Posts by peter_dtm

D@v3 Look at your 'lecky bill

The article says its a 22kWHr battery

so it will take 22kW of energy to charge

alternativly at 150 miles per charge that 22kW/150 = 0.15kW per mile (rounded up to 2 significent figures to account for some of the inefficiencies)

so it will cost you 0.15 * kWH charge from your lecky supplier per mile PLUS £70 per month to lease the battery.

Or to put it another way - it will be like having a 2 bar electric heater on for 10 hours a day every time you need to charge.

Of course; over time that charge capacity will reduce as will the range; and the efficiency of the charging. But for quick comparison go with 0.15kWH per mile

anyone up to calculating the kWH per mile charge for an ICE ?

Incedentially - houshold charging - the 22kWH charge pont will draw around 95 amps for one hour to give you a full charge (actually slightly more but again close enough) - most houses in the UK have either 50 or 100 amp main fuses.

The 2.2kW charger will of course draw a mere 9.5 amps - but for 10 hours; so don't be staying out till 2 in the morning and leaving for work at 7 ........

Mephisto @ http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1767935

so wrong

decommissioning costs ARE already included in all new builds - except those (technically speaking) useless pointless windmills.

Residue management - that's what fast breeder reactors are for; except we're not allowed to build them because most people have no understanding of how nuclear works. Well why would they; most people don't understand how windmills actually (don't) work and they are orders of magnitude simpler.

Re: Size matters

I don't know - bambo place mats were better - and found in all the best houses; but never ever on the table under plates !

Re: "...stereoscopic..."

argh that's done it - flashback in quad & technicolour !

I used to get back from sea (3 to 6 months away) & head for my sister's flat in London - 1st job sort out my brother-in-law's quad so the speakers were in phase & in the right corners (12 foot squre basement 'flat' - 'Art; leave the friggin quad alone ! ' ) - only one decent record to do that with ... Dark SIde of the Moon.

Then having got the aucostics right - turn the volume waaay up; light up; grab a home brew (bro in law was a Master Brewer..) & chill out in the middleof the room ... Dark SIde - Umaguma (also in quad) a couple of Moody Blues; Clapton/Cream ......

Good quailty speakers; good acoustic environment (damp walls don't reflect much..) not much in this world gets better than that ....

Re: Can't see what they can do about it

and of course, by buying at a cheaper price you are also avoiding tax, by paying less VAT

nick g. http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1648384

no, the company that fills the gap will obey the law & since it is required by law to minimise costs it will pay as little tax as it (legally) can get away with

a company's duty is to its shareholders which means it is legally required to MINIMIZE its tax payments.

AC Posted Sunday 25th November 2012 18:15 GMT

and of course everyone who has looked for a CHEAPER price on a VAT eligible item is also 'guilty' of tax avoidance.

For those who don't get percentages; or understand the real world :

cost £120 - tax paid @20% VAT = £20

find the same bit of kit for £60 then tax paid = £10

guess what if you buy the cheaper offer you have just AVOIDED paying £10 of tax; you evil nasty vicious barstard you

Aren't the politics of envy wonderful ?

--> David W. Posted Sunday 21st October 2012 02:02 GMT

Do your self a favour

Find out how much money 'Big Oil' donates to Green Peace & WWF (Shell is one of WWF biggest donnors)

How may CAGW proponent climate scientists are wholly funded by Governments who are not exactly neutral ?

See if you can find out where people like Steve MacIntyre and Anthony Watts earn their funding - and how much they actually get ?

Now come back with just who is 'ill paid' (How much does Phil Jones of CRU earn ? How about the Head of the Met Office ?)

You do know the founders of GreenPeace left in disgust because of the political take over ?

Have a look at a few web sites; try asking questions on say WattsUpWithThat and SkepticalScience - you may well be insulted on both; but give it a go :

Question 1 : Please explain why Solar input is effectively ignored by the IPCC; surely the SUn has more influance than CO2 ?

