Street furniture, footpath furniture

[Colin Blackburn]

Steve Firth wrote:
> Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I asked where your figures came from
>
>
> Oh, I ignored you because I didnt consider you stupid enough to not
> have noticed that they came from the report I referred to in the post
> that you replied to.

This is what you said:
> The windpower advocates constantly shy away from the true cost of
> providing wind energy, the truth is that for every 100MW of windpower
> generating capacity we will need a minimum of 65 MW of backup
> generation (absolutely the most generous estimate available to-date,
> more usually, 80MW is estimated as the required backup/100MW of
> windpower.)
>
> In "The Costs of Generating Electricity" the Royal Academy of
> Engineering quotes nuclear and gas turbine generation at 2.3p/kWH and
> wind at 3.7 to 5.5p/kWH. To which you an add another 1.7p/kWH as the
> cost of providing backup for when the wind doesn't blow.

I asked for the source of your figures for the first paragraph. I assume
you are suggesting that the source is that quoted in the second
paragraph. The report from the RAEng does not support your first
paragraph. It does not say what you have said.

It says that wind energy has a capacity factor of between 20% and 35%,
in fact it quotes a figure as high as 45% but confines that one to a
footnote. They do not say that a capacity factor of 35% means that there
should be a backup generation need of 65%. That is to misunderstand what
capacity factor means.

The costs of wind energy partly derive from its inherent capacity
factor, as they do for coal, gas and nuclear. I.e. the costs include the
fact that wind turbines run at 35% (in their example) capacity. Standby
generation (or storage) is needed for the intermittency, not the
inherent capacity factor. There is no suggestion that an older 100MW
gas-fired station with a capacity factor of 60% needs 40MW back-up, it
doesn't.

If all the turbines in the UK stopped turning at the same time a standby
capacity would need to cope with the loss of their capacity, ie 35MW
standby for a 100MW (peak-rated) system. In fact it's more than this,
somewhere between 35 and 65, but the point is that it is much less than 65.

HTH

Colin

 

[James Annan]

Phil Bradshaw wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
> > Phil Bradshaw wrote:
> > > James Annan wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >>
> > >> The point being that anyone who questions the existence of
> > >> anthropogenically-forced climate change is utterly clueless.
> > >
> > >
> > > Until such time that the (any) accepted theory (mindset) is
shown to be
> > > wanting.
> >
> > Well if CO2 levels were shown to not be rising, or its absorption
> > spectra were shown to be an atefact of a faulty method, then I
would
> > probably reconsider. Similarly, if apples started floating around,
I
> > would rethink my views on gravity.
> >
>
> Can you define the causes of either, or for that matter friction
(what
> causes the forces opposing motion)?

At a detailed enough level of course there are unknowns in all of those
questions. But anyone building a bridge had still better take account
of gravity!

James

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk@?.?.invalid> writes
>Steve Walker wrote:
>> Err, no, sorry, I'm an atheist, I don't want a copy of The
>>Watchtower, and if I felt God was trying to tell me something, I'd
>>see a psychiatrist.
>> What? Not religion?
>
>No. I direct contrast to most (all) religions, I can offer facts and
>figures, real experience and the ability to try before you buy. Heaven
>may not exist, but it's definitely faster to cycle Edinburgh than to
>drive it. ;-)

Funnily enough, my brother in law used to work as a cycle courier in
Edinburgh. He liked it. Dense cities are somewhere I can see the point
of cycling as a time-effective mode of transport. Great enough distances
to justify not walking, and small enough distances on slow roads such
that driving or bus doesn't have any time advantage. Not somewhere I
would choose to live though. The only towns I've lived in the centre of
have been small enough to walk everywhere.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Mark
Thompson <[email protected]> writes
>> Exercise is an unpleasant
>> necessity
>
>Aye, avoid stuff you don't like, and swap it for something you do. Ditch
>the gym and take up something that gives you some sort of enjoyment along
>with the exercise?

