Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:25:33 +0000
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
>> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the joists
>> take the weight?
>
> I don't see why not, I have a 500l thermal store tank (over half a
> tonne) that's been sitting over two joists for the last ten years. A 2x10
> on edge can take a *lot* of load.
>

2X10? Ah, you must like in a proper house, not a new fangled one.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Tim+ said:
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
>> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the joists
>> take the weight?
>
> Depends on where you put ‘em. Different parts of the loft have different
> load carrying capability.

Also depends on the size of the joists ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 12 Jan 2024 20:24:01 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:25:33 +0000
> > Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
> >> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the
> >> joists take the weight?
> >
> > I don't see why not, I have a 500l thermal store tank (over
> > half a tonne) that's been sitting over two joists for the last ten
> > years. A 2x10 on edge can take a *lot* of load.
> >
>
> 2X10? Ah, you must like in a proper house, not a new fangled one.

It was built in 2012 (bought as builder's finish) and finished in
2014, floor and a half dormer bung it low - structural walls are 4" blocks,
joists are 2x10s, rafters are 2x6s, stud walls are 2x3s (that last is my
doing - the rest the builders).

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

In article <uns8o4$3jenr$2@dont-email.me>, Richard Robinson
<richard@qualmograph.org.uk> on Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 20:51:17 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>Tim+ said:
>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
>>> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the joists
>>> take the weight?
>>
>> Depends on where you put ‘em. Different parts of the loft have different
>> load carrying capability.
>
>Also depends on the size of the joists ?
>
And the capabilities of the walls and footings?
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 12-Jan-24 20:24, Tim+ wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:25:33 +0000
>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
>>> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the joists
>>> take the weight?
>>
>> I don't see why not, I have a 500l thermal store tank (over half a
>> tonne) that's been sitting over two joists for the last ten years. A 2x10
>> on edge can take a *lot* of load.
>>
>
> 2X10? Ah, you must like in a proper house, not a new fangled one.

Ours is so old, the only reason the loft stays intact is pure habit.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 12-Jan-24 20:51, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Tim+ said:
>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
>>> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the joists
>>> take the weight?
>>
>> Depends on where you put ‘em. Different parts of the loft have different
>> load carrying capability.
>
> Also depends on the size of the joists ?

Depends which joists you're looking at. Ours vary hugely in
cross-sectional area.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 12-Jan-24 20:07, soup wrote:
> On 12/01/2024 12:59, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>
>> Lead/acid batteries have to be located with plentiful ventilation to the
>> open air and no space where the products of charging can accumulate.
>> They cannot be placed in or under (as ballast) the living space shell.
>
> Never thought of that .
>  Told you I knew He-Haw about narrer boats.
>
Then there's submarines.
Salt water & batteries are not a good mix in (very) confined quarters.

--
Sam Plusnet

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2024 20:24:01 GMT
> Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:25:33 +0000
>>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
>>>> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the
>>>> joists take the weight?
>>>
>>> I don't see why not, I have a 500l thermal store tank (over
>>> half a tonne) that's been sitting over two joists for the last ten
>>> years. A 2x10 on edge can take a *lot* of load.
>>>
>>
>> 2X10? Ah, you must like in a proper house, not a new fangled one.
>
> It was built in 2012 (bought as builder's finish) and finished in
> 2014, floor and a half dormer bung it low - structural walls are 4" blocks,
> joists are 2x10s, rafters are 2x6s, stud walls are 2x3s (that last is my
> doing - the rest the builders).
>

Ah, I thought we were talking about lofts. 2x10 seemed excessive for
rafters. My mistake.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Sam Plusnet said:
> On 12-Jan-24 20:51, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> Tim+ said:
>>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
>>>> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the joists
>>>> take the weight?
>>>
>>> Depends on where you put ‘em. Different parts of the loft have different
>>> load carrying capability.
>>
>> Also depends on the size of the joists ?
>
> Depends which joists you're looking at. Ours vary hugely in
> cross-sectional area.

