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

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.

I still haven't seen them

They were in previous posts to this thread. I'm sure you can look them
up.

All I can find is his (very long) claim that the financials don't work

and that intermittent supply from one barrier isn't sensible

Neither of these are unanswerable.

1) is answered, by "not our problem, if people are stupid enough to invest
on those figures then that is up to them"

and

2) with, you build complementary set of barriers

tim





--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner
as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/16 17:49, tim... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/16 17:14, tim... wrote:

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology",

I didn't mean it in the technical sense

I meant it in the financial sense

"prove that the technology produces the required rate of return"


You don't need to build it to demonstrate that it doesn't.

You do if you are just trying to take advantage of the gullibility of
your investors.

Many a start up has gone down that path.


Yeah. I used to work for Clive Sinclair, too.

:-)

He predated the hunger for VCs to throw money at every tech idea that
crossed their desk in the hope that one of them would go mega (to be fair
some did) making it possible for "clever" inventors to game the system. Of
course, most Start up failures were down to bad choices rather then bad
faith actors.

CS failed for the first

tim

On 15/10/16 10:32, tim... wrote:

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

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.

I still haven't seen them

They were in previous posts to this thread. I'm sure you can look them
up.

All I can find is his (very long) claim that the financials don't work

and that intermittent supply from one barrier isn't sensible

Neither of these are unanswerable.

1) is answered, by "not our problem, if people are stupid enough to
invest on those figures then that is up to them"


Not if the investment is actually effectively made with MY MONEY which
is what government guarantees via CFD amount to.

and

2) with, you build complementary set of barriers


Ignoring the cost of actually connecting the peak flows as 'someone
else's problem'. Actually the National Grid's.

Oh, guess who pays for that? Yep. The consumer via increased electricity
charges for distribution as well as generation.

So intermittent renewables is a triple whammy.

You pay more for the electricity they make via government decreed CFDs.
You pay more for the electricity via increased grid costs. And /or STOR
type costs for balancing kit.
You pay for any environmental costs due to massive alteration of tidal
flows.

The consumer is charged for a profit making company to make its profits
and **** up the coastline.

Has to be Lefty****s or GreenVaginas.


tim





--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. In much the same
manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR





--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes getting
approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but they
are undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering
knowledge whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim


A government with the right expertise would be able to refute invalid
arguments from minority pressure groups instead of supporting them and
thus propagating the mis-information.


Snip
--
bert

In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:15:31 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.


I still haven't seen them

tim


AIUI you are happy if private investment puts up the money for e.g.
the Swansea barrage and accepts the risk of making a profit or loss,
just like any other investment. If the price paid for the product by
the utilities and ultimately ourselves is satisfactory, in this
instance on a par with Hinkley C, then on the face of it, that seems
fine, especially from an investor's POV.

But it's not that simple.

Intermittent production imposes problems on the grid that aren't the
concern of those investors. These will have a cost, such as the cost
of the equivalent generating capacity that's on standby while the
tides are in full ebb or flow, and in effect paying for twice the
amount of generation capacity than is actually needed. One way or
another, that cost will materialise in the price to the consumer. For
all I know, it's taken into account when the CFD is agreed, in which
case it's in effect paid for by the investors, but it will have to be
paid for somewhere. But I have no idea what factors are taken into
account when CFDs are negotiated.

If, and ISTM it's a big if, if tidal lagoons or barrages are placed in
other places all around the coast where the tides are out of phase
with the Severn estuary, such as North Wales/Morecambe Bay and on the
east coast such as the Humber, the Wash etc., so that tidal generation
is more-or-less continuous,
More or less continuous simply isn't good enough. You still have to plug
the gaps. The closer you get to continuous without actually reaching it
makes the standby systems even more inefficient.
Snip
--
bert

In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:15:31 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
t...
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.


I still haven't seen them

tim


AIUI you are happy if private investment puts up the money for e.g.
the Swansea barrage and accepts the risk of making a profit or loss,
just like any other investment.

