Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"harryagain" wrote in message ... "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 It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.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. Fact. Evrything that comes out of the ground has to be put back. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. |
#242
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
In message , harryagain
writes "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 It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.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. Another of your inane comments. -- bert |
#243
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/2014 10:47, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/08/2014 10:42, John Williamson wrote: On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote: 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. What is the Banana Equivalent Dose of a brazil nut? Don't bother, I'll look it up... 1.875. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#244
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
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 “For us, it has been a great success. Maybe we just got lucky. I expect energy bills to rise, so I think what we’ve done will pay dividends in future. Our energy consumption has come down to just under 7,000kWhrs a year.” Even 4000kw hr isn't as much as me. But the saving includes some for the car. So you swapped a big old car for a tiny electric car that you don't drive during the day as you are charging it with solar energy. You wouldn't want to charge it at night using base load nukes would you. You would have saved even more if you hadn't bought the electric car and had a Ka or similar. And no gas bill, Heat pump!, you have no mains gas. Hardly a saving on energy is it. And tax free. |
#245
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
8 I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. That would explain why NHS buildings are usually rated D/E on the energy performance ratings. There is only one grade worse and that is probably iron/steel works where they have no glass in the windows. |
#246
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
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. They aren't. |
#247
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/2014 08:54, harryagain wrote:
8 Bollix. Evrything that comes out of the ground has to be put back. Have fun putting the helium back. |
#248
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/14 17:27, Dennis@home 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. They aren't. quite the reverse. In fact. All the evidence from radiotherapy is that what counts is the peak exposure. In fact there is some very strong, though not conclusive, evidence that cells have tow halves to DNA for a reason. Parity check. If they don't match the cell dies. So up to a certain amount of damage, you don't have reproducible mutations (cancers). Below that threshold you have to be very very unlucky to get any mutations that survive at all. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll |
#249
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/2014 20:28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article om, "Dennis@home" wrote: On 20/08/2014 08:54, harryagain wrote: 8 Bollix. Evrything that comes out of the ground has to be put back. Have fun putting the helium back. and the radon. and the sulphur dioxide from volcanoes. And so on. They are possible, the helium has gone, it evaporates into space. |
#250
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote:
"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? You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient. Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible. Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of legumes. -- Rod |
#251
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/2014 21:53, polygonum wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote: "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? You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient. Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible. Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of legumes. One of the best general fertilizers is fish, blood and bone. -- Colin Bignell |
#252
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:07:16 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote: It wasn't limited to Britain. An estimated one million tons of shipping was saved in the year to March 1943 by growing supplies for the troops in the Middle East locally. This must have been so successful that even in 1946 troops returning from Burma were fattened up in Egypt because they would have strained resources at home. My late father didn't mention his time in Burma but did tell the story of being required, as a flight sergeant, to announce to the men they would not be returning straight home because the officers thought it best coming from one of the NCOs. AJH |
#253
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/14 21:53, polygonum wrote:
You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient. Which came first, the plant or the horse? I think Harry has finally lost it, big time.. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll |
#254
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/14 22:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/08/2014 21:53, polygonum wrote: On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote: "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? You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient. Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible. Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of legumes. One of the best general fertilizers is fish, blood and bone. I find mulching Greens is very good. Save the planet: Mulch your Greens! -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll |
#255
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
.... I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job. -- Colin Bignell |
#256
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 21/08/2014 08:01, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote: ... I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job. You do remember how the NHS worked in the past don't you? I'd have given those as the perfect qualifications for an NHS manager until fairly recently. ;-) -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#257
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 21/08/2014 09:03, John Williamson wrote:
