"Bill" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:eW5PGKtdV5RFFwVJ@privacy.net...
> In message <ei65cm$1kr$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Larry <oz@ym.andius>
> writes
> >Before the road tax becomes more than equal to the second hand value of
our
> >prized possesions?
> >
> What I find most depressing is the selection of 4 x 4 owners interviewed
> on TV. All they seem to say is "I've worked for this so I deserve it",
> not "this vehicle is the best tool I've got to help save the planet,
> It'll do everything I need, carry everything I need to wherever I need
> it".

I don't "deserve" my nice, frugal diesel, comfortable, warm, reliable,
capable, do anything, carry anything, go anywhere (assuming I'm still
allowed) 4x4, but I'm glad I bought it and I didn't think about saving the
planet although that depends on *how* I use it.

>
> There's a need for an active lobby to stress what creative, competent
> people and tools can achieve, and to try to grind down the endless
> wafflings of the unproductive list makers (failed because they can't do
> IT either) that we have allowed to form into what we stupidly call "The
> Political Class".

I don't really understand what you are trying to get at here but competent,
creative, adept users of tools don't need any 'lobby' to proclaim their
professionalism, this would be obvious from their output, but *I* must have
failed because I'm not very good with IT?

>
> I think I'm quite green. I built a sailing boat from a pile of wood and
> some plans and could live quite happily in its cabin if I needed to.

What the hell for? Recreation? But not without help from some paper pusher
who designed it and made the plans.

I
> took an old broken down lathe and used it to make parts for itself to
> bring it up to scratch. Same with a milling machine. My shed is full of
> all sorts of crap that might one day help in some rebuilding process.

Get it recycled!

> Same with the garage. The 110 only does a few hundred miles a year, but
> what it does is invaluable in load carrying and towing terms. If it has
> a terminal chassis rust problem, it will, I'm sure, come into its own as
> a donor vehicle and be well recycled.
> The people promoting battery cars seem to be the very people who should
> be walking anyway. A car that only has a range of 40 miles (when new
> presumably), that can't carry anything, that presumably has no heater
> and probably goes half the distance with the headlights on? Gee whiz, I
> can hardly wait.

I suppose that could be a Godsend for someone with mobility problems.

> I walk to the shops, but sometimes have to take the car because SWMBO
> has a trolley full of food bought for when the family all come home.
> They all walked to school when the were young and later got the bus. I
> can't afford to have a holiday, so I don't fly.

Only when the load is heavy do people weaken. I had a holiday last year
though I couldn't really afford it and I drove my kids to school.

>
> I'm green. It's these useless people who talk or push paper for a living
> who are the parasites. It's about time the do'ers shouted back at the
> talkers.
>
> Last night I watched Newsnight on BBC2. Some man with suspiciously black
> hair called Milliband, I think, said that everyone would have to learn
> that every time they emit carbon dioxide they will have to pay. I think
> he should be the first to try out a face-mounted CO2 meter. Maybe I
> should assemble a prototype now?
>
I'm not allowed to say what colour I am but what has that to do with CO2
output? All in a light vein though ;-)

Martin

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-11-01, beamendsltd <beamendsltd@btconnect.com> wrote:
||
||| I must be having a bad day! I still can't see it......
||
|| You said you were "self-emplyed", not quite "self-implied" but close
|| enough I suppose ;-)

I got it, but it's a bit groanworthy!

--
Rich
==============================

Take out the obvious to email me.

Austin Shackles wrote:

|| water
|| vapour in the atmosphere leads to more clouds, which lowers the
|| albedo.

Guinness does that to mine.

--
Rich
==============================

Take out the obvious to email me.

On 2006-11-01, Richard Brookman <THErichard.brookmanOBVIOUS@btinternet.com> wrote:

> I got it, but it's a bit groanworthy!

Hah! You mis-spelled "quite enormously"...

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Well if the worst comes to the worst it will be every man for themselves and
at least I have a head start with a Mad Max contraption waiting and ready
for that


--
Larry
Series 3 Rust and Holes

"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnekhqlv.dbs.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2006-11-01, Austin Shackles <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>
>
> Centuries from now, our land rovers will be used by mad max-style
> gangs to roar through the deserts, waging local wars, I wonder if a
> 300TDi will run on boiled-down human fat? OK, getting a bit way out
> here ;-)
>
> --
> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Can someone explain to me how an electric car is eco friendly when it needs
a PowerStation, overhead cables and all the huge inefficiency to power it.
Fair enough if it has solar panels on it!!

