|
Tesseraction posted:now I'm trying to think what a solar farm disaster would look like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBvSIyMny3M 138 is the sum of 4 consecutive primes!
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
TomViolence posted:Fork handles, four candles. What genius. Almost as good as whatsisface falling through the bar in Only Fools and Horses. In fact you're doing exactly the thing he was taking the piss out of here. e: too many actuallys spoil the broth tooterfish fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Sad news, but Ronnie Barker was the funnier one anyway.  Yes he's from my hometown, why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:You realise Stewart Lee wasn't actually saying Del Falling Through the Bar(tm) wasn't funny? Well, I wasn't really trying to regurgitate wholesale a routine from our foremost inaccessible performance-artist-cum-comedian, so much as bemoan the relentless repetition of the same old nostalgic crap on the TV. I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing the Two Ronnies. Turn on the TV and you could be forgiven for thinking no decent comedy had been written for the past 30 years or so. It was funny stuff in its day, but through constant Stewart Lee style repetition it's grown to become as stale and unwelcome as a cabbage fart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
the cake article is truly amazing
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Morecambe and Wise were always the superior double act imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Well, I wasn't really trying to regurgitate wholesale a routine from our foremost inaccessible performance-artist-cum-comedian, so much as bemoan the relentless repetition of the same old nostalgic crap on the TV. I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing the Two Ronnies. Turn on the TV and you could be forgiven for thinking no decent comedy had been written for the past 30 years or so. It was funny stuff in its day, but through constant Stewart Lee style repetition it's grown to become as stale and unwelcome as a cabbage fart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Paul.Power posted:With any luck, Swansea might have a tidal lagoon by 2022-ish, with one planned for Cardiff if it's a success. I thought they cancelled the plans for the Cardiff one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
The guy just died, this is the one time they're allowed to be mawkish and sentimental.TomViolence posted:Well, I wasn't really trying to regurgitate wholesale a routine from our foremost inaccessible performance-artist-cum-comedian Ironically Stewart Lee hasn't changed his act in at least 15 years either... I do sometimes wonder if that was part of the joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
In other news this didn't take long to get there:
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Pffft, I was kidding but now I'm trying to think what a solar farm disaster would look like. Like this, I guess - http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/12918/20150223/solar-farm-set-hundreds-birds-ablaze.htm Basically do it wrong and you've got a death ray.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Re the tidal lagoon(s), I met one of the PR people for it where I work the other day, and she still seemed enthusiastic for it (then again, PR). Apparently they're hoping to overcome the last couple of hurdles for the Swansea one some time this year. Of course, one of those hurdles is Tories 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Ah, nice. It also seems Norway is now under 5% non-renewable energy sources? That's pretty ace. Although I've always wondered - does that count vehicles as well? Tony Blair is widely rumoured not to have grasped this when he signed Britain up to some fairly ambitious renewable energy (as opposed to electricity) targets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Zephro posted:No. Energy use and electricity use are not the same thing, remember. In the UK the rule of thumb is that transport uses a third of the total energy consumed by the country, electricity generation consumes another third and space heating the final third. Ah, cheers for the clarification. Oh for the days when all our cars are electric.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
Zephro posted:No. Energy use and electricity use are not the same thing, remember. In the UK the rule of thumb is that transport uses a third of the total energy consumed by the country, electricity generation consumes another third and space heating the final third. This is why I don't get anyone claiming that we don't need baseload. Like yeah, by some estimates it should be possible to replace current electricity generation entirely with wind wave and solar if we push for it, but if we also want to see electric cars take off then electricity production will need to at least double over what it is now. It's around this point in the conversation I begin winding up to smack them over the head with a stone tablet engraved with Jevons Paradox.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Paul.Power posted:Re the tidal lagoon(s), I met one of the PR people for it where I work the other day, and she still seemed enthusiastic for it (then again, PR). Apparently they're hoping to overcome the last couple of hurdles for the Swansea one some time this year. Of course, one of those hurdles is Tories Whenever I heard about investment in Wales I assume it's not going ahead tbh  Zephro posted:Tony Blair is widely rumoured not to have grasped this when he signed Britain up to some fairly ambitious renewable energy (as opposed to electricity) targets. lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Build nuclear power stations, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Glowing green energy is the future comrades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Jakiri what's the currently-proven least-waste-per-KWh energy generation method? Least in both shortest half-life and least as in smallest amount of crap left over compared to input, since I'm guessing it's unlikely the same method wins both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Pisses me off that governments are happy to do "something, anything, right now" when that something is bombing brown people, but when it's committing to taking the effort of safely burying nuclear waste it's all shuffling feet and averted eyes and "unforeseeable long term consequences, let's not be hasty" Fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Nuclear power costs too many poonds, unfortunately. Solar is at grid parity with fossil fuels in some countries and still getting cheaper, and we're already starting to see a market driven switch to solar. It's very space inefficient, though, and a country like Britain would struggle to meet its energy demand from solar alone. Zephro fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Also I think the Tory Party has shown you can get pretty far in life with hosed up mutant genes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