I've thought about it. There isn't much I like. Squash is about the only
high-impact sport I enjoy, but it takes too much organisation in terms
of booking courts and other people having free time when I do. It has to
be something I can do on an ad hoc basis, really.

--
Steve Walker

 

[dkahn400]

Steve Walker wrote:

> I've thought about it. There isn't much I like. Squash is about
> the only high-impact sport I enjoy, but it takes too much
> organisation in terms of booking courts and other people having
> free time when I do. It has to be something I can do on an ad
> hoc basis, really.

Squash also has a reputation as a dangerous way to try to keep fit. You
need to get fit to play it rather than play it to get fit.

--
Dave...

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk@?.?.invalid> writes
>> Just because some OAP fitness freaks want to ride up hill and down
>>dale, that doesn't mean we all or even 1% of us are prepared to
>>contemplate a heart attack where next to no public transport exists.
>
>As Tony mentioned, being an active cyclist reduces your chance of a
>heart attack. And the point of the veterans club anecdote was that just
>because you've retired, doesn't mean that you can't cycle anymore.
The little town where I live has no flat land, so you're either
free-wheeling downhill or pushing your bike up it. As I pointed out I
rode a bike to work for over twenty years, but not being a fitness freak
I have taken to the car for transport and if I want some exercise I go
for a walk, which because of the fresh air where I live can be pleasant.
Unfortunately, the lake district has a good deal of rain (I'm aware
we've just had a nice summer) and therefore when the weather is
inclement a car is the answer. Were I in my twenties, as I was when I
worked as a trainman on the tube I I wouldn't (indeed didn't) consider
anything other than public transport in London because it was so good,
and cycling not so, as you can be both a hazard to yourself and to other
traffic. As I have previously pointed out, riding a bike up Bridge
Valley road in Bristol is a hazard because if you are on a bicycle you
wobble to balance and if you were on a trike you'd hold up other traffic
because of your width and the lack of forward sight to overtake
something moving a 0.25mph at best.
--
Clive.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> and cycling not so, as you can be both a hazard to yourself and to other
> traffic. As I have previously pointed out, riding a bike up Bridge
> Valley road in Bristol is a hazard because if you are on a bicycle you
> wobble to balance and if you were on a trike you'd hold up other traffic
> because of your width and the lack of forward sight to overtake
> something moving a 0.25mph at best.

You going to wear that spade out..

 

[David Martin]

On 8/4/05 12:12 pm, in article [email protected], "Clive
Coleman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> As I have previously pointed out, riding a bike up Bridge
> Valley road in Bristol is a hazard because if you are on a bicycle you
> wobble to balance
Last time I was there it was a reasonably wide road, not particularly long
and so if you really couldn't cycle up at walking pace you could easily get
off and push for that short stretch.

You have picked what one would consider a somewhat contrived example.
Bristol itself is not exceptionally hilly and there is a fair proportion of
cyclists there. I could find equally steep roads here in Dundee, yet there
seem to be a good number of cyclists around, some of quite advanced years.

> and if you were on a trike you'd hold up other traffic
> because of your width and the lack of forward sight to overtake
> something moving a 0.25mph at best.
You are being silly. 400m per hour? 7m per minute? What are you trying to
pedal, a steam roller? Let me give you a hint. It goes a lot easier if you
unlock it first..

As to holding up other traffic, in most cases it is those who use the roads
as a car park who prevent effective use by all forms of transport for
passing and repassing.

...d

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, Mark
Thompson <[email protected]> writes
>You going to wear that spade out..
So be it.
--
Clive.

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <BE7C37AB.DC7E%[email protected]>, David Martin
<[email protected]> writes
>You are being silly. 400m per hour? 7m per minute? What are you trying
>to pedal, a steam roller? Let me give you a hint. It goes a lot easier
>if you unlock it first..
>
>As to holding up other traffic, in most cases it is those who use the
>roads as a car park who prevent effective use by all forms of transport
>for passing and repassing.
Firstly my answer dealt with a post about pulling a load with a trike up
BVR which you will know is not long but doesn't allow motor vehicles to
overtake because of insufficient distances between bends. Secondly, I
agree, all cars parked on the pavement should get a ticket, pavements
are for pedestrians not cars, and car drivers would be the first to
complain if pedestrians stood in the middle of the road talking.
--
Clive.

