mercuryg

Here's one for the history buffs that I am researching for a friend; the subject is one John Topham, who at some point in his life - although not sure exactly when - resided in Bedlington. Topham, who was awarded the Distiguished Flying Cross, had a story to tell, one tinged with tragedy and heroism. Shot down over occupied France - was a Lancaster captain and his plane was hit by 'friendly fire', a bomb from an aircraft above him - he suffered injuries to his leg and was soon under the care of Resistance operatives. during his time hiding he even spent 36 hours buried in a grave, in order to convince attending SS officer he was, in fact, dead. They believed th story, but one became suspicious, and apparently returned some time later. Topham shot the German, who was sunsequently buried in said grave. To cut a long story short, he returned to the Police Force - in newcastle, apparently - after the war and, tragically, met his death in his late 50's when hit by a lorry while crossing Stanhope Street. Anyone who can provide me with further details, knowledge or information about this man with such an interestign life please send me a message, it's research being carried out in connection with the Help for Heroes appeal, more of which I will divulge if required but would rather keep under wraps for now. Thanks.

No quite; Wetherspoons have agreements in place to buy their stock very late in its life, cutting down on the lead time they have in which to sell it hence the cut prices. In doing this they get a very good, guaranteed cut price deal as it takes what would rapidly become waste off the brewery's hands. The sheer volume they buy in means that they can easily undercut the rival brewery chains, who continue to treat their pubs as assets rather than businesses. The problem that most landlords have these days is that they are tied to expensive brewery deals for their draught product; Wetherspoons, being able to offer a much better deal, offer their landlords a much brighter prospect. It's not just competition, it's extreme competition. Not that I don't welcome it, but unless it does generate extra trade (which I doubt) and pass some of that onto the remaining bars it will be of limited benefit to the town.

I'll wager anyone a bet that Tesco has no intention of expanding. There's not enough business.

Good to see some positive comments about local pubs, as these are places that should be supported by us all. The Tavern is still owned by Punch Taverns, as it has been for many years, and it is they who have put some effort into upgrading the facilities, although it is mainly cosmetic. The licensee is the same lady who has the Monkey, believe it or not. Punch have always intended for the Tavern to become very much food orientated; the last tenants resisted this on the grounds that there was not enough sustainable custom. Anyone with any sense can see they were right - there isn't enough sustainable custom. Punch's area manager has insisted for years that the plavce was not capitalising enough on the 'trade from Tesco's' without noticing that the majority of people who shop at Tesco's park their cars out the back, fill the trolley, load the car and go home. If Punch continues with its insistence that the Tavern become a full on food bar it will not last long. Having said that, I went in for Sunday dinner last week and it was very good indeed; quite how long they can afford to keep it on is another matter.

I did read it - it's a story I've been following for some time and it's a great achievement; what I asked was what relevance it has to heating and powering homes in the UK, and the answer - if you care to think about it - is very little. To gain the power needed to store in the bloody great batteries that thing carries so it ca fly at night it needs to fly in the day; it has a major advantage in that it is not a house, it's an aeroplane. Unless you can elevate your necessarily south facing roof to above the cloud base when the sun isn't shining you're stuffed; the aeroplane isn't. It's logical when you think about it.

And the relevance to heating and powering homes in the UK is what, exactly?

Now that I like!

BUT WE DON'T WANT YOU! Note to landlords - when you see Mr Darn, add 30p to the price of a pint! Beer is not cheap these days is it. I actually listened to a geezer the other day complaining he paid 3p more in one pub than in another. Disgusting, of course. How much is a pint in wetherspoons these days?

How many times have we heard this one now????

Good point.....

