Take it out of the hands of private companies with share holders would be a start!
I noticed sellafield is looking a bit rough these days.
Black / Brown Outs Are You Ready Lol?
- Thread starter Blue Duck
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
I noticed sellafield is looking a bit rough these days.
You just need to remember, that private business is about making money, not about safety.
A business exists to make money for its shareholders.
That is its prime function, there is nothing wrong with that, it is business, and rightly so.
What is wrong is that countries, namely ours, are reliant on an organisation that has profit as its main objective when the whole country is reliant upon that business delivering other objectives, which are contrary to its prime directive, i.e. safety and the greater needs of the country for "GB PLC" to actually function, oh, and forget the "PLC" bit, because our hospitals, prisons, elderly, vulnerable, our incomes from our companies, now rely on other companies to put our needs and wants above that of their shareholders, which, is perhaps even against "Company Law"?...
What a state to be in, oh, but then we are not yet a State are we?...
A business exists to make money for its shareholders.
That is its prime function, there is nothing wrong with that, it is business, and rightly so.
What is wrong is that countries, namely ours, are reliant on an organisation that has profit as its main objective when the whole country is reliant upon that business delivering other objectives, which are contrary to its prime directive, i.e. safety and the greater needs of the country for "GB PLC" to actually function, oh, and forget the "PLC" bit, because our hospitals, prisons, elderly, vulnerable, our incomes from our companies, now rely on other companies to put our needs and wants above that of their shareholders, which, is perhaps even against "Company Law"?...
What a state to be in, oh, but then we are not yet a State are we?...
Absolutely got it in one....
Well said Paul....
john....
Well said Paul....
john....
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,468
- Reaction score
- 78
Bought a 2.2kVA petrol gennie from Makro years ago after getting fed up with the regular power cuts. Got as far as filling it with petrol & oil and trying it on a 500W site light. Then things got "better" with few if ever power cuts. All the plans for building it's own little rodded enclosure hard wired to the cu with a dedicated changeover switch went out of the window!
Must dig it out of the garage............and stick a plug top either end of a bit of bell wire............
Must dig it out of the garage............and stick a plug top either end of a bit of bell wire............
global warming as of this week has been announced as FACT, instaed of the normal 'climate change' phrase designed to appease firkin idiots who can't see what the **** is happening outside thier own ********** windows. Don't believe me, stop reading the Daily Mail and do some ********** reserach into scientific papers on the subject, and not the ones written by people whio still believe Elvis is on the moon. Try the unbiased sceintific papers, that all point in the same direction - global warming is ********** REAL
Last edited by a moderator:
You believe what you like...
So, there we are, 100 mph gales. everyone is happy, all go out and switch their kettle on when the adverts are on the telly, and the wind drops, lets say for 30 seconds. What happens then????
IF you are lucky, HUNDREDS of diesel generators all over the country start up and rev their bollocks off while the generators try to balance demand by ramping up output from all the conventional power stations that they have had to keep up to speed on stand by, if you are NOT lucky "brown out" Yes, well clever....
john..
So, there we are, 100 mph gales. everyone is happy, all go out and switch their kettle on when the adverts are on the telly, and the wind drops, lets say for 30 seconds. What happens then????
IF you are lucky, HUNDREDS of diesel generators all over the country start up and rev their bollocks off while the generators try to balance demand by ramping up output from all the conventional power stations that they have had to keep up to speed on stand by, if you are NOT lucky "brown out" Yes, well clever....
john..
The thing is that the government would have us believe that solar, wind and tidal are the answer to our problems
Well, solar is only good for when the sun is out
Wind is only good for when it's windy
and tidal while it is regular, the flow is only at it a maximum for the hour or so halfway between low and high tide.
So we need something else.....
Well, solar is only good for when the sun is out
Wind is only good for when it's windy
and tidal while it is regular, the flow is only at it a maximum for the hour or so halfway between low and high tide.