I was under the impression nuclear was expensive in the short term but economically favorable in the long. France is certainly doing ok.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I was under the impression nuclear was expensive in the short term but economically favorable in the long. France is certainly doing ok. Zephro fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I was under the impression nuclear was expensive in the short term but economically favorable in the long. France is certainly doing ok. what's a "long term", is that when we take away a school holiday so the little bastards get a Proper Education Like Back In The Day?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Jakiri what's the currently-proven least-waste-per-KWh energy generation method? Least in both shortest half-life and least as in smallest amount of crap left over compared to input, since I'm guessing it's unlikely the same method wins both. Literally any proven design would be better than yet another oversized cutting edge piece of poo poo like they're building at Hinkley. Of all the things to be a world leader in, why this? It's like being the guy at the head of the line shuffling through a minefield, and proud of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Nuclear power costs too many poonds, unfortunately. drat you Brooooooon. Zephro posted:Solar is at grid parity with fossil fuels in some countries and still getting cheaper, so we ought to start seeing a market driven switch to solar in the near future. It's very space inefficient, though, and a country like Britain would struggle to meet its energy demand from solar alone. Solar is fantastic in that regard but yeah, Britain's too squished up to make good use of it. Would like to get some roof panels though. I was wondering if we find some brown belt land couldn't we just dig our own way to geothermal? It's only a couple of kilometres! And most of the land goes back over the top once you've submerged the water storage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Zephro posted:The contract we signed with EDF for Hinkley Point gives them a guaranteed sale price for their power of roughly double the current going rate, for the next thirty years. And they're still not sure it's enough to make them want to build the thing. Every new-generation reactor currently under construction in western Europe is very late and very over budget atm. Renaissance Robot posted:Literally any proven design would be better than yet another oversized cutting edge piece of poo poo like they're building at Hinkley. Hence why I asked Jakiri - he specialises in nuclear physics and also agreed that Hinkley is a gently caress-awful albatross.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
David Cameron hosed a dead albatross.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Zephro posted:The contract we signed with EDF for Hinkley Point gives them a guaranteed sale price for their power of roughly double the current going rate, for the next thirty years. And they're still not sure it's enough to make them want to build the thing. Every new-generation reactor currently under construction in western Europe is very late and very over budget atm. There was a paywalled FT article I couldn't read implying that EDF engineers were criticising the integrity of the design too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Ah, cheers for the clarification. Oh for the days when all our cars are electric. Oh for the days when we have vastly smaller numbers of cars (although having said that, all cars everywhere are a bit of a drop in the ocean) Tesseraction posted:Jakiri what's the currently-proven least-waste-per-KWh energy generation method? Least in both shortest half-life and least as in smallest amount of crap left over compared to input, since I'm guessing it's unlikely the same method wins both. First, let's assume you mean high level waste. You can reduce low level waste by using fewer clipboards in the reactor building. Depends what you mean by "least waste". Arguably* it's an equivalent question to "What has the highest burnup?" and off the top of my head I think the answer (at least among existing designs) is the CANDU. I suppose you could argue that a breeder reactor produces "less" waste because it burns through more of the mass of the fuel rod by making the non-fissile bits fissile, but as far as I know there's only the Soviet-made breeder still going in Russia, and I think it's now burning up repurposed nuclear weapons material anyway. All in all, though, this is one of those areas where progress is fairly limited because it's not economically important. Uranium is very cheap, leaving spent fuel in a pool for a couple of decades is very cheap, and future your-job person can deal with it after that. *It depends how much of the process you want to count as being waste producing. Does the leftover depleted uranium count? If not, then the CANDU will produce more waste directly because a higher proportion of the initial fuel tends to be non-fissile material. Zephro posted:The contract we signed with EDF for Hinkley Point gives them a guaranteed sale price for their power of roughly double the current going rate, for the next thirty years. And they're still not sure it's enough to make them want to build the thing. Every new-generation reactor currently under construction in western Europe is very late and very over budget atm. That's not down to nuclear power being expensive, that's down to the particular implementations being expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml here's a fairly decent examination of nuclear power's potential.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Steel's hosed: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-31/welcome-to-new-ice-age-as-top-china-mill-warns-of-steel-crisis
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Jose posted:wouldn't tidal power more more sense anyway for britain I am 100% in favor of basing our electricity generation on machines designed to generate power by slowing down the moon. E: also nice front page on the mirror today.  This whole FAILURE thing seems to be catching on a bit. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:E: also nice front page on the mirror today. The Graun, the i and the Times have similar front pages. The "failing government" narrative is taking hold! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I was under the impression nuclear was expensive in the short term but economically favorable in the long. France is certainly doing ok. What was the last government who pursued actual long-term policy? Even Trident, which I'd like to see scrapped but is widely pretty popular, has been continually kicked into the long grass as they try to delay the inevitable. Basically our politicians are the sort of people who are in charge of the financial sector. Short term interests win it all. Zephro posted:The contract we signed with EDF for Hinkley Point gives them a guaranteed sale price for their power of roughly double the current going rate, for the next thirty years. And they're still not sure it's enough to make them want to build the thing. Every new-generation reactor currently under construction in western Europe is very late and very over budget atm. Man, imagine if there was a company, you could call them British Energy, who were owned by the taxpayer & didn't have to try to make as large a short-term profit as possible to quench the never ending thirst of shareholders but instead could act in the long term interests of the nation when it comes to something like new nuclear plants. Or hydro plants. Or the development of tidal/wave/other things. Or all of the above! Of course then stop imagining it because as everyone knows, nothing is more perfect and flawless than The Market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:That's not down to nuclear power being expensive, that's down to the particular implementations being expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Can't have a Tory government without killing off some important part of our industrial base. It's tradition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
When no Parliament can bind a future Parliament in any way, what's the point of being long termist? You could set up the most wonderful thing for the long term, then fall out of public favor due to sleaze or stagnation or
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Regarding that "Recall Parliament" petition - The Petitions Committee makes decisions on petitions (including, I think, publishing Government Responses) and they, as a Committee of the House, don't sit while the House is in Recess 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:38
|
|
