Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You could add “Non of the above” to a ballot paper and if that’s the majority vote then another election is called, but non of the above can stand again for your vote. :lol:
I think many MP’s are hoping it will blow over, I somehow doubt it this time though.
We’ve moved on from the “it was all within the rules” meme to the “submitted in error” meme.
Every single troughing thief who has offered to repay money is doing so because s/he “submitted a claim in error”.
Every single one!!!
If they can’t manage their expenses properly, why the hell do they expect us to believe they can manage the country properly?
The arrogant, thieving, b@starding, weasel-worded gits: “a plague upon all your houses” doesn’t even begin to describe it.
@pete wrote:
Not half a country’s worth arent planned, and they’re high maintenance. Realistically there’s two options long term, coal or nuclear unless someone cracks nuclear fusion
Fusion might just have been cracked, google polywell. it’s so simple university scholars can build one and costs pennies with no fallout.
The project cost a massive $3,000. No, that’s not a misprint: that is three thousand dollars.http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/12/wb-6-results-confirmed-continuous.html
@bassingbourne55 wrote:
Wind power is not inefficient since the ‘fuel’, i.e. wind, is free. The efficiency comes in designing the turbines capture as much of the wind energy as possible and converting it to electrical energy.
The wind energy policy recognises the fact that the wind is inconsistent. The expected total average output from the offshore windfarms, according to the statistics, is about half their total rated capacity, which isn’t bad. One has to remember that only a proportion of the heat generated by a nuclear reactor or coal-fired boiler actually goes into producing steam to drive the generators, a lot is just dissipated.
It’s true that we cannot rely on wind power alone. A lot of gas-fired power stations have been built in the last 20 years and these have the advantage that they can be started up and shut down rapidly, unlike big coal-fired or nuclear ones. The windfarms will mean that the gas-fired power stations will be dormant for much more of the time, saving on the consumption of North Sea gas, which is already running out.
Windpower has made the journey from eco-hippie gadgets, via political pressure groups, to big business. Vestas, Enercon, Seimens, Nordex, RE-Power and General Electric, to name just 6 manufacturers, build large wind turbines on a commercial scale.
I agree nuclear might have a place in future energy policy because nuclear power stations are best kept working at a constant output. But, given the decomissioning costs that will be incurred by all nuclear power stations, they are likely to cost as much as the wind option …..and uranium is a finite resource.
An interesting new development is the ‘Wave Treader’ device, that generates electricity from waves. Rated at 0.5MW, it’s designed to be attached, by a collar, to the base of offshore wind turbines. So, theoretically, each 2MW offshore wind turbine could become a 2.5MW combined wind/wave device.
The one worry I have about this huge expansion of offshore windpower is the long-term durability of the turbines. Generally they are pretty robust but occasionally one breaks. What would the casualty rate of turbine blades be in a storm like the 1987 hurricane?
You miss my point, I’m not saying that they don’t generate power, just that they don’t generate it when we need it. That’s why they are all but useless, they can’t even store the power they generate (capacitors being useless for this purpose) That’s why for all the alternative energy sources that are built, you need a standard back up supply for. far simpler to just use the reliable back up instead and scrap the alternatives as a costly and wasteful use of resources.
@bassingbourne55 wrote:
It’s not climate change we should be worrying about, but rather what we do when the oil and gas runs out. But the solution to both problems is the same – a combination of renewable energy and energy savings.
It is planned that Britain will be producing between 35% and 45% of its electricity from wind power by 2020. The Round 2 offshore windfarms will soon be getting under way – one of the biggest, the Thames Array, 12 miles off the Thames Estuary, will produce up to 1000 megawatts, equivalent to a nuclear power station.
The Crown Estates are working out the Round 3 offshore windfarms – these will be further offshore and some will be vast. It even includes provision to install big wind farms on the Dogger Bank in the middle of the North Sea.
This huge project is going on almost un-noticed by the media, while elderly middle-class nimbys protesting about a proposed wind turbine a couple of miles from their homes makes the news.
Electric cars are now really on the agenda again as major manufacturers get involved.
