On 19/03/2024 11:06, SteveW wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2024 20:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/2024 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>>>>> around since I was a lad ...
>>>
>>>> Because it is shit.
>>>
>>> How so ?
>>>
>>
>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>> obsolete 150+ years ago.  Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>
> The reason sail disappeared was the unreliability of the wind (not a

Not so. The wind in the ocean is remarkably dependable.
TW

On 20/03/2024 17:14, Andrew wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 11:06, SteveW wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/2024 20:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 18/03/2024 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>>>>>> around since I was a lad ...
>>>>
>>>>> Because it is shit.
>>>>
>>>> How so ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>>> obsolete 150+ years ago.  Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
>>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>
>> The reason sail disappeared was the unreliability of the wind
>
> Hence the term 'The doldrums'
>

The doldrums actually a particular lattitude between a belt of relaibly
East wind and a belt of reliably West wind which are prone to calm and
need to be crossed in a North - South passage, illustrating how constant
and dependable ocean weather is.
TW

On 22/03/2024 12:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 10:10, alan_m wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to
>>>> someone else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since
>>>> JustStopEverything™ are, almost by definition, lowbrow ArtStudents™
>>>> and hard left Trotskyites, with no scientific or technical education
>>>> whatsoever, *actually* achieving any carbon gains is immaterial.
>>>>
>>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About Climate
>>>> Change that is important.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on
>>> the climate.
>>>    What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no
>>> economicaly viable stuff)?
>>>
>>
>> Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are going
>> to give up this revenue stream?  As more of the world turns to green
>> technology oil will possibly become cheaper.
>>
> That is predicated on the false  simple minded  ArtStudent™assumption
> that 'green' technology results in less fossil fuel burned. The CO2
> levels at Mauna Loa utterly refute that.
>
>> If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than
>> transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green bicycles,
>> no smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and heels on shoes*
>> etc. etc.
>>
>> You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
>> livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been slaughtered
>> long before the oil runs out.
>>
> Actually petrochemical feedstocks is not a big issue. We cant grow
> enough carbon organic compounds for energy but we sure can to make
> synthetic hydrocarbons for e.g. plastic and synthetic rubbers.
>

Utter BS. There are many, many types of 'plastic' that can
only be derived from oil.

On 22/03/2024 12:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 11:18, alan_m wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 10:49, Soup wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 18:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:46:16 +1100, Soup <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are timesensitive, and need
>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>
>>>> Quite a few, and those move by air.
>>>
>>>    So those that are time sensitive move by air?
>>>    So what is the point of worrying (over much) about the speed of
>>> ships?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Fuel is not the only cost running a ship. There may be savings in fuel
>> costs to be made with slower speeds but increased costs associated
>> with running and financing the ship.
>>
> That is what I said, if you look at the cost accounting of freight
> transport, there is a sweet spot where your asset is moving enough
> freight annually  to repay the interest on the loan, but not  enough to
> overly increase fuel costs.
>
> ArtStudents never think about money, because they live their whole lives
> being paid by grants from taxpayers.
>
>

While private companies employ people on zero hours contracts
and minimum wage while the taxpayer effectively tops up their
income to a living wage with tax-credits, child benefit and
housing benefit.

The employer meanwhile moves his massively improved profits
to another jurisdiction where corporation tax is peanuts.

And plenty of companies only exist to claim all the juicy
government and EU handouts

On 22/03/2024 12:45, RJH wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:52:29 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>>>
>> Indeed. My profits in shelll shares almost offset the extra money I have
>> to pay for oil and road fuel and general inflation
>>
>
> Good for you - most didn't have that luxury.
>
>>> And we (the UK) could have bridged the relative shortage with rationing.
>>>
>> What do you think massive price rises are? Rationing for the poor.
>
> Sometimes, sometimes, you would do well to think beyond the market. TEQs:
>
> https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/teqs/
>
TEQs are part of the market . Dreamed up by Artstudents