Er, I didn't say that. If you bother to read the section on electric cars you'll see I've made my opinion quite clear that cars, as personal transport as we know them, have a limited life for the very reasons you espouse. Neither did I say 'scrap any green technology' but rather accept that over-investment in wind and solar power - which are proven to be inefficient and not the answer - is not the best use of resources. I did, however, state that nuclear power is the way forward, and also accept that disposing of the waste is a problem. You did, too, look: "we could build green power stations such as wind turbines, wave machine thingies or nuclear." That's in the electric car thread, and is your answer to my question about the lack of available power. The thing is, Monsta, it's all very well reading the blurb about wind turbines and solar power, and saying 'hey, this looks good, lets give companies a 25 year guarantee of excessive funding so that we look like we're doing our bit for the planet' but it is impossible to get away from one simple fact: they don't work well enough to provide our future required power. What, I ask in all seriousness, is wrong with being honest about that? I just read that yesterday, when loads of people switched on their TV's to watch the match, there was a power surge in at least one town that led to a blackout. That's WITH on demand, station provided electricity; how on earth do you propose to overcome that when we've shut down the power stations and attempt to meet our ludicrously over the top commitment to renewable energy sources? I take this seriously because it is serious; there is no quick fix.

Great question. What do we currently do with it? We bury it, and we will continue to do so until something better comes around. The problem you highlight is one that is eternal; we have the ability to build efficient nuclear power stations that provide us with plentiful power, yet waste disposal is clearly an issue; we have the ability to build efficient coal powered power stations that provide us with plentiful power, yet the carbon problem remains and the fossil fuel resources are being depleted; we have the ability to fill the country with wind turbines and solar panels, yet these are not efficient and don't provide anywhere near the power we require. So what do we do? In the long term, of course, we investigate alternative power sources - we always have, and always will - but in the short term we need power. Our current nuclear stations are going off line systematically, as are the older fossil fuel stations, and we need replacements - now. It's either the problematic storage of nuclear waste, or the continued carbon emissions of fossil fuels; sadly, wind and solar power don't provide the answer. Tides? Geothermal energy? Who knows, but for know, today, we don't have an option.

All interesting stuff, but the actual fact is that wind and solar power are not efficient, and are not going to halve our carbon emissions. It isn't going to happen - plain and simple. Of course the industry is creating jobs- governments are subsidising these things - but even Germany, the leader in such technology, is having to build more coal fired power stations to back up its wind supply. What's the point in subsidising wind and solar if that's what is needed (and it is, both there and here.) My aim is not to dismiss alternative power sources but to wish, seemingly endlessly, that the governments of the world would accept that what they are aiming to achieve - this massive and seemingly imperative reduction in carbon emissions by huge amounts - is simply not acheivable and driven by unproven theories that are largely based on highly disputed cod science. To cover this country in wind turbines is an expensive mistake that will not solve the impending problem of a power deficit, and the money spent subsidising it to keep the green lobby happy could be put to better use. I see heat pumps mentioned; great idea, but very, very expensive and high maintenance. We need nuclear reactors.

That is part o the problem in putting forward a 'negative' view. I can't disagree at all that there is great justification in looking at our dependence on fossil fuels, but the problem lies in the way the last twenty years of government have been swayed by the anti nuclear and pro 'green' brigade. Don't get me wrong, i'm not against the idea of clean fuels and renewable energy, my problem lies in excessive investment in unproven and inefficient power sources that are never going to provide the answer to the problem. I talk mainly of wind and solar power. Solar power is a non starter in the UK; despite Monsta's assertions - which are those of many who have been misled by the advertising and promotion of those with massive government grants - solar panels, even the most efficient ones, do not operate efficiently in anything other than the brightest of clear sunlight. This should be clear to anyone who reads that they need to be fitted south facing. furthermore, they don't work at night, and there is no facility for storing surplus energy and using it later without losing a great deal of it in the process. The quoted installer even admits that there is a possibility of 40-60% savings on electricity bills - there is no guarantee, and when you consider that teh winter months and many more will have to be subsidised by other sources of power it becomes obvious that something is not quite right here. The simple test is to look around you - solar power has been with us for a hundred years, yet it is hardly used. There is s reason for that. Look around in California and you'll see a different aspect. Wind power is my biggest bugbear, for I firmly believe that it is a complete and utter waste of money in terms of the national grid. There is clear research data that states a wind turbine will only ever operate at 30% or less of its capacity; given that all the calculations of power provision are taken at full capacity this means we are financing an immediate and accepted shortfall. this is a ridiculous situation, and it has to stop. Recent estimates state that we need a further 2,000 wind turbines to reach the proposed output levels; that means, in truth, we need more than ten thousand, and if we are to achieve anywhere near the levels needed given that different parts of the country see different levels of wind that figure is most likely - and this isn't my estimation, it's accepted scientific fact as provided by in depth research - to increase further. we need, therefore, a further 17,000 or so wind turbines in order to reach the current output levels, and that is not to produce all of our energy, but less than 40%. The money spent on subsidising wind power - and it is vast - would be far better spent addressing the problem in hand - our impending lack of power with the closure of the nuclear stations and the coal fired. Germany, by the way, has been the biggest investor in wind and solar power over the last twenty years, and has just committed to building a series of new coal powered stations to supplement the lack of power being provided by its failed 'green' infrastructure. We cannot rely on nature to power our industry and our homes, because nature does not respond to our demands. It's that simple. we need more power stations, and we need them now.