Renault has even announced that it’s stopping research on hybrids and concentrating on pure battery electric cars. That is probably because they see a gap in the market since all the other biggies are working on hybrids.So it’s all coming together. Surplus energy generated by wind turbines at night, when demand is lower, can be utilised to charge the batteries of electric cars. Plug-in hybrid cars like the Chevrolet Volt overcome the limited range problem – they run as pure battery electric cars until the battery starts to run low, when the engine starts up to drive a generator to charge the battery.
I think we’re on the edge of proving the doubters wrong. We are on the edge of a huge leap forward in harnessing renewable energy. On wind turbines, the doubters would say: “But do you know how many wind turbines you’d need to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear power station?”, hoping they could destroy your argument by explaining that you’d need between 400 and 500. But they didn’t expect the response “Well, in that case, let’s build them, in the North Sea!
Coldest day in 2006 coincided with peak energy requirements in the UK. Guess what? No wind to speak of that day.
Problem with renewable energy is that it doesn’t work when we need it most of the time so you need conventional back up for when it doesn’t work. That costs money to run 2 seperate systems. Much easier to drop the inneficient wind, wave and other renewable energy and spend it on something that actually works and doesn’t cost 5 times the amount as standard power generation.
If you want clean carbon free (silly term) then nuclear is your only option.@forumhostpb wrote:
Sorry people but I simply don’t accept all this stuff about driving along watching the speedometer in case a camera gets you and thereby putting yourself at higher risk of an accident. What a facile argument.
So what are you doing in areas where there aren’t any cameras???
The plain fact is that if you drive a vehicle on a public road, you have a legal duty to drive it within the relevant speed limit. If you exceed that speed limit you commit an offence for which you can be punished.
I have a suspicion that people object to speed cameras primarily because they are an effective way of catching those who break the speed limits.
It’s pretty simple, if you don’t like the fines & penalty points – don’t break the speed limit……. or is that a bit too complicated for some drivers????
True enough, however they don’t catch drunk drivers, dangerous drivers or people doing stupid things in cars. they just monitor one aspect of the law and one that doesn’t cause a major problem in and of itself.
They replaced traffic cops cos they are more cost effective, they are purely revenue raisers and have nothing to do with safety.@forumhostpb wrote:
Yes it’s pretty ironic (the Serco boss getting pinged for speeding).
But I have never understood the incessant whinging about speed cameras being a only a money generating device, and how unfair it all is etc etc.
Forgive me if I’m being too logical but the answer to them is really very simple ……. don’t break the speed limit !!! Easy really huh?
Speed cameras are set to ‘flash’ you if you exceed the set limit by more than 10% + 2mph. so in a 30 mph limit, you can do 35mph and get away with it; in a 40 mph limit – 46mph; in a 50mph limit – 57mph; and so on.
I really fail to see why those caught speeding by cameras whinge so much. They were well over the legal limit -they should pay their fine and get over it.
Problem is that people are concentrating on their speedometers rather than the road in front of them, this makes speed cameras a danger rather than a safety aspect of road conditions.
As a driver, I really think that speed cameras are actively dangerous. Why? Simply because you end up watching your speedometer, rather than the road ahead. Not to mention the inevitable braking at the speed camera’s start point (even people who are travelling at, or below, the speed limit almost always brake) that can easily lead to a shunt (especially if you are looking at your speedo rather than… Well, you get the idea).Also road conditions at different times of the day are different, a motorway at 3 am is totally different to rush hour driving where the speed limit may be sensible.
The most telling aspect is of course that since the introduction of “safety cameras” road accidents have not decreased as a percentage of cars on the road with only 6% of accidents being directly attributable to speeding.The torygraph had an article on it not so long ago. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/5273642/Cash-first-safety-second.html
Word of the day
Pandemic.
A combination of the ancient Greek words ‘pan’ meaning ‘everyone’ and ‘demic’ meaning ‘frighten the absolute living shit out of’.
@tictax wrote:
@pete wrote:
I maybe expected the tories to something when they were in power ? Oh no thats right they did NOTHING :-k
they did something pete they closed the pits , the steel works basically hit the workin class ppl from the north whilst gaining massive majorities in the south by looking after the “yuppies “
Yes they did, they stopped subsidising unprofitable industries. How’d you like it if you were having to pay your neighbours rent cos they couldn’t or wouldn’t?
Nothing to do with the yuppies at all, or do you believe there are no deserving working class in the south? Why should they pay for northern industries?