Yep

It's the free market

There are loads of cases where the free market has put up money for
white elephants, they should be allowed to do so. It's their money.

It's the cost of having the opportunity to invest in the big wins.

If HMG were allowed to decide which projects private investors
could/couldn't invest in we would be in a right old mess. Just look at
the failures of Government industrial policy when it did have a policy
for picking "winners"!

Of course government must be able to act on environmental concerns
(which I do have some reservations about with this scheme, but none of
the other posters here seem concerned by), but financial potential is
not their concern.

The environmental aspects have been dealt with previously under the
heading "Energy Density".

If the price paid for the product by
the utilities and ultimately ourselves is satisfactory, in this
instance on a par with Hinkley C, then on the face of it, that seems
fine, especially from an investor's POV.

But it's not that simple.

Intermittent production imposes problems on the grid that aren't the
concern of those investors.

I understand that

but that is why you have to build a complementary set of 4/5 of these
things and assess the viability of the set.

You're too right brained to see that the whole thing is electrically
non-viable compared to nukes, gas or coal without going to the trouble
of building anything.
That is the long term intention here, but as I have already said,
presumably the proposers can't get financila backing for the full
scheme without firts proving (the financial returns) of a trial.

tim



--
bert

On 15/10/16 11:38, bert wrote:
A government with the right expertise would be able to refute
invalid arguments from minority pressure groups instead of supporting
them and thus propagating the mis-information.

Why would they want to do that?

Plebs are plebs. They will do what they are told and believe what the
elite tell them is true. Look at Plowperson. Her has absorbed so much
propaganda her couldn't survive facing the truth.


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On Saturday, 15 October 2016 11:47:40 UTC+1, bert wrote:

A government with the right expertise

where?

would be able to refute invalid
arguments from minority pressure groups instead of supporting them and
thus propagating the mis-information.

Governments just want to be voted in. And it's no longer a minority thing.


NT

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/16 10:32, tim... wrote:

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

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.

I still haven't seen them

They were in previous posts to this thread. I'm sure you can look them
up.

All I can find is his (very long) claim that the financials don't work

and that intermittent supply from one barrier isn't sensible

Neither of these are unanswerable.

1) is answered, by "not our problem, if people are stupid enough to
invest on those figures then that is up to them"


Not if the investment is actually effectively made with MY MONEY which is
what government guarantees via CFD amount to.

you still haven't explained how this CFD lark works to make it better than
the strike price.

Google gives no clue it doesn't even tell me what the abbreviation expands
to

and

2) with, you build complementary set of barriers


Ignoring the cost of actually connecting the peak flows as 'someone else's
problem'. Actually the National Grid's.

Oh, guess who pays for that? Yep. The consumer via increased electricity
charges for distribution as well as generation.

which they will have to pay of we build a Nuke, or a wind fare or whatever
new fangled gismo instead

look, I don't like these inflated strike prices any more than you do. But
they are the effect of us deciding not to build any more coal/gas plants.

You can't use this argument specifically against this scheme.

tim

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
news:4fhkvbhnqacgjqjnp3lfivftrth746b79o@4ax. com...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no
case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price
as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes getting
approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but they are
undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering knowledge
whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim to
convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay the
going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying MPs more
is raised it is quickly stamped on

tim

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


He predated the hunger for VCs to throw money at every tech idea that
crossed their desk in the hope that one of them would go mega (to be fair
some did) making it possible for "clever" inventors to game the system.
Of course, most Start up failures were down to bad choices rather then bad
faith actors.

AIUI, VCs are smarter than that.

Not when evaluating the tech, they aren't.

90% of the time they evaluate the person, and the sort of person who can
sell the real deal is often exactly the same sort of person who can sell a
dud. Obviously many of potential techies aren't that cynical, but some are.

People don't appear to appreciate that
the "tech idea" is only 1% of the problem. Getting it through
development to a saleable product is a major part, as is gearing up for
manufacturing, sales, marketing, finance, and management.

most of my experience is in software "products (that's experience in
watching other people's schemes)

so there is no manufacturing and the sales channel is a lot easier.
Obviously the marketing is just as difficult.