Question 2 : Please explain why CO" is not causing 2 degrees per century global warming; after all the IPCC says this is so

and ask some of those questions you may have about the science behind AGW.

Boiling Rage - have you read some of the things said about people who do not BELIEVE in CAGW; - they are compared to Holocaust Deniers (the term denier is deliberate).

Hanson wants them to be tried for War Crimes

Have a look at what happened to Dr Judith Curry when she dared suggest that there should be DISCUSSION between the Catastrophic Climate Change believers and the skeptical community - which includes Physicists and Statisticians.

Research the inability of so called deniers to get peer reviewed papers published and the propaganda war (IPCC response to being caught out using WWF non-peer reviewed papers purporting to show glacier melt down was to shout VODOO SCIENCE at the people who demonstrated the nonsense published by the IPCC)

IF CO2 is not a problem what happens to :

the IPCC jamborees

RoC (tax on energy-- $$$)

Carbon Exchanges (where RoC are supposed to be traded for $$$$; Al Gore founded the Chicago RoC exchange)

Windmills

Bio Fuels

the whole renewable energy scam (I speak the word scam as an engineer)

Taxes

The doubling of your lecky bills over the next 5 years ..

The crippling of the economy in the UK -- EU -- USA as pointless restrictions on cheap energy push us back to a feudal existence

and so on and so on...

FWIW - The climate changes; always has and always will; the skeptics question the influence of CO2 and man's OTHER activities on the climate; and especially question the CATASTROPHIC projection of some shoddy models.

Re: No support for more action : sean.fr --> Posted Saturday 20th October 2012 21:07 GMT

No

It is more like trying to bail out the Titanic with a teaspoon; you would be better employed building a raft or other ADAPTIVE measure to ensure you survive.

The fact that the ship is more like HMS Victory (ie not only NOT sinking; but because she's not at sea; actually incapable of sinking) makes your comparison even more inappropriate.

Just remember - the climate changes; always has; always will

Re: Wait until --> Dr Stephen Jones Posted Sunday 21st October 2012 15:34 GMT

quote

Your got post got downvoted because the Greens cannot accept this reality.

end quote

Small correction Dr Jones - the 'this' is superfluous :

Your got post got downvoted because the Greens cannot accept reality.

Re: Behind the curve again

http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/

http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/

and from WUWT

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/21/update-and-confirmation-of-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded:

‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement . . . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.

‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’

The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

end quote

Note the last paragraph. Note the 'very small amount of warming in the 21st Century' is in fact LESS then the ERRORS and therefore the correct statistical statement is that the warming trend is 0.0 deg C/ decade +/- 0.15 deg C (as the errors are approximately 0.15 deg C ).

SO

Phil Jones (CRU) thinks ther is no current significant raise in Global Temperature; the Met Office AGREES with this (even if they weasel their words).

Oh; and look at the Arctic sea ice recovery; as well as the Antarctic sea ice extent (Antarctic SEA ice; note : the ice floating on the sea AROUND the Antarctic continent). References to source material available from http://wattsupwiththat.com (that is SOURCE material) see the References Tab --> Sea Ice...

CAGW - probably not; but the climate - it keeps on changing

Re: Bwahahahaha!

it just shows how little sense there is

IFF you cut down on the amount of lecky generated to below that needed to keep the lights on...

HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO POWER THOSE ELECTRIC CARS ????

Re: Think! J Lewter

here we go again

TAX RELIEF is NOT a subsidiy

Solar and wind subsidies involve millions of pounds being GIVEN to the subsidee - so winmill owners get PAID money to build and operate; as well as GUARENTEED above market rate payment for calculated generation (no; the payments made when the grid does not want or need irregular supplies is always paid at faceplate value; despite the fact that the useless things only average <<30% of faceplate leccy)

So called '£5bn or so that we give to the Gas and Oil industry' is tax that is not collected - Oil & Gas companies pay NETT tax into the system; non collection of tax by the government is NOT and can never be a subsidy.

