In the "News" today.

I'd agree that but they are well down south, Canaries to pick up the trades to take them through to the caribean islands, don't know what weather they've had but I bet they've seen some big rollers.

RIP Henry Worsley.

I've read a lot of books over the years about Polar explorers, they really are some of the bravest, hardest men ever born IMO.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Shackletons book is one of my favourite all time reads, his journey from Elephant Island to Sth. Georgia remains without equal really. All the master mariners pay homage to what he achieved in a half open whale boat in a polar sea. Shackleton died of a heart attack on the way to his second attempt at the pole, they think it was the exertion of his first trip that did for him, nearly all the members of that expedition died at a young age of heart attacks. It seems as soon as you embark on a trip like that you are starting to die.
RIP Henry Worsley so near yet so far.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Shackletons book is one of my favourite all time reads, his journey from Elephant Island to Sth. Georgia remains without equal really. All the master mariners pay homage to what he achieved in a half open whale boat in a polar sea. Shackleton died of a heart attack on the way to his second attempt at the pole, they think it was the exertion of his first trip that did for him, nearly all the members of that expedition died at a young age of heart attacks. It seems as soon as you embark on a trip like that you are starting to die.
RIP Henry Worsley so near yet so far.

Mine too, mindblowing.

I've not read the book but l'm aware of the incredible open boat voyage and subsequent rescue of his men left behind on Elephant Island after watching the tv documentary where Shackleton was excellently played by Branagh.

I do recall reading a book about the mutiny on the bounty where Bligh sailed an open boat with barely any rations from iirc one of the Tahitian islands, through the great barrier reef and on to Timor. This was a huge feat at the time apparently.

RIP.

Whilst I can recognise the bravery for taking on the trip Worsley took, I still have to ask myself - why? Just so he can say he was the first to do it? I'm sure deep down his widow will be asking the same question.

Tbh I've far more respect and admiration for the RNLI volunteers who risk their lives in the duty of trying to save others.

Les Miserable wrote:

I've not read the book but l'm aware of the incredible open boat voyage and subsequent rescue of his men left behind on Elephant Island after watching the tv documentary where Shackleton was excellently played by Branagh.

I do recall reading a book about the mutiny on the bounty where Bligh sailed an open boat with barely any rations from iirc one of the Tahitian islands, through the great barrier reef and on to Timor. This was a huge feat at the time apparently.

RIP.

Aye, t'was a long old poke bhey.

Czarcasm wrote:

Whilst I can recognise the bravery for taking on the trip Worsley took, I still have to ask myself - why? Just so he can say he was the first to do it? I'm sure deep down his widow will be asking the same question.

Tbh I've far more respect and admiration for the RNLI volunteers who risk their lives in the duty of trying to save others.

Fair point, these days it's become more of a hobby/personal challenge/fundraiser. When the likes of Amundsen, Scott and Shackleton were at it it was not only a case of being the first but genuinely exploring the place, nobody knew what was there or what they'd find. Scientific experiments were also the order of the day with things like temperature, geology, flora and fauna all unknown quantities.

AstiSpumante wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Whilst I can recognise the bravery for taking on the trip Worsley took, I still have to ask myself - why? Just so he can say he was the first to do it? I'm sure deep down his widow will be asking the same question.

Tbh I've far more respect and admiration for the RNLI volunteers who risk their lives in the duty of trying to save others.

Fair point, these days it's become more of a hobby/personal challenge/fundraiser. When the likes of Amundsen, Scott and Shackleton were at it it was not only a case of being the first but genuinely exploring the place, nobody knew what was there or what they'd find. Scientific experiments were also the order of the day with things like temperature, geology, flora and fauna all unknown quantities.

To understand an adventurer you'd have to be one, I am to a certain extent but nothing like the guys we are talking of. As to why they do it it's the same answer as to why people attempt to climb Everest, because it's there.

Washing Uncle SAMs dirty laundry for him?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Like I was shocked.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
One in the eye for the selfish, uncaring society we've become.

One in the eye for the Tory scum that would rather take money off the disabled and pensioners than the people with the money, today is a good day.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Nuclear deal with edf and the Chinese in jeopardy.