Some years ago I was told by a VC in California that it's usually
managers they are short of.

Techies who can manage, yeah.

that's why it's just so easy for someone who can, to pitch the dud product

tim

In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
news:4fhkvbhnqacgjqjnp3lfivftrth746b79o@4ax .com...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have


tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike
price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output
is, against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes
getting approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to
overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but
they are undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering
knowledge whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay
the going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying
MPs more is raised it is quickly stamped on

tim





The government has rafts of "advisors". They tend to have scientists
rather than engineers.
--
bert

On 15/10/16 18:27, tim... wrote:

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have
no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike
price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k,
that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output
is, against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the
intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes
getting approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but
they are undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering
knowledge whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay the
going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying MPs
more is raised it is quickly stamped on


If you want honorable people in government you will get them by paying
NO salary AT ALL.

Then they are there because they care.

tim








--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 15/10/16 18:24, tim... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/16 10:32, tim... wrote:

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

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to
****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.

I still haven't seen them

They were in previous posts to this thread. I'm sure you can look them
up.

All I can find is his (very long) claim that the financials don't work

and that intermittent supply from one barrier isn't sensible

Neither of these are unanswerable.

1) is answered, by "not our problem, if people are stupid enough to
invest on those figures then that is up to them"


Not if the investment is actually effectively made with MY MONEY which
is what government guarantees via CFD amount to.

you still haven't explained how this CFD lark works to make it better
than the strike price.

The strike price is part of the CFD.

Do you REALLY not know what that means?
Google gives no clue it doesn't even tell me what the abbreviation
expands to


https://www.cmcmarkets.com/en-gb/lp/ppc/cfd-live

You are a bad liar. First and second entries in my goodle serach went
straight to CFD pages.


and

2) with, you build complementary set of barriers


Ignoring the cost of actually connecting the peak flows as 'someone
else's problem'. Actually the National Grid's.

Oh, guess who pays for that? Yep. The consumer via increased
electricity charges for distribution as well as generation.

which they will have to pay of we build a Nuke, or a wind fare or
whatever new fangled gismo instead

No, they wont.

Not for a nuke.,

Because the peak to mean flow is pretty much 100% or so.


look, I don't like these inflated strike prices any more than you do.
But they are the effect of us deciding not to build any more coal/gas
plants.


I didnt decide that.

You can't use this argument specifically against this scheme.


Who said I was?
]
All intermittent renewable energy is pants for all the same reasons.

tim





--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On Saturday, 15 October 2016 18:57:50 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , tim...
writes


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay
the going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying
MPs more is raised it is quickly stamped on

The government has rafts of "advisors". They tend to have scientists
rather than engineers.

who pay no price for their screwups.


NT

On Saturday, 15 October 2016 19:15:19 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/10/16 18:27, tim... wrote:

"bert" wrote in message

A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay the
going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying MPs
more is raised it is quickly stamped on


If you want honorable people in government you will get them by paying
NO salary AT ALL.

Then they are there because they care.

or because they intend to scam. Or because they have unrealistic ideas. Rodney might go for it, he seems to think he can understand everything & see the solutions.


NT

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

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price
as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one else's.
The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes getting
approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that makes
them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but they are
undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering knowledge
whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

Sometimes it does, particularly with the global warming ****.

it comes from the population

No it doesn't with the global warming ****.

(Rightly or Wrongly)

achieve the same output of electricity, and without the added
complication of having to phase-in and then phase-out a whole series
of tidal generators four times a day. And that assumes that there are
enough sites around the UK that are suitable for 50 tidal barrages.
Which there aren't. You'd be lucky to get 10. So the whole thing is
completely pointless.

