Ars Technica - Largest Li-Ion battery storage system goes online in San Diego

Or even that perpetual motion would never happen.

The Chernobyl operators were trying to do a safety test (ironically). So they disabled *all* the safety mechanisms. They actually had to work quite hard to make it fail.

Under normal operation, this sort of thing doesn't, can't, and won't happen.

I suggest that Roger read up on the Wikipedia article on the Chernobyl disaster.

IOW, made up numbers.

Nothing constructive from you, hypocrite.

F*ck off and die, there's a good little anonymous f****it.

En el artículo , Roger Hayter escribió:

Not to mention the huge amount of land contaminated as a direct cause of Chernobyl. It's interesting how TNP ignores your comment "There is a very real cost in terms of human lives and health and *loss use of land* for quite a long time" (my emphasis).

Perhaps he could go live there and let us know he makes out.

En el artículo , Huge escribió:

A whois on cocas.com is mildly entertaining. Who knew they had internet in the Outer Hebrides?

The Highlands and Islands Telecommunications Initiative meant they had high-speed broadband many years before I did. On the taxpayer's dollar, of course, although you won't hear Mr.Spineless complaining about that particular subsidy.

But big enough to persuade you to move to the country, along with your sceptical mates. Stuck in the middle of a field breathing in all that fresh country air, but a good ten mile drive from the nearest supermarket.

Pollution averse but very petrol price sensitive, IOW.

As good a recipe for hypocritical bullshit as its possible to imagine IOW.

Whatever you say, Huge old chap.

Indeed it was. But unfortunately not for the reason you think.

The first time I looked it up, which was about 5 minutes ago the administator of the above site is called Sezar Sak, and he's based in Istambul.

A fascinating observation no doubt, but possibly of limited relevence here I'm afraid.

Perhaps you'd like to ask your new best friend, Hugh Davies, if he can explain to you exactly how Whois works.

We had all that at Windscale in the 50s. No one demonstrably died: There were no cancer blips.

So not optimistic, realistic

En el artículo , Huge escribió:

oh, quite. I see he's responded to my post suggesting a whois, but can't see the content as he's killfiled, his posts being devoid of useful content posted by an anonymous cowardly f****it.

Well, quite.

BTW, if anyone remotely sane is interested I'd happily explain my attitude towards so-called subsidies, if asked politely.

I gather a mixture of wind and hydro works quite well in New Zealand.

Wet, windy, empty NZ...

The overall cost isn't _always_ higher. Just usually.

Andy

Source?

"The government revenue from fuel duty was £27.1 billion for the financial year 2014-2015"

That's not a subsidy is it?

Andy

Ah, but the watermelons (*) don't think like that. So far as they are concerned everything should belong to the State and anything they graciously allow you to keep is a "subsidy". But only to industries (which provide virtually everything in their comfortable First World lives) they disapprove of.

(* Green on the outside, red in the middle.)

It is ALWAYS higher.

New zealand has existing hydro. They don't have enough., They could have putt in baseload nuclear at half the price of wind, and augmented their hydro just like the winpower does.

Since commenting I've come across some recent IMF reports that suggest it's far higher. Do you/Huge consider the IMF to be too 'lefty'?

TBH I'm struggling to find any source could be considered decent by many on this NG. Perhaps you could mention one or two - say that you use to form an opinion? Or is it some way secret, or subscriber only?

It's hard enough finding consistent measures in any event, I've found.

No, that's tax. Which easily covers the subsidy. Can hardly be made up.

I think we can agree that pure hydro/wind won't work anywhere in Europe.

Andy