http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistic.../TrenRenEnergy
Scotland to achieve 50% of it's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistic.../TrenRenEnergy
Scotland to achieve 50% of it's electricity from renewable sources by
2020.


does that mean they only have energy for 50% time?

Were you never taught to read?

On 22/02/2015 14:50, harryagain wrote:
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistic.../TrenRenEnergy
Scotland to achieve 50% of it's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.


Except when the wind doesn't blow.

harryagain wrote

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistic.../TrenRenEnergy
Scotland to achieve 50% of it's electricity from renewable sources by
2020.

Bet it doesn’t, even in the best times.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistic.../TrenRenEnergy
Scotland to achieve 50% of it's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.


does that mean they only have energy for 50% time?

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 14:50:41 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistic.../TrenRenEnergy
Scotland to achieve 50% of it's electricity from renewable sources by
2020.

You've got that wrong Harry. It's better than you said. It says 'The
Scottish Government has set a National Indicator for the amount of
electricity generated annually through renewable sources as a
percentage of gross annual consumption to increase to 100% by 2020.
The interim target of 31% by 2011 has now been met and a new interim
target of 50% by 2015 has been set'.

So 100% by 2020, not 50%. Judging by the graph, I wouldn't be
surprised to see it already having reached 50% by the end of last
year. But before you wet yourself with delight, these are only
statistics, and I would remind you of your opinion that all statistics
are 'bollix'. Only the ones you don't like, apparently.

The Duke of Edinburgh was noted as saying " There are only 3 ststistics
that matter. They're vital."

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

But what if there is no wind?
I don't believe it, personally. Sounds like more hype to me.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistic.../TrenRenEnergy
Scotland to achieve 50% of it's electricity from renewable sources by
2020.

On 23/02/2015 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:49:27 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

But what if there is no wind?
I don't believe it, personally. Sounds like more hype to me.
Brian

They're not saying that Scotland isn't going to have any other form of
electricity generation, only that they aim to produce as much
electricity from wind as the region uses. Any surplus, from for
example nuclear or coal, would be exported, presumably to the rest of
the UK. When the wind doesn't blow in Scotland, they will presumably
fall back on their other generators and import any shortfall. That
assumes there's spare electricity available to be imported, and we
haven't all gone down the same short-sighted green path to hell and
there's no surplus electricity available. At that point, the green
nirvana is exposed for the fraud that it is.


All that would be exposed is that privatised industry can't plan ahead
and that would give people like dave ammunition to renationalise the
network and put it back into the hands of those responsible for the cockup.
It will take a few blackouts and the consequential deaths before people
like harry realise how stupid they are.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 23/02/2015 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:49:27 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

But what if there is no wind?
I don't believe it, personally. Sounds like more hype to me.
Brian

They're not saying that Scotland isn't going to have any other form of
electricity generation, only that they aim to produce as much
electricity from wind as the region uses. Any surplus, from for
example nuclear or coal, would be exported, presumably to the rest of
the UK. When the wind doesn't blow in Scotland, they will presumably
fall back on their other generators and import any shortfall. That
assumes there's spare electricity available to be imported, and we
haven't all gone down the same short-sighted green path to hell and
there's no surplus electricity available. At that point, the green
nirvana is exposed for the fraud that it is.


All that would be exposed is that privatised industry can't plan ahead and
that would give people like dave ammunition to renationalise the network
and put it back into the hands of those responsible for the cockup.

It will take a few blackouts and the consequential deaths before people
like harry realise how stupid they are.

Harry wouldn’t work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

On 23/02/2015 09:07, Rod Speed wrote:


Harry wouldn’t work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

In article ,
Nick wrote:
On 23/02/2015 09:07, Rod Speed wrote:


Harry wouldn’t work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they apparently want to stop the
import of food.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/02/2015 14:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:17:32 +0000, Nick wrote:

On 23/02/2015 09:07, Rod Speed wrote:


Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the population of that soggy
little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

And also anathema to capitalists, who need "expansion" to carry on making
money.

Notice when the UK population started naturally declining, how quickly
the bosses shipped in more workers to ensure wages stayed low.


