|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 4, 2012 19:32:41 GMT 1
As a "light sleeper" I know that this form of noise would affect me greatly. Once awake, the repeated pattern of the noise would mean that I would always be waiting to hear it! I wonder if it also the frequency of the noise itself? It would seem that some frequencies pass through walls and windows more easily than others. (as some frequencies do in water). Anyone have an idea why? P I attended a very successful anti-windmill-planning meeting a few years ago. They had got an audio engineer to record the noise in a woman's house 2 miles downwind of a 5-unit wind farm, and to replay it in the meeting hall at exactly the same sound pressure level, throughout the presentations. Even though he couldn't reproduce the infrasound with studio loudspeakers, the audible racket made the point long before any of the human speakers. Some years previously I gave evidence to a Heathrow Airport planning enquiry. Again, the scientific stuff made much less impression on the tribunal than the simple observation that they were necessarily holding their proceedings in a soundproofed sub-basement because all the other hotels and courthouses were rendered unusable for business by the noises from the airport! |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 7, 2012 12:59:21 GMT 1
Hardly. It [profit from state-owned industry] would have gone to the Exchequer, agreed, if there'd been any. Same difference. The irreducible function of government is to collect enough taxes to pay the army. You can add other public services ad lib but there's no point in the exchequer amassing more coins than it needs. The Norwegians, the Dutch, the Saudis, the Chinese, and every other government raking it in from their sovereign funds are deluding themselves then? I shall assume you must have been in a fractious mood when you wrote that. Railways need infrastructure investment, that's the point of that principle. Private industry does it with their profits, in the interests of keeping their businesses growing - and government encourages this vital activity through various tax-incentives. The railways don't make a profit, and never will - hence they're allowed to generate the "profits" needed to develop in this way. The detection and control of cartel behaviour has always been the toughest part of government regulation of any market. It's nothing new, and the problem exists in every system of social economics, even the communist. The best solution remains what it's always been - competition. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 9, 2012 15:38:58 GMT 1
The Norwegians, the Dutch, the Saudis, the Chinese, and every other government raking it in from their sovereign funds are deluding themselves then? Not deluding themselves, but spending the money on all sorts of public services over and above the minimum requirement of defending their borders, and investing in major infrastructure projects overseas, thus extending their political influence without bloodshed. No. A breath of realism is all it takes to blow away the sham of party politics. If there's no profit to the shareholders, why do people buy shares in privatised railways? Or even bid for contracts? Mr Branson, for all his Good Works, does not live the life of a Buddhist monk. What competition? Every supplier announces practically the same increase in prices within days. Even Scottish Hydro, who cannot possibly claim an increase in raw material costs. For as long as all the electricity comes down the same wire, there's no incentive for anyone to charge less than the next supplier, and for as long as the green lobby gives you brownie points for paying more for your electricity, there's no technical incentive to increase efficiency. The quickest way to increase profits is to increase prices and rely on consumer inertia in the first instance. Matching corporate greed will make your competitors charge pretty much the same within a few weeks at most, so the only loser is the punter. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 10, 2012 15:56:56 GMT 1
The Norwegians, the Dutch, the Saudis, the Chinese, and every other government raking it in from their sovereign funds are deluding themselves then? Not deluding themselves, but spending the money on all sorts of public services over and above the minimum requirement of defending their borders, and investing in major infrastructure projects overseas, thus extending their political influence without bloodshed. Mostly they're propping up Europe and the US by buying their government bonds, enabling them to continue spending ten percent or more than their income every year. Believing democracies are a sham is not realism, but the most dangerous potentially totalitarian form of cynicism. Any party that does not govern according primarily to the interests of "good government" is going to be thrown out. As indeed they are. Of course there are profits to the shareholders. But remove government subsidies and no railway company could break even without an enormous hike in the price of their tickets. The subsidies allow travel for the taxpayer at well below cost. As I said, detecting and controlling cartel behaviour is difficult. Well, broadly I agree. But to properly carry out such a red in tooth and claw 19th Century form of Capitalism, you have to make sure the playing field is level. No government subsidies to any one part of the market. Remove the vast subsidies to the road network and the railways might make a profit, as they did when they were built, and so might a refurbished canal network, and an airship freight service. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 17, 2012 10:37:06 GMT 1
News yesterday that the Co-op is reducing its energy prices whilst other suppliers are increasing theirs. Reason given: decrease in wholesale prices and no requirement to make a profit for shareholders. Says it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 17, 2012 17:49:32 GMT 1
As a shareholder in the Co-op I assure you that it does have an obligation to make a profit. How else do you think it's managed to grow into the organisation it is from a little office in Rochdale?
