Jump to content

Cop26


Bulletguy

Recommended Posts

Guest pelmetman
Barryd999 - 2021-11-10 9:59 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-11-10 8:58 PM

 

malc d - 2021-11-10 1:09 PM

 

I wonder if Johnson has written his COP closing speech yet , about how brilliantly, incredibly successful the fantastic outcome is to HIS world saving conference.

 

:-D

 

I wonder if the Loser Brigade have managed to blame climate change on Brexit yet? :D ........

 

 

No but like everything else it will have an effect because it enabled a right wing populist corrupt government that only cares about themselves and their Cronies and only last week voted to continue to allow sewage to flow into our rivers and seas. You will soon be able to play spot the Jobby with your telescope from your palatial greenhouse.

 

So sewage never flowed into the sea before Brexit (?) ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-11-11 9:24 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2021-11-10 9:59 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-11-10 8:58 PM

 

malc d - 2021-11-10 1:09 PM

 

I wonder if Johnson has written his COP closing speech yet , about how brilliantly, incredibly successful the fantastic outcome is to HIS world saving conference.

 

:-D

 

I wonder if the Loser Brigade have managed to blame climate change on Brexit yet? :D ........

 

 

No but like everything else it will have an effect because it enabled a right wing populist corrupt government that only cares about themselves and their Cronies and only last week voted to continue to allow sewage to flow into our rivers and seas. You will soon be able to play spot the Jobby with your telescope from your palatial greenhouse.

 

So sewage never flowed into the sea before Brexit (?) ..........

 

 

It did, but the water companies could be prosecuted and fined for doing so. And often were.

 

What your chums voted for on Monday night for was to stop those fines being levied, granting the water companies a unspecified time in which they should try to clear up their s**te. This would not have been possible under European legalisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CurtainRaiser - 2021-11-11 9:55 AM

pelmetman - 2021-11-11 9:24 AM

So sewage never flowed into the sea before Brexit (?) ..........

It did, but the water companies could be prosecuted and fined for doing so. And often were.

What your chums voted for on Monday night for was to stop those fines being levied, granting the water companies a unspecified time in which they should try to clear up their s**te. This would not have been possible under European legalisation.

Dave sees personal advantage here. Turds in the sea can be harvested as fertiliser for his new garden. He can't be expected to criticise that.

 

Plus, it's a benefit from Brexit and his fave PM - "he who got Brexit done" - so ensuring a continuing supply of turds in the sea and fertiliser. It recycles waste, and is free. He doesn't do UK sea swimming, so what's not to like? 8-) Overall, its the sheer altruism of it that takes my breath away. :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-11-11 12:55 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-11-11 9:55 AM

pelmetman - 2021-11-11 9:24 AM

So sewage never flowed into the sea before Brexit (?) ..........

It did, but the water companies could be prosecuted and fined for doing so. And often were.

What your chums voted for on Monday night for was to stop those fines being levied, granting the water companies a unspecified time in which they should try to clear up their s**te. This would not have been possible under European legalisation.

......Dave sees personal advantage here. Turds in the sea can be harvested as fertiliser for his new garden.

:D :D :D :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-11-11 12:55 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-11-11 9:55 AM

pelmetman - 2021-11-11 9:24 AM

So sewage never flowed into the sea before Brexit (?) ..........

It did, but the water companies could be prosecuted and fined for doing so. And often were.

What your chums voted for on Monday night for was to stop those fines being levied, granting the water companies a unspecified time in which they should try to clear up their s**te. This would not have been possible under European legalisation.

Dave sees personal advantage here. Turds in the sea can be harvested as fertiliser for his new garden. He can't be expected to criticise that.

 

Plus, it's a benefit from Brexit and his fave PM - "he who got Brexit done" - so ensuring a continuing supply of turds in the sea and fertiliser. It recycles waste, and is free. He doesn't do UK sea swimming, so what's not to like? 8-) Overall, its the sheer altruism of it that takes my breath away. :-D

 

He might not do UK swimming but he seems very keen on telling us how much his house is going up in value. If our seas all end up full of turds nobody is going to want to live in our already tired looking seaside towns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-11-11 12:55 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-11-11 9:55 AM

pelmetman - 2021-11-11 9:24 AM

So sewage never flowed into the sea before Brexit (?) ..........

It did, but the water companies could be prosecuted and fined for doing so. And often were.

What your chums voted for on Monday night for was to stop those fines being levied, granting the water companies a unspecified time in which they should try to clear up their s**te. This would not have been possible under European legalisation.

Dave sees personal advantage here. Turds in the sea can be harvested as fertiliser for his new garden. He can't be expected to criticise that.