Its more a case of there are some jobs that have to be done and there
isn't anyone that wants to do them. Which would you do.. live on benefits
+ foreigners or go to work in a dirty job for minimum wage?

It's not sustainable to have alarge percentage of the population sat on
their arses.

On 23/02/15 10:27, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nick wrote:
On 23/02/2015 09:07, Rod Speed wrote:


Harry wouldnt work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they apparently want to stop the
import of food.

If you start from the premiss that humans especially technological
humans are the root of all evil its not long before you are advocating
mass suicide.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 23/02/2015 12:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/02/15 10:27, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nick wrote:
On 23/02/2015 09:07, Rod Speed wrote:


Harry wouldnt work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they apparently want to stop the
import of food.

If you start from the premiss that humans especially technological
humans are the root of all evil its not long before you are advocating
mass suicide.



That's only an interim solution.. once the greens have all topped
themselves we can do a technological solution to the problem.

On 23/02/2015 14:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:17:32 +0000, Nick wrote:

On 23/02/2015 09:07, Rod Speed wrote:


Harry wouldnt work that out even if half the population of that soggy
little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

And also anathema to capitalists, who need "expansion" to carry on making
money.

Notice when the UK population started naturally declining, how quickly
the bosses shipped in more workers to ensure wages stayed low.


Its more a case of there are some jobs that have to be done and there
isn't anyone that wants to do them. Which would you do.. live on
benefits + foreigners or go to work in a dirty job for minimum wage?

Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn’t work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

Nope, the safest way to do that is using candu reactors.

Or thorium reactors if you want to eliminate any risk
of the owners ever being able to make nuclear weapons.

charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed.

Not saying that it makes any sense to go that
route, but it wouldn't kill half the population.

In fact it would kill less than are currently killed by what they over eat.

Chris Hogg wrote
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

So when starvation becomes widespread,

That isnt what happened during the war.

the old adage 'eat your greens' will be rather appropriate!

Yes, that's what ensured that there was no starvation in Britain during the
war.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed.

"adequately" is hardly the word - and you'll find we still imported a fair
bit of food - 12 Million tons a year. The population has increased somewaht
since the 1940s, too. (another 13 million)


Not saying that it makes any sense to go that
route, but it wouldn't kill half the population.

In fact it would kill less than are currently killed by what they over eat.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/02/2015 14:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:17:32 +0000, Nick wrote:

On 23/02/2015 09:07, Rod Speed wrote:


Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the population of that soggy
little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

And also anathema to capitalists, who need "expansion" to carry on
making
money.

Notice when the UK population started naturally declining, how quickly
the bosses shipped in more workers to ensure wages stayed low.


Its more a case of there are some jobs that have to be done and there
isn't anyone that wants to do them. Which would you do.. live on benefits
+ foreigners or go to work in a dirty job for minimum wage?

It's not sustainable to have alarge percentage of the population sat on
their arses.

Its always been that way, even in boom times with very low unemployment.

They are just paid to sit on their arses.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/02/2015 14:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:17:32 +0000, Nick wrote:

On 23/02/2015 09:07, Rod Speed wrote:


Harry wouldnt work that out even if half the population of that soggy
little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

And also anathema to capitalists, who need "expansion" to carry on making
money.

Notice when the UK population started naturally declining, how quickly
the bosses shipped in more workers to ensure wages stayed low.

Its more a case of there are some jobs that have to be done and there
isn't anyone that wants to do them.

That would see the foreigners doing the work no one else
wants to do. That is nothing like what actually happens.

Which would you do.. live on benefits + foreigners or go to work in a
dirty job for minimum wage?

The choice isn't that binary.

In article , Rod Speed
wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the population of that
soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they apparently want to stop
the import of food.

So when starvation becomes widespread,

That isnt what happened during the war.

the old adage 'eat your greens' will be rather appropriate!

Yes, that's what ensured that there was no starvation in Britain during
the war.

and the 12 million tons of imported food per year

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed.