On 21/08/2014 08:01, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote: On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote: ... I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job. You do remember how the NHS worked in the past don't you? I'd have given those as the perfect qualifications for an NHS manager until fairly recently. ;-) Possibly a little unfair. In several decades of supplying the NHS I met a few very competent people. Unfortunately, one of the best got her job through internal promotion, which, apparently, was not an approved route and her job had to be advertised externally. Her successor knew rather less about the job, but had better paper qualifications. -- Colin Bignell |
#258
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes On 20/08/14 22:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote: On 20/08/2014 21:53, polygonum wrote: On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote: "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? You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient. Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible. Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of legumes. One of the best general fertilizers is fish, blood and bone. I find mulching Greens is very good. Save the planet: Mulch your Greens! LOL -- bert |
#259
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message ... 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. Exactly so re the tax. Spare time hobby for me. |
#260
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"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, how do you know we wont get such hail often enough to wipe out the solar energy for the whole of the UK? Because SFB, hailstorms are local events associated with CuNim (thunder clouds). |
#261
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message ... 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. I have. |
#262
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... 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. Tch. I said BENEFIT. You neglect the income from the solar panels which is tax free and is paid whether you use it or not. Some of the 4000Kwh comes from the solar panels and hence is free. And I have zero gas bill. You're not good with money are you? And you live on a boat, a tenth the size of a house. I bet you have one of those little stove thingys too? With pictures of castles and roses painted on it? Paraffin lamps? I have seen a narrow boat with PV on the roof. |
#263
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... 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. A mix that needs to be changed. |
#264
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"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. Why does it neccessarily mean I ran it as a business? |
#265
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"Dennis@home" wrote in message web.com... On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote: 8 I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. That would explain why NHS buildings are usually rated D/E on the energy performance ratings. There is only one grade worse and that is probably iron/steel works where they have no glass in the windows. It's because many are old. Heated by coal in many cases. The new ones are far more efficient. |
#266
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message ... On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote: ... I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job. And you have demonstrated you are stuck in the past, unable to see we need a complety different way forward. |
#267
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... On 21/08/2014 08:01, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote: On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote: ... I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job. You do remember how the NHS worked in the past don't you? I'd have given those as the perfect qualifications for an NHS manager until fairly recently. ;-) The problems we now have in the NHS are recent. Due to parachuting in people with zero experience of running hospitals. Eg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...speak-out.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...anagement.html |
#268
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... On 20/08/14 17:27, Dennis@home 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. They aren't. quite the reverse. In fact. All the evidence from radiotherapy is that what counts is the peak exposure. In fact there is some very strong, though not conclusive, evidence that cells have tow halves to DNA for a reason. Parity check. If they don't match the cell dies. So up to a certain amount of damage, you don't have reproducible mutations (cancers). Below that threshold you have to be very very unlucky to get any mutations that survive at all. Usual drivel eh TurNiP http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0521093034.htm http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php |
#269
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message ... 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. Usual drivel. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php |
#270
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ... "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. I have been there. Took a bus trip across part of the interior. It was nearly all desert. Filled with wannabe Crocodile Dundees at that time. |
#271
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message ... On 20/08/2014 21:53, polygonum wrote: On 20/08/2014 08:51, harryagain wrote: "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? You claimed that horse **** was the only source of plant nutrient. Obviously horse **** was only available in areas that were inhabited by horses. Same sort of thing with seaweed - would be used were feasible. Other substances would be used as available, for example, guano. And let us not forget things like nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules of legumes. One of the best general fertilizers is fish, blood and bone. Was. Haven't seen it for years Alright for you garden but too expensive for farms. |
#272
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"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. -- bert There was a major traffic on canal boats. It had to removed from towns because of the pong if nothing else |
#273
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 23/08/2014 17:10, harryagain wrote:
"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, how do you know we wont get such hail often enough to wipe out the solar energy for the whole of the UK? Because SFB, hailstorms are local events associated with CuNim (thunder clouds). So how do you know we won't get lots of slow moving thunder storms that will knock out all the solar panels? You claim we are going to get more sever weather but appear to want to ignore what you say. |
#274
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 23/08/2014 17:29, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message web.com... On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote: 8 I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. That would explain why NHS buildings are usually rated D/E on the energy performance ratings. There is only one grade worse and that is probably iron/steel works where they have no glass in the windows. It's because many are old. Heated by coal in many cases. The new ones are far more efficient. I only have the figures on new ones! |
#275
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
In message , Tim Streater
writes In article , harryagain wrote: "Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message ... On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote: ... I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job. And you have demonstrated you are stuck in the past, unable to see we need a complety different way forward. Yes, with more nuclear and no windmills - quite right, harry. You don't get much wind at night. Crop spraying needs low wind speed; preferably less than 4 mph. Usually early morning, late evening. Somebody may have real figures:-) -- Tim Lamb |
#276
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 23/08/2014 19:47, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Streater writes In article , harryagain wrote: "Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message ... On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote: ... I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job. And you have demonstrated you are stuck in the past, unable to see we need a complety different way forward. Yes, with more nuclear and no windmills - quite right, harry. You don't get much wind at night. Crop spraying needs low wind speed; preferably less than 4 mph. Usually early morning, late evening. Somebody may have real figures:-) That is a bit of an over generalisation. It is true to say that during periods of high pressure lightest winds occur dusk/overnight/dawn particularly in summer since there are no solar thermals at this time of day, but depression created winds are just as strong at night as during the day. -- Chris |
#277
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 23/08/2014 17:21, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... 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. Tch. I said BENEFIT. You neglect the income from the solar panels which is tax free and is paid whether you use it or not. Some of the 4000Kwh comes from the solar panels and hence is free. And I have zero gas bill. You're not good with money are you? I'm not good at ripping off other taxpayers, no. On the other hand, I'm as good with money as I need to be. And you live on a boat, a tenth the size of a house. A`quarter the floor area of my house, half the floor area of my last flat I bet you have one of those little stove thingys too? With pictures of castles and roses painted on it? Nope. It's cast iron, bare metal, and burns anything I can get into the hole. It's cheapest and best fuel is coal, with renewable fuel costing between 4 and 6 times the amount per kilowatt hour, either in cash or considering my time collecting and preparing it for use at the National Minimum Wage. Paraffin lamps? They're not allowed on boats nowadays, though if they were, I'd modify them to burn vegetable oil, for preference rapeseed oil, which I could also modify slightly and burn in the engine and save a bit of money. I have seen a narrow boat with PV on the roof. Which makes very good sense when you're off grid. They are cheaper to run than a small generator, as well as being silent in operation. Unfortunately, they don't work well in the short Winter days, when you need more energy for lighting, so the generator or engine need to be run for an hour or more every day. They can just about keep up with the fridge in Summer, as long as you don't also try to charge your laptop. You don't know much about boats, do you? -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#278
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
On 23/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message ... 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. Usual drivel. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php That article makes no mention of radiation in food, so is as relevant as the twaddle you normally link to. I wasted almost a minute reading that article, I'll send an invoice for the wasted time.... -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#279
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"Dennis@home" wrote in message web.com... 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 “For us, it has been a great success. Maybe we just got lucky. I expect energy bills to rise, so I think what we’ve done will pay dividends in future. Our energy consumption has come down to just under 7,000kWhrs a year.” Even 4000kw hr isn't as much as me. But the saving includes some for the car. So you swapped a big old car for a tiny electric car that you don't drive during the day as you are charging it with solar energy. You wouldn't want to charge it at night using base load nukes would you. You would have saved even more if you hadn't bought the electric car and had a Ka or similar. And no gas bill, Heat pump!, you have no mains gas. I have no heat pump. I don't do big mileages either. My previous car was a Hyundia Matrix. |
#280
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Tidal power
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , Tim Streater writes In article , harryagain wrote: "Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message ... On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote: ... I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer. On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods, an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes for that job. And you have demonstrated you are stuck in the past, unable to see we need a complety different way forward. Yes, with more nuclear and no windmills - quite right, harry. You don't get much wind at night. Crop spraying needs low wind speed; preferably less than 4 mph. Usually early morning, late evening. Somebody may have real figures:-) That's because people are indoors by night. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Halfords switching power supply to power a Ring Automotive RAC610 12V Analogue (Tyre) Compressor | UK diy | |||
PC Speakers - no power supply but I have a drawer full of power supplies! | UK diy | |||
QUESTION: How to connect a power supply to my home power grid? | Electronics | |||
HP/Agilent E3632A programmable power supply has power up failure (solution) | Electronics Repair | |||
Running 120v small power tool on UK 230v power (with pics) | Electronics Repair |