Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Riedquat

Members
  • Posts

    21,529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. That's just "suck it up" using different words. The sort of thing told to anyone shoved in to a bad position beyond their control in order to keep them there. Bread and circuses stuff.
  2. No, most people DO mind very much. It's only certain people on places like here who are quite happy to constantly add to overdevelopment, and then start crying about "nimbies" when their latest vandalism project gets attacked. Quite a bit of similarity between them and what they claim the objection is (i.e. people who couldn't give a damn about a mess being made elsewhere), ironic really. I suppose the only difference is that some of them claim indifference about crap on their doorstep too.
  3. That's a bit of a "doesn't matter if I shoplift from Tesco, it's a drop in the ocean for them" argument.
  4. There's probably a balance TBH, if you're travelling at a constant 20 mph that's true but if you briefly accelerate up to 30 then have to slow again frequently it might work out less to just stay at 20. I'm against widespread 20s but that's because I believe they're politically driven under the guise of road safety, without much reason to believe that there were problems with people driving legally and sensibly at the old limit.
  5. The post you're replying to was from 2010. He'll be in his 50s now.
  6. I think we might be talking cross-purposes here. I'm certainly not arguing for adding variable production, quite the opposite. Chucking together such a system was the cheap and nasty short-term barely planned problem that got us to this point, and my concern is the "solution" will be to just try to throw more of the same at it. In the very short term (i.e. the next few weeks) of course there's no alternative other than to just make do with what we've got since generation can't be instantly conjoured out of thin air.
  7. Exactly my point - quick and easy and upfront cheap-looking fix, rather than addressing the issue properly by getting on with building some new nuclear plants.
  8. Tory policy certainly doesn't seem to be to get a job done properly, so no (not that it seems to be the policy of any party mind you).
  9. Of course. If anything goes wrong anywhere it's all Brexit's fault! It's magic that breaks things everywhere in the world! That said it's not totally implausible that Brexit will have some impact on prices, since various sectors are now being faced with having to do utterly terrible things like train people and pay them half decent wages, so it's perfectly reasonable for all those saintly Remainers to complain about some price rises now that they can't exploit the poor as easily. How dare people want to have a vaguely decent job if that prevents them from getting dirt cheap stuff!
  10. Then you lurch from crisis to crisis, never getting around to doing the job properly. I know that's the modern way (throw some cheap and nasty quick solution at a problem then hope you never need to touch it again, including for maintenance, and the cheap part never even seems to be cheap either) but it's not a good strategy. Sometimes it's better to put up with things being rough for a bit whilst you get on with tackling the issue properly. Doesn't win votes though.
  11. The latter is not a bad idea. The gas storage in this case could be using the excess generation to produce hydrogen. Maybe not quite as efficient as a battery but it has other uses too (e.g. could be mixed in to domestic gas supplies) and requires considerably less in the way of not particularly common resources.
  12. Gas is the main baseload for the UK these days. Firing up the remaining coal power stations didn't add a great deal of power to the overall picture, there aren't enough of them left to do that. Open cycle gas plants are only used when the price of gas is low so they'd be out now, the more efficient (but more expensive to build) closed cycle ones provide the bulk of the UK's generating capacity; currently it's them at 46%, nuclear at 18%, wind at 14%, biomass at 6% and coal at 4%. Some coal plants can handle biomass or coal so it's possible that someone's including that in the coal number. We appear to be exporting some to Ireland, although we're importing more from Europe. Source - Gridwatch.
  13. That's a very fair point of course, the number is very important, putting up with a few is a reasonable balance. AFAIK Scotland's alrady got more than that number of large hydroelectric schemes though. I've looked up the Pitlochy one by the way, see in some ways it's looks more of a large weir than a reservoir and dam. Can't say I think the place is improved by it but it's not as intrusive as I was expecting either.
  14. The large area will certainly help to keep a reliable supply. The water level's already slightly higher than it was naturally (from the construction of the Caledonian Canal). Small changes in elevation can be used but you don't get as much power (the power comes from converting the potential energy of the water to electric energy, so the higher the better, at least until friction and the sheer force of the water requiring very robust equiopment start to negate that). Beauty's in the eye of the beholder but generally the idea of large-scale modern (and sometimes even not so modern) works in such places gives me as close to an insight of the concept of sacrilege that it's possible for someone non-religious to have. BUt I'm not familiar with the one you're talking about.
  15. Amen. TBH it's probably easy enough to not get too depressed about it if you're the type of person who doesn't get bothered about anything that doesn't have an immediate physical impact on you, don't get enough out of anything to lament its loss, and are satisfied with simple distractions (or are simply too busy to stop and think), but what sort of life is that?