Lets state that again to see if this will be understood

TAX relief is NOT a subsidy. EVER. What it is is LESS tax; so the government gets £5 instead of £10.

Re: Sigh...

the graph only goes back to 1970 !

What was happening in 1959 when USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole ??

What was happening 100 years ago ?

What was happening when Greenland was green and did NOT have permafrost ?

How did all those plants grow in Siberia that now constitute the permafrost layer

30 years is not enough time to even start to guess at what 'normal' INTERGLACIAL state of the poles actually is historically.

We do know the Chinese navigated round the Artic Ocean c1300.

Read the logs from the Whalers (18 & 19 th centuries) to understand that the 'fringes' of the artic ice pack don't half change a lot.

WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE STATE OF THE ICE PACKS IN THE 1930s never mind the Middle ages Warm Period or the Roman Optimum.

We DO know that the earth has been in its current Ice House stage for a long time; and the current interglacial is colder than average and has already lasted LONGER than average; we are due another glacial period; the last one almost wiped out H Sapiens - conversely H Sap has always prospered during this interglacial's mild warm periods. Incidentally; periodically (in hundreds of millions of years time scales) the earth becomes a 'Hot House' when; unlike the present Ice House phase; there is NO ICE AT ALL at the poles.

Get a grip on the time scales involved compared to the pathetic 30 years of data we have.

Re: Big Storm Wilco1

However it has been very stable over the last few thousand years

tosh

Roman Warm Period

Dark Ages

Middle Ages Warm Period

Little Ice Age

We are in an INTREGLACIAL - and a not very warm one. The last ice age almost killed us off; the last warm period caused us to thrive

Stable climate my backside. The climate is probably Bistable - Hot House (NO ice at the poles) and Ice House (Ice present at one or both poles). We are still (that is STILL) in ICE HOUSE earth. Albeit in an INTERGLACIAL. An interglacial that is already over average length; so we are due (over due) to descend into another glacial period. This interglacial is not as warm as the last one by the way. Ice House Earth may be bistable - Glacial and inter glacial. With most time spent in the Glacial phase. Guess what - glacial is way way way worse for bio-diversity and humans than interglacial are.

Drowning - from a sea level rise that is slowing down - currently at mm per decade ? If you are in the UK - go to Barrow in Furness; East Side (Morecambe Bay side) - go to the shore - its about 1 foot above high water - its been that way since Roman times. If sea level rise was as large as claimed; why is Rampside not flooded ?

Read up on graves in Greenland. Farms exposed by 'retreating' glaciers in Switzerland; what the tundra permafrost hides in the way of dead plants; then explain how that all happened if it wasn't globally warmer in the recent past.

You need to get some time line perspective too; a few THOUSAND years ? - not even visible on the timeline of O2 rich Earth.

If we stop the production of cheap energy; how do you plan to keep the world fed ? Any idea how much food we could produce and get to the consumers if we cut back even 20% never mind 80% of CHEAP RELIABLE EFFICIENT energy generation ? Scarce FOOD resources due to lack of : Fertilizers; mechanised farming; chilling and freezing plants; cheap DISTRIBUTION (any idea how much food is needed by London ? check it out; work out how to get that into the metropolitan centres without MODERN CHEAP ENERGY dependant utilities). Go on - do the maths; work it out; find out how much food the UK imports. What sort of harvests are produced by 'organic' farming compared with commercial farming; then explain how you plan to feed the world.

There has NEVER been a stable climate.

We are in a CO2 starved period of the earth's long O2 rich history (again; explain why plants are evolved for a far higher CO2 concentration than is presently available). Look up C3 and C4 photosynthesis and why C4 is believed to be a RECENT adaptation to LOW CO2 concentrations.

We ( the whole biosphere) do far better in WARM periods than in cold (compare the abundance of species in the tropics compared to the comparative LACK of diversity in the Polar regions).