I agree that the number of suitable sites is an issue,
The number of suitable sites or lack of kills the whole concept dead in
the water.
but individually that doesn't make a single complementary set of
barriers pointless,
Yes it does. Building several generating stations to get the equivalent
output of one is shear lunacy.
any more that building a single hydro power station that can only
produce 0.5% of total requirements pointless.
A hydro power station bears no resemblance to a tidal lagoon.

tim



--
bert

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

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:15:31 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
t...
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.


I still haven't seen them

tim


AIUI you are happy if private investment puts up the money for e.g.
the Swansea barrage and accepts the risk of making a profit or loss,
just like any other investment.

Yep

It's the free market

There are loads of cases where the free market has put up money for white
elephants, they should be allowed to do so. It's their money.

Not when it ****s the environment so comprehensively.

It's the cost of having the opportunity to invest in the big wins.

If HMG were allowed to decide which projects private investors
could/couldn't invest in we would be in a right old mess.

There is no one else that can do that when the
project ****s the environment so comprehensively.

Just look at the failures of Government industrial policy when it did have
a policy for picking "winners"!

Just look at the failures of private industry policy when
they are free to **** the environment as much as they
like and see if the project ends up being financially viable
for them and we are left with the mess when it isnt.

Of course government must be able to act on environmental concerns (which
I do have some reservations about with this scheme,

You should have massive ones. With the stupid wind farms too.

but none of the other posters here seem concerned by),

That's a lie.

but financial potential is not their concern.

It is when they are left with an environmental mess when
the project ends up being not financially and there is no
way to force the bankrupt operation to return the area to
the same state it was in before the project was attempted,
if that is even possible. Most of the time it isnt.

If the price paid for the product by
the utilities and ultimately ourselves is satisfactory, in this
instance on a par with Hinkley C, then on the face of it, that seems
fine, especially from an investor's POV.

But it's not that simple.

Intermittent production imposes problems on the grid that aren't the
concern of those investors.

I understand that

but that is why you have to build a complementary set of 4/5 of these
things and assess the viability of the set.

Makes a lot more sense to work out the viability without building it.

That is the long term intention here, but as I have already said,
presumably the proposers can't get financila backing for the full scheme
without firts proving (the financial returns) of a trial.

And even if they could, if it isnt going to be financially viable, they
should
be allowed to do it when it ****s the environment so comprehensively.

On 10/10/2016 09:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The second problem is intermittency. Not unpredictability, but the sheer
fact that the power is not coming from an energy store, but has to be
generated and used when the energy source is available. Again no amount
of clever technology cam make the wind always blow steadily or the sun
always shine, at least on the earth's surface.

You've missed hydro - not intermittent, highly dispatchable. But of
course there's the Banqiao problem...

Andy

On 15/10/16 21:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 10/10/2016 09:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The second problem is intermittency. Not unpredictability, but the sheer
fact that the power is not coming from an energy store, but has to be
generated and used when the energy source is available. Again no amount
of clever technology cam make the wind always blow steadily or the sun
always shine, at least on the earth's surface.

You've missed hydro - not intermittent, highly dispatchable. But of
course there's the Banqiao problem...


I haven't missed non-intermittent. I have deliberately restricted the
discussion to *intermittent* renewables. Biogas etc are all fine, just
hopelessly uneconomic. Hydro is great if you can accept the risk, the
ecological impact and have suitable places to build it.


Andy


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 16/10/16 07:59, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:56:59 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 10/10/2016 09:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The second problem is intermittency. Not unpredictability, but the sheer
fact that the power is not coming from an energy store, but has to be
generated and used when the energy source is available. Again no amount
of clever technology cam make the wind always blow steadily or the sun
always shine, at least on the earth's surface.

You've missed hydro - not intermittent, highly dispatchable. But of
course there's the Banqiao problem...

Andy

Like pumped storage, you need the right topography and rainfall, and
we don't have enough of both together. Scotland is full of hydro
schemes, but they're all small. http://tinyurl.com/grl6cj6

There's room to convert some to pumped and to add a GW or so more hydro
if anyone can be arsed.

But it doesn't fit with the GreenVagina view that infests the Scottish
consciousness.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/16 18:24, tim... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/16 10:32, tim... wrote:

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

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the
answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate
power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to
****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.