 

Plus, it's a benefit from Brexit and his fave PM - "he who got Brexit done" - so ensuring a continuing supply of turds in the sea and fertiliser. It recycles waste, and is free. He doesn't do UK sea swimming, so what's not to like? 8-) Overall, its the sheer altruism of it that takes my breath away. :-D

 

I've never thought of it from that angle, but a quick Google shows that you might be right about his altruistic intentions.

 

As well as saving the water companies from wasting all that money building new interceptors, therefore allowing them to continue to add to the £56,000,000,000 they have so far paid out in dividends, he can also solve the supply chain issues that are turning Horace's bunker into a longer build than HS2.

 

A further benefit is that it will, quite literally be a s**t house. I can think of no finer epitaph for a Brexiteer who has clearly WON.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2019/02/11/could-we-build-houses-with-poop-bricks/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barryd999 - 2021-11-11 4:43 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-11-11 12:55 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-11-11 9:55 AM

pelmetman - 2021-11-11 9:24 AM

So sewage never flowed into the sea before Brexit (?) ..........

It did, but the water companies could be prosecuted and fined for doing so. And often were.

What your chums voted for on Monday night for was to stop those fines being levied, granting the water companies a unspecified time in which they should try to clear up their s**te. This would not have been possible under European legalisation.

Dave sees personal advantage here. Turds in the sea can be harvested as fertiliser for his new garden. He can't be expected to criticise that.

 

Plus, it's a benefit from Brexit and his fave PM - "he who got Brexit done" - so ensuring a continuing supply of turds in the sea and fertiliser. It recycles waste, and is free. He doesn't do UK sea swimming, so what's not to like? 8-) Overall, its the sheer altruism of it that takes my breath away. :-D

 

He might not do UK swimming but he seems very keen on telling us how much his house is going up in value.

He's "investing the thick end of 200k doing building and landscaping our property". Then he makes the big mistake of posting a photo of a few cheap breeze blocks. (lol)(lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But back to Cop 26 (sort of :-)), if anyone is thinking of swapping their existing gas boiler for a heat pump (air, ground, or water, source and possibly also hybrid) please investigate very thoroughly, or be prepared to spend a lot of money before your heating system performs satisfactorily.

 

This relates to "wet" (i.e. boiler and radiators fed by hot water) central heating systems.

 

For a new installation in a new building, fine, as the whole system will be designed around the heat pump and its characteristics. But as a replacement for a gas boiler, unless your home makes extensive use of underfloor heating, I'd say stay clear.

 

Why? Because most central heating installations are designed around a gas boiler that supplies panel radiators with water at around 65C. Heat pumps seem only capable of supplying water at a max temp of somewhere near 36C, and whether that can be attained depends in part on the external air temperature. Some use electric heating to boost the water temperature to 35C when exceptionally cold, but the obvious drawback of this is increased electricity consumption and energy cost.

 

Radiators are sized to give sufficient heat to keep the home at around 21C inside when it is -1C outside. (If exceptionally cold it is usually possible to raise the temperature of the water above 65C by turning up the boiler 'stat.) So, if the water flowing into the rads is at 35C instead of 65C, the amount of heat the radiators can provide will be sharply reduced. It then becomes necessary to fit much larger radiators to compensate for their resulting lower temperature. This, in turn, may lead to the pipework serving the radiators having to be replaced with larger bore pipes, all of which increases the volume of water circulating which, consequently, will take longer to heat up (less heat into a larger volume of water). Depending on how your central heating is installed, the work required to gain satisfactory performance from a heat pump may ultimately mean that a lot of re-decoration is also required to make good after the plumber.

 

If your existing heating system already relies on underfloor heating the heat pump should be OK, providing it can achieve the design water temperature for your system, which is usually around 35C, as much above this level become uncomfortable for feet.

 

The idea that all one has to do is pop off to the shops, buy a heat pump, and plug it in where the boiler was, is complete (and highly misleading) greenwash. It is far more complicated that that and the way the pumps are being pushed is liable to result in huge dissatisfaction and a big negative backlash, as people discover their considerable limitations as a swap-in for a conventional gas boiler.

 

If you want to save on heating costs, and use less carbon fuel, maximise the insulation of your house - and don't hand that job to one of the numerous cowboy insulation installers. If the wrong materials are put in the wrong place the result is liable to be hidden (interstitial) condensation feeding mould and rot.

 

Not trying to put folk off, but it needs a proper, informed, survey in either case before just diving in. This stuff is more technical than many realise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, COP26 is supposed to come to an end tonight - and they will probably cobble together some sort of agreement which they can all sign.

 

Problem is for the UK - who should sign for us ?

 

The world knows that if Johnson signs it, he might change his mind next week.

 

:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...