only tax free if the house
is your main place of residence, so you have to live in a wreck for a
while. When we costed out how much he could have charged for his time
doing similar work for other people and factored in the normal rise in
house prices, he had made a profit, but nowhere near as much as he
originally thought.


--
Colin Bignell

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 16/08/2014 08:35, harryagain wrote:

I used to own a farm ****-fer-brans.


Just out of interest, how much of it was done with horses, and how much
with fossil fuel?

I was never farmer though the wife had a few cows, geese etc.
She ran the place as a guest house.
A neighbour had the land for sheep.
It was a hill farm, I didn't even poss s a tractor.
Novices on tractors killed themselves round there.

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 21:14, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/08/2014 08:35, harryagain wrote:

I used to own a farm ****-fer-brans.


Just out of interest, how much of it was done with horses, and how much
with fossil fuel?

Andy

Haven't you seen a solar powered tractor? (Silly me, would be better to
use diesel for that and get the FIT.)

Tractors and trucks is what we need fossilfuels for not cars.
At least in the short term.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2014 20:29, Dennis@home wrote:
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have
increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made as much
out
of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

Nothing is zero risk.

Some things are.

His house might have caught fire and the fire brigade refused to enter,
because of the solar panels.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

He might have failed to hear an electric car approaching and been run
over and killed before he had time to enjoy ripping off the rest of
society.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The risks of failure might be low, but they are never zero.

Wrong, as always.

I think that the low risk version of the fund would probably have
produced a similar return to the FIT, although I don't have actual
figures for that option.

But the risk would have been much higher even with that.

The risk is they break down and need repair.

That's not a risk to the return on the investment,
its just part of the cost of the investment.

Might be a problem getting matching panels now, they are 3.5 years old.

Sure, but that's just a nuisance if they don’t match.

The new panels all look less clunky then mine..
But everything is now much cheaper.
Also it's a bungalow so little scaffolding needed.

I have never heard of any breaking down.
Touch wood.

There must be a few that end up with hail damage etc.


Very rare we get hail big enough to cause that amount of damage in the UK

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:32, harryagain wrote:
...
The fire brigades are well aware of how to deal with PV panels these
days...

Yep - unless life is at risk, stay outside. The risk of live cables or the
panels falling though the roof is too great to risk the lives of firemen,
just to save property. In Germany, the insurance companies won't even
insure firemen who enter a burning building with solar panels on the roof
and they are experts at assessing risks.

Bollix.
I spoke to the local fire brigade, they were at our local fete.
The panels are nowhere near as heavy as the roof covering and would likely
remain there until the roof structure collapsed.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:32, harryagain wrote:
...
The fire brigades are well aware of how to deal with PV panels these
days...

Yep - unless life is at risk, stay outside.

And they can't know if life is at risk without going inside most of the
time.

The risk of live cables or the panels falling though the roof is too
great to risk the lives of firemen, just to save property.

But they can still hose the place down from outside.

In Germany, the insurance companies won't even insure firemen who enter a
burning building with solar panels on the roof

More fool the krauts.

and they are experts at assessing risks.

Pigs arse they are. There is no more risk
than there is with a conventional tiled roof.



For once all correct.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html




You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near that
much and never have. You must waste a lot.

You're not clever Den are you.

I use around 4000Kwh/year

But the saving includes some for the car.
And no gas bill,
And tax free.

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , harryagain
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
. ..
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 17/08/2014 17:38, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
I don't imagine Harry was seriously suggesting a return to horsepower
...

I sometimes wonder what Harry is seriously suggesting, as none of his
proposals are practical, except for a very few living with the support
of
a highly industrialised country that is not relying upon the technology
he
espouses. I can't help but feel that a lot of his postings are trying to
justify to himself having spent as much money as he did on his house.

It can be very hard admitting being wrong about something particularly
if
it involves close family.

Presumably Mrs. Harry had to be convinced that living in an insulated
but
ugly home was necessary to save the planet. Every argument which
questions
this position must be rubbished if sound reasoning is not available.

I can sympathise with the original PV investment on a purely commercial
basis: 15K spent, no intention to ever relocate, original FIT
payment....

You seem to have forgotten this is a DIY group.
My investment will have paid for itself in six years (four already gone.)
Energy price rises ensure it.

I haven't forgotten. The helpful price rises are coming from my
contribution to your FIT.

Too late now but selling off generating capacity was a huge mistake as was
the failure by succeeding govts. to promote nuclear generation. The CND
marchers of my youth are now 70+ and need reliable energy sources.


Selling off most public services was a mistake.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 18:37, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 17:38, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
I don't imagine Harry was seriously suggesting a return to horsepower
...

I sometimes wonder what Harry is seriously suggesting, as none of his
proposals are practical, except for a very few living with the support
of
a highly industrialised country that is not relying upon the technology
he
espouses. I can't help but feel that a lot of his postings are trying to
justify to himself having spent as much money as he did on his house.