I still haven't seen them

They were in previous posts to this thread. I'm sure you can look them
up.

All I can find is his (very long) claim that the financials don't work

and that intermittent supply from one barrier isn't sensible

Neither of these are unanswerable.

1) is answered, by "not our problem, if people are stupid enough to
invest on those figures then that is up to them"


Not if the investment is actually effectively made with MY MONEY which
is what government guarantees via CFD amount to.

you still haven't explained how this CFD lark works to make it better
than the strike price.

The strike price is part of the CFD.

you need to explain more


Do you REALLY not know what that means?

No

Google gives no clue it doesn't even tell me what the abbreviation
expands to


https://www.cmcmarkets.com/en-gb/lp/ppc/cfd-live

You are a bad liar. First and second entries in my goodle serach went
straight to CFD pages.

The first two links on my search are very obviously targeted at ripping off
consumers with carbon futures trading (you will note that there is a lot in
the press about not touching this with a barge pole, because it is the home
of scammers), they are not obviously for use by corporate in arbitraging
their strike price

I discarded them.

all the rest are links to "contract for difference", which initially was
what I thought you were talking about, but later decided not.

and

2) with, you build complementary set of barriers


Ignoring the cost of actually connecting the peak flows as 'someone
else's problem'. Actually the National Grid's.

Oh, guess who pays for that? Yep. The consumer via increased
electricity charges for distribution as well as generation.

which they will have to pay of we build a Nuke, or a wind fare or
whatever new fangled gismo instead

No, they wont.

Not for a nuke.,

why not, the strike price is the same (+/-).

Because the peak to mean flow is pretty much 100% or so.

I have addressed this point 5 times already. I will NOT do it again, stop
bringing it up

look, I don't like these inflated strike prices any more than you do.
But they are the effect of us deciding not to build any more coal/gas
plants.


I didnt decide that.

Well neither did I, but our elected representatives did

tim

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:24:47 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


Google gives no clue it doesn't even tell me what the abbreviation expands
to

I'm not impressed by your Googling ability! Came straight up:
http://tinyurl.com/j4gfyr9 and in particular
http://tinyurl.com/hx5mlag

CFD = Contract For Difference.

"!In finance, a contract for difference (CFD) is a contract between two
parties, typically described as "buyer" and "seller", stipulating that the
seller will pay to the buyer the difference between the current value of an
asset and its value at contract time (if the difference is negative, then
the buyer pays instead to the seller). "

Yes I found this

it didn't seem to meet the claims that were made for it which we

1) the people would be paid whether they generated any electricity or not

2) that it can be use to extrct even more money from the government/bill
payer that the agreed strike price.

AFAICT it is the mechanise by which the company are paid the strike price
(and no more) ONLY for electricity that they generate

accordingly I discarded it as the definition of of that which was being
claimed for CFDs.

It's the name given to the contract
that includes the strike price, as well as all the terms and
conditions etc. The cause for concern, IMO, is how that price is
arrived at, what deals go on behind closed doors, and what pressures
are put on the Government by outside parties such as Green lobbyists
to be generous.

That's as maybe,

but the post that I replied to saying that I didn't know what he was talking
about, claimed that the company could use CFDs to gain an income
significantly in excess of the strike price.

All you have done is confirm to me that he was lying, it can't be so used.

I take exception to being called an idiot by people who came to that
conclusion when they didn't know what they were talking about.

tim





--

Chris

On 16/10/16 13:36, tim... wrote:
I have addressed this point 5 times already. I will NOT do it again,
stop bringing it up


You haven't addressed it.



High Peak to mean ratio costs money in the transmission medium.. There
is no way to 'address' the issue.


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 16/10/16 13:45, tim... wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:24:47 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


Google gives no clue it doesn't even tell me what the abbreviation
expands
to

I'm not impressed by your Googling ability! Came straight up:
http://tinyurl.com/j4gfyr9 and in particular
http://tinyurl.com/hx5mlag

CFD = Contract For Difference.