That's no way to continue a discussion, Monsta; I want to hear your side of the 'research' now. I read as far as this in that suppliers blurb to realise it's a con that's going to cost each and every one of us a lot of money. Here - it reads: "It is anticipated that a 3.3kw system could save in the region of 40%-60% of electricity that an average 3 bedroom semi detached property uses. " Anticipated? Don't they know? 'Could'? What about 'will'? 40 - 60%? What about the rest? Come on, I want to hear why I should be in support of something that neither promises nor guarantees anythin, and claims to be free but actually isn't!

yes! They do, but not very well, as you will - of course - know if you have 'researched' solar panels, i'm sure. Even the very best in solar panels that are available now are nowhere near as efficient on days when there is no sun as opposed to those where there is; this isn't hidden by the industry at all, it's openly admitted. As for 'wow, free electricity' you are kidding, right? people - like me - who laugh at the current trend for renewable energy sources are often met with a 'how dare you' response, as if it's sort of a law, as if it's a crime to dare to point out that in fact these so called saviours of our impending power generation problem are not the answer. Solar, wind, wave - it's all flawed, and most of it to great degrees. As with our discussion about the electric car you're reading the positive and failing to take into account the negative - research, as you implore me to undertake, involves balancing both sides of the scales and seeing which weights down the heaviest. It's no good looking at limited time government initiatives that promise free electricity and assuming that because they do that source of power must be the way forward; you have to ask questions, and there are many. Let's start with the same one we started with when we talked about electric cars: if solar power is so good, why isn't it more widely used? After all, it's been around for decades (centuries even) and is one of the most obvious forms of alternative power? Builders now incorporate solar panels in many new houses, but not with the intention of replacing the national grid - why is that? because they are not very efficient. On a bright sunny day you'll be able to power your lights and most of your home by it, but on a cloudy day you may be able to generate only a small percentage of its available capacity. And therein lies the problem that is present with solar, wind and wave power - it's not 'on demand'. I don't want to be patronising, but if you've researched solar power - and alternative sources - this won't be news to you; we don't have ways of storing large quantities of electricity, hence we can't rely on solar power when it's not able to be generarted in the capacity required. Power stations churn out electricity to exceed demand all the time - they have to, or we wouldn't be able to operate - it doesn't come from a big storage plant, it isn't generated over night and used the next day, week, year - it's made as we use it. We can envisage a brilliant 'green' future as much as we like, we can talk about building the required three or five thousand new wind turbines needed to meet the quota, and we can all install solar panels, but we still have to accept that they are not 'on demand' sources. If you seriously think that there's going to be a future where electricity is free because we all create it ourselves with personal windmills and solar panels then you're not doing your 'research' at all; solar power is expensive, inefficient and unreliable, and as with every single commercial enterprise somebody has to meet the bill. Nobody is making these solar cells for free, they don't maintain themselves, and they don't install themselves; somebody has to pay for it, and whether it's by massive misguided government subsidies or otherwise, that's you, and me. I would rather that money spent on modern nuclear power stations which give on demand power - wouldn't you?