Nick wrote:

|| Can someone explain to me how an electric car is eco friendly when
|| it needs a PowerStation, overhead cables and all the huge
|| inefficiency to power it. Fair enough if it has solar panels on it!!

It's slow, quiet and no fun at all, so it must be good for us.

Automotive muesli.

--
Rich
==============================

Take out the obvious to email me.

beamendsltd wrote:
> In message <eiajl5$r5n$1@localhost.localdomain>
> "GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>
>> beamendsltd wrote:
>>> In message <ei9tu1$91b$1@localhost.localdomain>
>>> "GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> beamendsltd wrote:
>>>>> In message <eW5PGKtdV5RFFwVJ@privacy.net>
>>>>> Bill <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <ei65cm$1kr$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Larry
>>>>>> <oz@ym.andius> writes
>>>>>>> Before the road tax becomes more than equal to the second hand
>>>>>>> value of our prized possesions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I find most depressing is the selection of 4 x 4 owners
>>>>>> interviewed on TV. All they seem to say is "I've worked for this
>>>>>> so I deserve it", not "this vehicle is the best tool I've got to
>>>>>> help save the planet, It'll do everything I need, carry
>>>>>> everything I need to wherever I need it".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a fair point - PR is all about "perceptions", and, as Harry
>>>>> Enfield and Monty Python so ably demonstrated, the "self-made man"
>>>>> is actualy percieved by the public as an object or riducule rather
>>>>> that respect, i.e.it won't go down well with the public. I know
>>>>> I see the shutters go down in a lot of people when I say I'm
>>>>> self-emplyed.
>>>>>
>>>> What are you implying?
>>>
>>> Nothing personal - just observing that saying something along the
>>> lines of "I haven't had to replace my car/computer/washing machine
>>> et al for 10 years" is pushing the argument onto the anti's,
>>> "because I can" just backs up their prejudices (but is a perfectly
>>> good reason doing daft things like climding very big mountains, it
>>> seems).
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>> Richard, you're far too straight, I was punning on your typo!
>>
>
> I must be having a bad day! I still can't see it......
>
> Ah, well, pool match tonight (= ****ed)
>
> Richard

self-emplyed ???!!!!

--
Don't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

On 2006-11-01, Nick <jimmybean60@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Can someone explain to me how an electric car is eco friendly when it needs
> a PowerStation, overhead cables and all the huge inefficiency to power it.
> Fair enough if it has solar panels on it!!

Well, I used to think that they were better in that the pollution is
at the power station where it can be tackled relatively easily, but
now the latest buzzword is Micro CHD, using small generators in our
homes to make heat and electricity, which are apparently more
efficient and produce less pollution than a large powerstation.

So as soon as you think you've got a handle on part of the problem,
someone comes and kicks the applecart over. What we need to do is do
what the anti-4x4 lot do, make your mind up, clap hands over ears and
shout LALALALALALALA.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:11:01 -0000, "Nick" <jimmybean60@hotmail.com>
scribbled the following nonsense:

>Can someone explain to me how an electric car is eco friendly when it needs
>a PowerStation, overhead cables and all the huge inefficiency to power it.
>Fair enough if it has solar panels on it!!
>

shhh Lexus Hybrid is so green and clean, but the effective MPG taking
into account that some of the time is on electric power (and hence no
petrol used) is still less than 30mpg, so the engine must be *very*
thirsty
--

Simon Isaacs

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote"
George Jean Nathan (1882-1955)

ROT13 me....

Nick wrote:
> Can someone explain to me how an electric car is eco friendly when it needs
> a PowerStation, overhead cables and all the huge inefficiency to power it.
> Fair enough if it has solar panels on it!!
>
>
Big power stations are more efficient than a little engine ? Even
allowing for distribution losses you´re still ahead.

Steve

On 2006-11-01, Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:

> now the latest buzzword is Micro CHD

Or even Micro CHP... "Combined Heat and Power". Oops.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-11-01, steve Taylor <steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote:

> Big power stations are more efficient than a little engine ? Even
> allowing for distribution losses you´re still ahead.