--
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

On 22/03/2024 14:14, Andrew wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 12:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 10:10, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to
>>>>> someone else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since
>>>>> JustStopEverything™ are, almost by definition, lowbrow ArtStudents™
>>>>> and hard left Trotskyites, with no scientific or technical
>>>>> education whatsoever, *actually* achieving any carbon gains is
>>>>> immaterial.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About Climate
>>>>> Change that is important.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on
>>>> the climate.
>>>>    What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no
>>>> economicaly viable stuff)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are
>>> going to give up this revenue stream?  As more of the world turns to
>>> green technology oil will possibly become cheaper.
>>>
>> That is predicated on the false  simple minded  ArtStudent™assumption
>> that 'green' technology results in less fossil fuel burned. The CO2
>> levels at Mauna Loa utterly refute that.
>>
>>> If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than
>>> transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green bicycles,
>>> no smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and heels on shoes*
>>> etc. etc.
>>>
>>> You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
>>> livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been
>>> slaughtered long before the oil runs out.
>>>
>> Actually petrochemical feedstocks is not a big issue. We cant grow
>> enough carbon organic compounds for energy but we sure can to make
>> synthetic hydrocarbons for e.g. plastic and synthetic rubbers.
>>
>
> Utter BS. There are many, many types of 'plastic' that can
> only be derived from oil.
>
Utter BS. Oil is when all is said and done only rotted down organic matter

It's merely a matter of cost.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 22/03/2024 12:45, RJH wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:52:29 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>>>
>> Indeed. My profits in shelll shares almost offset the extra money I have
>> to pay for oil and road fuel and general inflation
>>
>
> Good for you - most didn't have that luxury.
Anyone could have bought Shell shares.
Why didn't you?

--
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

On 22/03/2024 12:45, RJH wrote:

> Sometimes, sometimes, you would do well to think beyond the market. TEQs:
>
> https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/teqs/
>

That would generate a nice black market in TEQs units :)

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:10:51 +1100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to someone
>>> else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since JustStopEverything™
>>> are, almost by definition, lowbrow ArtStudents™ and hard left
>>> Trotskyites, with no scientific or technical education whatsoever,
>>> *actually* achieving any carbon gains is immaterial.
>>>
>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About Climate
>>> Change that is important.
>>>
>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on
>> the climate.
>> What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no economicaly
>> viable stuff)?
>>
>
> Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are going
> to give up this revenue stream? As more of the world turns to green
> technology oil will possibly become cheaper.
>
> If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than
> transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green bicycles, no
> smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and heels on shoes* etc..
> etc.
>
> You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
> livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been slaughtered

No chance of that.

> long before the oil runs out.

On 22 Mar 2024 at 09:53:37 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to someone
>>> else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since JustStopEverything™
>>> are, almost by definition, lowbrow ArtStudents™ and hard left
>>> Trotskyites, with no scientific or technical education whatsoever,
>>> *actually* achieving any carbon gains is immaterial.
>>>
>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About Climate
>>> Change that is important.
>>
>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on the
>> climate.
>> What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no economicaly
>> viable stuff)?
>
> And 11+ billion people trying to use what is left

Now you're getting a clue. Each human produces about 0.5 ton of CO2 each
years, simply by breathing in and out. What are you suggestions for reducing
the 11+ billion to something sensible?