 

[David Martin]

On 8/4/05 2:18 pm, in article [email protected], "Clive
Coleman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In message <BE7C37AB.DC7E%[email protected]>, David Martin
> <[email protected]> writes
>> You are being silly. 400m per hour? 7m per minute? What are you trying
>> to pedal, a steam roller? Let me give you a hint. It goes a lot easier
>> if you unlock it first..
>>
>> As to holding up other traffic, in most cases it is those who use the
>> roads as a car park who prevent effective use by all forms of transport
>> for passing and repassing.
> Firstly my answer dealt with a post about pulling a load with a trike up
> BVR which you will know is not long but doesn't allow motor vehicles to
> overtake because of insufficient distances between bends.

I would still expect to be able to get up there in less than one hour, which
is what you are proposing. And a little difficult to see just why that
particular route would be chosen for a freight load anyway.

> Secondly, I
> agree, all cars parked on the pavement should get a ticket, pavements
> are for pedestrians not cars, and car drivers would be the first to
> complain if pedestrians stood in the middle of the road talking.

Parking anywhere on the road is frequently incompatible with the stated aim
of the highway as being for passing and repassing of traffic. 'The queens
highway is not a stabling yard' is an oft quoted concept. For example, the
lines of parked cars either side of the hill I ride up on my way home are
restricting the flow of traffic. They make it impossible for faster moving
traffic to overtake slower moving traffic by obstructing the nearside of the
lane.


...d

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <BE7C4923.DC9C%[email protected]>, David Martin
<[email protected]> writes

>Parking anywhere on the road is frequently incompatible with the stated aim
>of the highway as being for passing and repassing of traffic. 'The queens
>highway is not a stabling yard' is an oft quoted concept. For example, the
>lines of parked cars either side of the hill I ride up on my way home are
>restricting the flow of traffic. They make it impossible for faster moving
>traffic to overtake slower moving traffic by obstructing the nearside of the
>lane.

Blimey. Our local council mostly uses bollards and white paint to
achieve the same effect. The people parking there should bill the
council for their impromptu traffic calming measure...

--
Steve Walker

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>,
dkahn400 <[email protected]> writes
>Steve Walker wrote:
>
>> I've thought about it. There isn't much I like. Squash is about
>> the only high-impact sport I enjoy, but it takes too much
>> organisation in terms of booking courts and other people having
>> free time when I do. It has to be something I can do on an ad
>> hoc basis, really.
>
>Squash also has a reputation as a dangerous way to try to keep fit. You
>need to get fit to play it rather than play it to get fit.

I think that depends on who you are playing. I wouldn't join a squash
league for that reason.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <BE7C4923.DC9C%[email protected]>, David Martin
<[email protected]> writes
>Parking anywhere on the road is frequently incompatible with the stated
>aim of the highway as being for passing and repassing of traffic. 'The
>queens highway is not a stabling yard' is an oft quoted concept. For
>example, the lines of parked cars either side of the hill I ride up on
>my way home are restricting the flow of traffic. They make it
>impossible for faster moving traffic to overtake slower moving traffic
>by obstructing the nearside of the lane.
Whilst you obviously don't understand the first part of my answer, the
second part we both agree on.
--
Clive.