So we need something else.....
couldnt we harvest rain?
it would work for me, we get rain 364 days a year in sunny Manchester,
the other day its usually snowing,,,, :|
it would work for me, we get rain 364 days a year in sunny Manchester,
the other day its usually snowing,,,, :|
A couple of years ago BBC broadcast a series entitled "earths extraordinary orbit" which showed that there are slight variances in the orbit they affect the weather cycles and thus the ice ages could be tracked to these variances.
Whilst the effect of man, the growing population, the burning of fossil fuels etc must be changing things, we can't rule out the changes from the variance of the orbit.
We've got about 100 years of fossil fuels left so the bot fins need to be paid and rewarded for sensible alternatives, sooner rather than later.
The uk is lucky as it has reserves of most fuels - we need to look across Europe at the countries with little or no reserves and see what they have achieved and learn fast!
Whilst the effect of man, the growing population, the burning of fossil fuels etc must be changing things, we can't rule out the changes from the variance of the orbit.
We've got about 100 years of fossil fuels left so the bot fins need to be paid and rewarded for sensible alternatives, sooner rather than later.
The uk is lucky as it has reserves of most fuels - we need to look across Europe at the countries with little or no reserves and see what they have achieved and learn fast!
We do already they are called dam's :innocentcouldnt we harvest rain?
it would work for me, we get rain 364 days a year in sunny Manchester,
the other day its usually snowing,,,, :|
These other things are great but not the real answer as the energy they produce cant be stored easily so while they take pressure of the grid we can't rely on them.
Nuclear sounds like the best option but has big problems associated with it so we need to look at other fuels.
Problem is the only people with the money and power to do this are the ones currently drilling holes in the bottom of the sea
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,716
- Reaction score
- 884
Ah, a widow maker with built in fuse.Must dig it out of the garage............and stick a plug top either end of a bit of bell wire............
you can't argue with decades of scientific research John. We all know how long it takes any government department to conclude that as you just cut your leg-off there's as high chance you might need a hospital, and too much immigration may be a problem for the country...so the fact that government departments announced that gobal warming is being caused by CO2 emmissions, was a shock to me! Its only taken about 3 decades to conclude the obviuos. If you don't believe me John do some proper research of your own, and if you still think after reading hundreds of research papers that you are right, then you are a very stubborn man! Right now my spring flowering pear tree is in full flower for the second time this year, that also just isn't right! It also means I probably won't get any fruit next year as the first frost will destroy it, a microscopic example of the problems that can be caused by global warming. Repeat my pear tree on a global level and that IS SERIOUS and IT IS HAPPENING NOW, very slowly, but very surely.
As for transient power peaks and drops in wind speeds, they renewable sector is looking long and hard at storage facilities and driving serious money into R&D, partly to manage grid voltages, but mostly to ensure energy generated is available when needed. The Germans are currently laying a cable across to Sweden where they are building a hydro electric scheme so that surplus solar energy can be used to pump water up into a dam for release at peak demand times and overnight.
As for renewables, they will never be the whole answer to the problem of secure energy production only truly die-hard eco freaks think it is, though it isn't a bad thing to aim for. Coal does still have a part to play, as does Nuclear, and more importantly energy use reduction, but the more we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels the better the world will be for us and our children, and our grandchildren.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 17,016
- Reaction score
- 43
Binky - we've had this discussion before and I do not believe that us 'puny humans' are having the effects that the scaremongers try to convince us.
I'm supposedly an intelligent individual and I have looked at the evidence. Fundamentally I am a scientist. The thing you have to realise is in science almost nothing is certain. Someone comes up with a theory, experiments are done to prove or disprove that theory. Based on the balance of evidence you develop the best theory. If more evidence comes along then that theory has to be addressed. Keeping an open mind is all a part of being a scientist.
