Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/160...to_renewables/ -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat. |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/2018 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.thenational.scot/news/160...to_renewables/ You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote:
You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote:
On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote:
On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/2018 14:09, Ian wrote:
On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote: On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. I agree rails should perhaps not have been privatised in the first place. There are much cheaper, reliable, pleasing on the eye and cleaner ways to generate electricity than wind. |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? -- *Young at heart -- slightly older in other places Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/18 12:32, GB wrote:
On 17/03/2018 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.thenational.scot/news/160...to_renewables/ You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. I am pleased these guys will now be able to find somnething socially productive to do. I am sure if its just bumping up the jobs total that bothers you, digging hiles and filling them in again would be cheaper and less socially destructive Or they could all become membvers of the scottish parliament. -- "It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere" |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/18 14:09, Ian wrote:
On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote: On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. And road subsidies. Inn fact if we removed ALL subsidies we would after a period of intense turbulence emerge as a far more efficeint society. -- Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead. Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners. |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/18 14:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. And generate a **** sight more electricity -- Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/2018 14:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/03/18 14:09, Ian wrote: On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote: On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. And road subsidies. Inn fact if we removed ALL subsidies we would after a period of intense turbulence emerge as a far more efficeint society. Still trying for a war I see. Of course most subsidies aren't subsidies. The government commissions a service and has to pay for it, no subside involved. That would include, transport, road maintenance, NHS, etc. |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
The Natural Philosopher laid this down on his screen :
And generate a **** sight more electricity ...and when it is needed. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote: On 17/03/18 14:09, Ian wrote: On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote: On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. And road subsidies. Inn fact if we removed ALL subsidies we would after a period of intense turbulence emerge as a far more efficeint society. I suppose if "subsidies" include the NHS, there'd be a lot less people around -- from KT24 in Surrey, England |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
In article ,
charles wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 17/03/18 14:09, Ian wrote: On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote: On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. And road subsidies. Inn fact if we removed ALL subsidies we would after a period of intense turbulence emerge as a far more efficeint society. I suppose if "subsidies" include the NHS, there'd be a lot less people around Odd Turnip of all people doesn't see that. -- *Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
In article , Chris Hogg
writes On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. I see the wind turbines off Kent are having to be refurbished at half the expected cycle. -- bert |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes On 17/03/18 14:51, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. And generate a **** sight more electricity And when it's needed -- bert |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/18 16:21, Huge wrote:
On 2018-03-17, charles wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 17/03/18 14:09, Ian wrote: On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote: On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. And road subsidies. Inn fact if we removed ALL subsidies we would after a period of intense turbulence emerge as a far more efficeint society. I suppose if "subsidies" include the NHS, there'd be a lot less people around "fewer". You're welcome. Thanks. Saved me doing it. |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 15:59:34 UTC, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 17/03/18 14:09, Ian wrote: On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote: On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. And road subsidies. Inn fact if we removed ALL subsidies we would after a period of intense turbulence emerge as a far more efficeint society. a way to much reduce the turbulence would be to withdraw them very slowly I suppose if "subsidies" include the NHS, there'd be a lot less people around that's one case where it would be counterproductive. A much less healthy workforce means less productivity. So even economically it makes no sense, before looking at the moral/wellbeing side of it. School is another. 3rd world countries not eduating their citizens results in a less productive citizenry/workforce. NT |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/03/18 14:09, Ian wrote: On 17/03/2018 13:56, Richard wrote: On 17/03/18 13:24, Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? +1 You'll agree rail subsidies should be removed. And road subsidies. Inn fact if we removed ALL subsidies we would after a period of intense turbulence emerge as a far more efficeint society. This business about more 'efficiency' without government subsidy is quasi-religious nonsense. No high tech industry (software, armaments, aerospace to name some off the top of my head) can compete without govermnent subsidy *and* protection while the biggest corporate state in history masquerading as a supporter of free enterprise dominates all of them with military budget dwarfing the whole GDP of most other countries. By the way, the success of US military procurement in dominating all these industries does rather give the lie to the inventiveness of "free enterprise". It may or may not be an expensive way to do things but it works. -- Roger Hayter |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 10:50:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.thenational.scot/news/160...to_renewables/ -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nuclear-bunker |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 10:50:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.thenational.scot/news/160...to_renewables/ -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat. https://www.ft.com/content/b8e24306-...8-72e9211e86ab |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/2018 14:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/03/18 14:51, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Â*Â* Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. And generate a **** sight more electricity Possibly. One day. If it ever gets completed, since the evidence of it's siblings in France and Finland doesn't look hopeful. Why can't we just build some more like Sizewell ?. |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 18/03/18 11:00, Andrew wrote:
On 17/03/2018 14:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 17/03/18 14:51, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Â*Â* Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. And generate a **** sight more electricity Possibly. One day. If it ever gets completed, since the evidence of it's siblings in France and Finland doesn't look hopeful. Whereas its siblings in the far east are on time and on budget. Tell you anything about EU overregulation, and anti-nuclear greenery? Why can't we just build some more like Sizewell ?. EU nuclear ovverregulation -- "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift. |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
In article , Martin
wrote: On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:00:52 +0000, Andrew wrote: On 17/03/2018 14:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 17/03/18 14:51, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. And generate a **** sight more electricity Possibly. One day. If it ever gets completed, since the evidence of it's siblings in France and Finland doesn't look hopeful. Why can't we just build some more like Sizewell ?. because the engineers who built it have all retired and Mrs T decided we didn't need to train engineers anymore. I watched a BBC TV programme about Sunderland where they were building a road bridge, which had been towed from Belgium on a raft. I assume UK can't build bridges any more too? It can, but maybe with trans-EU tendering, the others were cheaper. Think of that bridge between Denmark & Sweden - that was UK designed. -- from KT24 in Surrey, England |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/2018 14:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/03/18 14:51, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Â*Â* Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. And generate a **** sight more electricity ....and ALL the time, so won't need a backup polluting power station as a backup when the wind doesn't feel like blowing, or blows too hard... |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/2018 16:28, bert wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg writes On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Â* Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. I see the wind turbines off Kent are having to be refurbished at half the expected cycle. The futu http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...of-Hawaii.aspx |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
In article , charles
writes In article , Martin wrote: On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:00:52 +0000, Andrew wrote: On 17/03/2018 14:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 17/03/18 14:51, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. And generate a **** sight more electricity Possibly. One day. If it ever gets completed, since the evidence of it's siblings in France and Finland doesn't look hopeful. Why can't we just build some more like Sizewell ?. because the engineers who built it have all retired and Mrs T decided we didn't need to train engineers anymore. I watched a BBC TV programme about Sunderland where they were building a road bridge, which had been towed from Belgium on a raft. I assume UK can't build bridges any more too? It can, but maybe with trans-EU tendering, the others were cheaper. Think of that bridge between Denmark & Sweden - that was UK designed. We *still* haven't caught on to the tendering tricks to ensure it goes to a home country company? -- bert |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
In article , JoeJoe
writes On 17/03/2018 14:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 17/03/18 14:51, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , ** Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. And generate a **** sight more electricity ...and ALL the time, so won't need a backup polluting power station as a backup when the wind doesn't feel like blowing, or blows too hard... Or we find the turbines need refurbishing twice as often as expected. -- bert |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 17/03/2018 16:28, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher writes On 17/03/18 14:51, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:27:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Â*Â* Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:32:54 +0000, GB wrote: You seem to be pleased these guys are out of work. Maybe he's just pleased that a company that can't compete without state aid will no longer be a burden on the taxpayer's teat? Remind us how much taxpayer's money is going to go into Hinkley Point? And care to guess how much the costs will overrun by? And how much electricity consumers will be subsidising its cost through higher charges? Â*Rather less than is going into renewables, that's for sure, and it'll last a deal sight longer. And generate a **** sight more electricity And when it's needed Harry said that. Which saved me the trouble... |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:01:14 +0100, Martin wrote:
On the plus side wind farms in territorial waters where boats are forbidden, like the Netherlands, are also fish conservation areas. The fish attracts seabirds that are then sliced by the wind turbines, they then fall in the water and feed the fish. -- |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:28:26 +0100, Martin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:16:13 +0000, The Other Mike wrote: On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:01:14 +0100, Martin wrote: On the plus side wind farms in territorial waters where boats are forbidden, like the Netherlands, are also fish conservation areas. The fish attracts seabirds that are then sliced by the wind turbines, they then fall in the water and feed the fish. Better than catching the fish to use to feed animals on battery farms. Where are the photos of metre deep piles of dead birds around land based wind farms? The foxes and rats eat them. So the question should be how much larger are the fox and rat populations around wind turbines. The greenies are quiet on that one. Most other power sources don't directly and routinely kill the wildlife. -- |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
On 19/03/18 16:55, The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:28:26 +0100, Martin wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:16:13 +0000, The Other Mike wrote: On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:01:14 +0100, Martin wrote: On the plus side wind farms in territorial waters where boats are forbidden, like the Netherlands, are also fish conservation areas. The fish attracts seabirds that are then sliced by the wind turbines, they then fall in the water and feed the fish. Better than catching the fish to use to feed animals on battery farms. Where are the photos of metre deep piles of dead birds around land based wind farms? The foxes and rats eat them. So the question should be how much larger are the fox and rat populations around wind turbines. The greenies are quiet on that one. Most other power sources don't directly and routinely kill the wildlife. Sizewell is behind a bird sanctuary - Minsmere. https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Locati...a_England.html -- You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. Al Capone |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Oh dear, how sad, never mind. | UK diy | |||
Oh dear, how sad, never mind. | UK diy | |||
OT Oh Dear Oh Dear - today the apprentice said | UK diy | |||
OT Oh Dear Oh Dear - today the apprentice said | UK diy | |||
Oh dear oh dear. CO2 Caused ice sheet formation? | UK diy |