I'm not sure they will become too popular, threegee, I think it more likely that very few people will take it up as they realise that solar power in the UK is a bit of a non starter!

That's not quite the only proviso is it, threegee? You missed this bit: "* We will be installing onto roofs that fall within a 1hr travel zone from Junction 36 of the M1 motorway..." As junction 36 is south of Barnsley and just north of Rotherham I don't think any of us are likely to qualify........

Good points, but hardly comparable, and I don't think many people thought the iPhone would be a flop. As for the Prius, it is hardly a runaway success, is it? In 12 years of worldwide sales just over a million - in the whole world - have been sold. That's a good indication, in fact, of the sort of market that such vehicles are aiming at. Further, i'm not saying electric cars will be 'a flop' - I firmly believe that manufacturers will sell the numbers that they want, as they are not intended for anything other than short runs.As a replacement for the traditionally powered car they are simply not viable, and that's before we consider the cost o teh infrastructure and the extra power needed for them. These too are very good points, and I can't disagree that strongly with them. Alcohol powered cars are prevalent in South America and other parts of the world, and do the job neatly; the problem, again, is in installing an infrastructure that enables the pumping of alcohol into cars, and in converting the millions of existing models to alcohol based power. Hydrogen suffers from similar problems to electric power in that it has to be produced, and to produce it you need - you guessed - electricity, and lots of it. It is, I would say, a more likely choice to take over from electric batteries when the petrol eventually runs out. Where you are being a little alarmist is in predicting a £5 a litre petrol price in a decade; despite the scaremongers telling us otherwise (and if you believe those scientists who were estimating when I was at school then there would be no oil left by now) oil reserves are healthy, and the increases we see inpetrol come not from the cost of oil but from taxation. I can see it doubling in price, but a 400% increase in ten years would require something akin to a third world war. Possible, but hardly predictable. Furthermore, and something that you are missing - not deliberately, I understand - is that if your predictions about oil prices rising were to be correct then we would undoubtedly see a similar rise in the price of electricity - and even without your predictions the cost of electricity is rising very quickly all the time. Either way, this leads us to your last sentence, and it's one that, again, backs up something you've missed; as i've said, when the internal combustion eventually dies - and it will - any replacement will be too expensive, too impractical and so on, for individuals other than those with a hell of a lot of money to spend; the car, as such, as personal transport, will also die. We will rely on public transport.

On the contrary; early in the discussion Monsta clearly stated that once 'people get a taste for electric cars' sales of diesel and petrol will plummet and the internal combustion will be dead; he is, in fact, wholeheartedly proposing the electric car as a viable replacement for the traditional version; this, as my argument has always been, is not the case now, and won't be for a long time - if at all. It's not an argument, as you claim, based on price but on practicality. There is no practical use for electric cars as they are able to be produced now other than for short runs. That's been the case for a hundred years, and will likely be so for another. Monsta - i'm not 'against' electric cars at all, and nor am I arguing against them; I maintain they have a purpose, but it's not as a replacement for the traditional powered car. I use the bus because I don't need a car; that, I might add, is about as green as it gets. Your point is not relevant though; the government isn't going to give me one for nothing, it costs £23,000. If I buy a car now, and I am - coincidentally - in the process of looking for one - it will be so that I can visit people further afield, go to weekend race meetings at Donington, Oulton, Brands and so on, get in and go whenever I want and take on a bit more freedom than I currently have with the bus and rail network. I certainly won't be buying one that offers me no greater range than the X21 and costs over £20 grand, and neither will anyone who isn't very wealthy and wants a trendy plaything.