"adequately" is hardly the word

It is actually. In fact surprisingly enough you lot ate rather
more healthily during the war than before or after it,
largely because you were forced to eat more veg etc.

- and you'll find we still imported a fair
bit of food - 12 Million tons a year.

But wouldn’t have starved if that was not available.

The population has increased somewaht
since the 1940s, too. (another 13 million)

Sure, but food wasn’t grown everywhere it was possible.

And we grow it a lot better now than was possible then too.

Not saying that it makes any sense to go that
route, but it wouldn't kill half the population.

In fact it would kill less than are currently killed by what they over
eat.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed.

"adequately" is hardly the word

It is actually. In fact surprisingly enough you lot ate rather
more healthily during the war than before or after it,
largely because you were forced to eat more veg etc.

- and you'll find we still imported a fair
bit of food - 12 Million tons a year.

But wouldn’t have starved if that was not available.

The population has increased somewaht
since the 1940s, too. (another 13 million)

Sure, but food wasn’t grown everywhere it was possible.

And we grow it a lot better now than was possible then too.

in 60 years an awful lot of those potential fields have grown houses. Also
bear in mind that many sports pitches were turned into potato fields.



--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed.

"adequately" is hardly the word

It is actually. In fact surprisingly enough you lot ate rather
more healthily during the war than before or after it,
largely because you were forced to eat more veg etc.

- and you'll find we still imported a fair
bit of food - 12 Million tons a year.

But wouldn't have starved if that was not available.

The population has increased somewaht
since the 1940s, too. (another 13 million)

Sure, but food wasn't grown everywhere it was possible.

And we grow it a lot better now than was possible then too.

in 60 years an awful lot of those potential fields have grown houses.

And the airfields are now available for food production.

Also bear in mind that many sports pitches were turned into potato fields.

Sooner the better IMO.

On 23/02/2015 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a substantial
part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply reduced the
animal population and imported meat and animal products instead. Meat
imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while cheese imports
increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human food imports
dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we imported meant that
by the end of the war the calorific value per ton of imported human food
had increased by 25%.


--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half,
but a substantial part of that was animal feed, not human
food. We simply reduced the animal population and
imported meat and animal products instead. Meat imports
increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while cheese
imports increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of
human food imports dropped by about a quarter, but
changes in what we imported meant that by the end of
the war the calorific value per ton of imported human
food had increased by 25%.

And most ate rather less imported food than they did before
the war, particularly with those not in the military system.

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 23/02/2015 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a substantial
part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply reduced the
animal population and imported meat and animal products instead. Meat
imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while cheese imports
increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human food imports
dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we imported meant that
by the end of the war the calorific value per ton of imported human food
had increased by 25%.

If you look at todays papers you will see that we only prodcue 60% of our
own food at present

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 11:05:47 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 23/02/2015 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a substantial
part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply reduced the
animal population and imported meat and animal products instead. Meat
imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while cheese imports
increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human food imports
dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we imported meant that
by the end of the war the calorific value per ton of imported human food
had increased by 25%.

If you look at todays papers you will see that we only prodcue 60% of our
own food at present

We also export food, £12 billion in 2007.

One trend I've noticed is the large number of POLSKA sklep's that have opened up.

On 23/02/2015 19:40, Rod Speed wrote:
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn’t work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

Nope, the safest way to do that is using candu reactors.

Or thorium reactors if you want to eliminate any risk
of the owners ever being able to make nuclear weapons.

Not "eliminate" you can still make nukes it's just harder from the
natural thorium fuel cycle, i,e U233 is produced.

AIUI you can also produce plutonium by blanketing any neutron producing
breeder reactor core with Uranium.

But in general I take your point and agree we should be investing more
in Nuclear, possibly thorium.

On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 23/02/2015 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a
substantial part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply
reduced the animal population and imported meat and animal products
instead. Meat imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while
cheese imports increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human
food imports dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we
imported meant that by the end of the war the calorific value per ton
of imported human food had increased by 25%.

And the U-boats sank 5,000 merchant ships (and 5,000 in WW1, come to
that). Shame that convoy protection from the air was not given higher
priority.

what aircraft had the range? None at that time.

