The Lemon Fool

A coral reef taller than the Empire State building...... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-54716546

--kiloran

from https://www.lego.com/en-us/kids/galleri ... ba5a8ac3b6



-sd

vrdiver wrote:I ordered this from Amazon a couple of weeks ago.

The leash duly arrived, but I'm still waiting for the retractable dog.
(Full link: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07 ... UTF8&psc=1)
Disclosure: the lead works just fine, very happy customer...

<pedant>
To an engineer a dog is something that locks two moving parts together. If the parts move, they move together. So your leash advert may be perfectly correct. The finger-operated release may be a friction lock or a dog engaging with a toothed wheel.
</pedant>
Ahh.... That's better.. I feel so annoyingly pedantic today.

vrdiver wrote:I ordered this from Amazon a couple of weeks ago.

The leash duly arrived, but I'm still waiting for the retractable dog.

But surely the leash is a retriever?

BJ

Snorvey wrote:Sean Connery. Deid.

Oh dear.

Reckon there's 3 million currently telling folk he wiz their milkman?

Snorvey wrote:Tier One

Tier One

Tier One

Tier One

Tier One

Tier One

Tier Onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnne

We're in tier one.

But just think about all us Tier 3 persons from an unmentionable area of central Scotland, piling into whatever vehicle comes to hand, and heading up the A9 to share in your legendary highland hospitality. That should quickly get you an up-rating.

scotia wrote:But just think about all us Tier 3 persons from an unmentionable area of central Scotland, piling into whatever vehicle comes to hand, and heading up the A9 to share in your legendary highland hospitality. That should quickly get you an up-rating.

What's Scottish for Barnard Castle, and is it a neighbour of Snorvey Mansions?

scotia wrote:

Snorvey wrote:Tier One

Tier One

Tier One

Tier One

Tier One

Tier One

Tier Onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnne

We're in tier one.

But just think about all us Tier 3 persons from an unmentionable area of central Scotland, piling into whatever vehicle comes to hand, and heading up the A9 to share in your legendary highland hospitality. That should quickly get you an up-rating.

I'm up for that. I'll pick you up at 09:00 tomorrow and we can pick Dod101 and swill453 on the way. Should arrive chez Snorvey around noon

--kiloran

kiloran wrote:

scotia wrote:But just think about all us Tier 3 persons from an unmentionable area of central Scotland, piling into whatever vehicle comes to hand, and heading up the A9 to share in your legendary highland hospitality. That should quickly get you an up-rating.

I'm up for that. I'll pick you up at 09:00 tomorrow and we can pick Dod101 and swill453 on the way. Should arrive chez Snorvey around noon

Sorry, I'm heading south to help patrol the border.

Scott.

Ok, I'm trying to think what tune those words are sung to (normally with the words 'one - nil' etc at football matches

Amazing something or tother, probably.

Snorvey wrote:A flagship tidal energy turbine has generated more electricity in its first year than Scotland's entire wave and tidal sector produced before it.
The Scotrenewables SR2000, with its 2MW turbine, was installed in the sea off Orkney in 2017.
It has now generated three gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity from near continuous operation, its owners said.

Blighty has a history of investing in renewables once someone else has pioneered them and invested in R&D to bring the costs down. For example, wind from the Danes et al.

Noone else has so much tidal potential as us. Scotland, backed sometimes by the EU but never by Westminster, has shown support for it. Blighty just blows hot air: the Swansea Lagoon even featured in Cameron's election manifesto, only to get scuppered when the Borisgraph said No.

Just think how far the billions earmarked for nuclear would go if it was spent on renewables?

Indeed. But it really needs to be both/and, not either/or. The market remains hugely distorted by the subsidy given to fossil fuels, in not being made liable in a meaningful way (as both nuclear and renewables are) for damage they do.

We'd still need to solve the storage problem if we don't have nuclear. Tidal is highly predictable, but still stop/start. We don't really have significant scope for pumped storage. There are lots of large scale battery type storage things on the way, but not quite ready.
Many years ago I read about schemes to connect North African solar, British wind and so on in one enormous grid that would largely allow the gaps to be evened out. But a huge Saharan solar plant might be a magnet to terrorists, as would the interconnectors.

I wish there was more promotion of just using less power for everything. This would be a fantastically effective way of reducing the problem. If power demand keeps rising forever with economic growth, eventually wind and solar can't keep up. Infinite growth on a finite planet is the problem!

Snorvey wrote:You'd think energy demand in the UK at least would be falling - I mean how many light bulbs have been replaced by LED's? How many screens are now LED as opposed to tubes and valves? Gas boilers are more efficient, cars are more efficient and we're better insulated that years gone by.

Snorvey is right.

I've kept energy usage records for a number of years and can see the gradual decline in electricity usage as old stuff broke and got replaced by newer gear, and LED light bulbs replaced less energy efficient equivalents.

And there was a 'cliff edge' fall in gas usage when an old back-boiler was replaced with a combi boiler.

Watis

Snorvey wrote:You'd think energy demand in the UK at least would be falling - I mean how many light bulbs have been replaced by LED's? How many screens are now LED as opposed to tubes and valves? Gas boilers are more efficient, cars are more efficient and we're better insulated that years gone by.

Electricity demand has been falling since 2005, see chart 5.3

Primary energy consumption has been reducing since at least 2009 if not 2004, see charts 1.3 & 1.8

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... MASTER.pdf

Midsmartin wrote:We'd still need to solve the storage problem if we don't have nuclear. Tidal is highly predictable, but still stop/start.

