Interesting blog on fracking

I've been to Darien. They must have been mad.

"harryagain" wrote: [snip]

That won't happen.

That will.

So happy to pay at least 50p/unit are you harry?

You STILL haven't explained to me how you quantify the cost of nuclear waste disposal. So until you can, you are talking bollix.

Failures continue to occur even now the Victorian era is long gone. But we no longer have William McGonagall around to write lays about them.

Oh I see. You mean they know ahead of time how much the wind is going to blow?

Oh I see (2). When the last link is complete the wind will suddenly start blowing at an ideal and constant speed, for the rest of time, eh? Gosh what silly billies the rest of us are. Fancy us not knowing that!

There's nothing to understand, harry, except what a dope you are and we already understand that.

Well clearly I do, because you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word.

No, I understood it perfectly, but you clearly have not understood the irony in the first half of my remark. So all this can come out ...

.. which leaves us with ...

Where would we all be without conspiracy paranoia, eh? I guess we just couldn't survive that awfully boring peace-of-mind condition, and would turn to drugs, or something, to bring excitement to our days.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, it's all engendered by UKIP, because they know that without FUD they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting anyone to vote for them.

You see, others can play the paranoia card too! (And BTW, I'm being ironic.)

I just did, but it seems you didn't get the point, and still don't.

No, it doesn't, the people - completely independent of you, me, and as far as we know, Scotland and the power industry - who visited Scotland and completed a questionnaire on their stay put pylons before wind turbines as eyesores. That's a fact.

There are at 22 pylons for every turbine. That's a fact.

There are also thousands more three-phase circuits on poles. That's a fact.

To say that wind turbines are more of an eyesore than all the above is absurd. And the rest of your rantings reveals quite unambiguously why you are trying to make this unsupportable claim. Like the writer of the original article I criticised, you are doing it for no other reason than you are biased against wind turbines.

But, as I've pointed out before, most of the people here live in the glens, where much of the stuff I've listed above also is, so it's closer to them, and more immediately in their field of view.

But you think it's madness, because you think they serve no useful purpose, which is also why you think they're an eyesore, so your argument is completely tautological. It's all based simply on your opinion of the usefulness or otherwise of turbines, nothing to do with their real ranking as an eyesore at all.

So is ...

"Everyone with a GCSE in maths", particularly when you're addressing someone with a 1st Class Honours in the subject.

... and so are most of your remarks about politicians, when they're not worse than patronising, that is.

It already does.

Nobody's happy about it. But the days of cheap energy are over. Whatever the source.

I can see you will always be a half wit. The reason they get paid for non production is that the distribution network is not yet complete.

Wind turbines are only a small part of the system. There are other overlapping technologies yet to build.

You can't reason with TurNiP. He is brain dead.

Oh dear, hollow boasting on Usenet. You lose.

But at least you have explained why you are an unwashed fruitcake.

"harryagain" wrote: [snip]

Only if we listen to idiots like you.

Wind turbines are virtually useless what does that say of the rest of the overlapping technologies?

Just why are we spending such a large amount on a technology that doesn't do us much good when we could spend it on other things like passive insulation and building better homes that does do us some good?

You greens have a lot to answer for and are trying to add to it by stopping gas exploration.

I suppose your referring the damage caused by the storms on your back yard earlier on in the year?, and AFAIK thats about the only time I've heard of such damage relating the Pylons, as distinct from wooden pole local distribution systems. I don't think theres ever been a collapse failure of the 275 or 400 kV systems anywhere ever in the UK?..

I'm sure Mike could put us straight on that one?...

In article , harryagain scribeth thus

Good point. Tho wasn't Brunel once credited with the propeller design of one of his ships that a modern day computer system could only get 2 per cent or so more efficient as it was almost spot on?..

Mainly caused by penny pinching on behalf of the railway company..

Cue McGonagall or whatever his name was;(!..

In article , Java Jive scribeth thus

I note that all of the answers to this point are written by people who do not live here writing irrationally as apologists for pylons. None address the fundamental problem of numbers, that for every turbine there are probably hundreds or thousands of pylons (I've searched but not been able to find a figure for the number of pylons in Scotland).

Seems a cross betwixt a good whinge and a question;!..

Now its strange that we have these down here in the lowlands and they've been there for many many years and it seems there're accepted as a by product of modern life and no one if ever complains. I don't give them a second glance..

Are you confusing Pylons those large metallic structures for wooden poles?..

Nope .. perficke sense. More nuclear and less windymills look at the output of Gridwatch .. wind up and mainly down .. and nuke stable..

The longer the government misled bu the greens waits for new nuclear the more it will cost..

Well as Mike has pointed out a rather expensive option and prolly at that time not a viable one..

when its working. The problem is of course that its expensive and doesn't solve the problem. Just like windmills are expansivenes and don't solve the problem.

Anticylonic weather systems are continent sized.

no they are not. nuclear need never be more than at most 10p.

As these the ones featuring pixie dust, unicorn horns and unobtanium reactors harry?

Interesting that;!. When a "bit" younger I used to have a rather long fibre glass aerial on my olde moggy minor van around 6 foot long.

Well we were out in the Fens trying to track down the broadcasts of a medium wave pirate wireless station and we used to stop under the line down a farm track to the North of the Burwell substation at that point the lines were very low there and on a wet rainy night the sparks from the inner to that aerial to the car bodywork were some inch and a half long!, rather thin reedy ones but quite impressive as well as the dismal frying noise that was going on up above.

They've re strung it now so I suppose they might have "tightened" it up it did seem very low at that point mid span and there was a slight rise in the ground there!..

Referring the 7.6 Meter figure above that may well have been rather "borderline" at that point but it was a long time ago now..