http://www.thenational.scot/news/160...to_renewables/


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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

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.

The Natural Philosopher laid this down on his screen :
And generate a **** sight more electricity

...and when it is needed.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 ?.

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.

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

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...

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

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

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

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...

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.

--

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.
--

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