But what is the "all" that you think this says, anyway? That the profit-and-loss sheet of an organisation is the most effective means to ensure it delivers an efficient service that its customers choose to purchase? That it makes sure it develops so that it can continue to grow in the future? That it can raise the capital it needs for this development in a timely and cost-effective manner?
That's all the ideal. It's a difficult ideal to materialise when you're dealing with such a natural monopoly, obviously. But the alternative, of putting the responsibility for managing such vital services into the hands of paper-shuffling civil servants and careerist politicians is disastrous. That's how you end up with the wind-farm fiasco.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 17, 2012 18:52:45 GMT 1
Yes, the twice yearly divi came in handy and my mum always shared it with me when I was kid. Everyone got a little treat. I can remember the number to this day, 122642!
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 19, 2012 8:56:51 GMT 1
I quoted from the Co-op press release. Obviously they have no idea what they are doing, and are giving electricity away for no good reason.
I withdraw my argument.
Unfettered capitalism, underpinned by subsidies and bailouts from the poor, is clearly the route to unlimited growth and happiness for all. Ask any pensioner: a bit of cold never harmed anyone, and negative equity is a Good Thing. We must expand or die.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 19, 2012 9:28:48 GMT 1
Or I suppose we could always move to North Korea?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 19, 2012 11:35:31 GMT 1
Sadly, the co-op, which pretends to some sort of "ethical" status, is as prone to use misleading advertising claims as any other energy supplier. Always read the small print. You cannot take claims in press releases on trust.
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 19, 2012 15:02:21 GMT 1
But you can believe your electricity bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 19, 2012 15:33:32 GMT 1
I compared my suppliers with the competition having dug out all the proportions of electricity consumed via Economy 7 night time use etc for a year and having filled in a very long and detailed form. The outcome - absolutely trivial difference so no point in changing AT ALL and my combined fuel bill is LARGE £7,000+ per year ( for 2 large houses). All this brouhaha about competition between suppliers is rubbish. Just choose the most economical tariff from your existing supplier and you will be ok is my advice. The Co-op is certainly NOT offering the lowest tariff, by the way, and they say so! www.cooperativeenergy.coop/good-with-energy/our-tariff/I am on the standard variable rate tariff. If you want to fix your price for the next couple or three winters you pay extra for the supposed "peace of mind" of a known regular payment! Just like you do with fixed rate mortgages! Forgive me if I flatter myself that I can read between the lines of these promotions! |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 14, 2012 17:02:43 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 20, 2012 17:06:24 GMT 1
The Renewable Energy Foundation [1] today published a new study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark, by Prof Gordon Hughes. Dr Gordon Hughes is a Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh. He was a senior adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank until 2001. The results show that after allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics the average load factor of wind farms declines substantially as they get older, probably due to wear and tear. By 10 years of age the contribution of an average UK wind farm to meeting electricity demand has declined by a third. This decline in performance means that it is rarely economic to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years. After this period they must be replaced with new machines, a finding that has profound consequences for investors and government alike. more.... Renewable Energy Foundation www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/281/ref%20pr%2019%2012%2012.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 21, 2012 9:26:26 GMT 1
"After allowing for wind speed and site characteristics" is itself a fudge. Every site is surveyed before anything is built, and the site properties are therefore part of the structure. The decision to build has already made that allowance, so the only thing that matters is actual performance.
Fact is, all the best sites in the UK are already occupied by old technology (we've had wind surveys for hundreds of years), so any new build must go onto poor sites, and the whole shambolic "industry" is on a downward slope.
|
|