Amsterdamage wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Nuclear deal with edf and the Chinese in jeopardy.

Better not be Mings Garden in Falmouth.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Feckin booties. This pair make captain calamity look like Knox Jonson himself. Their last accident happened when they failed to tie up to the side at Hayle when the boat fell over and tipped a candle over setting fire to some clothes! The feckless pair weren't aboard when it happened, ill say it for you Seadog FFS!

Amsterdamage wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Nuclear deal with edf and the Chinese in jeopardy.

Yet more massive state subsidy required to prop up the ludicrously inefficient nuclear power industry. And by the time it's completed, it will have trebled it's costs to ten trillion trillion trillion somethings. There's no austerity where nuking is concerned.
That industry must be one of the best examples I know of lies, deceit and self interest. After all this time, you would think the French/British  governments would finally admit they're hopelessly wrong, and get on with commissioning the cheaper clean inexhaustible solar/tidal/wind/hydro power that is so obviously the answer. But no, they're all corrupt and in the pay of these big established industries, and continue to throw good money after bad, with the added worry of environmental / security / decommissioning catastrophe. They should all be made to listen to Woody's Bastille for life.

The power this thing will produce will also cost double what any power at the moment costs due to the "payback" to the investors, another example of private business being good for private business and no one else. It amazes me that we are so skint we can't even keep the lights on without help from the Chinese and French. If the gov didn't scrap the green energy subs we wouldn't be in this mess. But then Corby would buy power from IS no doubt so this is the only way forward.

Lord Biro wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Nuclear deal with edf and the Chinese in jeopardy.

Yet more massive state subsidy required to prop up the ludicrously inefficient nuclear power industry. And by the time it's completed, it will have trebled it's costs to ten trillion trillion trillion somethings. There's no austerity where nuking is concerned.
That industry must be one of the best examples I know of lies, deceit and self interest. After all this time, you would think the French/British  governments would finally admit they're hopelessly wrong, and get on with commissioning the cheaper clean inexhaustible solar/tidal/wind/hydro power that is so obviously the answer. But no, they're all corrupt and in the pay of these big established industries, and continue to throw good money after bad, with the added worry of environmental / security / decommissioning catastrophe. They should all be made to listen to Woody's Bastille for life.

Without wishing to sound condescending but do please take a look at this site:-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It is the best break down of the pricing of energy I have come across.

Nuclear power is both a cheap and environmentally friendly way of producing a consistent, reliable, source of power. At the moment it is not as cheap as oil, coal or gas, but it is a darn site more eco friendly, it is both cheaper and more eco friendly than renewables, certainly in this country.

The EDF/China development at Hinkley Point is a poor example as the whole thing has been botched from the start, in the 1950s we led the world in the generation of electricity from nuclear power, WTF happened?

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Nuclear power is both a cheap and environmentally friendly way of producing a consistent, reliable, source of power. At the moment it is not as cheap as oil, coal or gas, but it is a darn site more eco friendly, it is both cheaper and more eco friendly than renewables, certainly in this country.

You crack me up. Never ceases to amaze me the bull some people swallow, but then I suspect you're a willing listener. No offence, like.

Lord Biro wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Nuclear power is both a cheap and environmentally friendly way of producing a consistent, reliable, source of power. At the moment it is not as cheap as oil, coal or gas, but it is a darn site more eco friendly, it is both cheaper and more eco friendly than renewables, certainly in this country.

 You crack me up. Never ceases to amaze me the bull some people swallow, but then I suspect you're a willing listener.  No offence, like.

So did you not read the article, or did you start to read it, realise that you didn't understand any of it, then took the easy option to play the man rather than the ball?

No offence taken, I know these issues are complex and your average Joe simply couldn't understand even 10% of it. The point is, as the article makes clear in great, unimpeachable, detail, that the renewable energy propaganda is all a bit of a myth, there are many eco issues pertaining to the production of wind turbines and solar panels which are never addressed, plus most importantly that the lights have to stay on so there has to be a back up for when the wind don't blow and more likely in this country, the sun don't shine.