 

[Phil Bradshaw]

James Annan wrote:
> Phil Bradshaw wrote:
>
>>James Annan wrote:
>>
>>>Phil Bradshaw wrote:
>>> > James Annan wrote:
>>> >
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> The point being that anyone who questions the existence of
>>> >> anthropogenically-forced climate change is utterly clueless.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Until such time that the (any) accepted theory (mindset) is
>
> shown to be
>
>>> > wanting.
>>>
>>>Well if CO2 levels were shown to not be rising, or its absorption
>>>spectra were shown to be an atefact of a faulty method, then I
>
> would
>
>>>probably reconsider. Similarly, if apples started floating around,
>
> I
>
>>>would rethink my views on gravity.
>>>
>>
>>Can you define the causes of either, or for that matter friction
>
> (what
>
>>causes the forces opposing motion)?
>
>
> At a detailed enough level of course there are unknowns in all of those
> questions. But anyone building a bridge had still better take account
> of gravity!
>

And friction, without either having an agreed explanation whether at
micro- or macroscopic level. Funny old world eh?

 

[Conor Turton]

In article <[email protected]>,
Adrian says...

> Christ, if I had to live *in* Wycombe, I think I'd top meself.
>
> I don't think I've EVER come across a town that's quite so soddin' steep in
> damn near every direction(1).

Try Sheffield. Its a city built on seven hills.


--
Conor

Windows & Outlook/OE in particular, shipped with settings making them
as open to entry as a starlet in a porno. Steve B

 

[Adrian]

Conor Turton ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>> Christ, if I had to live *in* Wycombe, I think I'd top meself.
>>
>> I don't think I've EVER come across a town that's quite so soddin'
>> steep in damn near every direction(1).

> Try Sheffield. Its a city built on seven hills.

Which bit of "I grew up in Sheffield" did you miss, Conor?

 

[Peter B]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Any step which reduces the
> quantity of imported fuel makes us stronger as an economy. Having
> greater control over energy costs (Not reliant upon politically unstable
> regions) means lower / more consistent manufacturing costs which in turn
> makes for a better export industry. We are never going to find a glut of
> raw materials in mainland Britain, but we can become a competitive place
> to work those materials into final products. We can't do that while tied
> to the burning of an every decreasing supply of fossil fuels.

I believe we have good reserves of coal within the UK but find it more
economical to import coal and other fuels <1>.
This has the mixed blessing that while ex-mining communities may mourn the
loss of their traditional means of earning a living it also means their
sons need not endure the rigours of mining (even if they want to).
So cheaper coal and passing of the health and safety risks to Johnny
Foreigner.
<1> This may change with Chinas burgeoning consumption.

Pete

 

[Peter B]

"Clive Coleman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
> <[email protected]> writes
> >>As I understand it, there are two air force fighters on permanent
> >>standby at Carlisle airport to protect the Sellafield Reprocessing
> >>plant.
> >
> >They are unlikely to be able to react quickly enough in many of the
> >most likely scenarios.
> It seems that most days they are already patrolling overhead, a
> nightmare if you do shift work, but I wouldn't give a passenger aircraft
> hijacked much of a bet against them.

I find it hard to believe a standing patrol is being maintained 24/7, flying
hours to maintenance hours alone may rule it out.
However the old V-Force could, and did, get airborne in under 4 minutes
using quick disconnect ground connection umbilicals and multi engine start
sequences.
I believe an armed fighter would be airborne well before a political
decision could be made to shoot down an airliner, unless of course it's
already designated a military decision.

Pete

 

[Jon Senior]

Clive Coleman wrote:
> Firstly my answer dealt with a post about pulling a load with a trike up
> BVR which you will know is not long but doesn't allow motor vehicles to
> overtake because of insufficient distances between bends.

If that was the case, then you might have seen fit to add an explanation
that you replying to something removed from the post to which you replied.

I read "As Tony mentioned, being an active cyclist reduces your chance
of a heart attack. And the point of the veterans club anecdote was that
just because you've retired, doesn't mean that you can't cycle anymore."

as being the quote from my post to which you replied. I'm not sure where
the trike was in that paragraph, or indeed any load beyond the rider and
vehicle. I appreciate that at some point in the past, we had discussed
the use of freight trikes, but not in the current sub-thread. DKUATB

Jon