"!In finance, a contract for difference (CFD) is a contract between two
parties, typically described as "buyer" and "seller", stipulating that
the seller will pay to the buyer the difference between the current
value of an asset and its value at contract time (if the difference is
negative, then the buyer pays instead to the seller). "

Yes I found this

it didn't seem to meet the claims that were made for it which we

1) the people would be paid whether they generated any electricity or not

No, that's another mechanism. The capacity system as applied to STOR etc
and of course the infamous constraint payments where windmills are paid
if they are switched off if they COULD have been generating electricity
at the time.

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/serv...nt-management/


2) that it can be use to extrct even more money from the government/bill
payer that the agreed strike price.

Well less 'extract' as much as 'cost'

Someone has to pay for extra backup, storage and fatter wires to take
the peak flows, and the loss of tourist industries etc etc.

Probably adds another invisible 30% to the cost of intermittently
generated electricity.

That's one aspect. The other is preferential 'green fund' borrowing
rates and tax incentives that may or may not be in force at any given time.

AFAICT it is the mechanise by which the company are paid the strike
price (and no more) ONLY for electricity that they generate


That is CFDs, yes, but constraint contracts exist as well.


accordingly I discarded it as the definition of of that which was being
claimed for CFDs.


CfDs are just part of the way the market operates (is set to operate)
for renewables.

Remember the old ROCS and FITS are still valid.

It's the name given to the contract
that includes the strike price, as well as all the terms and
conditions etc. The cause for concern, IMO, is how that price is
arrived at, what deals go on behind closed doors, and what pressures
are put on the Government by outside parties such as Green lobbyists
to be generous.

That's as maybe,

but the post that I replied to saying that I didn't know what he was
talking about, claimed that the company could use CFDs to gain an income
significantly in excess of the strike price.

Its possible, via constraints. But I don't see it as a salient feature
of te mechanism.,

All you have done is confirm to me that he was lying, it can't be so used.

I take exception to being called an idiot by people who came to that
conclusion when they didn't know what they were talking about.



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 16/10/16 13:59, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:45:39 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:24:47 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


Google gives no clue it doesn't even tell me what the abbreviation expands
to

I'm not impressed by your Googling ability! Came straight up:
http://tinyurl.com/j4gfyr9 and in particular
http://tinyurl.com/hx5mlag

CFD = Contract For Difference.

"!In finance, a contract for difference (CFD) is a contract between two
parties, typically described as "buyer" and "seller", stipulating that the
seller will pay to the buyer the difference between the current value of an
asset and its value at contract time (if the difference is negative, then
the buyer pays instead to the seller). "

Yes I found this

it didn't seem to meet the claims that were made for it which we

1) the people would be paid whether they generated any electricity or not


I don't know whether it comes within the scope of CFD and strike
price, you'd need to see the details of the contracts, but they
certainly get paid not to generate when there's too much electricity
production exceeds consumption. See http://tinyurl.com/q3ef9y2 ,
http://tinyurl.com/j6uh9qg and http://tinyurl.com/jmfbly2

Correct. Its the grids 'constraint' system which 'punishes' the grid for
being unable to transport someone's electricity.

The grid (rightly) assesses that its cheaper top pay wind farms not to
produce than build cables that only carry peak flows twice a year.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

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

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
news:4fhkvbhnqacgjqjnp3lfivftrth746b79o@4ax .com...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no
case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price
as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k,
that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the
intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes getting
approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but they
are undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering
knowledge whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim to
convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay the
going rate for their expertise,

Not with MPs you don't.

and every time the idea of paying MPs more is raised it is quickly stamped
on

Because you wouldn't get qualified people by doing that with MPs.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/16 18:27, tim... wrote:

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have
no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike
price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say
£15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k,
that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output
is, against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the
intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes
getting approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but
they are undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering
knowledge whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay the
going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying MPs
more is raised it is quickly stamped on


If you want honorable people in government you will get them by paying NO
salary AT ALL.

