Sorry I can't resist this
From one losing a Money Spinning Business
To one with a Business Spinning for money?
There's a moral there somewhere.
Works for me (sort of )
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
From one losing a Money Spinning Business
To one with a Business Spinning for money?
There's a moral there somewhere.
Works for me (sort of )
Since graduating in Mechanical Engineering, joining the IMechE and becoming a chartered mechanical engineer and working in the aerospace industry, I do seem to recall having been in a few modern factories. I admit that since giving it up for a flying career, it's been a while.Have you ever been to a modern factory?
Here's a picture of the Mclaren factory so you can see how out of touch with the way the world is going.
not an oily rag in sight... aim forwards not backwards
My comments in the previous post were meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. I place great value on and have a huge amount of time and respect for today's engineers. It's a pitty very few others do and that's why I got out.
Another Gem from today's Sun
"
And why must we bust a gut to comply with EU environment rules after Brexit?
Yes, we all want cleaner air, and some roads are too polluted.
But politicians routinely claiming it “kills 40,000 people a year” are selling a blatant lie.
Even Greenpeace says the figure is bogus, that these victims “are not real” and that it is more realistic to say pollution shortens everyone’s life . . . by about two days."
Gotta be rite, cos its in the Sun, Innit? Sorted!
"
And why must we bust a gut to comply with EU environment rules after Brexit?
Yes, we all want cleaner air, and some roads are too polluted.
But politicians routinely claiming it “kills 40,000 people a year” are selling a blatant lie.
Even Greenpeace says the figure is bogus, that these victims “are not real” and that it is more realistic to say pollution shortens everyone’s life . . . by about two days."
Gotta be rite, cos its in the Sun, Innit? Sorted!
My first posting on this topic, indicated that all options are needed , so certainly tidal has to be on the agenda. It's major advantage is that it has good energy density and is predictable.
I also recall the fabulous summer of 76.. , . And if anything that proves the point about technology mix and geographical spread. Solar panels would have had a field day that year.
With the population density in the UK, particularly south of Pennines, it is hard to see that you can avoid nuclear.
Some publicists linked to the wind industry are guilty of overfilling the lily. Statements such as .. this farm will provide X thousand houses with power , by simply multiplying the faceplate power by the number of turbines is dishonest, and is as meaningful as looking down a street and saying the 50 ford focus cars each at 100hp can power a small ship.
But the engineers linked to the wind project will be able to give an accurate yield, .. but newspapers don't listen to engineers.
Irrespective of any short term blip in oil or gas prices and production, the trend is clear. Talk to anyone in the industry,, not their publicists or in the engineering consultancies linked to them. Shale oil and fraking are the last throws of that dice.
Pan Europe grids, pan continental grids, with power coming from African and Spanish solar, north Atlantic wind , some natural gas , some nuclear is the near term future. Longer term may see large civil engineering structures eg tidal, wave and then hopefully fusion.
At a domestic level, improved lighting, insulation and public transport and demand side costing, with probably solar roofing, will reduce consumption.
How Dare you? Suggest international co-operation in Brexit Britain?
Must we accept FOREIGN electricity polluting our homes?
You must be one of the EXPERTS Mr Gove warned us about!
Seriously we seem to be going through a mass outbreak of madness as a Nation.
.. as someone who had responsibility for teams of engineers at chartered level, I eventually formed the opinion of the following discipline specific attributes
1. Electronic engineers quite spoken, retiring types , never argumentative, but very sure of their ground, with the flexibility of a brick.
2. Civil engineers , loud mouthed, great at getting others to work, good at calculations, but if stood up to would back down.
3. Mechanical engineers. Sensible. Recognised they were not god's gift to the universe. Hence made the better managers.... My training was not as a mechanical engineer
This is the foundation for the number of deaths between 29,000 - 40,000 a year 'caused' by pollution.
Basically, you aggregate the damage caused by pollution to equivalent lives lost through aggravation of their diseases and the general reduction in their life expectancy.