Re: It is all irrelevant. because Wilco1 gets it wrong

oh dear

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/239465

partial quote

In addition to the cold temperatures, other factors make Vostok one of the most difficult places on Earth for human habitation:

*An almost complete lack of moisture in the air.

*An average windspeed of 5 m/s (18 km/h), sometimes rising to as high as 27 m/s (97 km/h).

*An acute lack of oxygen because of the high 3,488-meter (11,444 ft) altitude. Accounting for the fact that oxygen density gets lower as one approaches the poles, it is estimated that the oxygen density at Vostok is equivalent to that of a mountain over 5,000 meters (16,400 ft) tall at more temperate latitudes.

*A higher ionization of the air.

*A partial pressure of gases that is different from that which most humans are used to.

*A lack of carbon dioxide in the air, which leads to irregularities in a person's breathing mechanism.

*A polar night that lasts three months of the year.

Note this bit

*A lack of carbon dioxide in the air, which leads to irregularities in a person's breathing mechanism.

with reports of people waking up 'not breathing' due to the low CO2 partial pressure.

and then go here : http://www.ivhhn.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84

Exposure limits

(% in air)

Health Effects

2-3 Unnoticed at rest, but on exertion there may be marked shortness of breath

3 Breathing becomes noticeably deeper and more frequent at rest

3-5 Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches

5 Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse

7.5 Rapid breathing, increased heart rate, headaches, sweating, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscular weakness, loss of mental abilities, drowsiness, and ringing in the ears

Note that it isn't until 7.5 parts per hundred (not PARTS PER MILLION) that we see 'loss of mental abilities.

At 2 to 3 PARTS PER HUNDRED the effects of extremely high CO2 concentration is not even noticed.

390 parts per million 390/1000000 as against 2/100 or 20000 parts per million ( I don't think I've dropped an extra zero here - check it yourself) and you can work out how many times that is larger....

You really want to worry about 390 ppm when we don't have any problems until we get 20000 ppm ????

Next

What on earth are you on about quote you :

Still trying to deny that burning oil causes an increase CO2?

end quote

NO. what an stupid comment - I have NEVER denied burning oil or coal or methane or ethane etc etc doesn't give of CO2. I suppose you are one of those people who keep telling me I deny the climate changes ? Well; I have news for you; the climate has ALWAYS changed. ALWAYS

So - how much CO2 is given of by the earth's non-human reactions ? And how much is added by the human use of burning things ? Given we do not even know how much CO2 is given off by sub-sea volcanic action - except it can be estimated in Giga tons per annum

Amongst other important thing PLANTS STOP PHOTO SYNTHESIZING below about 150 ppm CO2; and plants do really really well at 5000ppm. Why have plants evolved to bloom in 'high' CO2 concentrations ? Why do commercial green house gardeners run their green houses with >1000ppm of CO2 -- because plants are better adapted to high levels of CO2

Re: Noone harmed? Pull the other one! Try 2500 deaths.

I am going to indulge in some green wash type hyperbole

Have 5000 million million up votes !

I am with you 500%

or in normal engineering type language :

well said sir ! You have 100% of my support

Re: I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages

Please yes - build a Nuke next door to my house - just far enough so I can walk to the gates in 5 minutes.

O f course it would have to be a modern WESTERN nuke not some clapped out Soviet design.

Oh I have empathy - I do not want my kids living in an energy starved world it would no doubt be pretty brutal and we know the life expectancy would be back to below 30 in pretty short time.

All this luddism; pretending that somehow or other cheap energy is not the ONLY reason we have so many people living such long (and possibly fulfilling) lives.

Have you any idea of what a fuel starved world looks like -- the dark ages; that's what; Cold; hunger; poverty; short brutalised lives.

Nukes are safe - and have a better safety record than any other form of energy generation. If you worry about CO2 then you should welcome Nukes with open arms; they really do generate the least amount of CO2 per KW/Hr generated.