Not necessarily. Some honourable people wouldnt be able
to be MPs because they wouldnt have any way of paying
the mortgage or providing food and clothing etc.

Then they are there because they care.

Not necessarily either. There would always be some there
just because being an MP allows them to posture publicly.

tim








--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or
condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the
ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must face
it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 18:57:50 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , tim...
writes


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay
the going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying
MPs more is raised it is quickly stamped on

The government has rafts of "advisors". They tend to have scientists
rather than engineers.

who pay no price for their screwups.

They can do, they dont get to advise in future.

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 19:15:19 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/10/16 18:27, tim... wrote:

"bert" wrote in message

A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay
the
going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying MPs
more is raised it is quickly stamped on


If you want honorable people in government you will get them by paying
NO salary AT ALL.

Then they are there because they care.

or because they intend to scam. Or because they have unrealistic ideas.

Yep, Corbyn is a bit more honourable than most as far as putting his
hand out to the state for whatever he can claim for, but isnt honourable
enough to avoid pulling his stupid stunt of being videoed sitting on the
floor of a train instead of using one of the empty seats available.

reams of your pathetic excuse for a troll that any 2 year
old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

On 17/10/16 06:48, Jack Johnson wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/16 18:27, tim... wrote:

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have
no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually
less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike
price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while
Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say
£15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k,
that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output
is, against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany
was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the
intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only
produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say
£50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes
getting approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but
they are undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering
knowledge whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay the
going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying MPs
more is raised it is quickly stamped on


If you want honorable people in government you will get them by
paying NO salary AT ALL.

Not necessarily. Some honourable people wouldnt be able
to be MPs because they wouldnt have any way of paying
the mortgage or providing food and clothing etc.

Irrelevant. We are not talking about who is not in government. Nor so
called 'social justice'

Then they are there because they care.

Not necessarily either. There would always be some there
just because being an MP allows them to posture publicly.


WEll that's harmless enough. Today we have reality TV for that sort.



--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 06:48, Jack Johnson wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/16 18:27, tim... wrote:

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have
no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually
less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike
price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while
Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say
£15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an
hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k,
that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output
is, against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany
was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the
intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only
produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that
you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say
£50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes
getting approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to
overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1
billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but
they are undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering
knowledge whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay
the
going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying MPs
more is raised it is quickly stamped on


If you want honorable people in government you will get them by
paying NO salary AT ALL.

Not necessarily. Some honourable people wouldnt be able
to be MPs because they wouldnt have any way of paying
the mortgage or providing food and clothing etc.

Irrelevant. We are not talking about who is not in government.

We clearly are talking about those who are in government.

Nor so
called 'social justice'

Then they are there because they care.

Not necessarily either. There would always be some there
just because being an MP allows them to posture publicly.


WEll that's harmless enough. Today we have reality TV for that sort.

Some prefer to do that in Parliament. Much easier to do that there for
decades.



--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 17/10/16 09:39, Jack Johnson wrote:
We clearly are talking about those who are in government.


Exactly. there may be millions of honorable people who are not in
government. They are not germane. We want to ensure the ones in
government ARE honourable.

If they are rich, they also have someth8ing toi lose.

Nor so
called 'social justice'

Then they are there because they care.

Not necessarily either. There would always be some there
just because being an MP allows them to posture publicly.


WEll that's harmless enough. Today we have reality TV for that sort.

Some prefer to do that in Parliament. Much easier to do that there for
decades.

I've no problem with politicians who are there for the beer or the
exposure. They either do nothing, or do what their constituents say, or
what the party says. They are just useful idiots.

I DO have a problem with idealists with chips on their shoulders, and
people who are clearly working for narrow financial interests.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 09:39, Jack Johnson wrote:
We clearly are talking about those who are in government.


Exactly. there may be millions of honorable people who are not in
government. They are not germane. We want to ensure the ones in government
ARE honourable.

If they are rich, they also have someth8ing toi lose.