That's an interesting statement, and I'd question why you think I'm being defeatist when I've clearly acknowledged that electric cars are a great idea for what they are being built for - short journeys, city cars, etc. That i'm trying to get it across - and it shouldn't really be that difficult (and has, in actual fact, been acknowledged by yourself and Monsta) that there is absolutely no chance of the electric car replacing the internal combustion engined car for a long time thanks to a vast amount of impracticalities in both the design and the principle isn't defeatist - it's reality. If i'm expected to bow down because two of you have come up with counter ideas - one of which is not to use a car at all as it wouldn't be able to do the job - then you're missing my point; a £23,000 car that doesn't go very far is not a practical replacement for the current mode of personal transport that is favoured. I fail to see how you can argue otherwise. You want to know what we can do? I've already told you; the car, in its fossil fuelled and electric form, will eventually die out and we will rely on a greater public transport infrastructure. As you said, we'll all take the train or, more likely, the bus, tram or whatever. This is the only way that we cvan get around the problem of having to generate enough power to charge up 20 million electric cars on a regular basis. Again, that's not defeatist, it's logic. Here's the rub - currently I don't even own a car; i'd love one, but I don't need one. I use the bus. I can assure, though, that if I had £23000 to spend on a car it wouldn't be a limited range Nissan Leaf or similar - in all honesty, would you buy one? BTW, Monsta - get the names of the 50,00 on that US waiting list and i'll bet you they can all afford a trendy electric plaything.

Hang on, the two of you have just defeated your own argument; you're openly admitting that the Nissan Leaf, one of the most advanced and modern of the new breed of electric cars, is utterly useless for anyone wanting to travel any distance. In suggesting that it's better to use an alternative you're pointing out its mighty limitations. besides, I don't want to take the train, because I've just spent £23,000 on a car, and for £23,000 it should be able to do the job without me having to take the train. When i get to my destination I want to be able to get in my car and visit brighton, pop over to Goodwood for some racing, call on relatives in Maidstone, etc; I don't want to be limited by having to use the train. Battery replacement is, in an ideal world, a great idea, but the same limitations apply - you can only go so far on one set of batteries, and you will have to have these battery replacement centres every few miles as not everybody is starting from the same place and heading for the same destination. Monsta, batteries last 100 miles, but not at a safe and steady 60mph on the motorway they don't, and no matter how much you try to dress it up, battery technology isn't advancing at the rate of 'twofold every couple of months' - as already pointed out in 60 years battery technology, as needed for cars, is simply static. Furthermore, you again point out the limitations in electric cars design as you state, quite correctly, it is designed for urban transport; it might have passed your notice that all but a very few (the Tesla etc) are designed for urban transport, because - quite simply - of the problems i've highlighted. I've already stated electric cars are great as 'city cars' - but who other than the wealthy looking for a plaything and an 'I'm green, I am' sign is going to pay £23,000 for an urban car? As you said, take the train, or the bus. I'm interested to see how many Nissan Leaf's are sold in the UK in the next twelve months - i'll bet yo any money its in two figures, no more than a hundred.

That's just it - you've hit the nail on the head; to achieve practicality you would have to have millions of these 'pod points' across the UK, one every few miles on every road, or you're going to have electric cars stopping left, right and centre just short of their recharging point. How much is it going to cost to install them everywhere? What if you want to take your family for picnic in the wilds of the Yorkshire Dales - is there going to be one at every remote beauty spot? Looking at the various blurbs for these systems they claim to be free - how can that be so? Who is going to pay for the electricity - the power fairies? I want to drive down to London to visit my sister - i'm going to have to stop every 80 miles and wait half an hour while my car is charged; given that at 60mph, on the motorway, it's going to take me five hours (that's at constant speed) to start with, and that 60mph isn't going to give me 100 miles from my shiny new £23grand Nissan, i'm probably looking at charging every 60 miles at least. That's four charges, that's an extra couple of hours on my travelling time, and that's optimistic. Seven hours to drive to London in £23,000 brand new car - you do see the problem, surely? I understand that you see a shiny new petrol free future - and granted, that would be brilliant - but until these simple, practical problems have been ironed out the electric car is suitable only for short journeys into and out of towns and cities - great as that is, it's a limited market that is unlikely to extend to many moe than a handful of Nissan leaf's being sold to some wealthy people who can afford the extravagance. This isn't me not wanting electric cars to be successful, it's me being extremely practical and seeing that it's a long way in teh future.

Great, so that's £23,000 for a car that goes 100 miles on a full tank. have you thought about this - what if you want to go somewhere that's 60 miles away? How do you get home?