The ones you're thinking about putting heavy weights on would be the
most relevant.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

In article <%hmoN.1481$RZad.355@fx14.ams1>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 02:10:03 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and
wrote
>On 12-Jan-24 20:51, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> Tim+ said:
>>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
>>>> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the joists
>>>> take the weight?
>>>
>>> Depends on where you put ‘em. Different parts of the loft have different
>>> load carrying capability.
>>
>> Also depends on the size of the joists ?
>
>Depends which joists you're looking at. Ours vary hugely in
>cross-sectional area.
>
You must have squirrels then. Naasty
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 13/01/2024 02:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 12-Jan-24 20:07, soup wrote:
>> On 12/01/2024 12:59, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>
>>> Lead/acid batteries have to be located with plentiful ventilation to the
>>> open air and no space where the products of charging can accumulate.
>>> They cannot be placed in or under (as ballast) the living space shell.
>>
>> Never thought of that .
>>   Told you I knew He-Haw about narrer boats.
>>
> Then there's submarines.
> Salt water & batteries are not a good mix in (very) confined quarters.

Seen that, every WWII submarine picture ever. (< slight hyperbole)
Sea water is getting in to the batteries- boat is filling with Chlorine
gas-we'll need to send someone out the escape hatch to... .
>

On 13/01/2024 11:41, soup wrote:
> On 13/01/2024 02:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 12-Jan-24 20:07, soup wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2024 12:59, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lead/acid batteries have to be located with plentiful ventilation to
>>>> the
>>>> open air and no space where the products of charging can accumulate.
>>>> They cannot be placed in or under (as ballast) the living space shell.
>>>
>>> Never thought of that .
>>>   Told you I knew He-Haw about narrer boats.
>>>
>> Then there's submarines.
>> Salt water & batteries are not a good mix in (very) confined quarters.
>
>
> Seen that, every WWII submarine picture ever. (< slight hyperbole)
> Sea water is getting in to the batteries- boat is filling with Chlorine
> gas-we'll need to send someone out the escape hatch to... .
>>
>
Then there were the steam powered submarines (K class?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine
Apparently survival rate was not good :-(
But the principle was established :-)
....or maybe :-/

Chris

On 13-Jan-24 14:11, chrisnd@privacy.net wrote:
> On 13/01/2024 11:41, soup wrote:
>> On 13/01/2024 02:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 12-Jan-24 20:07, soup wrote:
>>>> On 12/01/2024 12:59, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lead/acid batteries have to be located with plentiful ventilation
>>>>> to the
>>>>> open air and no space where the products of charging can accumulate.
>>>>> They cannot be placed in or under (as ballast) the living space shell.
>>>>
>>>> Never thought of that .
>>>>   Told you I knew He-Haw about narrer boats.
>>>>
>>> Then there's submarines.
>>> Salt water & batteries are not a good mix in (very) confined quarters.
>>
>>
>> Seen that, every WWII submarine picture ever. (< slight hyperbole)
>> Sea water is getting in to the batteries- boat is filling with
>> Chlorine gas-we'll need to send someone out the escape hatch to... .
>>>
>>
> Then there were the steam powered submarines  (K class?)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine
> Apparently survival rate was not good :-(
> But the principle was established :-)
> ...or maybe  :-/

I think I unforget someone (Drachinifel?) saying that another navy
managed to get steam powered submarines to jbex reasonably well.

--
Sam Plusnet

In article <7ZBoN.211326$Wp_8.85023@fx17.iad>, Sam Plusnet
<not@home.com> on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 20:00:02 awoke Nicholas from his
slumbers and wrote
>On 13-Jan-24 14:11, chrisnd@privacy.net wrote:
>> On 13/01/2024 11:41, soup wrote:
>>> On 13/01/2024 02:12, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 12-Jan-24 20:07, soup wrote:
>>>>> On 12/01/2024 12:59, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lead/acid batteries have to be located with plentiful ventilation
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> open air and no space where the products of charging can accumulate.
>>>>>> They cannot be placed in or under (as ballast) the living space shell.
>>>>>
>>>>> Never thought of that .
>>>>>   Told you I knew He-Haw about narrer boats.
>>>>>
>>>> Then there's submarines.
>>>> Salt water & batteries are not a good mix in (very) confined quarters.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seen that, every WWII submarine picture ever. (< slight hyperbole)
>>> Sea water is getting in to the batteries- boat is filling with
>>> Chlorine gas-we'll need to send someone out the escape hatch to... .
>>>>
>>>
>> Then there were the steam powered submarines  (K class?)
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine
>> Apparently survival rate was not good :-(
>> But the principle was established :-)
>> ...or maybe  :-/
>
>I think I unforget someone (Drachinifel?) saying that another navy
>managed to get steam powered submarines to jbex reasonably well.
>
British, Russian, US of A, French ..... Navies have all successfully
powered their submarines with steam:

Nuclear reactor->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric
motor(s); or something like that.

I am not aware of any other navy building a non-nuclear steam powered
submarine. Why would they? Who needs a submarine that can keep up with
the battle fleet? The concept was flawed from the outset.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 11:46:33 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>True, but it's a fun thought experiment to do.
>
>I did the calculations long ago, when I was offered a bank of NiFe
>cells. They are fantastic as backup batteries for phone exchanges and
>other UPS applications, as they can just sit there, happily, fully
>charged or not, for years without any maintenance.

I went through similar calculations for a shed with no electricity, and looked
at solar panels + inverter, and variations thereof.

Naah. Not enough sun, too expensive, no sun in winter, much less need for power
in summer. Current solution is to use 7,2 Ah 12 Volt SLA "bricks", carry one or
two home and charge it there. These connect directly (well, via a switch and
fuse) to LED strips, and provide cheap, even, flicker-free light reliably. And
for "real power" there is loud inefficient petrol genset for the rare (and
usually short) occasions when I need kilowatts. 7,2 Ah are apparently used a lot
in alarm systems, and are roughly cheapest per Ah for any size I'd like to
carry. I even found one abandoned on the sidewalk, which ended up giving a few
years useful service.

And for light, heat, simplicity of storage and "user interface", remaining life
indicator: candles are useful.

Thomas Prufer

On 14/01/2024 00:49, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In article <7ZBoN.211326$Wp_8.85023@fx17.iad>, Sam Plusnet
> <not@home.com> on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 20:00:02 awoke Nicholas from his
> slumbers and wrote
>> On 13-Jan-24 14:11, chrisnd@privacy.net wrote:

>>> Then there were the steam powered submarines  (K class?)
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine
>>> Apparently survival rate was not good :-(
>>> But the principle was established :-)
>>> ...or maybe  :-/
>>
>> I think I unforget someone (Drachinifel?) saying that another navy
>> managed to get steam powered submarines to jbex reasonably well.
>>
> British, Russian, US of A, French ..... Navies have all successfully
> powered their submarines with steam:
>
> Nuclear reactor->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric
> motor(s); or something like that.

Mmm but
Nuclear reactor->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric
motor(s)
Works underwater
Whilst
Boiler ->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric motor(s_)
doesn't

<Mode:soapbox>

If only we could see beyond the 'perceived' dangers of Nuclear energy
and just consider it "another way to boil a kettle"(produce steam)

<Mode off>

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 10:33:53 +0000, soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

>
> <Mode:soapbox>
>
> If only we could see beyond the 'perceived' dangers of Nuclear energy
> and just consider it "another way to boil a kettle"(produce steam)
>
> <Mode off>

s/we/everybody/

<AOL>

Avpx

--
By and large, the only skill the alchemists of Ankh-Morpork had discovered
so far was the ability to turn gold into less gold. (Moving Pictures)
Sun 11093 Sep 10:50:01 GMT 1993
10:50:01 up 1 day, 46 min, 8 users, load average: 0.89, 0.81, 0.91