How much money do think I spent?


According to your previous postings, in pure cash terms around £20k, of
which £14k was on the solar panels. However, not included in your costings
are the lost interest on that money, had you invested it elsewhere (£5,600
over four years in the HSBC scheme I have mentioned), nor the value of the
time and effort you invested in the project.

Some people/retards spend money down the gym/on golf. Yet another saving.

What interest these days? Doesn't even match inflation.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 17/08/2014 06:45, harryagain wrote:


Renewable energy is the only one no-one can take away from us.
Nuclear is far too expensive, dangerous, it's use is totally
irresponsible.



So why do you use nuclear power then harry?

I use nuclear fusion power.

On 20/08/2014 08:13, harryagain wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message

8

There must be a few that end up with hail damage etc.


Very rare we get hail big enough to cause that amount of damage in the UK



The climate is changing, how do you know we wont get such hail often
enough to wipe out the solar energy for the whole of the UK?

Its a good job we will have nukes to provide reliable energy.

On 20/08/2014 08:21, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:32, harryagain wrote:
...
The fire brigades are well aware of how to deal with PV panels these
days...

Yep - unless life is at risk, stay outside. The risk of live cables or the
panels falling though the roof is too great to risk the lives of firemen,
just to save property. In Germany, the insurance companies won't even
insure firemen who enter a burning building with solar panels on the roof
and they are experts at assessing risks.

Bollix.
I spoke to the local fire brigade, they were at our local fete.
The panels are nowhere near as heavy as the roof covering and would likely
remain there until the roof structure collapsed.

http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/uplo...5833ee5d86.pdf

--
Colin Bignell

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 19:55:05 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 06:45:29 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Renewable energy is the only one no-one can take away from us.
Nuclear is far too expensive, dangerous, it's use is totally
irresponsible.

Not as dangerous as farming Harry, that you say you were involved in.
Farming accounts for almost 1 in 5 deaths in the workplace and is
still the most dangerous profession to work in. Overall, 148 workers
were killed in the UK between April 2012 and March 2013.
Source:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/03/07/...n-says-hse.htm

I'm amazed you went anywhere near it, you seem so concerned with
dangerous industries. Very irresponsible of you!

I thought fishing was the most dangerous occupation.

That quote is from Farmers Weekly, who in turn were quoting Health and
Safety Executive figures. They should know. If the nuclear industry
was as bad as that there'd be uproar.

I lived on the farm but it was not my occupation. It was a nice place to
live.
NP4 8TT on Google maps/earth.

But you owned it Harry. You said so earlier in this thread. Which
means you made money out of it. Well would you believe it. Harry
making money out of an industry far more dangerous than the nuclear
industry, yet he has the brass neck to claim the nuclear industry is
dangerous. And I thought you were at least sincere in your beliefs,
even if misguided. Now I wouldn't be surprised to hear you have shares
EDF. You disappoint me Harry.

I lived there. The wife ran it as a guest house.
A neighbour used the land. We had an agreement.
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.

--
Colin Bignell

Hah, Drivel.
It was vitally neccesary that it all went back to where the oats came
from.

Bull****.

Total recycling.
Otherwise in a few years nothing would grow.

We did nothing like that with ours, essentially because
it was never going to be feasible to move it all back from
the city streets to where it was grown and it kept growing fine.

But Oz is just all desert.
Peopled by paedophiles with corks and crocodile teeth round their
hats!
Do you play the didgerydoo?

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:45, harryagain wrote:
It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.

Considerable quantities of seaweed have been used in coastal areas for
many centuries.

And inland?

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"bert" ] wrote in message
news
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.

Why bother now that decent modern fertilizers are available now ?

Clearly elementary horticulare is another thing you know nothing about.

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
news
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.


Horsehit as usual. Farms were self sufficient with manure. There weren't
the means to move it great distances.

Bollix.
Evrything that comes out of the ground has to be put back.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 14/08/2014 21:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 13/08/2014 13:09, Tim Streater wrote:
Which will still leave you with residual ripple.

Ripple on tides? Whatever next

More seriously though - one tidal system has a power output ranging
from 0% (at high or low tide; slack water) to 100% (mid tide, peak
flow)

Two out of phase add up nicely - I think if they are true sines you'll
get 70% of peak at worst.

They have to be exactly out of phase and the same amplitude, otherwise
you get residual ripple.

You _will_ get ripple. Of at least 30%.

But the fuel is free, you can always run them at partial power.

The problem with tidal is just that there aren't enough sites.

So another not very useful offering.

Tidal power is only a part of renewable energy resources.

On 20/08/2014 08:25, harryagain wrote:
....
But the saving includes some for the car.
....

ISTR that the savings you gave before would only apply if you had
previously been driving something like the 5 litre V8 Mercedes M Class I
used to run. To be realistic, you should compare the electric car to
something of similar size and discomfort.


--
Colin Bignell

On 20/08/2014 08:25, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.