Nor so
called 'social justice'

Then they are there because they care.

Not necessarily either. There would always be some there
just because being an MP allows them to posture publicly.


WEll that's harmless enough. Today we have reality TV for that sort.

Some prefer to do that in Parliament. Much easier to do that there for
decades.

I've no problem with politicians who are there for the beer or the
exposure. They either do nothing, or do what their constituents say, or
what the party says. They are just useful idiots.

I DO have a problem with idealists with chips on their shoulders,

But there is nothing wrong with idealists who dont
have a chip on their shoulder like Thatcher or Churchill.

and
people who are clearly working for narrow financial interests.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On Monday, 17 October 2016 06:52:42 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 18:57:50 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , tim...
writes


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay
the going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying
MPs more is raised it is quickly stamped on

The government has rafts of "advisors". They tend to have scientists
rather than engineers.

who pay no price for their screwups.

They can do, they dont get to advise in future.

but they do. Government simply refuses, for whatever reason, to get & follow good advice. If only it were different.


NT

On Monday, 17 October 2016 10:53:52 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/10/16 09:39, Jack Johnson wrote:

Then they are there because they care.

Not necessarily either. There would always be some there
just because being an MP allows them to posture publicly.


WEll that's harmless enough. Today we have reality TV for that sort.

Some prefer to do that in Parliament. Much easier to do that there for
decades.

I've no problem with politicians who are there for the beer or the
exposure. They either do nothing, or do what their constituents say, or
what the party says. They are just useful idiots.

they cause the many English screwups to keep screwing up.

I DO have a problem with idealists with chips on their shoulders, and
people who are clearly working for narrow financial interests.

People with idealist or radical ideas are the ones that solve problems. And also the ones that cause them.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 17 October 2016 06:52:42 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 18:57:50 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , tim...
writes


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term
aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay
the going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying
MPs more is raised it is quickly stamped on

The government has rafts of "advisors". They tend to have scientists
rather than engineers.

who pay no price for their screwups.

They can do, they dont get to advise in future.

but they do.

Not always.

Government simply refuses, for whatever reason, to get & follow good
advice.

It isnt always available, most obviously with BRexit.

If only it were different.

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 17 October 2016 10:53:52 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/10/16 09:39, Jack Johnson wrote:

Then they are there because they care.

Not necessarily either. There would always be some there
just because being an MP allows them to posture publicly.


WEll that's harmless enough. Today we have reality TV for that sort.

Some prefer to do that in Parliament. Much easier to do that there for
decades.

I've no problem with politicians who are there for the beer or the
exposure. They either do nothing, or do what their constituents say, or
what the party says. They are just useful idiots.

they cause the many English screwups to keep screwing up.

I DO have a problem with idealists with chips on their shoulders, and
people who are clearly working for narrow financial interests.

People with idealist or radical ideas are the ones that solve problems.

Hardly ever.

And also the ones that cause them.

Very often, most obviously with the EU.

On 17/10/16 18:45, wrote:
On Monday, 17 October 2016 06:52:42 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 18:57:50 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , tim...
writes


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay
the going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying
MPs more is raised it is quickly stamped on

The government has rafts of "advisors". They tend to have scientists
rather than engineers.

who pay no price for their screwups.

They can do, they dont get to advise in future.

but they do. Government simply refuses, for whatever reason, to get & follow good advice. If only it were different.


NT

You are aware that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth 'advised'
government together with Renewable Energy UK, to frame the 2008 Climate Act?


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On Monday, 17 October 2016 19:45:24 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/10/16 18:45, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 17 October 2016 06:52:42 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 18:57:50 UTC+1, bert wrote:

The government has rafts of "advisors". They tend to have scientists
rather than engineers.

who pay no price for their screwups.

They can do, they dont get to advise in future.

but they do. Government simply refuses, for whatever reason, to get & follow good advice. If only it were different.

You are aware that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth 'advised'
government together with Renewable Energy UK, to frame the 2008 Climate Act?

What more can one say? Rule by screwup after screwup.


NT