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:10:03 +0000
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 12-Jan-24 20:51, Richard Robinson wrote:
> > Tim+ said:
> >> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> People have been talking about having battery array up in the loft.
> >>> That would seriously worry me - not the fire risk, but would the joists
> >>> take the weight?
> >>
> >> Depends on where you put ‘em. Different parts of the loft have different
> >> load carrying capability.
> >
> > Also depends on the size of the joists ?
>
> Depends which joists you're looking at. Ours vary hugely in
> cross-sectional area.
>
Do'n unforget ybpny tenivgl inevngvbaf, Doctor.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 14/01/2024 10:33, soup wrote:
> On 14/01/2024 00:49, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <7ZBoN.211326$Wp_8.85023@fx17.iad>, Sam Plusnet
>> <not@home.com>  on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 20:00:02 awoke Nicholas from his
>> slumbers and wrote
>>> On 13-Jan-24 14:11, chrisnd@privacy.net wrote:
>
>>>> Then there were the steam powered submarines  (K class?)
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine
>>>> Apparently survival rate was not good :-(
>>>> But the principle was established :-)
>>>> ...or maybe  :-/
>>>
>>> I think I unforget someone (Drachinifel?) saying that another navy
>>> managed to get steam powered submarines to jbex reasonably well.
>>>
>> British, Russian, US of A, French ..... Navies have all successfully
>> powered their submarines with steam:
>>
>> Nuclear reactor->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric
>> motor(s); or something like that.
>
> Mmm but
> Nuclear reactor->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric
> motor(s)
> Works underwater
>     Whilst
>  Boiler ->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric motor(s_)
> doesn't
>
>
> <Mode:soapbox>
>
> If only we could see beyond the 'perceived' dangers of Nuclear energy
> and just consider it "another way to boil a kettle"(produce steam)
>
> <Mode off>

Nuclear energy = good (usually)
nuclear waste = bad*

*That's really, really, inconceivably bad!

Chris

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 10:33:53 +0000
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

> If only we could see beyond the 'perceived' dangers of Nuclear energy
> and just consider it "another way to boil a kettle"(produce steam)

The way things are going we will not need them, which is just as
well because the NIMBY cost of nuclear power is enormous.

The only reason not to use solar and wind for almost all power
needs is that they are intermittent and seasonal - both problems easily
solved given adequate energy storage. Technically adequate solutions exist
today commercially and are being improved on as more and more systems move
from lab to start-up and from start-up to established. A quick run down.

Lithium Ion (in all its forms): Well established from cellphone to grid
scale. High energy density, high discharge rate, nasty chemicals, hideous
processing pollution, tendency to burn well. The only one with a
power/weight ratio suited for mobile use.

Flow batteries: Much bigger and heavier but power and capacity scale
separately, they don't self discharge (can hold energy for years) and
capacity can be cheap to add. Usable designs are relatively new. Most of the
offerings are grid scale supplied in 40' containers. Current commercially
available variants include:

Zinc-Bromine: The most common, manufacturers in Australia, USA and China.
Grid scale only.

Vanadium-Vanadium: Manufacturers in Australia, USA, China, Japan and UK.
Scales from domestic to grid scale.

Iron-Iron: Manufacturer in USA. Uses ferric-chloride as electrolyte,
non-toxic, cheap and plentiful. Grid scale only.

Salt water: The new kid on the block, one manufacturer in USA active and
selling. Several others in start-up. The cheapest electrolyte of the lot
(measured in cost per kWh) by far but very new on the market.

There are several more in the wings not yet commercial - one
boasting four times the density of lithium based batteries (a
sodium-sulphur molten salt design). The aim of most recent designs is to
avoid hard to obtain materials and toxic processing.

Most of the players in this game are going to go bust of course,
but only because they've been outperformed. This business looks like the
microprocessor based computer biz circa 1980. They're all looking for a
slice of a market measured in terawatt hours. I goove the ferric-chloride
and salt water variants will be the long term winners since they're cheap,
clean and use globally plentiful materials.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

In article <f877qihgoe59ci6blmj2tabkg4a5dc7h4f@4ax.com>, Thomas Prufer
<prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 at 09:48:29
awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>
>And for light, heat, simplicity of storage and "user interface", remaining life
>indicator: candles are useful.
>
>
As long as you do not store flammable volatiles in the same shed! <Grin>
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