The only way to PROVE global warming exists is to take 2 identical earth, fill one with windmills and one with coal power stations and see what happens. You can't run a true case controlled study so we use weak observation studies compounded by so much error they are practically meaningless.
As has been stated, this country has grown tropical ferns and had meters of solid ice. The fact that the climate changes is indisputable. There is good evidence of that.
There is only one solution to our energy needs - nuclear. There is no getting away from it. The sooner we stop wrecking our country with 'green' fallacy and a politician grows some balls and gets on with building nuclear power the better.
I'm supposedly an intelligent individual and I have looked at the evidence. Fundamentally I am a scientist. The thing you have to realise is in science almost nothing is certain. Someone comes up with a theory, experiments are done to prove or disprove that theory. Based on the balance of evidence you develop the best theory. If more evidence comes along then that theory has to be addressed. Keeping an open mind is all a part of being a scientist.
The only way to PROVE global warming exists is to take 2 identical earth, fill one with windmills and one with coal power stations and see what happens. You can't run a true case controlled study so we use weak observation studies compounded by so much error they are practically meaningless.
As has been stated, this country has grown tropical ferns and had meters of solid ice. The fact that the climate changes is indisputable. There is good evidence of that.
There is only one solution to our energy needs - nuclear. There is no getting away from it. The sooner we stop wrecking our country with 'green' fallacy and a politician grows some balls and gets on with building nuclear power the better.
Many Times Apache, and fundamentally I am an Engineer with an MSc, I work off facts as far as possible. Thousands and thousands of scientists have spent thousands of hours studying data and evidence from ice core samples to measuring CO2 content in the air and have concluded that climate change is being caused by CO2 emissions from the activities of 7 billion puny humans using far more energy than the planet can handle. Now you may also have noticed the 'doubting' scientists have gone very quiet, and there used to be quite a few of those arguing as scientiists do that someones paper is flawed for x, y,z reasons. Why have they gone quiet, because the evidence is overwhelming that puny humans are emitting too much Co2 and are causing the world to warm up in an unusually fast and damaging way. To put an annoucemnt on the national news from the UN means that pretty much the entire scientific community agrees and the science is not in dispute, although I'm sure someone is still arguing that everyone else is wrong somewhere, like here :^O
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29870856
The arguments will now/ are continuing as to how much, where and when the damage will be. Who knows, if the mini ice-age theory is correct, than it may actually be beneficial??
As has also been stated the country has also been located at any point between the equator and the artic circle, hence ferns to ice-caps amoungst other causes of this. What you aren't getting though, is that those changes in climate took place over millions of years, and the previuos 'rapid' changes, over hundreds to thousands of years. Flora and fauna had plenty of time to adapt and change with the climate, plus we weren't polluting half of it, or chopping it down to grow cash crops. The big issue, isn't that it hasn't happened before, but all the impirical evidence is pointing to a change in the wrong direction, and one that is happening pretty damn quick ( in climate terms). The big losers will be mankind (and artic creatures like polar bears) - just look at how many people live in low lying areas along the coast, and how many major cities are located in these areas. The cost of re-locating/ protecting those cities will be far higher than the cost of reducing CO2 emmissions.
Even if you still don't believe the scientific findings and forecasts of doom for the future, then there are observable real effects of CO2 emmissions you can't deny. EG. acidification of the oceans causing problems with shell formation of crustaceans, corals, and shrimpy type things, which includes Krill. Anything that affects Krill, affects half (probably more) the oceans fish and whales species, so your cod and chips might suddenly become a very expensive luxury, again the arguments continue as too how much where and when the damage will occur.
As for the answer, coal isn't it, though I still think it has a place to play becuase it is cheap, Nuclear has the benefit of zero CO2 emisions but a 3ooo year legacy problem (+ makes a great terrorist target) but the cost is immense, making the renewable technology look bloody cheap by comparison, and quick to build.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29870856
The arguments will now/ are continuing as to how much, where and when the damage will be. Who knows, if the mini ice-age theory is correct, than it may actually be beneficial??