--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

On 22 Mar 2024 at 09:59:42 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 21/03/2024 08:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 08:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 07:39:54 +0000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/03/2024 18:00, Soup wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>>>>>> obsolete 150+ years ago. Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
>>>>>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah but early steam engines were 'pants' (shit has been used too
>>>>> often,
>>>>> to my mind, in this thread already).
>>>>> But even rubbishy steam engines were 'better' than pure sailing
>>>>> ships
>>>>> which is why, as far as I am concerned, dual drive systems will come to
>>>>> the fore . Engines when docking, in "The Doldrums" or facing a wind.
>>>>> sail (or rather a suitable variation) wence running with the wind .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So ships with early rubbish engines were better (for trade) than the
>>>> sailing ships that they made obsolete so why would sailing ships now
>>>> replace the modern cargo ship with much better engines? Hybrid ships of
>>>> 150 years ago with both sails and (rubbish) engines also disappeared and
>>>> this wouldn't have happened if there was some major benefit in keeping
>>>> the sails.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quite, but the objective today isn't necessarily economy, but the
>>> (misguided) objective of reducing CO2 output at almost any cost.
>>>
>> No. The objective today isn't necessarily economy, but the (cynical)
>> objective of *pretending* to reduce CO2 output at almost *no* cost.
>>
>> People who can do sums are well aware that most people cannot, so a
>> *story* about 'saving carbon' works just as well as real carbon
>> savings, and at far lower cost.
>>
>> And even people who can do sums cant necessarily *think*.
>>
>> Year ago our buyer spent weeks negotiating 10% off the price of all
>> resistors used in our product. The product cost fell by 5p!
>>
>> In the middle of the unit was a huge fuck off toroidal transformer
>> costing £25!! one percent off that would have made *far* more difference.
>>
>> No: people are lazy, innumerate, and not especially bright, but they
>> still all think that their propaganda derived opinions are as good as
>> anyone elses, because Blair told them they were.
>>
>>> It'll be oars next!
>>>
>> The ArtStudents™ are in charge. Almost any idiocy is possible.
>>
>
> It was Luddites like you who condemned the UK railway industry
> to carry on with ancient, filthy, inefficient steam engines
> while the rest of Europe was powering on with electrification
> and modern signalling systems.
>
> Sometimes the best person to be in charge is someone who
> knows nothing, or very little, but is surrounded by people
> who do have the knowledge and can advise ALL the options
> and consequences.

Like King Canute, you mean?

Someone, IOW, who wants to will the ends but has no clue about the means?

--
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

HL Mencken

On 22 Mar 2024 at 10:10:16 GMT, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> And we (the UK) could have bridged the relative shortage with rationing.

The wide boys would certainly love that!

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:21:45 +1100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 09:59, Andrew wrote:
>
>> It was Luddites like you who condemned the UK railway industry
>> to carry on with ancient, filthy, inefficient steam engines
>> while the rest of Europe was powering on with electrification
>> and modern signalling systems.
>
> More to do with zero money for investment after coming out of a
> expensive world war.

Europe had far less money available and far more rebuilding to do.

> Also a common problem with the nationalised industries controlled by
> politicians and civil servants,

That's what the europeans had at that time.

> and often with private industry where there is a monopoly supplier.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:25:34 +1100, TimW <timw@nomailta.co.uk> wrote:

> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2024 20:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/2024 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>>>>> around since I was a lad ...
>>>
>>>> Because it is shit.
>>>
>>> How so ?
>>>
>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>> obsolete 150+ years ago. Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
> [snipped]
>
> Actually wrong in almost every respect, not to be argumentative but
> things aren't always how you think they are.

> Sailing vessels continued to carry cargoes in great numbers and
> profitably, were being made new and the designs improved right up until
> the first world war.

Fantasy

> The thing which finished the age of sail was literally the war,

Fantasy

> and the U-Boat because they were so vulnerable to enemy action and were
> sunk in their hundreds.

Fantasy

> In fact they ran for free,

Like hell they did given that the massive
crew that handled the sails had to be paid.

> no fuel rerquired with a notoriously low paid crew,

Pity about the number of those required.

> they could be repaired in any port in the world

Nope.

> and there were reliable routes and times.

BULLSHIT

> There was plenty of low value, high volume, non-urgent cargo to be
> carried.

Fantasy

On 22 Mar 2024 at 15:52:50 GMT, alan_m wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 12:45, RJH wrote:
>
>> Sometimes, sometimes, you would do well to think beyond the market. TEQs:
>>
>> https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/teqs/
>>
>
>
> That would generate a nice black market in TEQs units :)

Possibly!