In article <uo0dah$d85g$1@dont-email.me>, soup <invalid@invalid.com> on
Sun, 14 Jan 2024 at 10:33:53 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>On 14/01/2024 00:49, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <7ZBoN.211326$Wp_8.85023@fx17.iad>, Sam Plusnet
>> <not@home.com> on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 20:00:02 awoke Nicholas from his
>> slumbers and wrote
>>> On 13-Jan-24 14:11, chrisnd@privacy.net wrote:
>
>>>> Then there were the steam powered submarines  (K class?)
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine
>>>> Apparently survival rate was not good :-(
>>>> But the principle was established :-)
>>>> ...or maybe  :-/
>>>
>>> I think I unforget someone (Drachinifel?) saying that another navy
>>> managed to get steam powered submarines to jbex reasonably well.
>>>
>> British, Russian, US of A, French ..... Navies have all successfully
>> powered their submarines with steam:
>>
>> Nuclear reactor->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric
>> motor(s); or something like that.
>
>Mmm but
>Nuclear reactor->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric
>motor(s)
>Works underwater
> Whilst
> Boiler ->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric motor(s_)
>doesn't
>
>
><Mode:soapbox>
>
>If only we could see beyond the 'perceived' dangers of Nuclear energy
>and just consider it "another way to boil a kettle"(produce steam)
>
><Mode off>

'perceived' dangers which are real, long term and we are nowhere near
mitigating in the long term. We are leaving these problems and dangers
for generations to come.

--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
> In article <uo0dah$d85g$1@dont-email.me>, soup <invalid@invalid.com> on
> Sun, 14 Jan 2024 at 10:33:53 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>> On 14/01/2024 00:49, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>> In article <7ZBoN.211326$Wp_8.85023@fx17.iad>, Sam Plusnet
>>> <not@home.com> on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 20:00:02 awoke Nicholas from his
>>> slumbers and wrote
>>>> On 13-Jan-24 14:11, chrisnd@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>>>> Then there were the steam powered submarines  (K class?)
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine
>>>>> Apparently survival rate was not good :-(
>>>>> But the principle was established :-)
>>>>> ...or maybe  :-/
>>>>
>>>> I think I unforget someone (Drachinifel?) saying that another navy
>>>> managed to get steam powered submarines to jbex reasonably well.
>>>>
>>> British, Russian, US of A, French ..... Navies have all successfully
>>> powered their submarines with steam:
>>>
>>> Nuclear reactor->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric
>>> motor(s); or something like that.
>>
>> Mmm but
>> Nuclear reactor->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric
>> motor(s)
>> Works underwater
>> Whilst
>> Boiler ->steam->turbine->generator->electricity->electric motor(s_)
>> doesn't
>>
>>
>> <Mode:soapbox>
>>
>> If only we could see beyond the 'perceived' dangers of Nuclear energy
>> and just consider it "another way to boil a kettle"(produce steam)
>>
>> <Mode off>
>
> 'perceived' dangers which are real, long term and we are nowhere near
> mitigating in the long term.

Ditto for coal, gas etc…

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

In message <gm5nRqAhv+olFAZO@salmiron.com>, Nicholas D. Richards
<nicholas@salmiron.com> writes
>In article <f877qihgoe59ci6blmj2tabkg4a5dc7h4f@4ax.com>, Thomas Prufer
><prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 at 09:48:29
>awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>
>>And for light, heat, simplicity of storage and "user interface",
>>remaining life
>>indicator: candles are useful.
>>
>>
>As long as you do not store flammable volatiles in the same shed! <Grin>

Any Sheddi admit to be flammable and/or volatile ?

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

Tim+ said:
> Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
>> In article <uo0dah$d85g$1@dont-email.me>, soup <invalid@invalid.com> on
>>>
>>> <Mode:soapbox>
>>>
>>> If only we could see beyond the 'perceived' dangers of Nuclear energy
>>> and just consider it "another way to boil a kettle"(produce steam)
>>>
>>> <Mode off>
>>
>> 'perceived' dangers which are real, long term and we are nowhere near
>> mitigating in the long term.
>
> Ditto for coal, gas etc…

As it turns out, yes.

"I've learnt so much from my mistakes !
I think I'll make another one" - a postcard.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html