Of course research has to go on to into alternative methods of generating and storing energy, but this huge subsidy generated roll out of incredibly expensive and inefficient power generation systems is not the best way to do it.

Just read the article and try thinking about the points made, bugger, the site is down, ok, so carry on pushing your fact free agenda while old people turn down their heating becasue the price is just too high.

We need more hydro electric but there is too much opposition to building resovoirs. In Portugal they use the solar power to pump water back up into the reservoirs to produce the power they need in the evenings. We cold do the same with our wind power but then the government have removed the green energy subsisdies for these even though we are all paying a surcharge at the diesel pumps to pay for them still. These new generation nuclears are going to be the most expensive power we have ever produced but then it's just us cash cows who will pay for it so time to bend over and take it like a man.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

So did you not read the article, or did you start to read it, realise that you didn't understand any of it, then took the easy option to play the man rather than the ball?

No offence taken, I know these issues are complex and your average Joe simply couldn't understand even 10% of it. The point is, as the article makes clear in great, unimpeachable, detail, that the renewable energy propaganda is all a bit of a myth

I have read a lot of articles like that from the priests of oil. The big problem with science is you can make up your own facts. I tend to make up my own mind about things by WHO and WHAT culture is behind a product/service/attitude. When I go wild camping and living, it's pretty easy to keep warm, keep connected, fed and lit. Try it, it'll teach something about energy consumption, how to harvest resources, and how much it costs you. I am a fan of a mix, but the beauty of alternatives, particularly solar, are that they are perfectly downscaleable, and hence locally resilient, secure, and free after a small capital outlay. Like most people, I tend to make up my mind about things by WHO and WHAT culture is behind the product/service/science being proffered.  
And let's be clear, not every human activity is decided on price alone, far from it. There are so many other inputs to consider. Oh, and I regard nothing as unimpeachable, especially the church of science, apart from my own mortality and American presidents.  It's all up for grabs every minute of the day.

I don't know what the R&D figures over the years add up to but I'll happily wager that renewable energy has had far less investment than both the fossil fuels and nuclear. For that fact alone it is hardly surprising that renewables lag behind but it need not be so.

The problem always quoted is storage of power. "What if it isn't windy, eh?" and so on. Until and unless battery technology catches up, and it might not, this seems insurmountable but there is no reason not to use it when you can. We may always need to use fossil fuels but we can slow down their usage easily enough and turn it up as required when the wind isn't blowing. No matter how you cut it fossil fuels are a finite resource and while there's little point leaving them in the ground making them last seems like a good idea to me.

Maybe there's a need for zero-emission nuclear too. The problem here is decommissioning and waste. Nobody knows how much decommissioning will eventually cost but it is sure to be eye-watering amounts of money and the waste and contaminants remain very dangerous for thousands of years. It's not a great solution but maybe we need it too - although Germany doesn't seem to think so.

Back to renewables... we don't actually need to pump any water anywhere. We have tides that shift vast amounts of water around all the time. We could to trap it at a high and then drain it out through a turbine as and when required to generate electricity. No batteries required there at all.

All of which is somewhat after the point. We should cherish the power we use and make efficiencies in insulation, heating mechanisms, methods of travel and more. The real answer is doing more with less. This seems to be very in vogue as an economic idea but it is a mystery as to why it hasn't encroached onto the engineering/power world.

Hydro and tide power need massive investment in infrastructure and the gov don't want to fund it, business never uses it own money but uses our savings via the banks but the banks aren't lending because theyer saving to pay their libor and ppi funds hence the Chinese appearing on the horizon catching a piggy back off the French. We are sending shit loads of money on all sorts of things why not make us self sufficient on power? These guys would sell their children.

And quite spookily I've joined a switch energy company thing and I've already saved a couple of hundred quid a year from switching from edf to someone else. Then I get told I can save another £45 a year by switching again. Ok I say, first requests for metre readings, then this email just now (this is a bit in the middle obvs but the meat of it),
Even though your supply has successfully been registered with us your existing supplier may still object to you switching to iSupplyEnergy. This means that your start supply date may change or we may not be able to supply you with energy at all. If this happens we will let you know.
£45 would be a small price not to recieve correspondence like that.