An individual tidal generator is indeed periodic. But we have a lot of coast, representing all phases of the tide. It would only take two tidal plants in locations in different phases to provide 24/7 baseload, and half a dozen could provide a pretty constant supply.

So, build a network of them at suitable locations round the coast, and connect them all to a collective supply network. We could call that a National Grid.

Many years ago I read about schemes to connect North African solar, British wind and so on in one enormous grid that would largely allow the gaps to be evened out. But a huge Saharan solar plant might be a magnet to terrorists, as would the interconnectors.

The basic idea there is that the more resources are connected, the more scope there is for fallback when something is out of action. Danish wind backed by Norwegian hydro was an early example in the development of renewables. The ultimate resource would be a grid spanning Europe, Asia and Africa. Maybe even the Americas too if technology supports it.

I wish there was more promotion of just using less power for everything.

Absolutely. But that always brings kneejerk opposition: from the "right" (my lifestyle choices are none of your business) to the "left" (your proposal will impact on The Poor).

Midsmartin wrote:We'd still need to solve the storage problem if we don't have nuclear.

We will need even more storage (or international interconnectors or other controlled loads) if we have more nuclear.

The Dinorwig and Ffestiniog pumped hydro storage stations were built specifically to help manage the inflexibility of nuclear power generation. There are times when there is too much generation and either some generators have to be turned down (something nuclear is generally poor at due to the control challenges of xenon poisoning) or you need to find somewhere to put the excess power.

I like the idea of charging the nations electric vehicles at night or electrolysing water to make hydrogen which is useful for many processes (e.g. steel making, ammonia fertiliser or home heating).

All the above will be necessary if we have excess wind, solar or nuclear power.

sunnyjoe wrote:

Midsmartin wrote:We'd still need to solve the storage problem if we don't have nuclear.

We will need even more storage (or international interconnectors or other controlled loads) if we have more nuclear.

Yes - but there is a big BUT. The storage required to complement Nuclear is overnight storage - and then pays back by supplying at peak demand the following day. The storage required by Wind is quite different, is significantly larger, and doesn't guarantee any help at peak demand times. You can have several days without wind in a winter high - so you need at least that amount of storage, simply to guarantee supply. For many years pumped storage schemes have been proposed in the Great Glen which are significantly larger than the storage at current pumped hydro stations - and are aimed at alleviating this Wind-storage requirement, but they never seem to progress. The Coire Glas scheme was initially proposed by SSE and given consent in 2013, but the proposals have continued to be altered, and further consent was received in October 2020. But whether or not it will ever be built remains in doubt - to quote from SSE " There are still commercial hurdles to overcome"
Centralised Battery installations are not in the correct ballpark as regards the amount of storage required. However If every home in the land was supplied with a substantial battery, and if all of these could be controlled (i.e. charging or discharging) from a central control room, then that may provide part of the solution. But that's a long way away.

sunnyjoe wrote:The Dinorwig and Ffestiniog pumped hydro storage stations were built specifically to help manage the inflexibility of nuclear power generation.

I'm not sure that "specifically" is entirely correct. I believe that the 500MW fossil-fuelled plant introduced in the 1960s was also inflexible - and ran as base loads along with the nuclear. So the partnership of base load with pumped storage was a win-win - load regulation and extra power at peak times without the need to build even more fossil fuelled plant. And the pumped storage was also designed to provide rapid response to other system outages. Notably one at DRAX coal fired plant (probably only vaguely remembered by oldies).

Snorvey wrote:Trumps a whiney little bitch eh? A big orange angry spacehopper.

What s the bet he'll call for the right wing fruitcake fraternity to rise up and 'defend American democracy?

My worst fear is that he won't need to - maybe there will be sufficient of these fruit cakes to see him legitimately elected

scotia wrote:

Snorvey wrote:Trumps a whiney little bitch eh? A big orange angry spacehopper.

What s the bet he'll call for the right wing fruitcake fraternity to rise up and 'defend American democracy?

Call for? The fashion is hints about turbulent priests. Or in the modern world, phrases like "enemies of the people".

My worst fear is that he won't need to - maybe there will be sufficient of these fruit cakes to see him legitimately elected

Surely what got him elected was a backlash against "woke" nonsense that targets a constant barrage of prejudice and hate speech against the white and male, so virulent as to be offensive not just to us who are but to many who are not. That's still an important consideration, and might get a landslide if he wasn't so openly evil and insane as to have paid tribute to Hitler in the heart of his inauguration speech.

Seriously evil, yes, but that's not to say he hasn't said and done some things right. As for Biden, he's been around long enough for my musings ahead of their 2008 election ...

https://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/two-way-nightmare/ wrote:What frightens me is that both candidates carry a nightmare scenario. In McCain’s case it’s painfully obvious: at his age, there must be an above-average risk he doesn’t manage the full four years, and that woman [shudder] in the top job really doesn’t bear thinking about.

Obama’s nightmare is surprisingly similar. His age isn’t an issue, but the US has more than its fair share of both nutcases and guns. One nutcase with a gun who sees a n***** in the top job as the ultimate outrage gets lucky, and … . Someone joked that the reason he picked Biden as a running mate must’ve been to scare would-be assassins off, but wouldn’t that imply a level of rationality? Well, maybe Dubya survived because the alternative was worse.

666 Fifth Avenue. The number of the Beast, isn't it?

There ya go, it's all in the Bible, you see. Although admittedly, that's not a book that the Donald is familiar with. He's probably waiting for the cartoon version.

BJ