That's what I thought, but Micro CHD systems use lean-burn engines to
generate electricity and use the exhaust heat to heat water,
apparently they do both more efficiently than using centrally
generated electricity and feeding it to homes. Not sure on the
figures but that's what's said about them, by the government, various
greenies and a few more organisations. I'm not sure if they're right
but I'd like to use them anyway given how dodgy the local power supply
out here is!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2006-11-01, steve Taylor <steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Big power stations are more efficient than a little engine ? Even
>> allowing for distribution losses you´re still ahead.
>
> That's what I thought, but Micro CHD systems use lean-burn engines to
> generate electricity and use the exhaust heat to heat water,
> apparently they do both more efficiently than using centrally
> generated electricity and feeding it to homes. Not sure on the
> figures but that's what's said about them, by the government, various
> greenies and a few more organisations. I'm not sure if they're right
> but I'd like to use them anyway given how dodgy the local power supply
> out here is!
>

If the big power stations could ALSO pump their waste heat out to be
used, they would be 80% efficient too. That´s the trick. I suspect that
micro CHP would seriously improve the overall efficiency of a home
energy system with a vehicle to charge as well, since the unwanted
energy (who needs central heating in Summer) would have somewhere to go

Steve

Simon Isaacs wrote:

> shhh Lexus Hybrid is so green and clean, but the effective MPG taking
> into account that some of the time is on electric power (and hence no
> petrol used) is still less than 30mpg, so the engine must be *very*
> thirsty

Where did the electric power come from ?

Steve

On 2006-11-01, steve Taylor <steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote:

> If the big power stations could ALSO pump their waste heat out to be
> used, they would be 80% efficient too. That´s the trick.

I suspect you're right but don't have any documentation to judge, so
not sure if the efficiency figures take the heat generation into
account.

I'd whack a pair of generators in the garage to generate all my
electricity, then sod the grid, they can't be arsed to keep electric
coming to my house so screw the lot of them!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:

> I'd whack a pair of generators in the garage to generate all my
> electricity, then sod the grid, they can't be arsed to keep electric
> coming to my house so screw the lot of them!
>

Now if you fuelled them on woodchips, and a gasifier you´d have bugger
all carbon footprint. What I´d like to know is how much land it would
take to do it.

Steve

And a reply in a light vein....

In message <lLWdnQX9Y8jma9XYRVnysQ@bt.com>, Oily
<martinhill100@nospambtconnect.com> writes
>
>"Bill" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:eW5PGKtdV5RFFwVJ@privacy.net...
>> In message <ei65cm$1kr$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Larry <oz@ym.andius>
>> writes
>> >Before the road tax becomes more than equal to the second hand value of
>our
>> >prized possesions?
>> >
>> What I find most depressing is the selection of 4 x 4 owners interviewed
>> on TV. All they seem to say is "I've worked for this so I deserve it",
>> not "this vehicle is the best tool I've got to help save the planet,
>> It'll do everything I need, carry everything I need to wherever I need
>> it".
>
>I don't "deserve" my nice, frugal diesel, comfortable, warm, reliable,
>capable, do anything, carry anything, go anywhere (assuming I'm still
>allowed) 4x4, but I'm glad I bought it and I didn't think about saving the
>planet although that depends on *how* I use it.
>
Yes, and you probably use it sensibly sometimes and have a bit of fun at
other times. If so, you are living in the right universe, unlike those
who would be our "masters". Have you read the Blunkett diaries?
>>
>> There's a need for an active lobby to stress what creative, competent
>> people and tools can achieve, and to try to grind down the endless
>> wafflings of the unproductive list makers (failed because they can't do
>> IT either) that we have allowed to form into what we stupidly call "The
>> Political Class".
>
>I don't really understand what you are trying to get at here but competent,
>creative, adept users of tools don't need any 'lobby' to proclaim their
>professionalism, this would be obvious from their output, but *I* must have
>failed because I'm not very good with IT?
>
What I'm trying to get at is that the people who have spent oodles of
*my* and *your* money, yet failed to make work properly their lists of
who has guns, of who needs financial assistance, of medical records and
so on, seem to have got themselves into a position where they feel able
to decree what I can and can't do. If you make huge lists, you should be
able to oversee the construction and maintenance of simple databases.
They don't seem to be able to.
I'm not even against lists per se, I just hate total incompetence and
negative "can't do" attitudes affecting me.

Yes, intelligent, thinking people appreciate professionalism, skill, the
ability to select appropriate tools for the job and so on. That's
exactly what I'm saying, that politicians and some journalists don't
appreciate thought. Will politicians put a tax on saws because I breathe
out more Co2 when I build a bookcase? Much better to go to MFI and buy
one that has been sawn in China and shipped around the world.