So; you were displaced by a paranoid government and paranoid people; your exposure to radiation in the Fukushima area is LESS than the that which I was exposed to living in N Wales.

I don't suppose it would help; but for what it is worth you have my sympathy for the trauma caused by the Tsunami; and the over reaction of the Japanese authorities following the damage to the Fuskushima reactors. Luckily the engineers I work with in Japan were all outside the affected zones; though all of their factories did shut down for varying periods.

You all have my sympathy for the terrible impact from the Tsunami; which was/is surely magnitudes greater than that of the Fukushima plant.

Incidentally; if some one prevents something from being done safely; is it 'flaming' to point it out and shed some light on what the primary cause of an incident was - especially as by knowing this; it is possible to prevent it happening at the other nuclear plants in Japan ? And I didn't blame the green movement for all the nuclear industry's failing; just one very specific; documented; piece of luddite lunacy. Wouldn't it be wise to now insist that all spent fuel rods be removed from their temporary storage ponds and sent for re-processing; informing the green movement that their banning of the safe movement of spent rods is inherently far more dangerous than letting them go ? Or is it you who can not see the wider impacts of things.

Re: alternative to nuclear from the oceans

because they don't work; they are too expensive; and not reliable

Re: I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages

so why would any one be so stupid as to store spent fuel rods in a pool that wasn't even at ground level ?

Answer : Because the GREENS had prevented the removal of the spent fuel rods to the re-processing plant miles out of the tsunami impacted area.

IF the fuel rods had been removed from site as originally planned; then there would be NO fuel pool on site.

So lets think about that for a moment shall we ? The most dangerous part of the whole tsunami caused wreck was not a failure of the Engineering; nor was it a failure of the design - it was caused directly by the intervention of luddites. Even then; there have been NO DEATHS caused even by the spent fuel rods stored on site because the stupid greens would not let them be taken safely away for processing.

Question : when are the main stream media going to stop playing green wash propaganda ? Probably long after even they realise Green peace get mega bucks from big oil (go on look at Greenpeace's declared revenue streams; you'll see $Millions from Shell BP et al).

Suplemental Question : When are normal people going to wake up to the truth behind the luddite Greenpeace movement; even the founder became disgusted with what they have become; anti west; anti business anti human.

Ojh Let me correct your title : I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages my ability to pretend ignorant luddites have any idea of how science and engineering work

Re: What?

and this very sad case is documented where ?

Apart from which; I don't know how may times people have to be told Chenobyl was NOT Fukushima. Lets try and make a comparison that may get through..

oh -- you can not run your gas boiler/heater/fire because there is a FLAME inside; and look at what flames do to -- pick massive bush fire in country of choice

or maybe

hand in ALL the knives in your house; yes even those blunt ones you have for eating with; don't you remember the GUILLOTINE - that used a KNIFE to chop of people's heads so all knives are incredibly D A N G E R O U S

Go and research RADIATION OSSAGES then compare the maximum allowed levels in JAPAN compared to other nations; go and find out what your exposure is if you live in N Wales ooohhh - it is HIGHER than the maximum allowed in Japan -- oops; so not very dangerous around Fukushima is it - really ?

Re: To Mr. Lewis, "not harmed"

Among those "not harmed" are the 160,000-plus residents of Fukushima now warehoused elsewhere.

They were NOT harmed by radiation; but by the panic merchants and a-scieintists who do not understand risk/radiation (check XKCD for their radiation comparison chart)

Note that Japanese paranoia over radiation would mean they would evacuate Dartmoor; Exmoor and N Wales (and no doubt swathes of granite based sites elsewhere in the world).

This is typical of the damage done by luddites who mus-understand the precautionary principle and demonstrate innumeracy as well.

And note further that the STIGMA of Fukushima is NOT radioactive either; again the harm is done by an ignorant media/political class; encouraged by equally ignorant un educated echo chambers