SteamyTea

Just make up a company, or copy the details of one that is MCS registered onto the paperwork. Only checked when it goes wrong, and by then, most companies have vanished. I am sure if the DNO is happy, the problem is solved. The structural element is really for your house insurance.

Except the assumptions were wrong. Using the same example, if all the returning aircraft had no damage to engine cowlings, one would assume that engines never got hit. The story was very different when they inspected downed aircraft. So back to the original point, it is no good only counting the survivors of extreme weather events, you have to count the non survivors, that shows the scale of the problem. Or to pick a building analogy. It is usual to brace a wall that gets the prevailing wind during construction, but you have to accept that a non prevailing wind can do damage as well. Saving a few quid by not doing that can have expensive repercussions. Not that I can think of anyone that would not do that.

No, he was explaining that the most efficient 'window' is to only charge and discharge at 40% of rated capacity I think. There are also inverter limits. If you want a very high capacity inverter, that starts to cost. Though you can use two inverters. This is an unsustainable tariff and not something I would base an investment decision on. The power companies have to make the exact same calculations, except their 'storage' is basically buying in extra capacity when they are caught out, usually from gas powered sources.

Not quite the case, unless you are totally off grid. The battery storage can supplement the grid supply, it does not have to replace it all. Whether it is financially worth it at 14p/kWh at night and 23p/kWh during the day is the tricky bit. With my daily mean usage of 2 kWh (50p worth), I doubt it is.

They are still not surviving. https://www.gapminder.org What you are doing is counting the wrong things. To give an aviation example, during WW2, the USAF got people to work out where to put reinforcement on aeroplanes by counting the bullet holes. The more holes in an area i.e. fuselage, the more reinforcement was needed. Trouble was, they were not counting the holes in the planes that did not return.

Was more the Sun in that case.

Too right. Saves the cash getting wasted on pointless vanity projects by central government. I am currently reading (slowly as it is my bedtime book) Just read the bit about public opinion to benefit scroungers (actually press manipulation). When asked in a poll, people thought that 25 to 30% of claimants were fraudulent, truth is 0.7% are. I can live with that.

Just thought of something else I dislike about mine. The door is hinged on the side (LHS). That is hopeless as you cannot use it as a shelf when removing stuff. My Mother has a Bosch one, similar to this (she has had it 20+ years). https://www.appliancesonline.com.au/product/bosch-combination-ovenmicrowave-hbc84k553a Not too bad.

Wealth as in assets or cash? Wealth is assets and cash. Not the same as richest, which as far as I know, does not have a real, economic definition. And then there is income. I am not complaining, just the way things have panned out.

We have seen this before, was Gulf War 1 really over 30 years ago. Year Average Closing Price Year Open Year High Year Low Year Close Annual % Change 1991 $21.54 $26.53 $32.25 $17.43 $19.15 -32.76% 1990 $24.53 $22.88 $41.07 $15.43 $28.48 30.40%

Thank you, worth knowing about. Got my tip today, works alright. Though I do think at £2.60 for 1, it is expensive. But shall see how well it lasts. Soldered the pins to the GY-302 pretty easily, now see if I can detect light with it.

Or we could keep explain that RE can deliver at <£55/MWh and FF is now costing >£80/MWh. Even utility scale PV is cheaper than coal now. So maybe, to get around the planning problems, the government should be fitting, free of charge and obligations, PV to all suitable roofs. Let us say there are 10 million suitable properties, and each can have, on average, 2 kWp. So 20 GWp of installed capacity. If this was done at scale, and in an organised manner, probably cost £3000 per installation. So £30bn. A estimate on generation would be 2 MWh per installation per year, so 20 TWh/year. I am sure the government can raise £30bn easily enough, it is going to be paying 10% of that as a council tax rebate,

Does that mean the wealthiest group in the country pay less tax?

One of the costs of climate change is migration. But that is alright, the UK can set up a 'sorting hat' somewhere, maybe New Zealand. They could use a few sheep to do it, got to be faster than what we are currently doing.

What planet are you on. It would take 15 years to get a gas terminal though planning, then another 5 or so to build it. South Hook, took 6 or 7 years to build, and that was on the old ESSO refinery site what already had the infrastructure.

Interesting, I would see that as a plus. It is the turntable that makes the noise, and the fan. The turntableless (just microwave) ones at work are great, quiet, quick and easy to clean.

I have one, a Panasonic NN-CD87KS Not had decent toast for over a year now. It is alright, but is noisy and slow. Works fine as a conventional fan oven, microwave is a slow considering the power, and the grill is just rubbish, but then most electric grills are. And way to many built in options. Plus side is that it does not take up too much space, which is good.

You also have different air film values for ceilings and walls that affect the overall R-Value. But as @Russell griffiths says, let the proper insulation do the real work. It is what it is made for.

Cellulose, the first commercially useful plastic was plant based. Many polyurethanes are as well. Last week's comic was all about chemistry. Endlessly recyclable plastics could fix our waste crisis Katharine Sanderson Untold amounts of plastic waste is polluting our land and seas. Now, we’re using chemical tricks to design infinitely and easily recyclable materials ../../../../wp-content/newsci_images/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWFnZXMubmV3c2NpZW50aXN0LmNvbS93cC1jb250ZW50L3VwbG9hZHMvMjAyMi8wMy8wMjEwMjQwMS9TRUlfOTA5NTg2NjguanBn.jpeg Graham Carter One thing chemists do superbly is make bonds between atoms. We are now wading through the consequences of that success: plastic waste that ends up burned, landfilled or floating in the oceans. Plastics are polymers, long chains of molecules linked by strong chemical bonds. This is why they can be hard to degrade or recycle. Snipping apart those chemical bonds, to return to the small molecular building blocks, is often a tricky chemical problem. There has been varying success in dealing with the main plastics we use. The low-hanging fruit is polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is used to make plastic bottles. It can simply be shredded and remoulded into fresh bottles. No chemists need apply. It is a different story with most other important plastics. Take polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is ubiquitous in double-glazed windows and plenty besides. “PVC’s an absolute nightmare,” says chemist Anthony Ryan at the University of Sheffield, UK. There is no known way to recycle it, and even if you did, you would end up with vinyl chloride, a toxic compound that can increase the risk of cancer. One job for chemists, then, is to devise new reactions that can break plastics into molecules that can be reused. Susannah Scott at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has recently had success doing this with polyolefins, a class of plastic that includes polyethylene. She developed a technique that uses a catalyst to break down these plastics into smaller molecules without having to use bucketloads of heat. These smaller molecules could be used in detergents, paints or pharmaceuticals. We also need to design new plastics and plan from the start what will happen to them after they come to the end of their life. Chemists are starting to invent plastics that can be recycled infinitely or that break down into materials that nourish the soil. One example is the plastic devised by Ting Xu at the University of California, Berkeley. Xu added tiny enzyme-containing capsules to the plastic. The material can be processed, heated and stretched into useful objects. But when its life is over, all you need do is soak the stuff in lukewarm water for a week or so. This releases the enzymes, which digest the plastic into small molecules. We will need plenty of new materials like this if we truly want to eliminate the scourge of plastic waste.

Both very good points. I sit and have a coffee overlooking the inner harbour and chat to 'an old fellow'. Was a brickie until he retired. He was adamant that renewable energy was so expensive that none of us could ever afford it. Pointed out that it is the cheapest to deploy, and if we changed our planning policy, it would be even cheaper. Only now has he realised what I have been saying for a few years is true.

Yes, but it does go back to what the IEE said 30 years ago about decarbonising and replacing existing generation capacity. The electrification of all energy sources are not a new 'thing' that needs to shock people. The UK has consistently had a bad record of investing in the energy sector and has changed policy every few years. There has been no long term plan, and infrastructure planning has been, generally, left to town councils to approve. The same town council departments that hamper people building a home, or demand that a window has to be moved six inches. Yes, and for every lifesaving heart valve, we make several tonnes, if not hundred of tonnes or unnecessary products from plastic. No one is saying that transitioning off fossil fuels will be easy, just worth it. If I had said in 1974, 'I have seen the future of motoring, it weights 2 tonnes and does 20 MPG", I would have been laughed at. Almost 50 years on we are driving SUVs and supplementing them with secondary vehicles that are slightly more economic on fuel. Think that policy changed about a decade ago. They were starting, from a very low base, if you look at kWh/year.person, rather than TWh/nation. It is worth noting that energy is not all about solar and wind (actually the same thing), but also hydro, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear. It is the mental shift from combustion to non combustion that is hard part, not the actual technology used.

Why isn't it the solution? Wind power in the UK produces about 70,000 GWh a year. If Hinkley Point was running, it would produce less than half that.

Just been listening to You and Yours, it is about how energy prices are affecting you. The first caller claimed that her car fuel bill had gone up from £30 to £60 for the same amount of fuel, and she actually does less mileage. No idea where she is filling up, and where she got fuel at 80p/litre in the past. Some people need to be given arithmetic lessons. I also found it interesting that she lived in an old, leaky house, and both her, and her daughter had health problems, with her daughters caused by the cold house.

All depends on your DHW usage. Cut it down to 50 litres/person @50°C and probably not. 300 litres per person @80°C, then probably.