Source: government sponsored study.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505111410/http://www.comeap.org.uk/images/stories/Documents/Statements/FINAL_Local_mortality_burden_statement_August_2012.pdf#page=3
ANNEX 2: Methods Calculating the attributable fraction 1. For a given relative risk, RR, associated with a ubiquitous exposure such as outdoor air pollution, the proportion of disease (or deaths) that is attributable to that exposure (the population attributable risk fraction, or attributable fraction) is calculated by a simple formula: AF = (RR-1)/RR. This is often expressed as a percentage.6 2. For example, the proportion of deaths attributable to 10 μg/m3 of PM2.5 air pollution, assuming an associated relative risk of 1.06, would be 100 × 0.06/1.06 = 5.7%. 3. Estimates of mortality burden in a local area need to use a relative risk (and associated attributable fraction) reflecting the risk associated with the local population-weighted7 annual average PM2.5 concentrations under consideration8 . The RR applicable locally can be approximated by linear scaling (i.e. by assuming that if 10 µg/m3 leads to a 6% change in risk, then concentrations which differ by 1 µg/m3 should lead to differences in RRs of 0.6%. From this, the local attributable fraction can be derived. Linear scaling is inexact9 but this approach is unlikely to lead to practically important differences when estimating local RR and attributable fraction, particularly as the PM2.5 concentrations under evaluation are not likely to be hugely different from 10 µg/m3 . 6 The formula above is a special case (for universal exposures) of the more general formula: AF = p(RR-1) / [1 + p(RR-1)], where p is the prevalence of exposure to the cause of disease (or deaths) in the population under consideration. 7 The population-weighted mean is a useful summary statistic, which greatly simplifies the calculation of human health impacts if the concentration–response function used is linear with no threshold. In our estimation of the national mortality burden of air pollution (COMEAP, 2010) the populationweighted mean was calculated by multiplying the 1 km x1 km concentration values by 1 km x 1 km population statistics from the 2001 census. The values for all of the grid squares were summed and then divided by the total population to calculate the population-weighted mean. 8 Our national estimates (COMEAP, 2010) were of the burden associated with PM2.5 from anthropogenic sources. Published data on the contribution of different sources to background (i.e. not roadside or kerbside) PM2.5 concentrations were used to estimate background PM2.5 concentrations originating from anthropogenic sources. 9 The way of translating the RR to other PM2.5 concentrations that best corresponds to the concentration response function from which it derives (based on a proportional hazards model) is through the power function: RRc = 1.06^(c/10). In the case of a burden estimate, c is the PM2.5 concentration. This approach differs increasingly from linearity for higher relative risks and higher concentration increments. (This specific formula is applicable to coefficients - such as this one linking PM2.5 concentrations with mortality risk - that are expressed in terms of RR per 10 units (here 10 µg/m3 ). The denominator in the power term would be different for RRs expressed in terms of a different increment.) 12 Calculating attributable deaths 4. An estimate of the number of deaths attributable to long-term exposure to air pollution in a local area is given by multiplying the attributable fraction by the number of deaths annually in the local area. 5. To reflect the study from which the concentration response coefficient (relative risk) was reported, we used the number of deaths at ages 30 years or more in this calculation when estimating the national mortality burdens. However, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in England and Wales publishes data on adult mortality in 10-year age groups of 25-34, 35-44 etc, so a figure of deaths at ages 30+ at the local level might not be easy to obtain. Similar considerations apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland. An estimate could be made by combining one half of the deaths in age group 25-34 with those for 35-44. However, such an adjustment seems unnecessary: the numbers of deaths below age 35 are a small proportion of the total, and the ‘cut-off’ at age 30 is based on lack of evidence at lower ages – it is possible and indeed plausible that long-term exposure to air pollution affects mortality risks in younger people also. We consider that, even if deaths below age 25 were included in the calculation (i.e. total number of local deaths), the difference between total deaths and those at ages 30+ would make only a small difference to the burden estimate. 