Apparently it was close to being implemented a while back - would have been
interesting.
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:49:41 +1100, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 21/03/2024 23:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>
>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>>> that to
>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>> something and
>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>
>> There is another issue apart from customer impatience, and that is
>> simple economics.
>> the ship costs a certain amount of capital, and that is on usually a
>> bond type loan from some big financial house, on a fixed rate of
>> interest. The more cargo can be shifted per year, the more money there
>> is to repay that bond. Conversely the faster you move the ship, the
>> more fuel it burns per tonne mile, and so there exist some compromise
>> that returns the best rate on capital.
>> On a nuclear ship, where fuel cost is so low its irrelevant, you want
>> to go as fast as possible without placing undue wear on the propulsion
>> system.

> An amazing number of container ships come to grief every decade.

Not just container ships either.

> The thought of these contaminating the oceans

Not a problem with the russian nuke subs

> and making salvage ops *very* expensive

The massive number of ships that come to grief are
hardly ever salvaged, essentially because they are
mostly very geriatric old ships which are just left to rot.

> is the reason why nuclear powered
> commercial shipping is a non-starter.

Fantasy

On 22 Mar 2024 at 15:08:34 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 12:45, RJH wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:52:29 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>>>>
>>> Indeed. My profits in shelll shares almost offset the extra money I have
>>> to pay for oil and road fuel and general inflation
>>>
>>
>> Good for you - most didn't have that luxury.
>>
>>>> And we (the UK) could have bridged the relative shortage with rationing.
>>>>
>>> What do you think massive price rises are? Rationing for the poor.
>>
>> Sometimes, sometimes, you would do well to think beyond the market. TEQs:
>>
>> https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/teqs/
>>
> TEQs are part of the market . Dreamed up by Artstudents

Incisive as ever :-)
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 22 Mar 2024 at 15:23:44 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 12:45, RJH wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:52:29 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>>>>
>>> Indeed. My profits in shelll shares almost offset the extra money I have
>>> to pay for oil and road fuel and general inflation
>>>
>>
>> Good for you - most didn't have that luxury.
> Anyone could have bought Shell shares.

Anybody with money to spare, and willing to gamble on something they'd need to
believe in.

> Why didn't you?

Doesn't appeal.
..
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

Soup <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Soup <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote

>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time
>>> sensitive, and need every last ounce of speed?

>> Quite a few, and those move by air.

> So those that are time sensitive move by air?

Mostly, particularly the high value lower weight stuff.

> So what is the point of worrying (over much) about the speed of ships?

Because the more volume you can move per year means a
better ROI particularly with the stuff that isnt feasible to fly
like most cars, crude oil, petroleum, iron ore, steel, wheat,
rice, grain, sugar, meat, live sheep and cattle, etc etc etc

On 22 Mar 2024 at 10:49:41 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 21/03/2024 23:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>
>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>>> that to
>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>> something and
>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>
>> There is another issue apart from customer impatience, and that is
>> simple economics.
>>
>> the ship costs a certain amount of capital, and that is on usually a
>> bond type loan from some big financial house, on a fixed rate of
>> interest. The more cargo can be shifted per year, the more money there
>> is to repay that bond. Conversely the faster you move the ship, the more
>> fuel it burns per tonne mile, and so there exist some compromise that
>> returns the best rate on capital.
>>
>> On a nuclear ship, where fuel cost is so low its irrelevant, you want to
>> go as fast as possible without placing undue wear on the propulsion system.
>
> An amazing number of container ships come to grief every decade.
> The thought of these contaminating the oceans and making
> salvage ops *very* expensive is the reason why nuclear powered
> commercial shipping is a non-starter.

There's already a couple of nuke subs in Davey Jones' Locker, not to mention
all the defunct Russian subs just left to rot in their northern ports. Was
that the contamination you had in mind or was it something else? The 4 billion
tons of uranium in the world's oceans, perhaps?

--
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."

