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 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.

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 17/03/2018 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.

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 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

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
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 17/03/2018 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 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...

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

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

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 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