6. Because of the variability and instability in small datasets, the reliability of local burden estimates can be improved by using death statistics from a number of years combined (e.g. 3 or 5 years) rather than basing the calculation on the number of deaths reported locally in a single year, and we recommend that this be done unless the year-on-year variation in annual deaths is small, in percentage terms. Calculating years of life lost to the local population 7. The years of life lost to the population can be estimated by summing the years of age-specific remaining life expectancy associated with each of the attributable deaths. This is the approach we took when estimating the national burden of air pollution (COMEAP, 2010). 8. As this method requires the use of complex life-table analysis, we suggest a simpler approach be used to generate local burden estimates: multiplying the calculated number of attributable deaths by the average loss of age-specific lifeexpectancy associated with attributable deaths in our national estimates, of approximately 12 years10 10 This should not be regarded as the loss of life likely to be associated with each death affected by air pollution. A figure of 11½ years was calculated (COMEAP, 2010) as being the average loss of life if 29,000 deaths were affected by air pollution. (COMEAP, 2010). In recommending this approach we reemphasise an important issue of interpretation. We look on this calculation - using the number of attributable deaths and the associated average loss of age-specific life-expectancy - as a computationally convenient way of estimating the total mortality burden, in terms of life-years lost in a given year aggregated over the whole population. As emphasised in COMEAP (2010) and noted again in Para 8 above, the number of attributable deaths should not be interpreted as the number of 13 individuals affected; and whatever the number of deaths affected and the average loss of life, the actual amount of life lost would vary between individuals.
.. guilty as charged m'lud
.. as an aside, there is legislation on the books in Ireland about not allowing nuclear power, ( don't ask), yet we have a couple of cables going to your fair land, and you in turn have a few going on into France. So whether we like it or not we are getting this radiation soaked current, smelling of garlic, and overridden by a fish and chips with curry sauce.
it seems that contracts for large wind farms are given as agreed price per MWH. On that basis, wind is competitive. The subsidies at the moment that distort the market: governments may pay for transportation cost between the farm and the grid.
Whilst I am prepared to accept the almost complete probability that this complex matrix of equations is likely to provide an accurate picture, it is nonetheless theoretical rather than factual, isn't it?
And so far beyond the mental event horizon of an average Member of the public, as to seem mere fantasy.
This is my point: I accept the principle behind the conclusion, but it based on theoretical modelling and doesn't yield something that will convince the Public.
It is in fact a murder without a body in their estimation.
let us just take this statement as an example of where the calculations can be challenged
"it is possible and indeed plausible that long-term exposure to air pollution affects mortality risks in younger people also."
You bet it is! in fact surely during the growing up phase they are more likely to be sensitive and this should not have been glossed over, but expanded and calculated as an important factor.This sort of thing leaves a big question mark over the conclusions reached.
As we have seen with Brexit, the Public will not accept even facts you can trip over, never mind ones based on such complex statistical models.
The general answer will be as evidence in the Sun
"Just an estimate" they declare, and to that there is no answer.
It becomes an article of Faith that they don't buy into.
Last edited:
And there lies the problem. No matter how qualified as an engineer you cant extract energy where there is none! Perhaps nuclear energy are being truthful. ? Like I said to Danid, just look out your window. Over 80% of days in UK are under 10 mph. Fact.
Either your turbines have to work fully at 8mph, or its windier than I,m saying. Which is it KTM ?
PS. Totally irrelevant but..I have degree in Physics and qualified as electro/ mechanical engineer at Dunford Hatfields about 50 years ago. Things might have changed since then but 3 things have not.a) The wind is fickle, particularly in UK.
B) Fundamental laws of physics. There simply I not the energy required within diameter of turbine blades in an 8mph wind to warrant harvesting it. They become viable ( as I,m sure you know ) at around 15 mph...which is higher than actual wind speed average in UK when the above 50mph's are discounted.
