Hot air or realistic?

Sanjøy · Post by **Sanjøy** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:18 am

Can Murray's get the maintenance contract Chancellor?

Scuffers · Post by **Scuffers** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:32 pm

robin wrote:I have no idea whether they would or wouldn't turn down the work and I don't think it particularly matters - if you have the cash, somebody will build you a power station, I am sure .

I am sure it will be more than £100bn anyway ... given it's all a fantasy, I don't think it's worth worrying about too much either!

Cheers,
Robin

your not wrong...

what I find alarming is that the government are happy to spend £50Bn on HS2 but not on power stations unless they are windmills or some other green dream...

what's even funnier is that HS2 will be powered by what?

robin · Post by **robin** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:02 pm

I've seen that the trains will have sails ...

Post by **campbell** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:00 am

HS2 needs to be stopped.

But that's a whole new thread.

rossybee · Post by **rossybee** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:39 pm

campbell wrote:HS2 needs to be stopped.

flyingscot68 · Post by **flyingscot68** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:02 am

robin wrote:I've seen that the trains will have sails ...

Sounds like a great idea!

Given the current obesity problems facing the country maybe the passengers should have to pedal too, think of the environmental and health benefits!

Scuffers · Post by **Scuffers** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:42 pm

rossybee wrote:
campbell wrote:HS2 needs to be stopped.

I'm in two minds about it...

we do need more NEW rail routes, but I am not convinced that HS2 is actually what we need.

(to be blunt, a time machine, and a gun would be more use, to go back to 1963 and shoot Beeching.)

Sanjøy · Post by **Sanjøy** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:06 pm

As long a Cross Rail is still on the cards Chancellor.

Post by **campbell** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:57 pm

I see the Borders Railway is coming along nicely.

http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/news/bo ... ridge.aspx

Some of our lords and masters are at least doing a reasonable job of undoing a bit of Beeching's slash and burn. Good show.

Oops, thread drift, sorry.

sendmyusername · Post by **sendmyusername** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:17 pm

Sorry this is for earlier on in this posting.
I couldn't find the article about energy storage for windmills, but it was in E&T (engineering & technology) magazine if anyone really wants to find out (one issue last year)

Scuffers · Post by **Scuffers** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:39 am

just reading the news today about the new airbus 350 and how it's cost some $15Bn to develop.

now, that's a pretty significant development over many years involving a shed load of suppliers etc...

so, if you can do that for $15Bn, how can it cost £16Bn ($26.2Bn) to build a single power station?

BiggestNizzy · Post by **BiggestNizzy** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:54 am

Scuffers wrote:just reading the news today about the new airbus 350 and how it's cost some $15Bn to develop.

now, that's a pretty significant development over many years involving a shed load of suppliers etc...

so, if you can do that for $15Bn, how can it cost £16Bn ($26.2Bn) to build a single power station?

Because a catastrophic failure in an airbus kills the 300 odd passengers and crew and maybe a few unfortunate souls on the ground. A catastrophic failure in a nuclear power station results in another fukushima,chernoble or 3 mile island.

Scuffers · Post by **Scuffers** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:47 pm

BiggestNizzy wrote:
Scuffers wrote:just reading the news today about the new airbus 350 and how it's cost some $15Bn to develop.

now, that's a pretty significant development over many years involving a shed load of suppliers etc...

so, if you can do that for $15Bn, how can it cost £16Bn ($26.2Bn) to build a single power station?
Because a catastrophic failure in an airbus kills the 300 odd passengers and crew and maybe a few unfortunate souls on the ground. A catastrophic failure in a nuclear power station results in another fukushima,chernoble or 3 mile island.

ok, and just how many people have they killed?

(apart from the minor fact that there will be more than 1 A350 and they carry more than 300 people)

try again.

BiggestNizzy · Post by **BiggestNizzy** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:12 pm

Scuffers wrote:
BiggestNizzy wrote:
Scuffers wrote:just reading the news today about the new airbus 350 and how it's cost some $15Bn to develop.

now, that's a pretty significant development over many years involving a shed load of suppliers etc...

so, if you can do that for $15Bn, how can it cost £16Bn ($26.2Bn) to build a single power station?
Because a catastrophic failure in an airbus kills the 300 odd passengers and crew and maybe a few unfortunate souls on the ground. A catastrophic failure in a nuclear power station results in another fukushima,chernoble or 3 mile island.
ok, and just how many people have they killed?

(apart from the minor fact that there will be more than 1 A350 and they carry more than 300 people)

try again.

Ok less than 50 people dies as a direct result of the Chernoble accident the Chernoble forum predicts 9,000 people will die the torch report predicts 30,000 to 60,000 people will die as a result of cancer as a result of the accident. http://www.chernobylreport.org/torch.pdf greenpeace are a little less optimistic at 93,000
Fukushima, the WHO have noticed that 36% of children have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands. I can't find figures on the amount of contaminated water that is being stored on site but we have already had several leaks.

Scuffers · Post by **Scuffers** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:01 pm

BiggestNizzy wrote: Ok less than 50 people dies as a direct result of the Chernoble accident the Chernoble forum predicts 9,000 people will die the torch report predicts 30,000 to 60,000 people will die as a result of cancer as a result of the accident. http://www.chernobylreport.org/torch.pdf greenpeace are a little less optimistic at 93,000
Fukushima, the WHO have noticed that 36% of children have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands. I can't find figures on the amount of contaminated water that is being stored on site but we have already had several leaks.

yes, greenpeace - that paragon of accuracy (Brent Spa anyone?)

Chernobyl happened many years ago now (1986)

from Wiki:

On the death toll of the accident, the report states that twenty-eight emergency workers ("liquidators") died from acute radiation syndrome including beta burns and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer in the following years

The number of potential deaths arising from the Chernobyl disaster is heavily debated. The WHO's prediction of 4,000 future cancer deaths in surrounding countries is based on the Linear no-threshold model (LNT), which assumes that the damage inflicted by radiation at low doses is directly proportional to the dose. Radiation epidemiologist Roy Shore contends that estimating health effects in a population from the LNT model "is not wise because of the uncertainties"

Scottish Elises