  16. How would that work? To generate power you need a difference in height between the water you're going to use and an outflow, which is why reservoirs are built rather using existing lakes. Once you go below the level of the river bed at the exit (which could be dug out I suppose) you'd have to use power to pump water out of it. The surface of Loch Ness isn't that far above sea level, so there's only a limited amount you can use by digging out the river bed, unless you're planning on damming the loch and flooding a lot behind it (which would seriously mess up the tourism industry in that area, which is a major part of the local economy). Where Loch Ness could be used for power, and is, is as the lower part of a pumped storage scheme. I can't recall off the top of my head where the upper reservoir is, but the generators are at Foyers. That's storage though, i.e. storing generated power that would otherwise go to waste, rather than as a source of energy in its own right. It's been there for quite some time but I think there were plans to expand it, could those be the ones you're thinking of?
  17. I know this is one of your pet subjects but I really don't find it convincing, at least if you expand it beyond a limited number of very bad locations. Air quality is much better today than it was several decades ago yet conditions like asthma seem rather more common - I fear that concentrating on pollution might be leading you away from the real culprit (whatever it is, I'm not saying that I know).
  18. I've not heard anything to persuade me that they will to anywhere near the extent that many claim. It's all rather muddled by people living near motorways being more likely to be poor (next to a motorway not being a very desirable location to live anyway), and with generally poorer health, of which there's certainly a non-negligable self-created component (e.g. more likely to be smokers). Pollution certainly exacerbates the impact of existing poor health but this black and white world has a tendency to assume it causes it to a greater degree than sounds convincing, probably by looking at the worst locations and lumping everything together; I find it a little odd that we get so obsessed by it nowadays when smoking levels are rather reduced and cities aren't entirely heated by coal fires.
  19. Sure, but that's not an argument for not nudging away from that, and the improvements in quality of life that'll bring, rather than carrying on a path of ever more development. I'd dispute that we're talking about threats to basic standards of living. Whilst sadly there are always a few people who'll fall between the cracks the majority of those with very poor standards of living have got them due to social, not infrastructure shortcomings (looking at the UK anyway, since we seem to be talking about the impact here). What you're asking for won't address those, and it will negatively effect the surroundings. That lots already live in pretty uninspiring environments is already a big issue. That's why the most that you can argue it on is as a necessary evil; ultimately it'll contribute to a lesser standard of living - yes, quite probably (taking the world as a whole) not as bad a one as if we carry on as we have done, but I don't find it remotely convincing that the current situation is responsible for the negatives you're giving it. Finally, remember I'm not asking for a return to King Coal! I'm not for stamping every bit out but there's no future in it being anything other than insignificant.
  20. Looks like a big mess, which is why I assumed you were trying to use it as an example of digging stuff out for what you seem to believe I want and how that damages what I care for. Perhaps incidentally, and looking at it a bit more closely, bottom lake for a pumped storage scheme (which isn't strictly speaking a power station, although if there's enough rainfall I suppose it might manage net generation)?
  21. Right - they've got some hydro but don't need to fill every valley, and they've got quite a bit of nuclear, and a lower population density is something that should be a long-term goal for the UK (since it can be achieved without any unacceptable interference, since birth rates are below replacement, although it takes a bit of time for that to work its way through to a dropping population). I'm fine with the French model, not said anything to the contrary, so why the abuse, since it sounds like you don't have a problem with it either?
  22. You're losing the plot now, talking about dead children (you should drop the third-rate pretending-you-care ridiculous over-exaggeration emotional blackmail attempts) and showing a random picture of a quarry that could be for anything (it's not as if building anything, both what you want and what you don't, doesn't require digging stuff out from somewhere - although you're rather more keen on building lots of stuff than I am).
  23. Might as well as why we haven't got anything better than the wheel yet, that's been around for thousands of years. Nothing particularly wrong with nuclear, as yellims points out it's got a bad rep from some pretty dodgy applications of it (which we've learned from). That said I really wish more resources were directed towards fusion, although even without them there seem to have been a steady trickle of meaningful-sounding steps made in the last few years (although I've not been following them closely enough to know if they're at all signfiicant).
  24. I value aesthetics because I appreciate just how important our surroundings are - both immediate and wider - on mental health. It's incredibly tragic that you regard such things as superficial. All your stuff about "world that kills people lesser" is obnoxious drivel that you're inventing to justify your personal attacks to yourself - I would say to assuage your conscience about the destruction you're so keen on, but you don't appear to have one. Your hatred for the best the world has to offer, your willingness and eagerness to destroy it - and claim that's good - your hatred of everything that makes life worth living, is unbelievably appalling and spiteful. It would be slightly easier to swallow if you had even the tiny bit of basic decency to call it a necessary evil, that it's a crappy, more unpleasant future but the alternatives are worse, and to want to find better alternatives in the long run even if you don't believe there are viable ones now.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.