Like I,ve said..look out your window. Its forecast good winds for today...they have not appeared.
Last edited:
Sensible? well now i've never been accused of that, just about everything else, but never sensible.
If memory serves, the term "A necessary Evil" is about the highest praise that comes to mind, and yet in a company where over the years redundancy often cut a swathe, the few Mechanical Engineers always seemed to survive the purges.
Being invisible did have a plus side!
That just leaves the missing element to make it happen, a far sighted government. So in the UK there's not a cat in hells chance.
Some of it has already happened in other countries, particularly in the EU, which we are deserting.
.
Forget wave which is a waste of money, it's just wind energy with much of the power removed, and all methods of harvesting are very inefficient.
.
it's (epidemiology) no less factual than other reports when it comes to statistical sciences like economics leave alone political science.
It's the same as reports on how many deaths result from smoking or secondary smoking or how many degrees in global warming. We have to make a judgement on the basis of balance of probabilities.
I am much more concerned about pollution than terrorism.
Some of them have, but it's a wish, having the status of hoping something will turn up.
.
A bit like Australia's refusal to have anything to do with nuclear in any form, even to the extent of banning a visit by an American nuclear powered carrier.
All while earning huge sums from the export of mined and processed uranium for nuclear use.
.
Your 50 mph figure may be too high,my office overlooks the Kent offshore wind farm,anything much above 30 mph and they are not rotating...I am told by a friend that the crown wheel and pinion gears that transfer rotation horizontal energy to rotation vertical energy cant take the load.
KudosDave
The TV news programmes are starting to talk more often about reversing Brexit but nobody seems to understand if there is a possible method to do so?
Was amused the difference between the 2 ladies on Adam Boulton (All Out politics) this morning. One was a remainer and calmly discussing the merits or otherwise of Brexit,even daring to say 'it may never happen' . At which point the Brexiter lost her cool,how dare she say that it wont happen....its amazing how all Brexiters revert to type as soon as a reasoned argument against it is presented to them,suggests they are vulnerable and feel their moment of power is slipping away....strange Farage is quiet at the moment,you dont think he could possibly be changing his mind,hehe!!!!
KudosDave
Was amused the difference between the 2 ladies on Adam Boulton (All Out politics) this morning. One was a remainer and calmly discussing the merits or otherwise of Brexit,even daring to say 'it may never happen' . At which point the Brexiter lost her cool,how dare she say that it wont happen....its amazing how all Brexiters revert to type as soon as a reasoned argument against it is presented to them,suggests they are vulnerable and feel their moment of power is slipping away....strange Farage is quiet at the moment,you dont think he could possibly be changing his mind,hehe!!!!
KudosDave
See this is the problem..
Many pro nuclear people, feel the need to knock other forms of energy because they see it as a threat, and they use facts, that aren't relevant.
I've worked extensively in both areas, a lot more recently than 50 years ago.
If you're pro nuclear, that's fine. But why knock wind? You complaints and numbers are based on averages and the whole UK. No one is suggesting you put turbines in places where the average wind speed isn't strong enough... The locations are carefully thought out and the whole technology is developing at a rate where soon you'll just be able to float islands of large turbines off shore where the wind speed is more consistent and less turbulent, so it becomes more sustainable. Also the National grid needs to build in storage capacity etc etc.
If you get behind the scenes of a nuclear power station, the numbers are insane, they never recover their costs, and the long long long term solution for waste storage still hasn't been sorted. They are currently pulling nuclear waste out of pipes at the existing power stations because its just been "left" in places that were considered safe in the 70s / 80s. Its a mess and we've got to look at a multi source solution and wind will be part of it... the more we can get from the wind the better. No one is suggesting its the sole solution and no one is suggesting we can power the UK from onshore wind farms, because as you've said most of the UK doesn't have the consistent speed needed. But mainland UK is not where the best wind resource is, so don't knock it and use facts that are facts, but aren't relevant.