D M Procida, UCSM

On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:14:40 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 01:23, RJH wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 00:17:32 GMT, "Rod Speed" wrote:
>>
>>>> Why can you not see that there "may" be advantage in sail assist.
>>>
>>> Because its trivial to see that it can't work with a
>>> container ship and isnt even viable for a cruise ship.
>>
>> FSVO 'viable'. Not everyone thinks in terms of a positive financial return
>> before they do what they do.
>>
> Owners of commercial companies do. If they don't, they go out of business

And that is why we in the west are richer than any socialist country. Because
the commercial compainies are better (if there's competition) at husbanding
society's resources. If they do so, it costs them less. In Soviet Russia, with
no competition, where reliability of their airliners was lower than ours,
their solution was just to build more of them than they needed - thus wasting
society's resources.

--
Socialism: For people who lack the charisma to be train spotters.

Ann Sheridan

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:33:19 +1100, TimW <timw@nomailta.co.uk> wrote:

> On 19/03/2024 11:06, SteveW wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/2024 20:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 18/03/2024 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>>>>>> around since I was a lad ...
>>>>
>>>>> Because it is shit.
>>>>
>>>> How so ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>>> obsolete 150+ years ago. Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
>>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>> The reason sail disappeared was the unreliability of the wind (not a
>
> Not so. The wind in the ocean is remarkably dependable.

Pity about the doldrums and wind in the direction you need.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:38:24 +1100, TimW <timw@nomailta.co.uk> wrote:

> On 20/03/2024 17:14, Andrew wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 11:06, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>>>>> On 18/03/2024 20:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/03/2024 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea
>>>>>>> cargo
>>>>>>> around since I was a lad ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it is shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> How so ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>>>> obsolete 150+ years ago. Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
>>>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>>
>>> The reason sail disappeared was the unreliability of the wind
>> Hence the term 'The doldrums'
>>
>
> The doldrums actually a particular lattitude between a belt of relaibly
> East wind and a belt of reliably West wind

No such animal.

> which are prone to calm and need to be crossed in a North - South
> passage, illustrating how constant and dependable ocean weather is.

Fantasy

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:14:18 +1100, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 12:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 10:10, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to
>>>>> someone else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since
>>>>> JustStopEverything™ are, almost by definition, lowbrow ArtStudents™
>>>>> and hard left Trotskyites, with no scientific or technical education
>>>>> whatsoever, *actually* achieving any carbon gains is immaterial.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About Climate
>>>>> Change that is important.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on
>>>> the climate.
>>>> What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no
>>>> economicaly viable stuff)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are going
>>> to give up this revenue stream? As more of the world turns to green
>>> technology oil will possibly become cheaper.
>>>
>> That is predicated on the false simple minded ArtStudent™assumption
>> that 'green' technology results in less fossil fuel burned. The CO2
>> levels at Mauna Loa utterly refute that.
>>
>>> If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than
>>> transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green bicycles,
>>> no smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and heels on shoes*
>>> etc. etc.
>>>
>>> You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
>>> livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been slaughtered
>>> long before the oil runs out.
>>>
>> Actually petrochemical feedstocks is not a big issue. We cant grow
>> enough carbon organic compounds for energy but we sure can to make
>> synthetic hydrocarbons for e.g. plastic and synthetic rubbers.
>>
>
> Utter BS. There are many, many types of 'plastic' that can
> only be derived from oil.

Name one. ALL you need is the carbon, stupid.

On 22/03/2024 18:05, RJH wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2024 at 15:23:44 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2024 12:45, RJH wrote:
>>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:52:29 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed. My profits in shelll shares almost offset the extra money I have
>>>> to pay for oil and road fuel and general inflation
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good for you - most didn't have that luxury.
>> Anyone could have bought Shell shares.
>
> Anybody with money to spare, and willing to gamble on something they'd need to
> believe in.
>
>> Why didn't you?
>
> Doesn't appeal.
> .

Well then stop dissing them.
Sour grapes innit?

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift