PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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.
Click to expand...

**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.
Click to expand...

**Cites please.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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.
Click to expand...

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 ÂŁ400 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
 
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334@fx41.am4...
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 to change a light bulb, which they
then claim back from the treasury.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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.
Click to expand...
 
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3@mid.individual.net...
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334@fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 to change a light bulb, which they
then claim back from the treasury.

Doesn’t qualify as 'handle our sensitive strategic materials'
Click to expand...

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
 
On 3/04/2017 3:17 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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.
Click to expand...

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

Hint: It means INDEPENDENT reports from credible sources.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:EobEA.752090$vF2.567201@fx46.am4...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334@fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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.
Click to expand...

They have far more of their own already. And its so cheap they can buy it
from us, and do.
 
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/04/2017 3:17 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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
Click to expand...
 
Benderthe.evilrobot <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote:
Hardly worth getting the Chinese to handle the nuclear materials if we have
to employ guards to stop them lifting any.
Click to expand...

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

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

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
 
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekdhr0Fk8lgU2@mid.individual.net...
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:EobEA.752090$vF2.567201@fx46.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334@fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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.
Click to expand...

Who's "us"?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
 
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:58e1b98b$0$44614$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/04/2017 3:17 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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
Click to expand...

That could be a big ask......................



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
 
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:UPwEA.309678$fL.212905@fx24.am4...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekdhr0Fk8lgU2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:EobEA.752090$vF2.567201@fx46.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334@fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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"?
Click to expand...

The aus in aus.electronics might actually mean something.
 
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekfqg1F3i27U2@mid.individual.net...
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:UPwEA.309678$fL.212905@fx24.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekdhr0Fk8lgU2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:EobEA.752090$vF2.567201@fx46.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334@fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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"?

The aus in aus.electronics might actually mean something.
Click to expand...

Indeed - I mentioned something that was going on in the UK and you couldn't
tell the difference.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
 
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:bzyEA.825281$Pm3.113189@fx42.am4...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekfqg1F3i27U2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:UPwEA.309678$fL.212905@fx24.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekdhr0Fk8lgU2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:EobEA.752090$vF2.567201@fx46.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334@fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in
message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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"?

The aus in aus.electronics might actually mean something.

Indeed - I mentioned something that was going on in the UK and you
couldn't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

There is no point in the chinese stealing any of
you pom's nuclear materials when they can and
do buy them very cheaply from us instead.
 
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekg27jF50g7U2@mid.individual.net...
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:bzyEA.825281$Pm3.113189@fx42.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekfqg1F3i27U2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:UPwEA.309678$fL.212905@fx24.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekdhr0Fk8lgU2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:EobEA.752090$vF2.567201@fx46.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334@fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in
message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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"?

The aus in aus.electronics might actually mean something.

Indeed - I mentioned something that was going on in the UK and you
couldn't tell the difference.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Click to expand...

And you only ever have one response to being caught in the wrong.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
 
"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:eek:bufn8$9j0$1@gioia.aioe.org...
Benderthe.evilrobot <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote:

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:
Click to expand...

But they needn't bother making missiles if they're handling a pile of
nuclear material right here.................

All they need is set the reactor to blow and then leave.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
 
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:sfSEA.605497$3a3.3151@fx43.am4...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekg27jF50g7U2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:bzyEA.825281$Pm3.113189@fx42.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekfqg1F3i27U2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:UPwEA.309678$fL.212905@fx24.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekdhr0Fk8lgU2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:EobEA.752090$vF2.567201@fx46.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekcsf3Fg6rdU3@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote
in message news:LmaEA.523473$fZ.122334@fx41.am4...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
message news:ekbctsF74isU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/04/2017 4:51 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
message
news:ek881dFj6o5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2017 5:25 AM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ek5n0uF3vscU2@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@not.at.this.address> wrote in
message
news:ejp7o7Fj307U1@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 ÂŁ400 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"?

The aus in aus.electronics might actually mean something.

Indeed - I mentioned something that was going on in the UK and you
couldn't tell the difference.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

And you only ever have one response to being caught in the wrong.
Click to expand...

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

I was never caught in the wrong.
 
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:0iSEA.451810$QJ4.350477@fx26.am4...
"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:eek:bufn8$9j0$1@gioia.aioe.org...
Benderthe.evilrobot <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote:

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:

But they needn't bother making missiles if they're handling a pile of
nuclear material right here.................

All they need is set the reactor to blow and then leave.
Click to expand...

Stupid to do that, they wouldn't get any more work building nukes, stupid.
 
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekidlbFj83eU2@mid.individual.net...
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:0iSEA.451810$QJ4.350477@fx26.am4...

"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:eek:bufn8$9j0$1@gioia.aioe.org...
Benderthe.evilrobot <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote:

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:

But they needn't bother making missiles if they're handling a pile of
nuclear material right here.................

All they need is set the reactor to blow and then leave.

Stupid to do that, they wouldn't get any more work building nukes, stupid.
Click to expand...

Seriously?!!! Are you really that thick? AFAIK: the Chinese don't advertise
building nuclear power stations in other countries as a business venture.
The UK Tories invited them to build and operate the plant on the Private
Finance Initiative model.

Its really quite simple - get someone else to pay for the nuclear power
station, and that's a few ŁBillion the Tories can shovel into their offshore
accounts.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
 
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in message
news:5LvFA.319938$Iy2.131493@fx28.am4...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekidlbFj83eU2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:0iSEA.451810$QJ4.350477@fx26.am4...

"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:eek:bufn8$9j0$1@gioia.aioe.org...
Benderthe.evilrobot <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote:

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:

But they needn't bother making missiles if they're handling a pile of
nuclear material right here.................

All they need is set the reactor to blow and then leave.

Stupid to do that, they wouldn't get any more work building nukes,
stupid.

Seriously?!!!
Click to expand...

Yep.

> Are you really that thick?

We've seen who doesn't have a fucking clue.

AFAIK: the Chinese don't advertise building nuclear power stations in
other countries as a business venture.
Click to expand...

Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
noticed that fuck all are building nukes, currently.

The UK Tories invited them to build and operate the plant on the Private
Finance Initiative model.
Click to expand...

And if they were observed stealing nuclear material
instead of just buying it from us, they wouldn't get
any more invitations like that, fuckwit.

> Its really quite simple

We'll see...

- get someone else to pay for the nuclear power station, and that's a few
ŁBillion the Tories can shovel into their offshore accounts.
Click to expand...

Even sillier than you usually manage.
 
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:el34f1Fr95jU1@mid.individual.net...
"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:5LvFA.319938$Iy2.131493@fx28.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekidlbFj83eU2@mid.individual.net...


"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote in
message news:0iSEA.451810$QJ4.350477@fx26.am4...

"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:eek:bufn8$9j0$1@gioia.aioe.org...
Benderthe.evilrobot <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> wrote:

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:

But they needn't bother making missiles if they're handling a pile of
nuclear material right here.................

All they need is set the reactor to blow and then leave.

Stupid to do that, they wouldn't get any more work building nukes,
stupid.

Seriously?!!!

Yep.

Are you really that thick?

We've seen who doesn't have a fucking clue.

AFAIK: the Chinese don't advertise building nuclear power stations in
other countries as a business venture.

Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
noticed that fuck all are building nukes, currently.

The UK Tories invited them to build and operate the plant on the Private
Finance Initiative model.

And if they were observed stealing nuclear material
instead of just buying it from us, they wouldn't get
any more invitations like that, fuckwit.

Its really quite simple

We'll see...

- get someone else to pay for the nuclear power station, and that's a few
ŁBillion the Tories can shovel into their offshore accounts.

Even sillier than you usually manage.
Click to expand...

They've been caught red handed stashing money in offshore accounts - people
just don't realise the scale of it.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top