There's a need for a slick positive PR slogan to promote an image
diametrically opposed to the "Chelsea Tractor" and the vision it
conjures up.
>>
>> I think I'm quite green. I built a sailing boat from a pile of wood and
>> some plans and could live quite happily in its cabin if I needed to.
>
>What the hell for? Recreation? But not without help from some paper pusher
>who designed it and made the plans.
>
What for? A sense of achievement perhaps? It almost sounds as though
you are one of "them" that I've flushed out. The experience of building
a wooden yacht from plans I found to be quite amazing. You literally
find yourself communing with the mind of the designer. My design was one
of the first by Alan Buchanan, who later became and still is known for
the beauty of his creations. As should be those who designed the 110
that I ride.
There are paper users and paper pushers. Which are you?
> I
>> took an old broken down lathe and used it to make parts for itself to
>> bring it up to scratch. Same with a milling machine. My shed is full of
>> all sorts of crap that might one day help in some rebuilding process.
>
>Get it recycled!
>
I ought to be out there now, recycling. Instead I'm writing this.

>> Same with the garage. The 110 only does a few hundred miles a year, but
>> what it does is invaluable in load carrying and towing terms. If it has
>> a terminal chassis rust problem, it will, I'm sure, come into its own as
>> a donor vehicle and be well recycled.
>> The people promoting battery cars seem to be the very people who should
>> be walking anyway. A car that only has a range of 40 miles (when new
>> presumably), that can't carry anything, that presumably has no heater
>> and probably goes half the distance with the headlights on? Gee whiz, I
>> can hardly wait.
>
>I suppose that could be a Godsend for someone with mobility problems.
>
But there are mobility vehicles especially designed for the purpose.
There are also milk floats. Both fit for purpose, just like a Landie. It
the idiots telling me what purpose I have that get to me.

In our path we have an Omega estate that I use for business (although
retired people still require me to help). It carries tools, heavy drums
of cable testgear etc. Often has to be used with the back seats down.
Fully loaded it does 40mpg on the motorway, 27mpg overall, but I annoy
everyone by coasting to lights etc and never, well hardly ever, using
the brakes. Behind it is the 110, used as described elsewhere. Both
these vehicles are essential to my chosen lifestyle. I am usually the
only driver here. Car tax has risen, so the third car, the Fiesta,
stands forlorn on its SORN. All the tax hikes have achieved is to make
it necessary to use a gas guzzler to drive the occasional short journeys
because I can now only afford to tax and insure the two more practical
cars.

>> I walk to the shops, but sometimes have to take the car because SWMBO
>> has a trolley full of food bought for when the family all come home.
>> They all walked to school when the were young and later got the bus. I
>> can't afford to have a holiday, so I don't fly.
>
>Only when the load is heavy do people weaken. I had a holiday last year
>though I couldn't really afford it and I drove my kids to school.
>
I thought when the load got heavy, the good get going.

--
Bill

"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnekdudq.ljp.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2006-10-31, Larry <oz@ym.andius> wrote:
>
>> Before the road tax becomes more than equal to the second hand value of
>> our
>> prized possesions?
>
> Any hikes probably won't be applied to older cars, just new ones,
> that's the usual way of it, hopefully at least we'll escape that way.
> Having four cars while driving less than average I'd hate to see tax
> rise even more.
>
> I noticed that one of the "carbon neutralising" schemes has come a tad
> unstuck;
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6092460.stm
>
> Basically the G8 summit last year was supposed to be "carbon neutral"
> by the UK government spending £50,000 on low-energy lightbulbs for an
> African township (eh?) but the money has to be spent on beaurocracy
> including hiring an auditor who's job is to count the lightbulbs that
> they now can't afford to buy.
>

How many beaurocrates does it take to change a lightbulb? Is this some kind
of joke?

On 2006-11-02, werdan <footrotdog@that.gmail.fad.com> wrote:

> How many beaurocrates does it take to change a lightbulb? Is this some kind
> of joke?

Indeed, although I am guilty of tabloiding somewhat, i.e. suggesting
that all said beaurocrat does is count lightbulbs. I'll be a
journalist yet.

These "carbon offsetting" schemes are a bit dodgy though, for example
I found out recently that one of the schemes in which you are lead to
believe that a tree is planted in return for your contribution turns
out to just be a promise by the forest caretakers not to cut a tree
down for 99 years. So if 10 people buy a tree, then a random 10 trees
will stand for 99 years. Not so bad perhaps, but the forests are
protected in some way anyway (can't remember details) so are unlikely
to be cut down in the first place.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!