EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics AUS - PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 405, 406, 407  Next

Trevor Wilson
Guest

Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:03 pm   



On 1/04/2017 5:06 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Quote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 31/03/2017 3:51 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.

No. It's just a demonstration. Instead of using fuel to get to the
demo and then marching to parliament house you stay home and turn the
electricity off for an hour. It is not intended to save electricity
but, like a street march, it is intended to show solidarity with all
the other people who want action on climate change.


**That kind of subtlety is lost on Sylvia. She needs a more obvious
demonstration.

It's closer to the "bleeding obvious" than subtle and I'm sure Sylvia
understood it. She is just taking the role of a city worker who may be
inconvenienced by the demo and doesn't share the cause.



**Sylvia is just a right wing cynic. I used to credit her with more
intelligence than she has displayed recently.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Gordon Levi
Guest

Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:06 pm   



Trevor Wilson <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Quote:
On 31/03/2017 3:51 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.

No. It's just a demonstration. Instead of using fuel to get to the
demo and then marching to parliament house you stay home and turn the
electricity off for an hour. It is not intended to save electricity
but, like a street march, it is intended to show solidarity with all
the other people who want action on climate change.


**That kind of subtlety is lost on Sylvia. She needs a more obvious
demonstration.


It's closer to the "bleeding obvious" than subtle and I'm sure Sylvia
understood it. She is just taking the role of a city worker who may be
inconvenienced by the demo and doesn't share the cause.

F Murtz
Guest

Sat Apr 01, 2017 5:05 pm   



Trevor Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 1/04/2017 5:06 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 31/03/2017 3:51 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.

No. It's just a demonstration. Instead of using fuel to get to the
demo and then marching to parliament house you stay home and turn the
electricity off for an hour. It is not intended to save electricity
but, like a street march, it is intended to show solidarity with all
the other people who want action on climate change.


**That kind of subtlety is lost on Sylvia. She needs a more obvious
demonstration.

It's closer to the "bleeding obvious" than subtle and I'm sure Sylvia
understood it. She is just taking the role of a city worker who may be
inconvenienced by the demo and doesn't share the cause.



**Sylvia is just a right wing cynic. I used to credit her with more
intelligence than she has displayed recently.

We know all intelligence is related to your view on things, anyone with
a differing view are Idiots, Morons and unintelligent.

Benderthe.evilrobot
Guest

Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:51 am   



"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
Quote:
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED lighting,
but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate is that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major advantages
over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars were
fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car consumed around
20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle opening. When warm, that
figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric vehicle consumes the same
amount, regardless of temperature (within obvious limits). No warm-up is
required. Since many city vehicles are operated over short trips, fuel
efficiency can be spectacularly bad. Long trips suit IC engines quite
well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise wasted as
heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said, for
me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my transport needs
by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus the total
nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.


I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil fuel
unless its nuclear or renewable.

The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables - we're going
to buy French generators and pay the Chinese to build the power station and
handle our sensitive strategic materials.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Trevor Wilson
Guest

Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:42 am   



On 1/04/2017 10:05 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Quote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 1/04/2017 5:06 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 31/03/2017 3:51 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.

No. It's just a demonstration. Instead of using fuel to get to the
demo and then marching to parliament house you stay home and turn the
electricity off for an hour. It is not intended to save electricity
but, like a street march, it is intended to show solidarity with all
the other people who want action on climate change.


**That kind of subtlety is lost on Sylvia. She needs a more obvious
demonstration.

It's closer to the "bleeding obvious" than subtle and I'm sure Sylvia
understood it. She is just taking the role of a city worker who may be
inconvenienced by the demo and doesn't share the cause.



**Sylvia is just a right wing cynic. I used to credit her with more
intelligence than she has displayed recently.

We know all intelligence is related to your view on things


**Not totally, but certainly somewhat.


, anyone with
> a differing view are Idiots, Morons and unintelligent.

**Absolutely not.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Rod Speed
Guest

Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:10 am   



"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot_at_virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:VESDA.528967$nT1.284321_at_fx44.am4...
Quote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED lighting,
but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate is
that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major advantages
over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars were
fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car consumed
around 20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle opening. When
warm, that figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric vehicle consumes
the same amount, regardless of temperature (within obvious limits). No
warm-up is required. Since many city vehicles are operated over short
trips, fuel efficiency can be spectacularly bad. Long trips suit IC
engines quite well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise wasted as
heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said, for
me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my transport needs
by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus the total
nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.

I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil fuel
unless its nuclear or renewable.

The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables


Wrong, as always.

> - we're going to buy French generators

Wrong, as always.

> and pay the Chinese to build the power station

Wrong, as always.

> and handle our sensitive strategic materials.

Wrong, as always.

Trevor Wilson
Guest

Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:21 am   



On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:
Quote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED
lighting, but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate is
that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major
advantages over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars
were fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car
consumed around 20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle
opening. When warm, that figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric
vehicle consumes the same amount, regardless of temperature (within
obvious limits). No warm-up is required. Since many city vehicles are
operated over short trips, fuel efficiency can be spectacularly bad.
Long trips suit IC engines quite well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise wasted
as heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said,
for me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my transport
needs by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus the
total nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.

I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil
fuel unless its nuclear or renewable.


**Duh. No one ever claimed that an electric car was completely benign.
It is, however, significantly cleaner than an equivalent petrol or
Diesel car, even when powered by coal-fired power. That said, Tesla have
promised to obtain all their electricity from renewable sources for
their free charging stations. And, as I stated, for many city dwellers,
any electric vehicle will emit significantly less CO2 (via a coal-fired
power station) under day to day use. For long distance driving, the
benefits will be less obvious.

Quote:

The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables - we're
going to buy French generators and pay the Chinese to build the power
station and handle our sensitive strategic materials.


**Cites please.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Benderthe.evilrobot
Guest

Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:17 pm   



"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1_at_mid.individual.net...
Quote:
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a
pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED
lighting, but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate is
that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at
all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major
advantages over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars
were fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car
consumed around 20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle
opening. When warm, that figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric
vehicle consumes the same amount, regardless of temperature (within
obvious limits). No warm-up is required. Since many city vehicles are
operated over short trips, fuel efficiency can be spectacularly bad.
Long trips suit IC engines quite well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise wasted
as heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said,
for me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my transport
needs by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus the
total nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.

I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil
fuel unless its nuclear or renewable.

**Duh. No one ever claimed that an electric car was completely benign. It
is, however, significantly cleaner than an equivalent petrol or Diesel
car, even when powered by coal-fired power. That said, Tesla have promised
to obtain all their electricity from renewable sources for their free
charging stations. And, as I stated, for many city dwellers, any electric
vehicle will emit significantly less CO2 (via a coal-fired power station)
under day to day use. For long distance driving, the benefits will be less
obvious.


The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables - we're
going to buy French generators and pay the Chinese to build the power
station and handle our sensitive strategic materials.

**Cites please.


The news has gone quiet on this recently - The French company supplying the
generators fucked up a contract in some other country and is in financial
trouble. They've already started preparing land in the UK to build it, but
political wrangling has cast doubt over the project - so the French could
find themselves in even more financial trouble. All this hasn't been helped
by a company executive blowing the whistle on sub standard steel used in the
containment vessel.

The Chinese involvement is the Tories favourite phrase "inward investment" -
PFI in other words. A private company makes most of the investment in a
public service facility and builds it to run as a business. The standard
operating procedure is to set up various bogus contractors to charge
themselves £400 to change a light bulb, which they then claim back from the
treasury.

It used to be just the Tories fat cat chums - but now its any hostile power
that wants a piece of Britain.

The word; "Tory" is derived from the Gaellic Toraidhe - which translates
from Irish to English as; outlaw or bandit. They call themselves
"Conservatives" to con the genteel folk.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Rod Speed
Guest

Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:58 pm   



"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot_at_virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334_at_fx41.am4...
Quote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a
pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED
lighting, but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate is
that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at
all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major
advantages over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars
were fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car
consumed around 20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle
opening. When warm, that figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric
vehicle consumes the same amount, regardless of temperature (within
obvious limits). No warm-up is required. Since many city vehicles are
operated over short trips, fuel efficiency can be spectacularly bad.
Long trips suit IC engines quite well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise wasted
as heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said,
for me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my transport
needs by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus the
total nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.

I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil
fuel unless its nuclear or renewable.

**Duh. No one ever claimed that an electric car was completely benign. It
is, however, significantly cleaner than an equivalent petrol or Diesel
car, even when powered by coal-fired power. That said, Tesla have
promised to obtain all their electricity from renewable sources for their
free charging stations. And, as I stated, for many city dwellers, any
electric vehicle will emit significantly less CO2 (via a coal-fired power
station) under day to day use. For long distance driving, the benefits
will be less obvious.


The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables - we're
going to buy French generators and pay the Chinese to build the power
station and handle our sensitive strategic materials.

**Cites please.

The news has gone quiet on this recently - The French company supplying
the generators fucked up a contract in some other country and is in
financial trouble. They've already started preparing land in the UK to
build it, but political wrangling has cast doubt over the project - so the
French could find themselves in even more financial trouble. All this
hasn't been helped by a company executive blowing the whistle on sub
standard steel used in the containment vessel.

The Chinese involvement is the Tories favourite phrase "inward
investment" - PFI in other words. A private company makes most of the
investment in a public service facility and builds it to run as a
business. The standard operating procedure is to set up various bogus
contractors to charge themselves £400 to change a light bulb, which they
then claim back from the treasury.


Doesn’t qualify as 'handle our sensitive strategic materials'

Quote:
It used to be just the Tories fat cat chums - but now its any hostile
power that wants a piece of Britain.


Corse Britain has never ever done anything like that itself, eh ?

Quote:
The word; "Tory" is derived from the Gaellic Toraidhe - which translates
from Irish to English as; outlaw or bandit. They call themselves
"Conservatives" to con the genteel folk.


Benderthe.evilrobot
Guest

Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:27 am   



"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3_at_mid.individual.net...
Quote:


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot_at_virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334_at_fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the
UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a
pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED
lighting, but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate is
that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at
all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major
advantages over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars
were fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car
consumed around 20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle
opening. When warm, that figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric
vehicle consumes the same amount, regardless of temperature (within
obvious limits). No warm-up is required. Since many city vehicles are
operated over short trips, fuel efficiency can be spectacularly bad.
Long trips suit IC engines quite well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise wasted
as heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said,
for me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my transport
needs by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus the
total nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.

I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil
fuel unless its nuclear or renewable.

**Duh. No one ever claimed that an electric car was completely benign.
It is, however, significantly cleaner than an equivalent petrol or
Diesel car, even when powered by coal-fired power. That said, Tesla have
promised to obtain all their electricity from renewable sources for
their free charging stations. And, as I stated, for many city dwellers,
any electric vehicle will emit significantly less CO2 (via a coal-fired
power station) under day to day use. For long distance driving, the
benefits will be less obvious.


The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables - we're
going to buy French generators and pay the Chinese to build the power
station and handle our sensitive strategic materials.

**Cites please.

The news has gone quiet on this recently - The French company supplying
the generators fucked up a contract in some other country and is in
financial trouble. They've already started preparing land in the UK to
build it, but political wrangling has cast doubt over the project - so
the French could find themselves in even more financial trouble. All this
hasn't been helped by a company executive blowing the whistle on sub
standard steel used in the containment vessel.

The Chinese involvement is the Tories favourite phrase "inward
investment" - PFI in other words. A private company makes most of the
investment in a public service facility and builds it to run as a
business. The standard operating procedure is to set up various bogus
contractors to charge themselves £400 to change a light bulb, which they
then claim back from the treasury.

Doesn’t qualify as 'handle our sensitive strategic materials'


Hardly worth getting the Chinese to handle the nuclear materials if we have
to employ guards to stop them lifting any.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Trevor Wilson
Guest

Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:23 am   



On 3/04/2017 3:17 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:
Quote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a
pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED
lighting, but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate is
that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at
all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major
advantages over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars
were fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car
consumed around 20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle
opening. When warm, that figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric
vehicle consumes the same amount, regardless of temperature (within
obvious limits). No warm-up is required. Since many city vehicles are
operated over short trips, fuel efficiency can be spectacularly bad.
Long trips suit IC engines quite well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise wasted
as heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said,
for me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my transport
needs by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus the
total nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.

I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil
fuel unless its nuclear or renewable.

**Duh. No one ever claimed that an electric car was completely benign.
It is, however, significantly cleaner than an equivalent petrol or
Diesel car, even when powered by coal-fired power. That said, Tesla
have promised to obtain all their electricity from renewable sources
for their free charging stations. And, as I stated, for many city
dwellers, any electric vehicle will emit significantly less CO2 (via a
coal-fired power station) under day to day use. For long distance
driving, the benefits will be less obvious.


The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables - we're
going to buy French generators and pay the Chinese to build the power
station and handle our sensitive strategic materials.

**Cites please.

The news has gone quiet on this recently - The French company supplying
the generators fucked up a contract in some other country and is in
financial trouble. They've already started preparing land in the UK to
build it, but political wrangling has cast doubt over the project - so
the French could find themselves in even more financial trouble. All
this hasn't been helped by a company executive blowing the whistle on
sub standard steel used in the containment vessel.

The Chinese involvement is the Tories favourite phrase "inward
investment" - PFI in other words. A private company makes most of the
investment in a public service facility and builds it to run as a
business. The standard operating procedure is to set up various bogus
contractors to charge themselves £400 to change a light bulb, which they
then claim back from the treasury.

It used to be just the Tories fat cat chums - but now its any hostile
power that wants a piece of Britain.

The word; "Tory" is derived from the Gaellic Toraidhe - which translates
from Irish to English as; outlaw or bandit. They call themselves
"Conservatives" to con the genteel folk.



**Do you understand what the term: "cites please" means?

Hint: It means INDEPENDENT reports from credible sources.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Rod Speed
Guest

Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:03 am   



"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot_at_virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:EobEA.752090$vF2.567201_at_fx46.am4...
Quote:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3_at_mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot_at_virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334_at_fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the
UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make
a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a
pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED
lighting, but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate is
that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not
the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at
all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major
advantages over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars
were fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car
consumed around 20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle
opening. When warm, that figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric
vehicle consumes the same amount, regardless of temperature (within
obvious limits). No warm-up is required. Since many city vehicles are
operated over short trips, fuel efficiency can be spectacularly bad.
Long trips suit IC engines quite well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise wasted
as heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said,
for me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my
transport
needs by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus
the
total nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.

I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil
fuel unless its nuclear or renewable.

**Duh. No one ever claimed that an electric car was completely benign.
It is, however, significantly cleaner than an equivalent petrol or
Diesel car, even when powered by coal-fired power. That said, Tesla
have promised to obtain all their electricity from renewable sources
for their free charging stations. And, as I stated, for many city
dwellers, any electric vehicle will emit significantly less CO2 (via a
coal-fired power station) under day to day use. For long distance
driving, the benefits will be less obvious.


The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables - we're
going to buy French generators and pay the Chinese to build the power
station and handle our sensitive strategic materials.

**Cites please.

The news has gone quiet on this recently - The French company supplying
the generators fucked up a contract in some other country and is in
financial trouble. They've already started preparing land in the UK to
build it, but political wrangling has cast doubt over the project - so
the French could find themselves in even more financial trouble. All
this hasn't been helped by a company executive blowing the whistle on
sub standard steel used in the containment vessel.

The Chinese involvement is the Tories favourite phrase "inward
investment" - PFI in other words. A private company makes most of the
investment in a public service facility and builds it to run as a
business. The standard operating procedure is to set up various bogus
contractors to charge themselves £400 to change a light bulb, which they
then claim back from the treasury.

Doesn’t qualify as 'handle our sensitive strategic materials'

Hardly worth getting the Chinese to handle the nuclear materials if we
have to employ guards to stop them lifting any.


They have far more of their own already. And its so cheap they can buy it
from us, and do.

F Murtz
Guest

Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:55 am   



Trevor Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 3/04/2017 3:17 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the
UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a
pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED
lighting, but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate is
that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at
all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major
advantages over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars
were fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car
consumed around 20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle
opening. When warm, that figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric
vehicle consumes the same amount, regardless of temperature (within
obvious limits). No warm-up is required. Since many city vehicles are
operated over short trips, fuel efficiency can be spectacularly bad.
Long trips suit IC engines quite well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise wasted
as heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said,
for me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my transport
needs by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus the
total nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.

I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil
fuel unless its nuclear or renewable.

**Duh. No one ever claimed that an electric car was completely benign.
It is, however, significantly cleaner than an equivalent petrol or
Diesel car, even when powered by coal-fired power. That said, Tesla
have promised to obtain all their electricity from renewable sources
for their free charging stations. And, as I stated, for many city
dwellers, any electric vehicle will emit significantly less CO2 (via a
coal-fired power station) under day to day use. For long distance
driving, the benefits will be less obvious.


The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables - we're
going to buy French generators and pay the Chinese to build the power
station and handle our sensitive strategic materials.

**Cites please.

The news has gone quiet on this recently - The French company supplying
the generators fucked up a contract in some other country and is in
financial trouble. They've already started preparing land in the UK to
build it, but political wrangling has cast doubt over the project - so
the French could find themselves in even more financial trouble. All
this hasn't been helped by a company executive blowing the whistle on
sub standard steel used in the containment vessel.

The Chinese involvement is the Tories favourite phrase "inward
investment" - PFI in other words. A private company makes most of the
investment in a public service facility and builds it to run as a
business. The standard operating procedure is to set up various bogus
contractors to charge themselves £400 to change a light bulb, which they
then claim back from the treasury.

It used to be just the Tories fat cat chums - but now its any hostile
power that wants a piece of Britain.

The word; "Tory" is derived from the Gaellic Toraidhe - which translates
from Irish to English as; outlaw or bandit. They call themselves
"Conservatives" to con the genteel folk.



**Do you understand what the term: "cites please" means?

Hint: It means INDEPENDENT reports from credible sources.


IE. only the sources approved by Trevor


Computer Nerd Kev
Guest

Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:44 pm   



Benderthe.evilrobot <Benderthe.evilrobot_at_virginmedia.com> wrote:
Quote:

Hardly worth getting the Chinese to handle the nuclear materials if we have
to employ guards to stop them lifting any.


I'm afraid it's a little late to start worrying about the Chinese
building nuclear weapons:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/wrjp159c.html

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Benderthe.evilrobot
Guest

Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:50 am   



"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekdhr0Fk8lgU2_at_mid.individual.net...
Quote:


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot_at_virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:EobEA.752090$vF2.567201_at_fx46.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3_at_mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot_at_virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334_at_fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor_at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2_at_mid.individual.net...
On 31/03/2017 11:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 11:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:22 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/03/2017 9:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31/03/2017 7:21 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1_at_mid.individual.net...
I wish they'd advertise it better, so that I can ignore it
deliberately.

Is that an Australian thing? - Never heard of it here in the
UK.


It was started here, to our shame, but it got picked up in a
number of
other countries.

Showing support by turning off efficient lighting, and burning
inefficient CO2 emitting candles instead, is a common theme.

Earth hour is, above all, a demonstration of ignorance.


**Well, not really. It was designed to make people aware of the
problems
this planet faces and that we ALL need to work together to make
a
difference. Certainly, turning off pool pumps (or filling in a
pool,
like I did), or air conditioners will make several orders of
magnitude
more impact on the environment than turning off some LED
lighting, but
lighting is easy to see.



Whatever the intent behind it, all it's managed to demonstrate
is
that
people have little understanding of the issues.

**How do you know?



Because if they did, they're realise that burning candles is not
the
way to show support.

Most people don't even think about all electric cars mostly still
require burning fossil fuel to generate the electricity in the
first
place - countries with coal fired power stations didn't win much at
all.


**Probably more than you think. Electric cars have some major
advantages over IC cars. Including:

* Maximum toque at zero RPM.
* Around 90%+ efficiency at ALL RPM figures. My last couple of cars
were fitted with fuel consumption computers. When cold, the car
consumed around 20L/100km on flat ground, with moderate throttle
opening. When warm, that figure fell to around 6L/100km. An electric
vehicle consumes the same amount, regardless of temperature (within
obvious limits). No warm-up is required. Since many city vehicles
are
operated over short trips, fuel efficiency can be spectacularly bad.
Long trips suit IC engines quite well.
* Regenerative braking. This is the big one and particularly for
city
drivers. As much as 60% of the energy which would be otherwise
wasted
as heat, can be used to recharge the batteries.

All of which demonstrates the the average fuel economy of an
electric
vehicle can be quite low, in terms of CO2 production/km. That said,
for me, if I had an electric vehicle, I could easily meet my
transport
needs by using an array of PV cells on the roof of my garage. Thus
the
total nett CO2 contribution would be zero. YMMV.

I know all those advantages exist - but it still burns *SOME* fossil
fuel unless its nuclear or renewable.

**Duh. No one ever claimed that an electric car was completely benign.
It is, however, significantly cleaner than an equivalent petrol or
Diesel car, even when powered by coal-fired power. That said, Tesla
have promised to obtain all their electricity from renewable sources
for their free charging stations. And, as I stated, for many city
dwellers, any electric vehicle will emit significantly less CO2 (via a
coal-fired power station) under day to day use. For long distance
driving, the benefits will be less obvious.


The UK government has cancelled all subsidies for renewables - we're
going to buy French generators and pay the Chinese to build the power
station and handle our sensitive strategic materials.

**Cites please.

The news has gone quiet on this recently - The French company supplying
the generators fucked up a contract in some other country and is in
financial trouble. They've already started preparing land in the UK to
build it, but political wrangling has cast doubt over the project - so
the French could find themselves in even more financial trouble. All
this hasn't been helped by a company executive blowing the whistle on
sub standard steel used in the containment vessel.

The Chinese involvement is the Tories favourite phrase "inward
investment" - PFI in other words. A private company makes most of the
investment in a public service facility and builds it to run as a
business. The standard operating procedure is to set up various bogus
contractors to charge themselves £400 to change a light bulb, which
they then claim back from the treasury.

Doesn’t qualify as 'handle our sensitive strategic materials'

Hardly worth getting the Chinese to handle the nuclear materials if we
have to employ guards to stop them lifting any.

They have far more of their own already. And its so cheap they can buy it
from us, and do.


Who's "us"?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 405, 406, 407  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics AUS - PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map