He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html




You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near that
much and never have. You must waste a lot.

You're not clever Den are you.

I use around 4000Kwh/year

Which means that if you didn't have all your gubbins, you would have to
have spent about £4500 per year on energy for your house. Pull the other
one....

But the saving includes some for the car.
And no gas bill,
And tax free.


My *total* energy bills including all the petrol for the car and all the
diesel fuel for the boat are about £2500 per year.

I could possibly reduce them by abut £500 by getting rid of the Land
Rover and buying a G-Whiz, but I'd need to hire a van once a month or
so, or pay to get the coal and gas delivered which would eliminate
*that* saving quite quickly.

Unless you live in a mansion with no insulation, it would be quite hard
to spend more than £4000 on energy. When I lived in a reasonably
insulated house, I spent about £3000 p.a. and I wasn't trying to
economise. Then again, I wasn't ripping the rest of the country off
claiming a large FIT payment.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/08/2014 08:39, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 17/08/2014 06:45, harryagain wrote:


Renewable energy is the only one no-one can take away from us.
Nuclear is far too expensive, dangerous, it's use is totally
irresponsible.



So why do you use nuclear power then harry?

I use nuclear fusion power.


With Fission as a backup for when that fails. And you also burn coal,
oil and gas as a backup for that every night.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/08/2014 08:38, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 18:37, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 17:38, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
I don't imagine Harry was seriously suggesting a return to horsepower
...

I sometimes wonder what Harry is seriously suggesting, as none of his
proposals are practical, except for a very few living with the support
of
a highly industrialised country that is not relying upon the technology
he
espouses. I can't help but feel that a lot of his postings are trying to
justify to himself having spent as much money as he did on his house.

How much money do think I spent?


According to your previous postings, in pure cash terms around £20k, of
which £14k was on the solar panels. However, not included in your costings
are the lost interest on that money, had you invested it elsewhere (£5,600
over four years in the HSBC scheme I have mentioned), nor the value of the
time and effort you invested in the project.

Some people/retards spend money down the gym/on golf. Yet another saving.

What interest these days? Doesn't even match inflation.

Inflation has been more than 51.91% over the five years to 30th April
2014? News to me.


--
Colin Bignell

On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.


And before they worked out that the radiation from betalights was
negligible unless you ate one.

I poked a geiger counter at one when I was at school. Nothing more than
normal background radiation was shown until the counter was almost
touching the unit. If you're worried about radiation, don't eat bananas.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 21:14, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/08/2014 08:35, harryagain wrote:

I used to own a farm ****-fer-brans.


Just out of interest, how much of it was done with horses, and how much
with fossil fuel?

Andy

Haven't you seen a solar powered tractor? (Silly me, would be better to
use diesel for that and get the FIT.)

Tractors and trucks is what we need fossilfuels for not cars.

Bull****.

At least in the short term.

Still bull****.

On 20/08/2014 10:42, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic
and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.


And before they worked out that the radiation from betalights was
negligible unless you ate one.

I poked a geiger counter at one when I was at school. Nothing more than
normal background radiation was shown until the counter was almost
touching the unit. If you're worried about radiation, don't eat bananas.

.... or Brazil nuts.

--
Colin Bignell

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 20/08/2014 08:13, harryagain wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message

8

There must be a few that end up with hail damage etc.


Very rare we get hail big enough to cause that amount of damage in the UK



The climate is changing,

**** all in that regard.

how do you know we wont get such hail often enough to wipe out the solar
energy for the whole of the UK?

Because it hasn’t happened, and wont.

Its a good job we will have nukes to provide reliable energy.

And the frogs have a hell of a lot more of that.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:21, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:32, harryagain wrote:
...
The fire brigades are well aware of how to deal with PV panels these
days...

Yep - unless life is at risk, stay outside. The risk of live cables or
the
panels falling though the roof is too great to risk the lives of
firemen,
just to save property. In Germany, the insurance companies won't even
insure firemen who enter a burning building with solar panels on the
roof
and they are experts at assessing risks.

Bollix.
I spoke to the local fire brigade, they were at our local fete.
The panels are nowhere near as heavy as the roof covering and would
likely
remain there until the roof structure collapsed.

http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/uplo...5833ee5d86.pdf

Just more utterly mindless silly stuff, most obviously
with the silly **** about what happens at night.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.

Bull****.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.

--
Colin Bignell

Hah, Drivel.
It was vitally neccesary that it all went back to where the oats came
from.

Bull****.

Total recycling.
Otherwise in a few years nothing would grow.

We did nothing like that with ours, essentially because
it was never going to be feasible to move it all back from
the city streets to where it was grown and it kept growing fine.

But Oz is just all desert.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"bert" ] wrote in message
news In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.

Why bother now that decent modern fertilizers are available now ?

Clearly elementary horticulare is another thing you know nothing about.

How odd that the commercial industry doesn’t either.