And when you're about to be invaded, the priority is homeland defence.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 24/02/2015 11:10, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 23/02/2015 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a substantial
part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply reduced the
animal population and imported meat and animal products instead. Meat
imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while cheese imports
increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human food imports
dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we imported meant that
by the end of the war the calorific value per ton of imported human food
had increased by 25%.

If you look at todays papers you will see that we only prodcue 60% of our
own food at present

Which is considerably more than we did before the war. In 1938, we only
grew 20% of the wheat we consumed (up from 14% in 1932) and half the
meat we ate was imported.

--
Colin Bignell

On 24/02/15 14:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a
substantial part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply
reduced the animal population and imported meat and animal products
instead. Meat imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while
cheese imports increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human
food imports dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we
imported meant that by the end of the war the calorific value per ton
of imported human food had increased by 25%.

And the U-boats sank 5,000 merchant ships (and 5,000 in WW1, come to
that). Shame that convoy protection from the air was not given higher
priority.

what aircraft had the range? None at that time.

And when you're about to be invaded, the priority is homeland defence.

At the start, perhaps, but surely some Lancs or other could have been
modified for the purpose.

The Lancaster was not then in production.

Wellingtons and Whitleys and Hampdens were used, but the probglem is
less one of range than duration.

You need to be able to stay on patrol around a convoy for a considerable
time, and without radar, night attacks are almost useless.

What changed things were large slow aircraft and millimeter radar - not
available till 43 at the earliest.

And the liberator. That had the range and duration.

Post 43 most submarines were lost to air attack.



Even when the longer range planes became
available, Bomber Command got the nod at the expense of the
anti-submarine work.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 24/02/15 15:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 24/02/2015 11:10, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 23/02/2015 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a substantial
part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply reduced the
animal population and imported meat and animal products instead. Meat
imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while cheese imports
increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human food imports
dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we imported meant that
by the end of the war the calorific value per ton of imported human food
had increased by 25%.

If you look at todays papers you will see that we only prodcue 60% of our
own food at present

Which is considerably more than we did before the war. In 1938, we only
grew 20% of the wheat we consumed (up from 14% in 1932) and half the
meat we ate was imported.

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used. Even so a substantial amoiunt of UK
wheat goes for animal feed.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 11:05:47 UTC, charles wrote:
In article , Nightjar
cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 23/02/2015 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the population of that
soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest
way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they apparently want to
stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately during WW2
when food imports were drastically curtailed....

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a
substantial part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply
reduced the animal population and imported meat and animal products
instead. Meat imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while
cheese imports increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of
human food imports dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what
we imported meant that by the end of the war the calorific value per
ton of imported human food had increased by 25%.

If you look at todays papers you will see that we only prodcue 60% of
our own food at present

We also export food, £12 billion in 2007.


does that include the prawns we ship to Thailand to be shelled and then
brought back for sale in our shops?

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a
substantial part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply
reduced the animal population and imported meat and animal products
instead. Meat imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while
cheese imports increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human
food imports dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we
imported meant that by the end of the war the calorific value per ton
of imported human food had increased by 25%.

And the U-boats sank 5,000 merchant ships (and 5,000 in WW1, come to
that). Shame that convoy protection from the air was not given higher
priority.

what aircraft had the range? None at that time.

And when you're about to be invaded, the priority is homeland defence.

At the start, perhaps, but surely some Lancs or other could have been
modified for the purpose. Even when the longer range planes became
available, Bomber Command got the nod at the expense of the
anti-submarine work.

The Lanc was modified for maritime use - it was called the Shackleton.

A/S work was mainly done from "escort" aircraft carriers.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 24/02/2015 14:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a
substantial part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply
reduced the animal population and imported meat and animal products
instead. Meat imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while
cheese imports increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human
food imports dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we
imported meant that by the end of the war the calorific value per ton
of imported human food had increased by 25%.

And the U-boats sank 5,000 merchant ships (and 5,000 in WW1, come to
that). Shame that convoy protection from the air was not given higher
priority.

what aircraft had the range? None at that time.

