A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Doctor Who audio



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old May 12th 17, 10:31 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 264
Default Doctor Who audio

On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:25:53 +0100
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


Sums up your argument nicely. Or lack of them. You hold up some know
nothing charlatan as an appeal to authority then when pushed you just
resort to hand waving vagueries and implications of conspiracy. Well
whatever works for you eh?


If that's the level you wish to descend to carry on I'm out.


Pretending you've been slighted and taking the moral high ground as a
convenient way of getting out of the argument. Oh dear.

--
Spud


  #112  
Old May 12th 17, 01:18 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,628
Default Doctor Who audio

On 12/05/2017 06:26, Bob Latham wrote:

What a brilliant essay.


Bill


Coming from you the ace story teller, that is quite an accolade, thanks.
No-one has ever said anything like that to me before.

Bob.

What I write is easy. What you wrote needed considerable research.

Bill
  #115  
Old May 12th 17, 02:46 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 264
Default Doctor Who audio

On Fri, 12 May 2017 14:39:58 +0100
Bill Wright wrote:
On 12/05/2017 09:24, d wrote:

Yes, but the problem is if you're wrong and we did nothing because

governments
believed people like you then we're all ****ed. If people like me are wrong
then we spent some money on some windmills


Some money? A lot of money!


All power stations cost a boatload of money. At least once the windfarms are
up the wind is free. When it blows. Personally I think nuclear is a far more
sensible option.

household. If the current madness continues it will be much more. Fuel
poverty is already a major problem for poor families.


For a very few yes, but a lot of so called "poor" families seem to manage
to afford a power sucking flat screen TV and a sky subscription, not to
mention the fags.

It's the cost of fuel that drives that. As for electric cars, their
end-to-end CO2 audit is worse that petrol or diesel, and they are
impracticable for all except short journeys.


The range for them now is ok. Its the recharging thats still an issue. As
for end to end audit it depends who you ask. Batteries use huge amounts of
fuel to manufacture but then refining oil is pretty energy intensive too.
Personally I doubt a battery requires more fuel in its manufacture than
a petrol or diesel car will burn in its lifetime but thats just a guess,
however if most of the grid was nuclear + a few renewables then the electricity
would be carbon neutral.

--
Spud


  #116  
Old May 12th 17, 05:18 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,628
Default Doctor Who audio

On 12/05/2017 11:43, Bob Latham wrote:

I don't feel slighted, I feel you're being silly.


I think he's just blinded by his religious belief. It's common enough
amongst the warmists.

Bill

  #118  
Old May 12th 17, 10:09 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,016
Default Doctor Who audio

On 12/05/2017 15:46, d wrote:

The range for them now is ok. Its the recharging thats still an issue. As
for end to end audit it depends who you ask. Batteries use huge amounts of
fuel to manufacture but then refining oil is pretty energy intensive too.
Personally I doubt a battery requires more fuel in its manufacture than
a petrol or diesel car will burn in its lifetime but thats just a guess,
however if most of the grid was nuclear + a few renewables then the electricity
would be carbon neutral.

It is not just the batteries though, you have to factor in the
manufacture of the car that carries them around too. That will be
roughly the same as for a petrol or diesel car. But the manufacture of
the batteries and the disposal of them when they die is on a fairly
short timescale compared to petrol or diesel, and the cost of the
batteries makes the scrapping of the car look economic compared to just
disposing of the old batteries and installing new ones into the existing
car.

You might think it is worth it once. You won't find any battery driven
cars that will survive to have a second battery replacement so the
serviceable life is likely to be less than 10 years. I use a 50-year
old petrol car as a daily driver, and provided I look after it and don't
crash it, it will probably last the rest of my motoring lifetime. If
you amortise the carbon footprint of manufacturing it, driving it, and
disposing of it over 50-odd years it compares very favourably with
anything manufactured today, no matter how better fuel efficient the
cars are nowadays.

Jim

  #119  
Old May 13th 17, 04:22 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Doctor Who audio

On Fri, 12 May 2017 23:09:00 +0100
Indy Jess John wrote:
roughly the same as for a petrol or diesel car. But the manufacture of
the batteries and the disposal of them when they die is on a fairly
short timescale compared to petrol or diesel, and the cost of the
batteries makes the scrapping of the car look economic compared to just
disposing of the old batteries and installing new ones into the existing
car.


Apparently battery life is getting better. But I would say that it would
make far more sense if batteries could be swapped out fairly easily with
little more effort than having some new tyres put on.

serviceable life is likely to be less than 10 years. I use a 50-year
old petrol car as a daily driver, and provided I look after it and don't
crash it, it will probably last the rest of my motoring lifetime. If
you amortise the carbon footprint of manufacturing it, driving it, and
disposing of it over 50-odd years it compares very favourably with
anything manufactured today, no matter how better fuel efficient the
cars are nowadays.


Absolutely. The most enviromentally friendly car is the one you drive until
it falls apart. The problem with doing that now is that modern cars have a
habit of aquiring electronic gremlins after a not very long period of time,
usually a sensor but not always and these always seem to take far longer to
find and fix than you'd expect.

I had a 2001 volvo that I really liked but neither the main dealer or a private
garage could figure out what was causing the engine surging - "computer says
everything is ok" - so in the end I just gave in and sold it when it was only
8 years old as it was becoming a pain to drive and borderline dangerous in
traffic. I'd probably still be driving it today if they'd sorted it.

--
Spud

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.