As has also been stated the country has also been located at any point between the equator and the artic circle, hence ferns to ice-caps amoungst other causes of this. What you aren't getting though, is that those changes in climate took place over millions of years, and the previuos 'rapid' changes, over hundreds to thousands of years. Flora and fauna had plenty of time to adapt and change with the climate, plus we weren't polluting half of it, or chopping it down to grow cash crops. The big issue, isn't that it hasn't happened before, but all the impirical evidence is pointing to a change in the wrong direction, and one that is happening pretty damn quick ( in climate terms). The big losers will be mankind (and artic creatures like polar bears) - just look at how many people live in low lying areas along the coast, and how many major cities are located in these areas. The cost of re-locating/ protecting those cities will be far higher than the cost of reducing CO2 emmissions.
Even if you still don't believe the scientific findings and forecasts of doom for the future, then there are observable real effects of CO2 emmissions you can't deny. EG. acidification of the oceans causing problems with shell formation of crustaceans, corals, and shrimpy type things, which includes Krill. Anything that affects Krill, affects half (probably more) the oceans fish and whales species, so your cod and chips might suddenly become a very expensive luxury, again the arguments continue as too how much where and when the damage will occur.
As for the answer, coal isn't it, though I still think it has a place to play becuase it is cheap, Nuclear has the benefit of zero CO2 emisions but a 3ooo year legacy problem (+ makes a great terrorist target) but the cost is immense, making the renewable technology look bloody cheap by comparison, and quick to build.
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
Climate change is an inevitable process, however it's the speed of change of that process which mankind is effecting. The problem is we aren't clever enough to be able to accurately predict the rate of change and can only therefore give assumptions as to how what why and where based on the physical around us. But you can be guaranteed that a change is happening and will continue to happen for as long as the earth exists. The earth is a living and breathing planet so change will occur on the same way that we as humans are living and breathing beings that change over time!!
Edit: remove double post!!
Edit: remove double post!!
Last edited by a moderator:
The climate models are getting better all the time, but will never be 100% accurate, however you don't need an accurate model to show the ice cap on Greenland is melting rapidly along with the polar ice to the point where a NW passage around Canada is being citied as very real possibility in summer. Now all that melting ice will/is causing sea levels to rise - I've been joking for years about buying land 10ft above sea level so I can have a water front property in 50 years time. How much it will rise, and how fast, is obviously subject to some dispute, but it is happening.
at last something I agree withThatcher about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15874560
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15874560
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,716
- Reaction score
- 884
1800: World population reaches 1 billion.
1999: Population reaches 6 billion
2011: Population reaches 7 billion
THAT is the No 1 problem.
Until we stabilise the population (stop it rising, not annihilate anyone) then reducing Co2 per person is meaningless.
lack of resources - food and water, will probably end in some annihilation...horrible prospect. Was kind of hoping Ebola might reach Asia, also totally horrible but better than wars, I think. Empowerment of women apparently is one of the best ways of reducing population growth - women with jobs have less kids and have any kids later in life.
Some interesting facts in that potted history like 1896 when the swedish chemist predicts the greenhouse effect...
Anyone still care to argue that CO2 from human activities isn't causing an unusual amount of global warming??? 95% certaintity from the scientific community is about as convincing as you can get, bearing in mind the link between lung cancer and smoking hasn't been proven yet (or if it has it was only about 10 years ago - can't quite remember to be honest).
Some interesting facts in that potted history like 1896 when the swedish chemist predicts the greenhouse effect...
Anyone still care to argue that CO2 from human activities isn't causing an unusual amount of global warming??? 95% certaintity from the scientific community is about as convincing as you can get, bearing in mind the link between lung cancer and smoking hasn't been proven yet (or if it has it was only about 10 years ago - can't quite remember to be honest).
I was under the impression that Cow's were more to blame than humans for Co2 issues.