And when you're about to be invaded, the priority is homeland defence.

At the start, perhaps, but surely some Lancs or other could have been
modified for the purpose. Even when the longer range planes became
available, Bomber Command got the nod at the expense of the
anti-submarine work.


Before the development of anti-submarine radar, finding the submarines
was the problem. We used blimps to protect the Channel during WW1, but
that was a relatively small area to patrol and we had a couple of
hundred blimps for anti-submarine work. There was never any chance of
achieving similar levels of cover in the Atlantic.

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:27:37 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:



And the U-boats sank 5,000 merchant ships (and 5,000 in WW1, come to
that). Shame that convoy protection from the air was not given higher
priority.

what aircraft had the range? None at that time.

And when you're about to be invaded, the priority is homeland defence.

At the start, perhaps, but surely some Lancs or other could have been
modified for the purpose. Even when the longer range planes became
available, Bomber Command got the nod at the expense of the
anti-submarine work.

The Consolidated Liberator was the plane that was chosen to for job,
eventually when enough of them were available to operate from both
sides of the Pond they were able do it.
http://www.uboat.net/allies/aircraft/b24.htm

But the range of aircraft wasn't necessarily one of the main factors
in the stage after the USA entered the War as a Belligerent*
U Boats moved to operate of the East coast of the USA and some
casualties were sunk within sight of people on the shore.
It took time for the USA which wasn't the armed behemoth it was to
become to learn/ accept the tactics that Britain had already adopted
with some success and get themselves equipped to do so.
That took till 1943 but that year being a member of a U boat crew
became a much more dangerous and short lived career.

* They had done some and patrol work ostensibly with other american
nations when still neutral to protect a zone off the americas that was
to be free of war acts, in practice they passed information to Britain
and Canada who could then avoid areas where U Boats had been seen and
also lurked near convoys to provide a presence.
One US warship the Reuben James was sunk as it came between a U Boat
and a merchant ship.

G.Harman

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a
substantial part of that was animal feed, not human food. We
simply reduced the animal population and imported meat and animal
products instead. Meat imports increased by 20% between 1938 and
1944, while cheese imports increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the
tonnage of human food imports dropped by about a quarter, but
changes in what we imported meant that by the end of the war the
calorific value per ton of imported human food had increased by
25%.

And the U-boats sank 5,000 merchant ships (and 5,000 in WW1, come
to that). Shame that convoy protection from the air was not given
higher priority.

what aircraft had the range? None at that time.

And when you're about to be invaded, the priority is homeland defence.

At the start, perhaps, but surely some Lancs or other could have been
modified for the purpose. Even when the longer range planes became
available, Bomber Command got the nod at the expense of the
anti-submarine work.

The Lanc was modified for maritime use - it was called the Shackleton.

Shackleton was post-war.

absolutely correct but you asked why the Lancaster wasn't modifed - it was,
but as Wiki tells me, it had to become a Lincoln first.

Wiki also tells me that there were some Lancaster ASR3s.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 24/02/15 16:10, charles wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a
substantial part of that was animal feed, not human food. We simply
reduced the animal population and imported meat and animal products
instead. Meat imports increased by 20% between 1938 and 1944, while
cheese imports increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the tonnage of human
food imports dropped by about a quarter, but changes in what we
imported meant that by the end of the war the calorific value per ton
of imported human food had increased by 25%.

And the U-boats sank 5,000 merchant ships (and 5,000 in WW1, come to
that). Shame that convoy protection from the air was not given higher
priority.

what aircraft had the range? None at that time.

And when you're about to be invaded, the priority is homeland defence.

At the start, perhaps, but surely some Lancs or other could have been
modified for the purpose. Even when the longer range planes became
available, Bomber Command got the nod at the expense of the
anti-submarine work.

The Lanc was modified for maritime use - it was called the Shackleton.

Which *entered* service in 1951...


A/S work was mainly done from "escort" aircraft carriers.

No, it wasn't. Not until a lot later - 1943 and later, by which time
long range patrol aircraft were also in place.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll